Pres. memo--execute Americans without due process

[whitehall]

The administration managed to keep the memo under wraps for a while but apparently an executive order authorizes the execution of American citizens overseas without due process by drone strikes if "it is determined" that they are "threats" to American security. Is that OK with the left? Who makes the determination? It's pretty ironic that the US affords Constitutional protection to every person in the US regardless of their legal status but authorizes killing American citizens without due process overseas.

 

[Katzndogz]

Without due process, without evidence, without even suspicion of wrongdoing.

 

[OriginalShroom]

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.

 

[pinqy]

"Due process" doesn't really apply in a combat zone. Suspected bad guy doing bad things = dead bad guy. An American citizen in a group of known Taliban would give the Taliban blanket protection from any missle or artillery attacks if due process were applied.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Inb4 "Bush started it!"

 

[pinqy]

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?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The administration managed to keep the memo under wraps for a while but apparently an executive order authorizes the execution of American citizens overseas without due process by drone strikes if "it is determined" that they are "threats" to American security. Is that OK with the left? Who makes the determination? It's pretty ironic that the US affords Constitutional protection to every person in the US regardless of their legal status but authorizes killing American citizens without due process overseas.

methinks the 'left' was onto this before you were .. like a few years ago.


You need to come out from under your rock more often. This has been discussed to death and it has been one of the "left's" main beefs with President Obama.

 

[Sallow]

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.

Sure they have.

What do you think the AUMF, Enemy Combatants and the Patriot Act were all about?

 

[OriginalShroom]

"Due process" doesn't really apply in a combat zone. Suspected bad guy doing bad things = dead bad guy. An American citizen in a group of known Taliban would give the Taliban blanket protection from any missle or artillery attacks if due process were applied.

It's not limited to just combat zones.

Obama has said that he has this authority anywhere in the world. And he didn't exclude inside the borders of the United States.

 

[Sallow]

Inb4 "Bush started it!"

Well..

 

[Sallow]

"Due process" doesn't really apply in a combat zone. Suspected bad guy doing bad things = dead bad guy. An American citizen in a group of known Taliban would give the Taliban blanket protection from any missle or artillery attacks if due process were applied.

It's not limited to just combat zones.

Obama has said that he has this authority anywhere in the world. And he didn't exclude inside the borders of the United States.

And exactly when did you want to end the AUMF?

Or the idiocy of Enemy Combatants?

Or the dangerous Patriot Act?

No?

Of course it doesn't surprise me.

Because here you are attacking the President.

Not the underlying "powers" that have been afforded TO the President.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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...

 

[Wehrwolfen]

The administration managed to keep the memo under wraps for a while but apparently an executive order authorizes the execution of American citizens overseas without due process by drone strikes if "it is determined" that they are "threats" to American security. Is that OK with the left? Who makes the determination? It's pretty ironic that the US affords Constitutional protection to every person in the US regardless of their legal status but authorizes killing American citizens without due process overseas.

methinks the 'left' was onto this before you were .. like a few years ago.


You need to come out from under your rock more often. This has been discussed to death and it has been one of the "left's" main beefs with President Obama.

Well they did kill JFK didn't they. They proved then they had no scruples.

 

[OriginalShroom]

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.

 

[Sallow]

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.

 

[Sallow]

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.

Oh gosh.

The irony of this post is overwhelming.

The Bush doctrine attacked an ENTIRE COUNTRY based on that legal principle.

 

[OriginalShroom]

"Due process" doesn't really apply in a combat zone. Suspected bad guy doing bad things = dead bad guy. An American citizen in a group of known Taliban would give the Taliban blanket protection from any missle or artillery attacks if due process were applied.

It's not limited to just combat zones.

Obama has said that he has this authority anywhere in the world. And he didn't exclude inside the borders of the United States.

And exactly when did you want to end the AUMF?

Or the idiocy of Enemy Combatants?

Or the dangerous Patriot Act?

No?

Of course it doesn't surprise me.

Because here you are attacking the President.

Not the underlying "powers" that have been afforded TO the President.

Don't even go there.. I wasn't posting here during AUMF or the Patriot Act discussions. You have no clue as to what my position is on those issues.

So you can return those "Whaddabout" Strawmen to the field you built them in.

Discuss what THIS Administration is doing.

 

[Sallow]

It's not limited to just combat zones.

Obama has said that he has this authority anywhere in the world. And he didn't exclude inside the borders of the United States.

And exactly when did you want to end the AUMF?

Or the idiocy of Enemy Combatants?

Or the dangerous Patriot Act?

No?

Of course it doesn't surprise me.

Because here you are attacking the President.

Not the underlying "powers" that have been afforded TO the President.

Don't even go there.. I wasn't posting here during AUMF or the Patriot Act discussions. You have no clue as to what my position is on those issues.

So you can return those "Whaddabout" Strawmen to the field you built them in.

Discuss what THIS Administration is doing.

I SURE DO have a clue.

You didn't start a thread about any of those things.

You went right for the PRESIDENT.

And what THIS adminstration IS doing..is USING POWERS inherited from the PREVIOUS administration.

You'd do well to listen to history.



THAT'S What happened to A PRESIDENT WITHOUT THOSE POWERS.

Listen Carefully.

 

[OriginalShroom]

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.

Until this Administration, I had not known of another person who claimed that the President has the power to issue secret "Kill on sight" orders on any person any where in the world without any review any one.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You people were pretty excited about the prospect of bombing the fuck out of any Americans who went to Iraq as human shields,

or have you forgotten?