• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americans

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,453
Location
White Oak Plantation
A confidential Justice Department memo concludes that the U.S. government can order the killing of American citizens if they are believed to be “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida or “an associated force” -- even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S.

Further on in the article.

Brennan was the first administration official to publicly acknowledge drone strikes in a speech last year, calling them “consistent with the inherent right of self-defense.” In a separate talk at the Northwestern University Law School in March, Attorney General Eric Holder specifically endorsed the constitutionality of targeted killings of Americans, saying they could be justified if government officials determine the target poses “an imminent threat of violent attack.”

http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_new...egal-case-for-drone-strikes-on-americans?lite
Not good news.
 

riverrat10k

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2008
Messages
1,472
Location
on a rock in the james river
Saw this last night. Blatently illegal, IMO.

"It's just the AQ members we want to shoot without trial."

"Well, it is just those who have abetted AQ members."

"Well, it is just those who we deem as domestic terrorists."

"Well, it is just those who we deem dangerous."

"We are only coming for people like YOU MF'er! Bow down before the almighty US gov."
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
This is not a law enforcement issue. This is a national defense issue. (Some folks just don't get the distinction.)

Last I checked, we are at war with al Qaeda (among others). Our military does not need an overt act, a warrant, or the al Qaeda "senior operational leaders" to be outside America to wage that war on them.

That being said, I am concerned. With that vast power in the hand of the presidency, it must be wielded carefully and honestly. I don't think, with this president, we can count on that necessary power being wielded in that way. But that is not a problem of the power. As I implied, the power to wage war on those who attack us and want to destroy us, regardless of where they are, is necessary. We must be careful in whom we vest that power, as some will abuse it.

Elections matter. They have consequences. This is just one of them.

I pray to God that our Republic survives four more years, until we get another chance to fix it. I don't think it will. God help us.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,453
Location
White Oak Plantation
Where is the outrage? Why are talk show host all over not jumping on this? Where are all the protesters?
Are these rhetorical questions? Do you understand that the media are predominately liberal......not gunna talk smack about their guy. Protestors (that you seem to be referring to) are leftists and thus liberal. They too will not talk smack about their dude unless it is to further their unemployed lifestyle at my expense.

The protestors on the right (predominately conservative) are too busy earning a wage and thus too busy sustaining our economy. In other words, I have a job and I must work to pay for leftists protestors to protest.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,453
Location
White Oak Plantation
This is not a law enforcement issue. This is a national defense issue. (Some folks just don't get the distinction.)

Last I checked, we are at war with al Qaeda (among others). Our military does not need an overt act, a warrant, or the al Qaeda "senior operational leaders" to be outside America to wage that war on them.

That being said, I am concerned. With that vast power in the hand of the presidency, it must be wielded carefully and honestly. I don't think, with this president, we can count on that necessary power being wielded in that way. But that is not a problem of the power. As I implied, the power to wage war on those who attack us and want to destroy us, regardless of where they are, is necessary. We must be careful in whom we vest that power, as some will abuse it.

Elections matter. They have consequences. This is just one of them.

I pray to God that our Republic survives four more years, until we get another chance to fix it. I don't think it will. God help us.
It was vitally important to the DOJ (administration) to ensure that American citizens targeted by the military were targeted lawfully. Americans targeted by the federal government is more than a military exercise. I contend that both military and law enforcement purposes are at issue where the targeting of American citizens is the issue.

The military does not act preemptively, they must be directed by their political masters. Unfortunately, the military has a very long and loose leash at this point. Perhaps a future commander in chief will shorten and tighten the leash.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,689
Location
Whatcom County
This is not a law enforcement issue. This is a national defense issue. (Some folks just don't get the distinction.)

Last I checked, we are at war with al Qaeda (among others). Our military does not need an overt act, a warrant, or the al Qaeda "senior operational leaders" to be outside America to wage that war on them.

That being said, I am concerned. With that vast power in the hand of the presidency, it must be wielded carefully and honestly. I don't think, with this president, we can count on that necessary power being wielded in that way. But that is not a problem of the power. As I implied, the power to wage war on those who attack us and want to destroy us, regardless of where they are, is necessary. We must be careful in whom we vest that power, as some will abuse it.

Elections matter. They have consequences. This is just one of them.

I pray to God that our Republic survives four more years, until we get another chance to fix it. I don't think it will. God help us.

We are also supposedly at war with Drugs, poverty, etc......don't let the government rationalize their illegal actions.
 

crazydude6030

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
512
Location
Fairfax, va
This is not a law enforcement issue. This is a national defense issue. (Some folks just don't get the distinction.)

Last I checked, we are at war with al Qaeda (among others). Our military does not need an overt act, a warrant, or the al Qaeda "senior operational leaders" to be outside America to wage that war on them.

That being said, I am concerned. With that vast power in the hand of the presidency, it must be wielded carefully and honestly. I don't think, with this president, we can count on that necessary power being wielded in that way. But that is not a problem of the power. As I implied, the power to wage war on those who attack us and want to destroy us, regardless of where they are, is necessary. We must be careful in whom we vest that power, as some will abuse it.

Elections matter. They have consequences. This is just one of them.

I pray to God that our Republic survives four more years, until we get another chance to fix it. I don't think it will. God help us.

And by the logic I am reading they could just send drones to take you out.

My issue here is there is no warrants. No due process. There is nothing keeping him in check. That concerns me

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2
 

motoxmann

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
760
Location
Middletown, CT
I agree with eye95's above post.

also, due process frequently does not apply for international matters. I read an article on yahoo about this, and in their article they claim the courts have already stated they really have minimal say in the matter.
the part that concerns me though, is how it is written, loosely stating the same concept can be applied to any American posing any imminent danger to the US from any location.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
It was vitally important to the DOJ (administration) to ensure that American citizens targeted by the military were targeted lawfully. Americans targeted by the federal government is more than a military exercise. I contend that both military and law enforcement purposes are at issue where the targeting of American citizens is the issue.

The military does not act preemptively, they must be directed by their political masters. Unfortunately, the military has a very long and loose leash at this point. Perhaps a future commander in chief will shorten and tighten the leash.

I don't want the Justice Department overseeing military operations. There is a military justice system to prosecute members who use military force illegally. For the higher level folks (the president and the secretaries), the Congress and the People are supposed to provide that check. If the president abuses his military authority illegally against non-combatant civilians, it is up to Congress to try and punish him. If they won't do that, it is up to the electorate to do something about them and the president. If that effort fails...well, the words, "When in the course of Human Events...," come to mind. (I still hope it does not come to that.)

However, complaining about the president exercising his proper authority to target enemy combatants, wherever they are, including on US soil, or saying that the Justice Department should pass on all such targeting is ridiculous and flies in the face of the Constitution.

If and when the president, his secretaries, or his officers illegally use that military force against civilians in the US who are not part of the defined enemy that the military is fighting, then the systems in place for punishing those actions, none of which involve civilian courts or the DOJ, should be used.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
I agree with eye95's above post.

also, due process frequently does not apply for international matters. I read an article on yahoo about this, and in their article they claim the courts have already stated they really have minimal say in the matter.
the part that concerns me though, is how it is written, loosely stating the same concept can be applied to any American posing any imminent danger to the US from any location.

Also, due process does not apply to military actions. It applies to law enforcement and judicial actions.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

mpguy

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2012
Messages
689
Location
Suffolk Virginia
Of course they are. I wrote my reps on this today asking why they are allowing this.

Would you mind posting what your rep said, and of when permission, would you let me send it to my rep/newspaper, just to see the reaction?

Sent from my Motorola Galaxy s3 using Tapatalk 2
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
And by the logic I am reading they could just send drones to take you out.

My issue here is there is no warrants. No due process. There is nothing keeping him in check. That concerns me

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

Then you have not followed my logic. I am not at war with the US. Al Qaeda is. If the president were to target me, or any other such target, then the correct process is impeachment by Congress, conviction, removal from office, and punishment.

My point, which seems to have eluded your logical abilities, is that there is a distinction between military and law enforcement matters. Striking against the enemy, wherever he is, is of no concern to the courts or to the Justice Department. It is a military decision. There are systems in place to handle the criminal misuse of that authority.

It is not criminal to militarily target enemy combatants, even on US soil. If they use drones to kill al Qaeda leaders, they are simply doing the job given them. Criminally targeting others is another matter, but still not one for the DOJ or for the courts.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

crazydude6030

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
512
Location
Fairfax, va
Would you mind posting what your rep said, and of when permission, would you let me send it to my rep/newspaper, just to see the reaction?

Sent from my Motorola Galaxy s3 using Tapatalk 2

They always take a few weeks to respond to me. Heck I am still getting responses from the 2nd round of emails on control and I have sent at least 5-6 out so far

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,453
Location
White Oak Plantation
I don't want the Justice Department overseeing military operations. There is a military justice system to prosecute members who use military force illegally. For the higher level folks (the president and the secretaries), the Congress and the People are supposed to provide that check. If the president abuses his military authority illegally against non-combatant civilians, it is up to Congress to try and punish him. If they won't do that, it is up to the electorate to do something about them and the president. If that effort fails...well, the words, "When in the course of Human Events...," come to mind. (I still hope it does not come to that.)

However, complaining about the president exercising his proper authority to target enemy combatants, wherever they are, including on US soil, or saying that the Justice Department should pass on all such targeting is ridiculous and flies in the face of the Constitution.

If and when the president, his secretaries, or his officers illegally use that military force against civilians in the US who are not part of the defined enemy that the military is fighting, then the systems in place for punishing those actions, none of which involve civilian courts or the DOJ, should be used.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
The military is being used to further DOJ ends at the direction of the CinC. This is fact.

The DOJ is directing (indirectly) military operations and military personnel. The DOJ and the DOD are joined at the hip in the targeting of American citizens.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/us-military-expands-drug-war-latin-america-18390970

The last NDAA seemed to clearly define "enemy combatant" but I remain unconvinced that a unambiguous definition is defined in the law. I fear that our right to due process is based more on geography rather than on constitutional principles. There is no constitutional justification, in my view, to "target" any American citizen and use the armed forces to engage that American citizen.
 
Top