Re: Drone Strikes; Memo from Justice Department Authorizing | TigerDroppings.com

Posted byMessage
Lsut81
USA Fan
Member since Jun 2005
64624 posts
 Online 

Re: Drone Strikes; Memo from Justice Department Authorizing


quote:

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, 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.


LINK







Back to top
Share:
CajunAngele
LSU Fan
Member since Oct 2012
11168 posts

re: Re: Drone Strikes; Memo from Justice Department Authorizing


This made the number 1 headline on my internet service provider home page.

As well as (a few minutes ago) the drudge report.

quote:





Secret Memo: Gov't Can Kill Americans

A confidential document reveals the Obama administration believes it can legally order drone strikes on some American citizens.

Even without evidence of attack plot

HuffyPost Link



This is very, very troubling. Especially since one of the first things Obama did as president is write a presidential memo being more of a lawyer in protecting a terrorist and their rights. So how could Obama logically go from protecting their rights to this?

So, bottom-line Obama could kill anyone he defines as a terrorist. The criteria of definition of a terrorist from Holders FBI could easily be Joe.P Redneck that fears government tyranny. Or anyone who owns guns the way things are going.

Do you trust these people?



This is troubling to say the least.



This post was edited on 2/5 at 6:55 am


Back to top
Lsut81
USA Fan
Member since Jun 2005
64624 posts
 Online 

re: Re: Drone Strikes; Memo from Justice Department Authorizing


quote:

This is very, very troubling.


Yes, yes it is... What stops them from killing citizens on US soil that they feel are part of anti-gov groups


Can't wait for the Libs to come here up in arms, just like they were when Bush passed the Patriot Act






Back to top
ShoeBang
New Orleans Pelicans Fan
Member since May 2012
4617 posts

re: Re: Drone Strikes; Memo from Justice Department Authorizing


quote:

when Bush passed the Patriot Act


Terrible day for our country. It is a tool that will be used for a long time to exploit the people.






Back to top
Lsut81
USA Fan
Member since Jun 2005
64624 posts
 Online 

re: Re: Drone Strikes; Memo from Justice Department Authorizing


quote:

It is a tool that will be used for a long time to exploit the people.



Obama is doubling down on stupid....






Back to top
  Replies (0)
Navytiger74
LSU Fan
Washington
Member since Oct 2009
15320 posts

re: Re: Drone Strikes; Memo from Justice Department Authorizing


(no message)


This post was edited on 2/5 at 7:34 am


Back to top
  Replies (0)
Navytiger74
LSU Fan
Washington
Member since Oct 2009
15320 posts

re: Re: Drone Strikes; Memo from Justice Department Authorizing


(no message)


This post was edited on 2/5 at 7:33 am


Back to top
  Replies (0)
a want
LSU Fan
North America
Member since Oct 2010
9664 posts

re: Re: Drone Strikes; Memo from Justice Department Authorizing


quote:

What stops them from killing citizens on US soil that they feel are part of anti-gov groups


This part.

quote:

The United States can lawfully kill a U.S. citizen overseas if it determines the target is a “senior, operational leader” of al-Qaeda or an associated group and poses an imminent threat to the United States, according to a Justice Department document published late Monday by NBC News.








Back to top
dante
LSU Fan
Kingwood, TX
Member since Mar 2006
7980 posts

re: Re: Drone Strikes; Memo from Justice Department Authorizing


I said the same thing to my wife this morning. They could apply that same language to any individual who doesn't confirm to what their "idea" of an American should be. No, I don't trust this administration.





Back to top
  Replies (0)
Jbird
Iowa Fan
In Odramaville with EthanL
Member since Oct 2012
16563 posts

re: Re: Drone Strikes; Memo from Justice Department Authorizing


It refers, for example, to what it calls a “broader concept of imminence” than actual intelligence about any ongoing plot against the U.S. homeland.

“The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future,” the memo states.


Instead, it says, an “informed, high-level” official of the U.S. government may determine that the targeted American has been “recently” involved in “activities” posing a threat of a violent attack and “there is no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities.” The memo does not define “recently” or “activities.”



Yeah no fricking problems here.






Back to top
Lsut81
USA Fan
Member since Jun 2005
64624 posts
 Online 

re: Re: Drone Strikes; Memo from Justice Department Authorizing


quote:

if it determines the target is a “senior, operational leader” of al-Qaeda or an associated group and poses an imminent threat to the United States


If who determines? Obama and Holder?

What is an imminent threat?

Who is an associated group?

This is a very very slippery slope... I'm all for punishing these people, but to be able to kill an American citizen without being convicted by a court is outrageous.


It is fricking absolutely amazing that you libtards will defend Obama over anything. If this had been under Bush there would be so much uproar from the left, it would be all over the news






Back to top
  Replies (0)
C
LSU Fan
The Woodlands, TX
Member since Dec 2007
21597 posts

re: Re: Drone Strikes; Memo from Justice Department Authorizing


I'm going with "zero" as the chance a harry reid led senate will do anything to stop this. Shameful that anyone will defend this.





Back to top
  Replies (0)
CajunAngele
LSU Fan
Member since Oct 2012
11168 posts

re: Re: Drone Strikes; Memo from Justice Department Authorizing




Ambassador to Egypt Gushes over Muslim Brotherhood Partners at Ceremony marking Delivery of Four Free F-16's

Obama State Department Recruits Muslim Foreign Service Officers At Islamist Conference

The Obama administration is covertly recruiting Muslims to work at the State Department as Foreign Service officers representing the United States in one of 265 American embassies, consulates and diplomatic missions worldwide.

It appears to be part of the administration’s Muslim outreach effort, which includes a variety of controversial moves. Among them Homeland Security meetings with extremist Islamic organizations, sending an America-bashing mosque leader (Feisal Abdul Rauf) who blames U.S. foreign policy for the 9/11 attacks on a Middle Eastern outreach mission and revamping the way federal agents are trained to combat terrorism by eliminating all materials that shed a negative light on Muslims. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton even signed a special order to allow the reentry of two radical Islamic academics whose terrorist ties long banned them from the U.S.

Now comes news of a secretive State Department campaign, discovered in the course of a Judicial Watch investigation, to add Muslims to its roster. Presumably, the new recruits will be deployed around the globe to help the agency fulfill its mission of promoting the country’s international relations. The campaign seems to be headed by Mark Ward, the Deputy Special Coordinator in the State Department’s Office of Middle East Transition.

Ward held a 90-minute seminar at a recent convention sponsored by two groups—Muslim American Society (MAS) and the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA)—with known ties to radical Islam. Both nonprofits are associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, which is known as the parent organization of Hamas and al Qaeda. In fact, the Investigative Project on Terrorism reports that MAS was founded as the U.S. chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood which strives to indoctrinate the world with Islamic Sharia law.

Yet there was a U.S. State Department official, side by side at a radical Islamic powwow in Chicago with a number of speakers who advocate violent jihad. Among them was Kifah Mustapha, a fundraiser at terrorist organization (Holy Land Foundation) convicted of funneling millions to Hamas and Jamal Badawi, a MAS founder who praised the jihad of Gaza terrorists during a speech titled “Understanding Jihad and Martyrdom.”

LINK

Report: Gitmo Detainees Released By U.S. Fighting Alongside Jihadist Rebels In Syria

Former terrorists held at the U.S. prison in Guantanamo, Cuba were detected by U.S. intelligence agencies recently working with Islamist rebels in Syria, according to U.S. officials.

The al Qaeda-linked terrorists in Syria are part of a group called the Al Nusrah Front that is fighting alongside the Free Syrian Army (FSA), the rebels opposing the Bashar al-Assad regime in the civil war.

The number and names of the former Guantanamo inmates were not disclosed.

A Pentagon spokesman declined to comment, citing a policy of not discussing intelligence matters on Syria.

LINK

Obama’s nonprofit may merge with group with ties to Palestinian terrorists, Marxists






Back to top
  Replies (0)
lsu_tiger_az
LSU Fan
AZ/LA
Member since Mar 2004
30404 posts

re: Re: Drone Strikes; Memo from Justice Department Authorizing


quote:

It refers, for example, to what it calls a “broader concept of imminence” than actual intelligence about any ongoing plot against the U.S. homeland.

“The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future,” the memo states.


Instead, it says, an “informed, high-level” official of the U.S. government may determine that the targeted American has been “recently” involved in “activities” posing a threat of a violent attack and “there is no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities.” The memo does not define “recently” or “activities.”



Yeah no fricking problems here.



Yup, who really needs "due process" protection, our "Dead Leader" knows what is best for us...










Back to top
ShoeBang
New Orleans Pelicans Fan
Member since May 2012
4617 posts

re: Re: Drone Strikes; Memo from Justice Department Authorizing


quote:

"Dead Leader"


One can only hope






Back to top
Poodlebrain
LSU Fan
Way Right of Rex
Member since Jan 2004
15317 posts

re: Re: Drone Strikes; Memo from Justice Department Authorizing


I perused the White Paper, and I did not see the word Treason mentioned at all. The offense of Treason is defined in our Constitution, as well as the requirements for proof of Treason. The White Paper justifies killing American citizens for acts that fall within the definition of Treason without meeting the requirements for Treason.

The White Paper attempts to justify application of punishment for Treason without the need to prove Treason. The scary part is that the determination can be made by "an informed; high level official of the U.S. government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States". In effect, some unidentified, and unaccountable, government official can order the killing of an American citizen outside the United States on the belief that citizen will commit a violent attack against the United States. It is not a requirement that the citizen participate in an attack, just an imminent attack. And who determines what is imminent?

If it is okay for the government to determine that an attack against the United States is going to be made by a citizen and that pre-emptively attacking the citizen is justified, then doesn't the same logic apply if citizens determine that the United States government is going to attack citizens and the citizen are therefore justified in attacking the government? After all the true purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to allow citizens to defend themselves against government.






Back to top
Anodyne
LSU Fan
Member since Oct 2011
2162 posts

re: Re: Drone Strikes; Memo from Justice Department Authorizing


To A Want...so the Obama administration (Justice Dept.) gets to decide if you are AQ or an associated group...they are judge, jury and executioner of American citizens without any oversite.

Do you actually not see the problems with that?



This post was edited on 2/5 at 7:56 am


Back to top
Jbird
Iowa Fan
In Odramaville with EthanL
Member since Oct 2012
16563 posts

re: Re: Drone Strikes; Memo from Justice Department Authorizing


So let me see Bush Doctrine with preemption is bad.
Obama Doctrine of preemption applied to American citizens is good.

So some unknown, unidentified political appointee can determine life or death for citizens, farking brilliant.






Back to top
  Replies (0)
SG_Geaux
LSU Fan
Googolplexian Posts
Member since Aug 2004
50202 posts

re: Re: Drone Strikes; Memo from Justice Department Authorizing


quote:

To A Want...so the Obama administration (Justice Dept.) gets to decide if you are AQ or an associated group...they are judge, jury and executioner or American citizens without any oversite.

Do you actually not see the problems with that?



The Obamessiah can do no wrong.

:looksoutsidefordrones:






Back to top
  Replies (0)
CajunAngele
LSU Fan
Member since Oct 2012
11168 posts

re: Re: Drone Strikes; Memo from Justice Department Authorizing


quote:

If it is okay for the government to determine that an attack against the United States is going to be made by a citizen and that pre-emptively attacking the citizen is justified, then doesn't the same logic apply if citizens determine that the United States government is going to attack citizens and the citizen are therefore justified in attacking the government? After all the true purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to allow citizens to defend themselves against government.









Back to top


Back to top