Those Damn Liberals at NBC . . .

. . . Sucking up to Obama again! Not to mention the commies at the ACLU.

"EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americans" | NBC News

 

You should have titled this thread "Those Damn Liberals In The Justice Department and/or White House"

 

Fox News tacitly admits that those on the right really have no problem with this administration's policy on drone strikes:

"As left pressures Obama on drone strikes, some suggest new front in North Africa" | Fox News

 

I guess I missed it. Could you please show me where it says "those on the right really have no problem with this administration's policy on drone strikes"

 

I've noticed the tone from both CNN and MSNBC are ....aghast?...at the thought, while FOX News ....(snickers)...."News"....appears to be less concerned (though they will make any argument to attack Obama, they will with this for certain).

I'm for the drone attacks.

I believe most drone attacks succeed in hitting legitimate targets. While I understand there are unintentional deaths to people who are not fighters, I consider that to be collateral damage that lies within reasonable limits, especially considering these targets are intent on hiding among non-fighters....like cowards.

I have no reservations about using drones to kill "Americans" who are actively attempting to use such organizations as al-Qaeda to kill others.

I just don't consider most of these so-called "Americans" to be actual Americans.

My definition involves living on American soil for at least six months in a year. That does not apply if the "American" declares War on other Americans though. IMO, when an American does that, their citizenship is revoked immediately. Whether that is the legal standard or not is unimportant to me personally, but it is mine irregardless.

Joining an organization, such as al-Qaeda, is also enough reason for me to personally consider the individual to no longer be an American, but I understand my standards are not everyone's, especially "the laws".

As I stated earlier, I have no issue with the feds targeting former Americans who have declared "War" on the rest of us, but would I accept actual, America-lovin' Americans as targets? Absolutely not, but it's highly likely that States will choose to, as an additional tool for the police to use to fight....whatever....and that bothers me more than foreign missions ever could.

 

Can the president kill indiscriminately? Yes, he can. He has before. And he may do so again. Don't even mention that you're a member of Al Qaida, even jokingly, or he might bomb the $4!t out of you. He doesn't even have to prove you're a member of Al Qaida, after all.

View attachment 1463

 

I didn't say that it said that. Try expanding your vocabulary a bit.

 

So all you wanted to do was to play word games. Good for you. BTW, I have had Fox on a fair amount today and never heard anything in any way backing Obama's position - tacitly or otherwise.

 

Sweet. I used the word completely correctly. That's not a game--it's called communication. It's not my fault you were incapable of comprehending what I wrote until you'd consulted Google.

 

View attachment 1464 Nice puppy.

 

Alright, gentlemen. Can we please return to the topic of how Obama can indiscriminately kill us at will?

 

I've argued at length elsewhere against the precursors to this policy memo. Mainly just after the extra-judicial killing via drone strike of the slime-ball Anwar al-Aulaqi. I had no sympathy with him or his cause, but I considered his killing to be clearly a violation of the Constitution of the United States. My opinion on the topic of executive death orders remains unchanged--it's one of many things that keep me from identifying myself as a supporter of the current president of the United States.

I posted about the article in the OP because I think this is an important and serious issue, but knowing this place, I didn't expect any substantive discussion on the topic. Rather, I expected the shit-birds to come in and crap all over it, thus the flippant tone of my post. My expectations have been met. Perhaps the other thread started on this same topic might produce better results, but I won't be holding my breath.

 

...and if you hadn't, well then, everything you have ever said, or will say in the future, is to be ignored....according to the unofficial, unspoken, unwritten behaviors of republican pundits.

They use any excuse they can to ignore other opinions. If they don't have a real excuse, they will conjure one out of thin air.

but, back to the subject...

I hate to disagree with you on the legalities of drone strikes, but it's my open contempt for some laws, some of which I consider to be the tools power uses to do as they wish, no matter if it's right or wrong or if they realize it or not, that drives my opinion on them...an opinion which, ironically, is along the lines of what you are saying as well lol

Basically, I draw a line when people intend physical harm or death to others. Legally though, I understand my opinion doesn't mean squat.

Peace!

 

(laughing)...Shaaaaaaa-ZAMMM!!!

 

Let's see how to start a "substantive discussion". You start by slamming the opposing side in such a way as you can deny any thing they say. Good political speak. Do it so you can deny either side.

Oh, and you slam the right for not slamming the left for doing what the right started doing that the left slammed the right for doing. Yep! That is a great way to start am intelligent conversation.

 

Careful Recusant, he is in the 100th percentile.

View attachment 1481
View attachment 1480

 

For me, it's a case of military versus civilian action. IMO, the military has the right to kill these types of people, but I get that the legal consequences are vague.

In civilian usage, courts usually must be consulted, and judges must sign on the dotted line. Even then, the idea is to arrest, with killing being acceptable under most circumstances.

The problem with former Americans, or current Americans, becoming "enemies of the state" is that the ability to arrest may be difficult or non-existent.

In the broader terms of "War", declared (as with WWII) or undeclared (as with virtually all "actions" since then), I have no issue with a President ordering the assassination of certain people. This applies to citizens or former citizens who are known to be pursuing ways of murdering other Americans.

Legally, IMO, this is a military issue, and not civilian. That doesn't mean I give carte blanche to the President, as I expect some transparency as to the reasons behind the assassination, and I have had that here...so far.

I get that people are concerned about the possibility of misuse, by the current or future Presidents, and that is a legitimate concern of mine as well.

At this point, I haven't seen any indication that this power has been abused, unlike the numerous incidents in the past, by just about every President in recent history (Obama included), such as in Central and Southern America, where I still see America flexing it's muscles, it's authority over our general region....the puppet state, if you will.

One other thing I keep in mind, and that is the black ops. These types of things, assassination and the like, have been and will always be a part of certain clandestine governmental organizations.

Would it have been better that the four "Americans" (I am unclear as to their actual citizenship at this time) I know of who have been killed by drone strikes, were instead assassinated by "dark-arts" methods instead? Would it be better if it was not known precisely who (in this case, which country) had killed them?

On the one hand, I'd say yes. On another, I say no. I will not go further into my reasons for both the "yes" and "no", as it is irrelevant at this point anyway, but it's something to consider.

 

I am quoting myself. Deal with it, or don't, I'm gonna anyway.

Another option is to forbid the assassination of "Americans", something I'm opposed to, for reasons already stated. I don't want them succeeding in killing other Americans, especially civilians, as with the shoe-bomber's attempt.

 

Would any one here care to tell me how they would have dealt with Al-Alwaki? Send in a team of US troops to arrest him? Lets not forget that this man repeatedly called for jihad against the United States, he was associated with Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian who attempted the 2009 Christmas Day bombing of an American airliner.

In March 2010, a tape featuring al-Aulaqi was released in which he urged Muslims residing in the U.S. to attack their country of residence. In the video, he stated:To the Muslims in America, I have this to say: How can your conscience allow you to live in peaceful coexistence with a nation that is responsible for the tyranny and crimes committed against your own brothers and sisters? I eventually came to the conclusion that jihad (holy struggle) against America is binding upon myself just as it is binding upon every other able Muslim.
In July 2010, a Seattle cartoonist was warned by the FBI of a death threat against him issued by al-Aulaqi in the al-Qaeda magazine Inspire. Eight other cartoonists, journalists, and writers from Britain, Sweden and Denmark were also threatened with death. "The prophet is the pinnacle of Jihad", al-Aulaqi wrote. "It is better to support the prophet by attacking those who slander him than it is to travel to land of Jihad like Iraq or Afghanistan."
Al-Aulaqi's name came up in a dozen terrorism plots in the U.S., UK, and Canada. The cases included suicide bombers in the 2005 London bombings, radical Islamic terrorists in the 2006 Toronto terrorism case, radical Islamic terrorists in the 2007 Fort Dix attack plot, the jihadist killer in the 2009 Little Rock military recruiting office shooting, and the 2010 Times Square bomber. In each case the suspects were devoted to al-Aulaqi's message, which they listened to on laptops, audio clips, and CDs

He was on the run from the Yemeni government who had already began trying him in absentia in November 2010, for plotting to kill foreigners and being a member of al-Qaeda. A Yemeni judge ordered that he be captured "dead or alive."
So again please tell me how you deal with someone like this?
I will tell you now if he had been a British national I would have been ok with a kill order been placed on his head

 

Yes, exactly how do we "deal with" those who speak out against our country? Do we send a drone to kill them? How do we deal with those who associate with our enemies? Do we applaud them?

Bill Ayers spoke out against our country (in addition to trying to destroy aspects of it). Did we send assassins after him? No, we make him a tenured professor. In fact, one person on this forum called Ayers "rational" (go figure):

Ayers became involved in the New Left and the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS).[10] He rose to national prominence as an SDS leader in 1968 and 1969. As head of an SDS regional group, the "Jesse James Gang," Ayers made decisive contributions to the Weatherman orientation toward militancy.

The group Ayers headed in Detroit, Michigan became one of the earliest gatherings of what became the Weatherman. Before the June 1969 SDS convention, Ayers became a prominent leader of the group, which arose as a result of a schism in SDS.[8] "During that time his infatuation with street fighting grew and he developed a language of confrontational militancy that became more and more pronounced over the year [1969]", disaffected former Weatherman member Cathy Wilkerson wrote in 2001. Ayers had previously been a roommate of Terry Robbins, a fellow militant who was killed in 1970 along with Ayers' girlfriend Oughton and one other member in the Greenwich Village townhouse explosion, while constructing anti-personnel bombs intended for a non-commissioned officer dance at Fort Dix, New Jersey.[11] Ayers was living in Michigan at that time.

In June 1969, the Weatherman took control of the SDS at its national convention, where Ayers was elected Education Secretary.[8] Later in 1969, Ayers participated in planting a bomb at a statue dedicated to police casualties in the 1886 Haymarket affair confrontation between labor supporters and the Chicago police.[12] The blast broke almost 100 windows and blew pieces of the statue onto the nearby Kennedy Expressway.[13](The statue was rebuilt and unveiled on May 4, 1970, and blown up again by other Weathermen on October 6, 1970.[13][14] Rebuilding it yet again, the city posted a 24-hour police guard to prevent another blast, and in January 1972 it was moved to Chicago police headquarters).[15]

Ayers participated in the Days of Rage riot in Chicago in October 1969, and in December was at the "War Council" meeting in Flint, Michigan. Two major decisions came out of the "War Council." The first was to immediately begin a violent, armed struggle (e.g., bombings and armed robberies) against the state without attempting to organize or mobilize a broad swath of the public. The second was to create underground collectives in major cities throughout the country.[16] Larry Grathwohl, a Federal Bureau of Investigation informant in the Weatherman group from the fall of 1969 to the spring of 1970, stated that "Ayers, along with Bernardine Dohrn, probably had the most authority within the Weatherman".[17]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Ayers

Do we assassinate people who associate with our enemy as "Hanoi" Jane Fonda did during Vietnam? No, we applaud her (well, at least some twisted people in this country did).

In North Vietnam, Fonda was photographed seated on an anti-aircraft battery; the controversial photo outraged a number of Americans.[32].During her trip, Fonda made ten radio broadcasts in which she denounced American political and military leaders as "war criminals". When cases of torture began to emerge among POWs returning to the United States, Fonda called the returning POWs "hypocrites and liars".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_fonda

I'm not saying al-Awlawki was a saint, by any stretch of the imagination. I'm certain he was a very evil man. But does our nation's president pick and choose who he considers evil and who he wants to kill? With the killing of al-Awlawki, the answer to that question is a resounding "yes". Had Nixon made a decision to kill Bill Ayers or Jane Fonda, I would have been as adamantly opposed to that as I am Obama's decision to kill an American in violation of due process guaranteed by the Constitution.