Pres. memo--execute Americans without due process

[OriginalShroom]

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.

Did I start this thread?

No.

Again.. return those Strawmen back to the field and discuss the issue at hand not some whaddaboutry that has absolutely nothing do with the subject.

 

[OriginalShroom]

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?

They went to an active combat zone and put themselves in harm's way.

If they got killed, it wasn't that the President issued secret "Kill on Sight" orders, it was that they put themselves in the middle of a war.


It was easy to kill that Strawman.

 

[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.

It's not limited to just combat zones.
Obama has said that he has this authority anywhere in the world.

Just read the memo, you are correct...in fact combat zones are specifically excluded.

And he didn't exclude inside the borders of the United States.

Yes, he did. Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen Who Is a Senior Operational Leader of Al-Qa'ida or An Associated Force

This white paper sets forth a legal framework for considering the circumstances in which the U.S government could use lethal force in a foreign country outside the area of active hostilities aganis a U.S. citizen who is a senior operational leader of al-Qa'ida or an associated force of al-Qa'ida--that is, an al-Qa'ida leader actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans.

The only circumstances allowed would be:

1. The target is determined to pose an imminent threat of violent attack against the US.
2. Capture is infeasible but continue to monitor if it becomes feasible.
3. Operation is consistent with law of war.

 

[Wehrwolfen]

President Obama Signed the National Defense Authorization Act - Now What?​

By: Erik Kain
1/02/2012



President Obama signs the National Defense Authorization Act after months of debate.

One thing I love about writing on technology is that it’s a subject always filled with hope and optimism. For every frightening use of technology by oppressive governments there’s a corresponding story about the use of that same technology to overcome oppression.

For every story of police abuse I’ve read, there’s another story about corruption and violence exposed by something as simple as a camera phone.

But can technology help us overcome truly pernicious legislation like the National Defense Authorization Act recently signed by the president?

The National Defense Authorization Act greatly expands the power and scope of the federal government to fight the War on Terror, including codifying into law the indefinite detention of terrorism suspects without trial. Under the new law the US military has the power to carry out domestic anti-terrorism operations on US soil.

“The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it,” the president said in a statement. “I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists.”

Worse, the NDAA authorizes the military to detain even US citizens under the broad new anti-terrorism provisions provided in the bill, once again without trial.

There is some controversy on this point, in part because the law as written is entirely too vague.


Read more:
President Obama Signed the National Defense Authorization Act - Now What? - Forbes

 

[Sallow]

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.

Did I start this thread?

No.

Again.. return those Strawmen back to the field and discuss the issue at hand not some whaddaboutry that has absolutely nothing do with the subject.

You haven't started ANY thread about those things.

Feel free..link one.

I've read your posts. You seem to think these sort of issues begin and end with THIS PRESIDENT.

That this PRESIDENT is an outlier.

He's not.

Presidents who inherit new powers, DON'T GIVE THEM UP.

Book that.

 

[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.

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

Texans? Yeah, they killed JFK.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

"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.

That way there will be where you people can hide when we come for your guns

 

[OriginalShroom]

I SURE DO have a clue.

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

You went right for the PRESIDENT.

Did I start this thread?

No.

Again.. return those Strawmen back to the field and discuss the issue at hand not some whaddaboutry that has absolutely nothing do with the subject.

You haven't started ANY thread about those things.

Feel free..link one.

I've read your posts. You seem to think these sort of issues begin and end with THIS PRESIDENT.

That this PRESIDENT is an outlier.

He's not.

Presidents who inherit new powers, DON'T GIVE THEM UP.

Book that.

ONE MORE TIME and I will type slow so that you can understand it.

I just started posting here last week. I was NOT posting here during those discussions.

It is impossible for me to have started threads on those issues on this board.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

President Obama Signed the National Defense Authorization Act - Now What?​

By: Erik Kain
1/02/2012

President Obama signs the National Defense Authorization Act...

The left has been against this forever...seems like it is the right that is now being hypocritical


gawd, people wonder why liberals laugh at the left and the right

 

[BlindBoo]

This is pretty much how the rabid right would have acted if President Clinton had killed OBL in 1998. Then of course had President Obama not kill these two Americans who join with our enemies, and they carried out an attack against the country, the pseudo-cons would be raising nine kinds of hell.

 

[RightNorLeft]

What I find ironic, is that the same people that soiled their bloomers over waterboarding non stop day in and day out when Bush was in Office and called for his and cheneys impeachment are silent on the prospect of this president potentionally asassinating americans abroad with not only no due process but without even having to demonstrate a real current threat...GET REAL. Lets break this down. Waterboarding that does no long term harm to anyone that has gleened valuable information that saved american lives was cause for impeachment and relentless attacks on Bush and CHeney.
Murdering Americans with no due process and without even having to demonstrate a reason is cause to just blame the ones complaining....Nope, im not a democrat nor a republican and I love being able to just call it like I sees it...and this stinks guys

 

[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?

They went to an active combat zone and put themselves in harm's way.

If they got killed, it wasn't that the President issued secret "Kill on Sight" orders, it was that they put themselves in the middle of a war.


It was easy to kill that Strawman.

They were innocent American non-combatants.

btw, what is and isn't a combat zone in the war against Al Qaeda?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

lol. Sometimes you people just try too hard.

 

[OriginalShroom]

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?

They went to an active combat zone and put themselves in harm's way.

If they got killed, it wasn't that the President issued secret "Kill on Sight" orders, it was that they put themselves in the middle of a war.


It was easy to kill that Strawman.

They were innocent American non-combatants.

btw, what is and isn't a combat zone in the war against Al Qaeda?

They were not "Innocent". They intentionally sided with the enemy and put themselves in harms way, attempting to use their American Citizenship as if it were some magical shield against bullets and missiles.

They traveled to known military targets. They may not have been carrying arms, but they were infusing themselves into a combat zone and targets.

Anyone who intentionally puts their self into harms way is either a hero or an idiot.

IMHO, these people who thought their physical presence was going to stop the military from blowing up or attacking a valid military target were idiots.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

If those are "american" jihadists involved in terrorism............GOOD

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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

....And, you're referring-to who????​

 

[Spoonman]

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

i own a gun, therefor i must be a terrorist trying to overthrow the government

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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.

...."Kinda" like preemptively-striking Iraq, right??

​

 

[OriginalShroom]

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.

...."Kinda" like preemptively-striking Iraq, right??

​

Not really.
'
President G. W. Bush went before Congress and got a vote. Obama is doing it in secret without any consultation with anyone. Like his attack on Libya.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

February 5, 2013

Using Lethal Force Against Americans Overseas​

Go-ahead & defend your terrorists, Teabaggers....


​