Pres. memo--execute Americans without due process

[1Templar]

Now you are getting to the crux, of your love for law... Obama.

If the secret service knows that an American expatriate is giving any kind of help to the enemy, it doesn't matter where the hell this person is. In military terms... He or she is "oft"... No more" on ".

Nations can be governed by law, or ruled by men. Scumbags and thugs like Jakematters and others here promote the capricious rule of dictators, who decide life and death on their mood or whim.

But civilized men prefer the rule of immutable law. Particularly within a representative government that has a governing constitution.

Unlike the dictatorship the leftist shitpiles yearn for and push, a constitutional republic clearly defines what is expected and permissible, as well as what is not. To a pile of puke like Jakematters, what is permissible is that which pleases Obama. That which is prohibited is that which displeases Obama. As a mindless sycophant, he scurries about fawning on his lord to please him. Rodents like him love a dictatorship, where they can curry favor with the dictator.

But the rule of law puts into words the statutes and codes that are to govern all, from our ruler in Washington D.C. to the miscreant in Yemen publishing demagoguery.

You make some good points for the primacy of law, Uncensored.
But, when it comes to war... Law goes out the window. Especially when we are in confrontation with an enemy that truly believes that God is on their side, and anything goes. When they dropped the towers... the American psyche came to the point of Z, where anything goes... Even limited range nukes.

 

[Freewill]

"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.

Is the US part of the war zone?

 

[Trajan]

I am interested in seeing how democrats who, the here to fore were dead set against warrant less wire taps ( even upon communications)ala foreigners and the like.

And there’s this weird disconnect in that we won’t water board (and many went ballistic at the water boarding of 3 individuals who were no doubt “threats&#8221 yet we are, killing these folks out of hand.

I think this spells it out well;

So let’s just recap. The US can target a US citizen if they believe a threat to be “imminent” even when no threat of attack is immediately present. The target must have recently been involved in activities, with no real definition of “activities” or “recently.” And rather than prove that the US citizen plans to continue these “activities,” it’s up to the citizen to prove to a single US official that no one knows that he’s renounced and/or abandoned such “activities” — activities that the government won’t define, to an official the government won’t name.

Awlaki was an easy case. He publicly and explicitly encouraged terrorist acts, recruited new members to carry them out, and was connected to plots that actually went into action. But this memo goes way beyond the Awlaki instance and basically gives the government carte blanche to target Americans in whatever it considers to be the battlefield for almost any kind of “threat” it imagines.

Obama admin: Drones can target Americans abroad based on one official?s opinion « Hot Air

at least there appears to be some push back-

Eleven senators sent a letter to President Obama on Monday demanding access to secret legal memos outlining the administration’s case for the targeted killing of U.S. citizens in counterterrorism operations overseas.

The letter from eight Democrats and three Republicans contained the most forceful warning to date that lawmakers were considering blocking Obama’s nominees to run the CIA and Pentagon unless the memos are turned over.

The message comes three days before White House counterterrorism adviser John O. Brennan will face a confirmation hearing to become CIA director before the Senate intelligence committee. Former senator Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) is awaiting a vote in the Senate Armed Services Committee following his hearing last week to become secretary of defense.

Cooperation with the request “will help avoid an unnecessary confrontation that could affect the Senate’s consideration of nominees for national security positions,”the letter said.

Three members of the intelligence panel signed the letter: Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Mark Udall (D-Colo.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine).

 

[JakeStarkey]

Now you are getting to the crux, of your love for law... Obama.

If the secret service knows that an American expatriate is giving any kind of help to the enemy, it doesn't matter where the hell this person is. In military terms... He or she is "oft"... No more" on ".

Nations can be governed by law, or ruled by men. Scumbags and thugs like Jakematters and others here promote the capricious rule of dictators, who decide life and death on their mood or whim.

But civilized men prefer the rule of immutable law. Particularly within a representative government that has a governing constitution.

Unlike the dictatorship the leftist shitpiles yearn for and push, a constitutional republic clearly defines what is expected and permissible, as well as what is not. To a pile of puke like Jakematters, what is permissible is that which pleases Obama. That which is prohibited is that which displeases Obama. As a mindless sycophant, he scurries about fawning on his lord to please him. Rodents like him love a dictatorship, where they can curry favor with the dictator.

But the rule of law puts into words the statutes and codes that are to govern all, from our ruler in Washington D.C. to the miscreant in Yemen publishing demagoguery.

You make some good points for the primacy of law, Uncensored.
But, when it comes to war... Law goes out the window. Especially when we are in confrontation with an enemy that truly believes that God is on their side, and anything goes. When they dropped the towers... the American psyche came to the point of Z, where anything goes... Even limited range nukes.

Uncensored simply refuses to admit he is governed by electoral, constitutional process like all of us. He simply refuses to admit that POTUS and SCOTUS have opined that drone attacks are lawful.

He is very afraid that such justification may be used, rightfully in my opinion, against home-grown militia terrorists here in the country.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Again..you have no idea..what you are talking about.

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court recognized the power of the government to detain enemy combatants, including U.S. citizens, but ruled that detainees who are U.S. citizens must have the rights of due process, and the ability to challenge their enemy combatant status before an impartial authority.

It reversed the dismissal by a lower court of a habeas corpus petition brought on behalf of Yaser Esam Hamdi, a U.S. citizen who was being detained indefinitely as an "illegal enemy combatant" after being captured in Afghanistan in 2001. Following the court's decision, on October 9, 2004, the US government released Hamdi without charge and deported him to Saudi Arabia, where his family lived and he had grown up, on the condition that he renounce his US citizenship and commit to travel
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hamdi was a "capture". And there was NO remedy for his imprisonment..he was kicked out of the country.

And all these new powers came about UNDER BUSH..not Obama.

Oh please, that is below even your standard of questionable integrity.

Hamdi established the right of habeas corupus for those designated enemy combatants. It demonstrated that United States law takes precedence over the USA Patriot act.

To wit;

{Justice O'Connor wrote a plurality opinion representing the Court's judgment, which was joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Breyer and Kennedy. O'Connor wrote that although Congress had expressly authorized the detention of enemy combatants in its Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed after 9/11, due process required that Hamdi have a meaningful opportunity to challenge his enemy combatant status.}

And you know this.

You're sinking to Jakematters level.

 

[Freewill]

The attackers of those who defend America would reverse their position if their candidate had been elected.

Bush, Obama, or Romney, if he had been elected, are sanctified by Constitution and law to defend our country. The only ones who are engaged in treason are those who denigrate the POTUS for lawfully defending our nation.

You mean like you and your side has???

Obama killed American citizens on the CIA say so. The left accused Bush of torture over the say so of the CIA. The left apparently like the killing part.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Again..you have no idea..what you are talking about.

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court recognized the power of the government to detain enemy combatants, including U.S. citizens, but ruled that detainees who are U.S. citizens must have the rights of due process, and the ability to challenge their enemy combatant status before an impartial authority.

It reversed the dismissal by a lower court of a habeas corpus petition brought on behalf of Yaser Esam Hamdi, a U.S. citizen who was being detained indefinitely as an "illegal enemy combatant" after being captured in Afghanistan in 2001. Following the court's decision, on October 9, 2004, the US government released Hamdi without charge and deported him to Saudi Arabia, where his family lived and he had grown up, on the condition that he renounce his US citizenship and commit to travel
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hamdi was a "capture". And there was NO remedy for his imprisonment..he was kicked out of the country.

And all these new powers came about UNDER BUSH..not Obama.

Oh please, that is below even your standard of questionable integrity.

Hamdi established the right of habeas corupus for those designated enemy combatants. It demonstrated that United States law takes precedence over the USA Patriot act.

To wit;

{Justice O'Connor wrote a plurality opinion representing the Court's judgment, which was joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Breyer and Kennedy. O'Connor wrote that although Congress had expressly authorized the detention of enemy combatants in its Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed after 9/11, due process required that Hamdi have a meaningful opportunity to challenge his enemy combatant status.}

And you know this.

You're sinking to Jakematters level.

Deflection will not work, Uncensored.

 

[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.

Is the US part of the war zone?

According to the AUMF?

The whole wide world is a war zone.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You make some good points for the primacy of law, Uncensored.
But, when it comes to war... Law goes out the window. Especially when we are in confrontation with an enemy that truly believes that God is on their side, and anything goes. When they dropped the towers... the American psyche came to the point of Z, where anything goes... Even limited range nukes.

The question is, what defines war?

We have a "war on drugs." Does that mean Obama can have a Predator fire a Hellfire into NY Caribeener's living room because he's smoking his bong again? Killing him and his entire family? After all, we say it's a "war on drugs?"

Rational minds say that this isn't really a war, that it is a police action, which the so called war on terror also falls into. Wars are against governments. We are not at war with Yemen, in fact they are listed as an ally. So, can Obama use military weapons to kill American citizens in a nation that we are at peace with? No, that is expressly illegal in the 5th and 14th amendments. And also violates the Geneva convention regarding military operations in non-combat zones.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Is the US part of the war zone?

Of course. We have a war on drugs, and a war on Obesity. So expect a drone strike on your local McDonalds with shit bags like Jakematters declaring how wise Obama is to kill people.

 

[Sallow]

Again..you have no idea..what you are talking about.

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court recognized the power of the government to detain enemy combatants, including U.S. citizens, but ruled that detainees who are U.S. citizens must have the rights of due process, and the ability to challenge their enemy combatant status before an impartial authority.

It reversed the dismissal by a lower court of a habeas corpus petition brought on behalf of Yaser Esam Hamdi, a U.S. citizen who was being detained indefinitely as an "illegal enemy combatant" after being captured in Afghanistan in 2001. Following the court's decision, on October 9, 2004, the US government released Hamdi without charge and deported him to Saudi Arabia, where his family lived and he had grown up, on the condition that he renounce his US citizenship and commit to travel
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hamdi was a "capture". And there was NO remedy for his imprisonment..he was kicked out of the country.

And all these new powers came about UNDER BUSH..not Obama.

Oh please, that is below even your standard of questionable integrity.

Hamdi established the right of habeas corupus for those designated enemy combatants. It demonstrated that United States law takes precedence over the USA Patriot act.

To wit;

{Justice O'Connor wrote a plurality opinion representing the Court's judgment, which was joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Breyer and Kennedy. O'Connor wrote that although Congress had expressly authorized the detention of enemy combatants in its Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed after 9/11, due process required that Hamdi have a meaningful opportunity to challenge his enemy combatant status.}

And you know this.

You're sinking to Jakematters level.

Again..you aren't getting it.

Hamadi was a CAPTURE.

Early life and capture
Main article: Yaser Esam Hamdi

Yaser Esam Hamdi is a citizen of the United States who was born in Louisiana in 1980 and moved as a child with his family to Saudi Arabia.[1]

In the late summer of 2001, Hamdi at the age of 20 went to Afghanistan, traveling on his own for the first time. He was doing relief work for less than two months before being captured by the Afghan Northern Alliance. They turned him over to U.S. military authorities during the U.S. invasion.[2] He was classified as an enemy combatant by the U.S. armed forces and detained in connection with ongoing hostilities.[3]

Hamdi's father said that Hamdi had gone to Afghanistan to do relief work and was trapped there when the U.S. invasion began.[4]
Detention and legal challenge

After his capture in 2001, Hamdi was detained and interrogated in Afghanistan.[5] In January 2002, the Americans transferred Hamdi to Guantanamo Bay.[5] In April 2002, when officials discovered that he held U.S. (as well as Saudi) citizenship, they transferred him to a Naval prison brig in Norfolk, Virginia and last to the Naval Consolidated Brig in Charleston, South Carolina.[5] In June 2002, Hamdi's father, Esam Fouad Hamdi, filed a habeas corpus petition in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia to challenge his detention in court.[6]

The Bush administration claimed that because Hamdi was caught in arms against the U.S., he could be properly detained as an enemy combatant,[7] without any oversight of presidential decision making, and without access to an attorney or the court system. The administration argued that this power was constitutional and necessary to effectively fight the War on Terror, declared by the Congress of the United States in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Act passed after the September 11th terrorist attacks. The government used its detention authority to ensure that terrorists were no longer a threat while active combat operations continued and to ensure suspects could be fully interrogated.

Do even know what you are talking about?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Whats the problem? I've known that America has been eliminating "Americans", since I was 17 years old, and on my 1st tour in Vietnam. If you think about it, the government was eliminating Americans in the Revolution... Before and After the Constitution was written.
For all of the bluster about "rights"... The rights end when one becomes a traitor to the nation.

But how do we get from point A, someone suspected of being a traitor, to point B, proof the suspect is indeed a traitor, where his loss of freedom or life is sanctioned.

Ideally the conduit between points A and B is due process.

The issue becomes more complex as the Administration maintains there is due process, albeit internal and not subject to public scrutiny.

The question, therefore, isn’t a lack of due process per se, but is the due process afforded terrorist suspects by the Administration sufficient. We know from Boumediene v. Bush (2008), for example, that the due process provided by Congress in the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 was not adequate, and the provision was invalidated. But that ruling pertained to terrorist suspects in US territories, in this case Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. No court has ruled as to what constitutes adequate due process with regard to assassinations on foreign soil, regardless nationality of those targeted – and we likely never will have such a ruling.

 

[Wehrwolfen]

Whats the problem? I've known that America has been eliminating "Americans", since I was 17 years old, and on my 1st tour in Vietnam. If you think about it, the government was eliminating Americans in the Revolution... Before and After the Constitution was written.
For all of the bluster about "rights"... The rights end when one becomes a traitor to the nation.

But how do we get from point A, someone suspected of being a traitor, to point B, proof the suspect is indeed a traitor, where his loss of freedom or life is sanctioned.

Ideally the conduit between points A and B is due process.

The issue becomes more complex as the Administration maintains there is due process, albeit internal and not subject to public scrutiny.

The question, therefore, isn’t a lack of due process per se, but is the due process afforded terrorist suspects by the Administration sufficient. We know from Boumediene v. Bush (2008), for example, that the due process provided by Congress in the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 was not adequate, and the provision was invalidated. But that ruling pertained to terrorist suspects in US territories, in this case Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. No court has ruled as to what constitutes adequate due process with regard to assassinations on foreign soil, regardless nationality of those targeted – and we likely never will have such a ruling.

Internal decsions? Hmm..., sounds more like kangaroo courts to me. Whatever happened to being tried by a jury of ones peers? Oh, I forgot according to Socialist Marxists there's no need for that.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Again..you aren't getting it.

Hamadi was a CAPTURE.

Utterly irrelevant, Jake, er I mean Shallow.

Hamdi was a United States Citizen, The question of whether the immunities and privileges accrue to a citizen designated an enemy combatant. The result is that one still retains rights, even if designated an EC.

Do even know what you are talking about?

It's clear you don't.

Just stick to "Ohh Bahhh Bahhh Mahhh," it's really all you've got.

 

[Trajan]

Nations can be governed by law, or ruled by men. Scumbags and thugs like Jakematters and others here promote the capricious rule of dictators, who decide life and death on their mood or whim.

But civilized men prefer the rule of immutable law. Particularly within a representative government that has a governing constitution.

Unlike the dictatorship the leftist shitpiles yearn for and push, a constitutional republic clearly defines what is expected and permissible, as well as what is not. To a pile of puke like Jakematters, what is permissible is that which pleases Obama. That which is prohibited is that which displeases Obama. As a mindless sycophant, he scurries about fawning on his lord to please him. Rodents like him love a dictatorship, where they can curry favor with the dictator.

But the rule of law puts into words the statutes and codes that are to govern all, from our ruler in Washington D.C. to the miscreant in Yemen publishing demagoguery.

You make some good points for the primacy of law, Uncensored.
But, when it comes to war... Law goes out the window. Especially when we are in confrontation with an enemy that truly believes that God is on their side, and anything goes. When they dropped the towers... the American psyche came to the point of Z, where anything goes... Even limited range nukes.

Uncensored simply refuses to admit he is governed by electoral, constitutional process like all of us. He simply refuses to admit that POTUS and SCOTUS have opined that drone attacks are lawful.

He is very afraid that such justification may be used, rightfully in my opinion, against home-grown militia terrorists here in the country.

I don't have any problem with that, do you want to discuss the uber hypocrisy involved in this notion that there was little no angst regards actions taken by bush for far less questionable actions in his "Cowboy" approach(es) to the WOT?

I didn't hear a lot of 'hey its a electoral, constitutional process ' I heard for example, pelosi lying in that she denied ever knowing 'harsh interrogation' was even going on....

I mentioned fisa, obama signed a 5 year extension that basically left the bush fisa untouched, yet? wheres the outrage?

here we are now deciding that if a unnamed gov. operative thinks someone needs to go on the kill list and he she is an American citizen there is absolutely no harm and no foul , talk about splitting hairs.


I guess, the definition , explanations/declarations as to what constitutes and how due process is applied seems to depend on who is in office.
If Bush had surfaced such a white paper the gnashing of teeth from the very same folks, who back in his terms objected then, would be going full tilt, cowboy kill list targeting American citizens with no more than a cursory review as to guilt etc.......now? The outrage meter seems to have been turned off. What a crock.

 

[Liability]

No.

It's not the violation of the law.

And that's the point.

While I grasp that you of the left have utter contempt for the constitution, the fact is that it remains the supreme law of the land. A white paper does not have the power to render the constitution null and void, even if our current ruler ignores said constitution.

So yes, it is a violation of the law, a violation of the United States Constitution.

And you wonder why those who still support constitutional governance feel the need to arm ourselves.

No.

It's not a violation of the law.

The congress passed the AUMF and the Patriot Act. The US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in 2007 upheld the Enemy Combatant status.

This was done during the Bush administration.

And it's only NOW that you feel you have to arm yourself. You guys weren't opposing this when a different president wielded this power.

But feel free. Arm yourself.

Have a party.

While Sallow and I come to different conclusions about the propriety of the program/policy etc., we clearly agree that it should NOT matter which President is in office. If you were ok with it while W was the President, then you should not oppose it now just because Pres. Obama is in office. And if you hate it now that Pres. Obama in at the helm, then you probably should have hated it when W was the CiC.

 

[1Templar]

Whats the problem? I've known that America has been eliminating "Americans", since I was 17 years old, and on my 1st tour in Vietnam. If you think about it, the government was eliminating Americans in the Revolution... Before and After the Constitution was written.
For all of the bluster about "rights"... The rights end when one becomes a traitor to the nation.

But how do we get from point A, someone suspected of being a traitor, to point B, proof the suspect is indeed a traitor, where his loss of freedom or life is sanctioned.

Ideally the conduit between points A and B is due process.

The issue becomes more complex as the Administration maintains there is due process, albeit internal and not subject to public scrutiny.

The question, therefore, isn’t a lack of due process per se, but is the due process afforded terrorist suspects by the Administration sufficient. We know from Boumediene v. Bush (2008), for example, that the due process provided by Congress in the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 was not adequate, and the provision was invalidated. But that ruling pertained to terrorist suspects in US territories, in this case Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. No court has ruled as to what constitutes adequate due process with regard to assassinations on foreign soil, regardless nationality of those targeted – and we likely never will have such a ruling.

As long as we are at war....which will be multi generational... The SCOTUS will stay out of this issue, no matter what party is in power.
I know its a matter of faith alone, when one has been given the freedom to pull the trigger, that all avenues have been exhausted, before the trigger is pulled.
No longer is there a front line, and a rear area. The United States is the" green" zone, and green zones are the plumpest target of all.
The nations which harbor terrorist, will get bombed. I thought Obama made this perfectly clear. If they are busy running and hiding... The less chance they have of committing slaughter in this green zone.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Whatta pile of Pub hypocrisy. These are self professed senior terrorists. Mindless BS opposition from the hATER DUPES...

You think the US killing people who speak out against radical Islam is a good foreign policy position? That seems like something Al Qeada would approve of to me.

Late last August, a 40-year-old cleric named Salem Ahmed bin Ali Jaber stood up to deliver a speech denouncing Al Qaeda in a village mosque in far eastern Yemen.
It was a brave gesture by a father of seven who commanded great respect in the community, and it did not go unnoticed. Two days later, three members of Al Qaeda came to the mosque in the tiny village of Khashamir after 9 p.m., saying they merely wanted to talk. Mr. Jaber agreed to meet them, bringing his cousin Waleed Abdullah, a police officer, for protection.
As the five men stood arguing by a cluster of palm trees, a volley of remotely operated American missiles shot down from the night sky and incinerated them all, along with a camel that was tied up nearby.

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/06/...rone-strikes-hazards.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

[Jarlaxle]

It's Defend the Terrorists Day in Conservatopia.

You need to dial your intake of hallucinogenic mushrooms WAY back.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

For those here who have conveniently forgotten that Obama ordered a separate attack that killed a 16 year old American citizen simply because he didn't like his father, who was already dead, let me remind them with this article.

How does Team Obama justify killing him?

The answer Gibbs gave is chilling:

ADAMSON: ...It's an American citizen that is being targeted without due process, without trial. And, he's underage. He's a minor.

GIBBS: I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well being of their children. I don't think becoming an al Qaeda jihadist terrorist is the best way to go about doing your business.
​

Again, note that this kid wasn't killed in the same drone strike as his father. He was hit by a drone strike elsewhere, and by the time he was killed, his father had already been dead for two weeks. Gibbs nevertheless defends the strike, not by arguing that the kid was a threat, or that killing him was an accident, but by saying that his late father irresponsibly joined al Qaeda terrorists. Killing an American citizen without due process on that logic ought to be grounds for impeachment. Is that the real answer? Or would the Obama Administration like to clarify its reasoning? Any Congress that respected its oversight responsibilities would get to the bottom of this.

How Team Obama Justifies the Killing of a 16-Year-Old American - Conor Friedersdorf - The Atlantic

Gibbs is right and you are wrong.

QWB, you are defending terrorists and terrorism.

Let me see if I understand your position.

Because I oppose using drones that kill people on our side of the argument who are speaking out against terrorism and radical Islamism that means I support terrorism and radical Islam.

Gotta admit it takes a FakeStarkey to say that without smashing the computer keyboard in a bout of self immolation.