WH justification for the extrajudicial killing of American citizens

[redandguilty]

http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_new...egal-case-for-drone-strikes-on-americans?lite

Apparently, it hangs on interpreting the phrase "imminent danger". Knowledge of a specific, immediate threat is not required. Having recently been involved in threatening activities and having not renounced and abandoned those activities is sufficient.

Here's the document:

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

They stamped "NBC News" over it so much, my computer doesn't want to let me do text searches. The terms are laid out on page 6, where you can find the word "realities" in quotes, which I think is a curious thing.

The actual quote on the word "imminent" is on p. 7. The imminent threat requirement

"does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future."

There's also a bit on page 8 about the threat being imminent because we're not aware of all al qa'ida plots and therefore can't be sure that one isn't about to happen.

 

[Slick]

bah....you wanna go join the other side , IMO you're fair game.

 

[redandguilty]

bah....you wanna go join the other side , IMO you're fair game.

But who gets to determine that you joined the other side? There have always been exceptions to your legal rights accounting for people that are an immediate threat to others, but this take on it is new.

 

[Slick]

But who gets to determine that you joined the other side? There have always been exceptions to your legal rights accounting for people that are an immediate threat to others, but this take on it is new.

well if you grow a beard down to your toes and start hanging with other know leaders of terrorist groups and then go on tape and proclaim your own personal Jihad against the USA.....then I could careless if you eat a cruise missle.

 

[redandguilty]

One thing I think they got right was making it specifically about al qa'ida.

 

[Slick]

I don't have a problem with them using drones now as an alternative to boots on the ground.

 

[redandguilty]

well if you grow a beard down to your toes and start hanging with other know leaders of terrorist groups and then go on tape and proclaim your own personal Jihad against the USA.....then I could careless if you eat a cruise missle.

What if you don't do those things, but the President wrongly says that you do?

 

[Michchamp]

One thing I think they got right was making it specifically about al qa'ida.

yeah. and they get to say who is al qaeda.

...and it's never reviewed by a court, and they don't have to present any evidence of the basis for their claims.

there is only one reason for circumventing the law, and that's because the law isn't on your side. period.

 

[Michchamp]

... and people who are comfortable with these powers only because Obama is present don't seem to understand that these powers are now firmly entrenched and will be available to the next person to get his finger on the button.

 

[Slick]

personally I hope the lil dude in North Korea peaks his out someday and eats a drone strike to.

 

[Slick]

when he takes someone like Ted Nugent or Michelle Bachman out then I'd be concerned he may have over stepped.

 

[redandguilty]

yeah. and they get to say who is al qaeda.

...and it's never reviewed by a court, and they don't have to present any evidence of the basis for their claims.

there is only one reason for circumventing the law, and that's because the law isn't on your side. period.

I agree. All I meant was they at least tried to write it narrowly. It's still crap and if this flies, there's nothing to stop someone from writing a more broad version later.

 

[redandguilty]

when he takes someone like Ted Nugent or Michelle Bachman out then I'd be concerned he may have over stepped.

If you don't care whether a legal position is valid or invalid until it's used in a way you don't like, then this isn't the thread for you.

edit:...unless you're trying to hijack the thread. I do it often enough; I don't have room to complain.

 

[Slick]

If you don't care whether a legal position is valid or invalid until it's used in a way you don't like, then this isn't the thread for you.

edit:...unless you're trying to hijack the thread. I do it often enough; I don't have room to complain.

c'mon dude , do you think they just indiscremently kill these people at will , ya the law maybe loose and vague and probably does have some valid questions to be asked and maybe needs to be reigned in....but from what I understand is that they do include people like Mike Rogers and others in on the intelligence before the kill order is either given or loaded into the drones facial recognition software.

 

[redandguilty]

c'mon dude , do you think they just indiscremently kill these people at will , ya the law maybe loose and vague and probably does have some valid questions to be asked and maybe needs to be reigned in....but from what I understand is that they do include people like Mike Rogers and others in on the intelligence before the kill order is either given or loaded into the drones facial recognition software.

"ya the law maybe loose and vague and probably does have some valid questions to be asked and maybe needs to be reigned in"

That's pretty much what I'm saying. There are valid questions and if the President wants to keep doing what he's doing, he needs a new law to be passed to make it legal. Good luck writing and passing that law.

 

[Slick]

"ya the law maybe loose and vague and probably does have some valid questions to be asked and maybe needs to be reigned in"

That's pretty much what I'm saying. There are valid questions and if the President wants to keep doing what he's doing, he needs a new law to be passed to make it legal. Good luck writing and passing that law.

just like W skated around torture...Obama will skate around this for the next 4 years....it's what they do.

 

[byco42]

bah....you wanna go join the other side , IMO you're fair game.

The troubling part of this is that we'll never know who joined the other side. We have to accept the government's word that an individual may do "imminent" harm. This kind of indiscernible approach to targeting people is reckless and immoral. We are no better than our enemies, and there have been some innocent people killed by drones.

 

[Slick]

The troubling part of this is that we'll never know who joined the other side. We have to accept the government's word that an individual may do "imminent" harm. This kind of indiscernible approach to targeting people is reckless and immoral. We are no better than our enemies, and there have been some innocent people killed by drones.

a lot of innocent people died in Bush's illegal war also.....same as the Korean War , Vietnam War , WW2 , WW1.

shit happens......

 

[redandguilty]

a lot of innocent people died in Bush's illegal war also.....same as the Korean War , Vietnam War , WW2 , WW1.

shit happens......

Someone else also did wrong isn't a defense.

 

[Slick]

Someone else also did wrong isn't a defense.

someone else ?? it's been happening since the beginning of time...innocent people get killed in war.

the US is actively engaged in WAR ON TERROR and Obama's doctorine is using Drones as a key piece...like I said instead of American soldiers dying in using these drones to take out key operatives...I have zero problems with it.