Pres. memo--execute Americans without due process

[Quantum Windbag]

No one has ever before said that they had the right to kill an American Citizen anywhere in the world without judicial process simply because they, by themselves, felt that someone was a danger to the Country.

That is until Obama became President.

What judicial process was applied to those American citizens in rebellion? If an American citizen starts shooting up a school, what judicial process needs to be applied before a cop can shoot him?

You seem to fail to understand that according to this administration, you don't have to be caught in the act of doing something illegal... Merely thought to be a danger by the President.

He can issue secret "kill on sight" orders without judicial review.

But we can trust Obama.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What happened to all that bitching by the Right that Democrats wouldn't treat the war on terrorism/al qaeda as a war,

and not just as a law enforcement problem?

Oh, I think I know the answer...

Funny these folks are all over stripping rights away from suspects.

Until the person with those powers is someone they don't like.

Funny how you keep repeating that even though I am consistently trashing the government no matter who is in charge.

 

[Dante]

LOOK one of about a half dozen threads on this...all regurgitating the same shit

.............................

Left Wing MSNBC Publishes DOJ White Paper On Targeted Drone Killings


That said...is the right and others arguing that terrorism should be dealt as a law enforcement problem and not militarily?

EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americans

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf

The leftists in America have attacked President Obama's policy here and the right wingers have joined them, without mentioning it is the left and teh ACLU who are attacking and challenging the Obama admin the most over this.

We have a Columbia Law Professor debating an ACLU Lawyer over what it all means: Video and transcript

The Justice Department?s White Paper on Targeted Killing

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/06/us/politics/obama-slow-to-reveal-secrets-on-targeted-killings.html


That said...is the right and others arguing that terrorism should be dealt as a law enforcement problem and not militarily?

------------------

So what is it that has the right, anarchists, libertarian kook types and others wetting their pants? You'd have to see or read a transcript of an actual civil and sane debate over what little has been revealed: Justice Department Justifies Killing Americans Abroad With Links to al-Qaida | PBS NewsHour | Feb. 5, 2013 | PBS


That said...is the right and others arguing that terrorism should be dealt as a law enforcement problem and not militarily?

GWEN IFILL: Matthew Waxman, are these standards that you see laid out in this white paper open to manipulation?

MATTHEW WAXMAN, Columbia Law School: Well, I had a different reaction than Ms. Shamsi did to this document.

As I read it, I see it as careful and narrow. I still have some questions about it. It's a summary document and there are parts of it that leave some gaps in my mind as to how the reasoning unfolded. But I think this is a serious effort to articulate limits to the president's power to engage in targeted killing and a reasonable effort to translate constitutional and international law to deal with this new kind of war.

GWEN IFILL: Well, let me ask you this, Professor Waxman. If this only applies to Americans on foreign soil, why wouldn't this reasoning apply to Americans on U.S. soil at home?

MATTHEW WAXMAN: Well, what one of the things that the lawyers -- the drafters of this memo do is try to explain that this is an analysis of a limited set of facts, a set of facts that were probably provided by senior officials to deal with situations that confront them in the real world.

And I think one of the important points that the article makes -- I'm sorry -- that the memo makes is that we are engaged in an ongoing war, an ongoing armed conflict with al-Qaida, and this is a conflict that is not contained to traditional battlefields abroad, places like Afghanistan.

That's a position, by the way, that now two presidents of both parties, Congress and the courts have all essentially embraced.

GWEN IFILL: Let me ask Hina Shamsi about that.

If this indeed is a brave new day and that there ought to be more latitude given to governments to protect themselves, how do you argue against them taking that latitude and running with it?

HINA SHAMSI: Well, first of all, I think it's an overstatement to say that these are standards that are narrow and restricted. They're not if you read the memo.

The ACLU Lawyer is like many posters here @ USMB...she says "if you read the memo." ignoring the fact that the Columbia Law Professor has read the memo and is actually debating what he read, not what she insists it says.

That said...is the right and others arguing that terrorism should be dealt as a law enforcement problem and not militarily?

 

[Spoonman]

No one has ever before said that they had the right to kill an American Citizen anywhere in the world without judicial process simply because they, by themselves, felt that someone was a danger to the Country.

That is until Obama became President.

Which stems from Bush's Patriot Act.

"oops"

which obama promised to repeal

oooops

 

[Doc91678]

By: Curt


News broke today that Obama and pals have a memo that says they can kill any citizen of this country even if they are not engaged in a plot to attack the US:

A confidential Justice Department memo concludes that the U.S. government can order the killing of American citizens if they are believed to be “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida or “an associated force” — even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S.

The 16-page memo, a copy of which was obtained by NBC News, provides new details about the legal reasoning behind one of the Obama administration’s most secretive and controversial polices: its dramatically increased use of drone strikes against al-Qaida suspects abroad, including those aimed at American citizens, such as the September 2011 strike in Yemen that killed alleged al-Qaida operatives Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan. Both were U.S. citizens who had never been indicted by the U.S. government nor charged with any crimes.​

To sum up the memo (available here:http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf ) it says that the US can target a citizen for death if they believe a threat to be “imminent” even when no threat is immediately present. The citizen must have been involved in “activities”, but doesn’t define “activities,” and it’s not up to the US to prove that the citizen is a imminent threat, no…instead the citizen must prove to one sole government official that he has renounced and abandoned the “activities”

Remember the wails, screams, protests, endless newscasts and so on when Bush just detained and eavesdropped on Americans.

Now Obama targets them for assassination and we get this from the far left?


**snip**

Continue reading: -->
Obama?s Drone Memo: The Mind-boggling Hypocrisy Of The Left Is Alive & Well | Flopping Aces

 

[Dante]

No one has ever before said that they had the right to kill an American Citizen anywhere in the world without judicial process simply because they, by themselves, felt that someone was a danger to the Country.

That is until Obama became President.

Which stems from Bush's Patriot Act.

"oops"

which obama promised to repeal

oooops

and here I thought Congress keeps revising the thing.

btw, do Presidents get to vote to repeal acts of Congress?

 

[Doc91678]

by Jim Hoft
February 5, 2013


Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki was a 16-year-old American citizen from Denver.
Then he died in a drone strike.

Today the Obama White House said drone strikes are “ethical” and “wise.”

Tell that to Abdulrahman’s family.
NBC News reported:

Of the scores of people dubbed terrorists and taken out by American military drone strikes, three men — all killed in the fall of 2011 — were U.S. citizens.

And their lives illustrate the complexity of the issue, recently brought to light amid a newly discovered government memo that provides the legal reasoning behind drone strikes on Americans.

Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan were killed by a missile strike in Yemen on Sept. 30, 2011, while al-Awlaki’s son, Abdulrahman, was killed in the country just weeks later.

Since the attacks, family members have called the deaths unjust and sued the U.S. government, calling the killings unconstitutional​

**snip**

Continue reading: -->
Team Obama Killed 16 Year-Old Denver Kid in Yemeni Drone Strike | The Gateway Pundit

 

[Dante]

collateral damage? since when do right wingers care about children and young people who are collateral damage?

 

[rdean]

If Americans wore Nazi uniforms during WWII and announced they would attack America, would there have been all this outrage if they were quietly "taken out"? Course, these days, it's possible many Republicans really do wear "Nazi uniforms".

Pulaski, Tennessee - The Ku Klux Klan officially disbanded today claiming that the Republican Party has co-opted all of their ideas concerning race, immigration and religion and that there was no longer any need for their existence.

 

[Dante]

If Americans wore Nazi uniforms during WWII and announced they would attack America, would there have been all this outrage if they were quietly "taken out"? Course, these days, it's possible many Republicans really do wear "Nazi uniforms".

Pulaski, Tennessee - The Ku Klux Klan officially disbanded today claiming that the Republican Party has co-opted all of their ideas concerning race, immigration and religion and that there was no longer any need for their existence.

If Osama bin Laden had been an American....

 

[Doc91678]

What happened to all that bitching by the Right that Democrats wouldn't treat the war on terrorism/al qaeda as a war,

and not just as a law enforcement problem?

Oh, I think I know the answer...

Funny these folks are all over stripping rights away from suspects.

Until the person with those powers is someone they don't like.

You're right Democrats would prefer to give captured terrorists the Rights of Americans by trying them in civilian courts while using drones to assassinate Americans. According to the memo and Janet Incompetano, American Republican, Tea Partiers and anyone that opposes Maobama will dserve a Hellfire missile fired from a drone with permission from Maobama.

 

[Dante]

What happened to all that bitching by the Right that Democrats wouldn't treat the war on terrorism/al qaeda as a war,

and not just as a law enforcement problem?

Oh, I think I know the answer...

Funny these folks are all over stripping rights away from suspects.

Until the person with those powers is someone they don't like.

You're right Democrats would prefer to give captured terrorists the Rights of Americans by trying them in civilian courts while using drones to assassinate Americans. According to the memo and Janet Incompetano, American Republican, Tea Partiers and anyone that opposes Maobama will dserve a Hellfire missile fired from a drone with permission from Maobama.

"American Taliban" John Walker Lindh.

 

[gallantwarrior]

You say "po-ta-toe", I say "po-tah-toe", the fact remains that dozens of children died because of actions initiated by the Federal Government. Knowing the possibility of harming innocents should have tempered the ferocity of government action.

Boo is lying.

The flames were visible within three minutes of the Bradley ATC's assaulting the compound.

There is no doubt, and no disputing that they fired incendiary rounds into the building.

Absolutely. The Feds went in with the intent to kill everyone they could and then they covered up any viable evidence. Isn't it amazing how they'll use the deaths of 20 youngsters to advance their agenda, but defend to the death murdering 74 men, women and children...to further their agenda.

 

[Dante]

You say "po-ta-toe", I say "po-tah-toe", the fact remains that dozens of children died because of actions initiated by the Federal Government. Knowing the possibility of harming innocents should have tempered the ferocity of government action.

Boo is lying.

The flames were visible within three minutes of the Bradley ATC's assaulting the compound.

There is no doubt, and no disputing that they fired incendiary rounds into the building.

Absolutely. The Feds went in with the intent to kill everyone they could...

conspiracy theory alert!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[gallantwarrior]

This is a power no President should have, not just Barack Obama. It goes beyond the rights protected by the Constitution and Congress should make it illegal right now.

It is illegal.

{No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. }

Obama is violating both the constitution and criminal law.

He should be immediately impeached, removed from office, tried in criminal court, and put in prison.

However, that this President has claimed such power is not surprising. Once the idea of extra-judicial powers was established, it couldn't help but grow incrementally over time. If it's not stopped now, such powers will continue to expand. We are sleep-walking our way into a genuine police state.

Before the rights goes off with "See? We told you Obama was creating a police state!" remember that the precedent was set back in the days after 9/11, when the then President claimed the unrestricted power to spy on US citizens anytime he liked without court supervision, the right to detain American citizens indefinitely, without charge and incommunicado, the right to torture anyone he chose and the right to ship them off to other countries and hold them in secret prisons. What we have today is just the natural outgrowth of the horrendous grasp for new Executive Branch powers begun under George Bush.

Some of us tried to warn you back then that it would not stop there and we were correct, but the right pooh-poohed our pleadings as silly nonsense. Remember? They trusted that George Bush would not actually USE those powers against American citizens, that it would not be expanded any further and that such powers were necessary to protect us from terrorists. Remember?

Now, for those same people to come crying about Obama overstepping his Constitutional authority sounds a little hollow and opportunistic. Y'all helped give birth to this executive power to execute American citizens, so don't shed your crocodile tears and expect any sympathy. We warned you.

However, that's the past and how we got here. What we all need to do NOW is join hands and demand Congress stop ALL extra-judicial actions by the Executive Branch, including executing American citizens without due process, including warrantless wiretapping, including filtering all e-mails, including extraordinary renditions and indefinite detention. We all, from both sides of the ideological aisle, need to tell our members of Congress to act and act NOW.

• Impeach Obama
• Repeal the NDAA
• Repeal the Patriot Act
• Disband the KGB (DHS)

In this order.

It has to stop somewhere, why not with this president?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Which stems from Bush's Patriot Act.

"oops"

which obama promised to repeal

oooops

and here I thought Congress keeps revising the thing.

btw, do Presidents get to vote to repeal acts of Congress?

You thought that congress keeps revising it? What did you base that thought on, imagination?

Last time I checked no president has ever been forced to sign a bill he didn't want to. Pretending Obama doesn't sign it ever single time it gets to his desk makes you look about as intelligent as you usually do.

Obama has declared that he has the sole authority to kill anyone he wants, anywhere in the world, without any evidence whatever, and you expect me to trust him because he says he won't abuse it. My view is that him being able to do it is an abuse in and of itself.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

collateral damage? since when do right wingers care about children and young people who are collateral damage?

It was not collateral damage, it was a deliberate decision on the part of Obama. There is a difference.

 

[Dante]

which obama promised to repeal

oooops

and here I thought Congress keeps revising the thing.

btw, do Presidents get to vote to repeal acts of Congress?

You thought that congress keeps revising it? What did you base that thought on, imagination?

Last time I checked no president has ever been forced to sign a bill he didn't want to. Pretending Obama doesn't sign it ever single time it gets to his desk makes you look about as intelligent as you usually do.

Obama has declared that he has the sole authority to kill anyone he wants, anywhere in the world, without any evidence whatever, and you expect me to trust him because he says he won't abuse it. My view is that him being able to do it is an abuse in and of itself.

Did Obama sign an exact replica of the Bush order?

yes or no?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/03/world/americas/03iht-patriot.html

 

[Dante]

But the ACLU's Richardson noted that while there have been no additional legislative oversight measures passed during Obama's presidency, there have been some put in place in the executive branch. Most notably, the Justice Department decided to implement several measures that were originally included in the USA PATRIOT Act Sunset Extension Act of 2009 - a failed oversight bill proposed by Sen. Leahy.

"The Patriot Act has been plagued by myths and misinformation for 10 years," said Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.). "If Congress fails to reauthorize these laws before they expire, America's national security and that of its citizens will be the most vulnerable in a decade."

 

[Quantum Windbag]

and here I thought Congress keeps revising the thing.

btw, do Presidents get to vote to repeal acts of Congress?

You thought that congress keeps revising it? What did you base that thought on, imagination?

Last time I checked no president has ever been forced to sign a bill he didn't want to. Pretending Obama doesn't sign it ever single time it gets to his desk makes you look about as intelligent as you usually do.

Obama has declared that he has the sole authority to kill anyone he wants, anywhere in the world, without any evidence whatever, and you expect me to trust him because he says he won't abuse it. My view is that him being able to do it is an abuse in and of itself.

Did Obama sign an exact replica of the Bush order?

yes or no?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/03/world/americas/03iht-patriot.html

No, the version Obama signed is mostly permanent, the Bush version was set to expire after 10 years.