Pres. memo--execute Americans without due process

[Truthmatters]

I bet you dont say that word in front of many black people.

then you would know real crying

Yep. Those Blacks have an incredibly difficult time adhering to the law. It's a very violent race and the largest part of the reason that we need to keep and bear arms.

You are nuts.

he is a typical republican voter

 

[Bigfoot]

I bet you dont say that word in front of many black people.

then you would know real crying

Yep. Those Blacks have an incredibly difficult time adhering to the law. It's a very violent race and the largest part of the reason that we need to keep and bear arms.

You are nuts.

Obviously you don't gamble with the ******* down at the pool hall.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jakematters, flaming once again. Zero content, IQ less than 30, that's our far left Jakematters....

A flamer like you, Uncensored, does not get to define the terms of flaming, flamer

America can never be safe with folks like you in charge. But not to worry: never happen.

Wow Jake, your really laying it down today over who gets to say what. Did you up and purchase this place from CK?

Hi, troll. How you doing? You act stupid, like Uncensored, you get knocked down.

Oh, that's right, you got knocked down on the other thread a few minutes ago.

 

[Truthmatters]

U.S. military teams, intelligence deeply involved in aiding Yemen on strikes





After the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush gave the CIA, and later the military, authority to kill U.S. citizens abroad if strong evidence existed that an American was involved in organizing or carrying out terrorist actions against the United States or U.S. interests, military and intelligence officials said. The evidence has to meet a certain, defined threshold. The person, for instance, has to pose "a continuing and imminent threat to U.S. persons and interests," said one former intelligence official

 

[Luddly Neddite]

After the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush gave the CIA, and later the military, authority to kill U.S. citizens abroad if strong evidence existed that an American was involved in organizing or carrying out terrorist actions against the United States or U.S. interests, military and intelligence officials said. The evidence has to meet a certain, defined threshold. The person, for instance, has to pose "a continuing and imminent threat to U.S. persons and interests," said one former intelligence official.


U.S. military teams, intelligence deeply involved in aiding Yemen on strikes

Bush did it too fool

did you forget these facts already?

Apparently the rw's have chosen to disregard facts and just stick to their racist hate and ignorance.

But, for all the al Qeada and Taliban killed since Obama took office, I say, Thank You Mr. President. Job well done.

 

[Bigfoot]

Yep. Those Blacks have an incredibly difficult time adhering to the law. It's a very violent race and the largest part of the reason that we need to keep and bear arms.

You are nuts.

he is a typical republican voter

Heh, what is it with the people on this forum? Someone says something that they don't like and they say that they are a Republican. Ahh, it's because they don't have a clue as to what they are talking about. I'm registered as an Independent but if you assholes keep it up I may go register Democratic just for grins.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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."

Wow, the Executive branch is going to watch the executive branch, that makes me feel better.

Would you like a link to all the Times the ACLU says the Justice Department breaks the law?

run with it....

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

read the memo:

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


btw, what position has Dante taken on the war on terrorism (TwoT) as a military of criminal matter? Quantum may be clueless...r u?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Apparently the rw's have chosen to disregard facts and just stick to their racist hate and ignorance.

But, for all the al Qeada and Taliban killed since Obama took office, I say, Thank You Mr. President. Job well done.

Apparently the Omanunists have decided to blatantly lie.

Which means this is a day ending in "Y"

But I'll give you a chance Dudley, link for us an American citizen killed by Bush?

 

[Truthmatters]

Bush did it too fool

did you forget these facts already?

Apparently the rw's have chosen to disregard facts and just stick to their racist hate and ignorance.

But, for all the al Qeada and Taliban killed since Obama took office, I say, Thank You Mr. President. Job well done.

its what they have been doing for years.
they are dishonest and or stupid

 

[NYcarbineer]

Got it, so the "war zone" meme fails, onto the next leftist yapping point...

Fact, Obama violated the United States Constitution.

Fact, you don't don't care; you have no particular love of the Constitution and care ONLY about promoting your shameful party.

First of all I've been arguing for this sort of policy since about 2004 when I was trying to convince people like you how stupid it was to try to fight Al Qaeda by starting a war in Iraq.

Second of all my point above proves even further how wrong you are.

Uncensored does not want his allies harmed in this way.

There are people who have to be against Obama no matter what he does; they tend to end up pretzel-shaped.

 

[Bigfoot]

First of all I've been arguing for this sort of policy since about 2004 when I was trying to convince people like you how stupid it was to try to fight Al Qaeda by starting a war in Iraq.

Second of all my point above proves even further how wrong you are.

Uncensored does not want his allies harmed in this way.

There are people who have to be against Obama no matter what he does; they tend to end up pretzel-shaped.

Are you saying that if one disagrees with Obama he makes them look like Michelle? Just remember that the overly large end goes down ~shrug~

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Context is always a problem for the Left

you're not going to like context soon....

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?

 

[Uncensored2008]

its what they have been doing for years.
they are dishonest and or stupid

I'm still waiting for one of you fascists to link to an example of the Bush administration ordering the murder of an American citizen?

TM?

Übertroll Jakematters?

Dudley?

NYCarib?

Dainty?

Empty pockets again, by all of the radical left.

 

[Uncensored2008]

There are people who have to be against Obama no matter what he does; they tend to end up pretzel-shaped.

I support the United States Constitution and the rule of law.

This places me in diametric opposition to you and Übertroll Jakematters.

 

[JakeStarkey]

False comparison, UncensoredFascist.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

its what they have been doing for years.
they are dishonest and or stupid

I'm still waiting for one of you fascists to link to an example of the Bush administration ordering the murder of an American citizen?

TM?

Übertroll Jakematters?

Dudley?

NYCarib?

Dainty?

Empty pockets again, by all of the radical left.

ANNOUNCEMENT: Red Herring being served at the Sushi Bar

read what it is you pretend to know you are speaking about:

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

 

[Uncensored2008]

False comparison, UncensoredFascist.

Post some content, you worthless troll.

Just once, to prove you can.

 

[Uncensored2008]

ANNOUNCEMENT: Red Herring being served at the Sushi Bar

read what it is you pretend to know you are speaking about:

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

So then, you CAN'T show any hits on Americans ordered by Bush...

Got it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

False comparison, UncensoredFascist.

Post some content, you worthless troll.

Just once, to prove you can.

When you do, I will, UncensoredFascist.

Your assertions are not evidence.