EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americans

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Al Qaeda is slang for a toilet basin.
there is no word for database in their language
when the CIA kept their records in a database
they used the local slang to describe it





Bin Laden was never connected to 911




and now we see this lie directed at its true targets.

Americans.

Originally posted by grey580
reply to post by Swills

 

I'm gonna play devils advocate here.

Let's say someone goes in and robs a bank. While robbing the bank they kill 10 people and are fleeing the scene, running around loose on the street armed and dangerous.

Now the cops are gonna come looking for you to take you down.
You don't want to come easily and start shooting at the police.
The cops shoot back and kill you.

Are we not looking at a similar situation? There's no trial no due process.
Discuss.

Sorry, but I must respectfully disagree. The situatution is not similar in that the robber you describe is actively killing innocents, and attempting to kill LEOs as they try to arrest him. The LEOs have the right to defend themselves while they are doing their job, and the authority to lawfully use force to protect the innocent civilians caught in a bad situation.

The two US citizens murdered by our government were not actively engaged in a gun fight with soldiers trying to arrest them. They were not actively murdering people like your robber when they were killed. Personally, I think those two individuals were terrorists, and actively engaged in plotting to kill, and probably have been involved in terrorist acts in the past. However, "probably", "suspected", "we have evidence to support", or "we believe they..." are a far cry from "Beyond a shadow of a doubt" conviction by a jury of their peers.

If government can kill its citizens for ANY reason with out due process....what reason will the next administration use for its killings, or the next one after that?

NO MORE POWER should be allowed to be taken by the government. I do not care who is in office, particularly if it involves the murder of US citizens. And with out a trial it was murder...assasination.

Originally posted by EL1A5
Ladies and gentlemen, your 2009 Nobel Peace Prize winner.

*sigh*

edit on 5-2-2013 by EL1A5 because: (no reason given)

Michelle Obama's "All this for a damn flag"


Does anyone not "Get It" yet? We have people who hate America running our country over the cliff.

reply to post by Hugues de Payens

Sorry, but I must respectfully disagree. The situatution is not similar in that the robber you describe is actively killing innocents, and attempting to kill LEOs as they try to arrest him. The LEOs have the right to defend themselves while they are doing their job, and the authority to lawfully use force to protect the innocent civilians caught in a bad situation.

AHA! But the power to kill without due process is already in place. It just has to be legislated. See what I'm getting at?

The two US citizens murdered by our government were not actively engaged in a gun fight with soldiers trying to arrest them. They were not actively murdering people like your robber when they were killed. Personally, I think those two individuals were terrorists, and actively engaged in plotting to kill, and probably have been involved in terrorist acts in the past. However, "probably", "suspected", "we have evidence to support", or "we believe they..." are a far cry from "Beyond a shadow of a doubt" conviction by a jury of their peers.

Right but these guys aren't here in the USA with civilian law enforcement trying to capture them. This was a military operation. If we declare someone an enemy combatant does that mean that their rights are suspended? I dont' know. If we start looking at the laws on the books we very well may find that the military can do things that bypass law. especially if it's in another country...

And people wonder why Americans are so hell bent on keeping their guns.
How could any sane person trust this government.
Sheep.

reply to post by grey580


you think that the 2007 Defense Authorization Bill which changes the Insurrection Act of 1807

under false pretenses of a unvalidated threat of "Al Qaeda" is not only legal

but justifies killing Americans on American soil by drone bombing without a trial?

thats one hundred years a law has been on the books, changed six years ago

& you are so brainwashed you do not see anything wrong with this?

even when someone "suspected" to be a leader without solid proof being provided

in a court of law is murdered?

"By the privileges of "Habeas Corpus", no man can be confined without inquiry, and if it should appear that he has been confined contrary to the law, he must be discharged" - James Iresell 1789

now, in America, we are not even discussing being thrown in jail, but being bombed from the air going about our daily lives..

The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to the judges' view of fairness, reasonableness, or justice. I have no fear of constitutional amendments properly adopted, but I do fear the rewriting of the Constitution by judges under the guise of interpretation" - Justice Hugo Black 1968

this "war on terror", an ideal, not a physical thing, is the fear mongering excuse for controlling the people. the collateral damage that we see happen overseas will kill innocent Americans. Without proof of a threat, the Federal Government has declared WAR on all Americans. To scare them into obeying Unconstitutional laws passed by representatives beholden to lobbyists & not the People.

"if the legislative and judicial powers are untied, the maker of the law will also interpret it. Should the executive and legislative powers be united... the executive power would make itself absolute, and the government end in tyranny. Should the executive and judicial powers be united, the subject [citizen] would then have no permanent security of his person or property" - Theophilus Parson

With these unconstitutional changes to attack Americans without any sort of trial or evidence, We the People, have no security of our person or property.. that in and of itself is proof that under these changes, these actions are rightfully deemed illegal.

All rights remain with the people except those which they choose to delegate to their government, Article I, Section 9 required that the privilege of "habeas corpus" could not be suspended "unless there is a rebellion or an invasion and the public safety requires it".
The Founders then extended the provision to the State laws by by asserting in Article IV, Section 2, that "the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states"

so, if in fact the Fed had a legal case, as in proof of a rebellion or invasion, there would have been no need to usurp the hundred year Habeas Corpus law by distorting it. why not catch such criminal "terrorists" with the FBI, the CIA, any of the various counter terrorism units, the National Guard, local Sheriffs, Police? why open a loop hole for war on American soil against Americans?

they are the traitors. they are the terrorists. thats why.

in the past..

The freemen of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much, soon to forget it." - James Madison

Congress was further empowered to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the state militias and for governing any militia forces called into the service of the United States, the Constitution reserved to the states the power to appoint officers and train the militia according to discipline prescribed by Congress. The Constitution very carefully set up a system for defending the Union, while at the same time guarding the liberty of individual citizens.

The Founders were dedicated to the idea that civil authority would prevail over the military.

Now, when a citizen follows the Constitutional provisions set up for the States Militia, that citizen can be labeled a terrorist & murdered without trial & his name slandered & used as propaganda against the very people he stood up to defend.

that is a Constitutional conflict of interest to the laws intention, therefore Unconstitutional.

The next great right is that of trail by jury. This provides that neither life, liberty nor property can be taken from the possessor, until twelve of his..countrymen..shall pass their sentence upon oath against him." James Madison

Amazing what a basic understanding of the Constitution can lead one to find.

Originally posted by grey580
reply to post by Hugues de Payens

 

Sorry, but I must respectfully disagree. The situatution is not similar in that the robber you describe is actively killing innocents, and attempting to kill LEOs as they try to arrest him. The LEOs have the right to defend themselves while they are doing their job, and the authority to lawfully use force to protect the innocent civilians caught in a bad situation.

AHA! But the power to kill without due process is already in place. It just has to be legislated. See what I'm getting at?

The two US citizens murdered by our government were not actively engaged in a gun fight with soldiers trying to arrest them. They were not actively murdering people like your robber when they were killed. Personally, I think those two individuals were terrorists, and actively engaged in plotting to kill, and probably have been involved in terrorist acts in the past. However, "probably", "suspected", "we have evidence to support", or "we believe they..." are a far cry from "Beyond a shadow of a doubt" conviction by a jury of their peers.

Right but these guys aren't here in the USA with civilian law enforcement trying to capture them. This was a military operation. If we declare someone an enemy combatant does that mean that their rights are suspended? I dont' know. If we start looking at the laws on the books we very well may find that the military can do things that bypass law. especially if it's in another country...

The power to kill, yes while protecting innocent life. But not the power to murder in cold blood. Therein lies the difference. You and others may disagree, and that's fine, but I respectfully submit that those alleged terrorists were murdered by our government. They were killed without due process. Also, the protection of a US
citizen from his/her own government is not granted based on location. You and I are protected by The Constitution from murder by our own government regardless of whether we are phyically present with in the US or somewhere outside of our borders.

Again, the point is NOT whether these guys deserved to be executed. That should have been for a jury to decide. The point is how much power are we willing to allow the executive branch in determining who lives or dies based on a subjective opinion of the current or future occupent of the Oval Office? This a slippery slope upon which we tread. Think the Hunger Games are that far-fetched?

Obama supporters explain this one.

and please please please do not sound like Republicans justifying Bush's heinous acts years ago...

Originally posted by eLPresidente
Obama supporters explain this one.

and please please please do not sound like Republicans justifying Bush's heinous acts years ago...

To them there is nothing to explain, you are a terrorist and in their eyes case closed. These same supporters feel the FED / banker elite are doing a great job and you should just put your life in their hands.

Originally posted by collietta
It also seems like a convenient out for accidental drone attacks.

When they hit the wrong target, I can see them justifying the killing by saying:

"Oh, I meant to kill that woman and her neighbor, they were chatting and discussing 'terrorist' activities while trimming their rose bushes."

This came to my mind, as well

Gee, I wonder if this has anything to do with 30,000 drones in the American sky.

Not only does the fact that an American can be killed without due process really bother me, what bothers me more is the government's track record when it comes to gathering accurate intelligence information. Remember when Bush lied about the WMD's? He KNEW that he was blatantly lying not only to the American people, but the UN as well, because he saw the opportunity for the rich to make a lot more money. That, and a little bit of revenge if you remember what happened to his father. If a sitting US president is willing to do what Bush did, what faith can we have in any politician?

So who is to say that the government has accurate information, and who is to say that the government will not just make something up if they don't have accurate intelligence? This is simply a tool to allow the real terrorists a loophole from prosecution, by the House and the People. It is quite sickening that despite the public outcry over many different issues, the government and Obama do not seem to be slowing down in their efforts to erode democracy. But don't get me wrong, it is not just Obama's fault. It was happening before he ever took office, and although he is perpetuating it, he did not start it. People like Feinstein should be tried for treason as well, considering they have no respect for the rule of law. She is just one example, as there are many.

reply to post by Swills


I'm basically taking this a declaration of war on dissenters and/or anybody who won't go along to get along with tptb.

The last shred of decency this govt. may have had is gone, and the last doubt removed. They view the American Citizenry as their enemies.

It is time to collectively resist anything proposed by them. When has ANYTHING the US Fed. Government ever proposed or legislated been done correctly the first time, with the exception of weapons and killing machines. They love getting that right, because the only thing they love more than their own power is killing, and it doesn't seem to matter to them whom they kill. Sandyhook is more proof, they don't even care about killing the innocent. Resist them every chance you get at every turn.

reply to post by reeferman


I'm not going to respond to every point in your post.

But will simply point out that americans are killed every day by police and government agents.
Without a trial by jury.
Of course this is done for reasons of self defense and public safety.
However the point I'm trying to get across that IT IS DONE.

You guys are saying we don't do that... yet we do.
No matter the circumstance the end result is death.

So we say it's ok over here. But not over there.

If a guy barricades himself in a home and says he's going to kill someone yet doesn't kill anybody. And the cops kill him because he points a gun out a window that's ok.

But if a guy is planning to or supposedly planning to kill someone and we don't send the police but a drone to kill him that's bad.

In both scenarios the guy is dead and without due process. Am I correct?

reply to post by Hugues de Payens

You and I are protected by The Constitution from murder by our own government regardless of whether we are phyically present with in the US or somewhere outside of our borders.

I gotta disagree with you here.

The constitution doesn't protect someone with a gun pointing it at someone important.

The government can kill you is the point I am getting across.
And laws can be changed to allow killing by drone to happen.

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by collietta

 

...there is no talk of using drone strikes on US soil...

There's been no talk of a lot of things that the U.S. government now does on a regular basis.

Their talk seldom turns out to be the truth. Do not trust anyone who's a politician. Anyone. Watch their actions, not their words.

reply to post by reeferman


You keep using the word constitutional and unconstitutional. In the Original constitution, it clearly states the government has the right to "quell insurrections." So it IS perfectly constitutional for the government to kill Americans if they are actively attacking or even planning an attack on the government. Could it be abused and are terrorists a fabricated boogey man? sure. But that's irrelevant to the issue of whether what they are talking about doing is constitution. It's a whole different argument.

I vehemently oppose these actions. I do. But I'm not going to ignore the facts. It IS constitutional.
Gray58's logic is correct.

The problem is that this same "enemy" is used to fight against Syria etc.
So the threat to kill you only remains if your not in the right country. If your in that enemy group fighting in Syria,
you will be seen as a "rebel" if on the other hand your in another country you will be seen as someone who can be killed.

Originally posted by Carreau
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

By the time it gets so bad you finally decide to leave, you won't be allowed to.

I agree...

By the way your avatar is awesome lol.

reply to post by Swills


I don't get what there going to achieve from this...I mean what are they going to do, shoot hellfire missiles on someone walking down the sidewalk in a city?