• 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

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
personally, I just think we should target rapists with predator drones, it will be much easier and cheaper then a trial. have the federal government hear the vitcims side of the story in private, judge if she's accurate, then light his ass up with a hellfire missile. according to you law enforcement and military actions are both justified in dealing with a domestic criminal problem. sounds great to me, what do you think?

or drunk drivers, that kills more people then the A-rabs ever have, lets just have predator drones waste swerving cars from 10,000 feet with a missile strike. think of all the lives that will be saved.

Again, you are mixing military action and law enforcement action. There is no justification for using military action against rapists like there is on a group with whom we are at war.

Really, folks, get a handle on the difference between law enforcement and national defense. They are handled quite differently by different groups and afford their targets with different sets of protections of rights. Heck, the rights structures are wildly different. The reasons you can bring the force of government in the two cases are also immensely different. In one case you have to have PC of a crime to start the process, and then ultimately you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In the other, Congress has to decide that we are at war.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
There is nothing in the constitution that says it is ok to deprive live and liberty without due process if the military is the one doing it. Only morons would buy that. Unfortunately there are a lot of morons in this country.
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
Again, you are mixing military action and law enforcement action. There is no justification for using military action against rapists like there is on a group with whom we are at war.

Really, folks, get a handle on the difference between law enforcement and national defense. They are handled quite differently by different groups and afford their targets with different sets of protections of rights. Heck, the rights structures are wildly different. The reasons you can bring the force of government in the two cases are also immensely different. In one case you have to have PC of a crime to start the process, and then ultimately you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In the other, Congress has to decide that we are at war.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

so lets get congress to declare war on drunk driving, no we can drone strike 'em problem solved.
 

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,621
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
My biggest problem with this whole thing is this...WAR is an action between nations and nations only! This so called war on terror is a farce and must be ended soonest. It is NOT a war! It is a police action using military might within the borders of a sovereign nation who has been INVADED BY THE US GOVERNMENT. The proper way that our government should have pursued this is to notify the country that was harboring/aidind/protecting persons or groups and allowing them to harm legitimate US interests would be given an ultimatum--- Basically, take significant actions to inhibit the actions of those effecting the attacks upon US interests or We, the US will declare War upon that nation and then WAGE THAT WAR VERY AGGRESSIVELY! Win the war and LEAVE!

Rant off!
 
Last edited:

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
so lets get congress to declare war on drunk driving, no we can drone strike 'em problem solved.

LOL I don't often agree with you, but I clearly do on this. The constitution says nothing about law enforcement, or military it relates to government. Last I checked the military is part of the government.
 

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,621
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
LOL I don't often agree with you, but I clearly do on this. The constitution says nothing about law enforcement, or military it relates to government. Last I checked the military is part of the government.

The US Constitution says nothing about general LAW ENFORCEMENT because this was a function reserved TO THE STATES themselves or to the people! The Federal Government was empowered to make sure the states played fair with each other and to collect and impose certain tariffs and import duties. A Navy was authorized to protect US interests on the seas but standing armies were not authorized for the federal government except in times of WAR.
 
Last edited:

77zach

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,913
Location
Marion County, FL
There is nothing in the constitution that says it is ok to deprive live and liberty without due process if the military is the one doing it. Only morons would buy that. Unfortunately there are a lot of morons in this country.

You gotta problem with our military boy?!? Love it or leave it!!!

Alright I'm done trolling.

It makes me sad that collapse is the only way to reel in the federal Leviathan. One reason is that neocons can't/won't recognize the link between standing armies (in the U.S case, the largest one in the history of the world) and domestic tyranny. They believe building drones and missiles for Lockheed Martin is production valued by the market and not filthy lucre for the corporate state. Oh well, just pull that Republican lever and shut up!!!
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
No, the U.S. did not declare war on "Barbary Pirates." Congress passed "naval legislation" that permitted the president, Thomas Jefferson, to engage in military operations against the Pasha (or Bashaw) of Tripoli who had declared war against the United States.

In other words, we used a law to respond militarily to a declaration of war made against the U.S. by a "foreign power", Tripoli in this particular instance.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
The Underlying Problem

The key thing behind this is no local, county, state, or federal official would dare violate their oath of office, for doing so would land them in a heap of trouble, if not jail or prison.

HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE, PEOPLE.

The reason they're pushing the envelope is because YOU, THE PEOPLE, are no longer holding them accountable. You're not standing up for your own rights. They're getting trampled, you're all up in arms, but how many times have you written your legislators at the various levels? You always have this right. Please exercise it. Have you visited your state and federal legislators recently? I have. Two of the three elected to see me. I'll re-elect them. The one that refused, he's out, and I've joined a huge campaign to oust him.

The key word here is ACTIVATE. If you're not active, you're a pawn, a flunky. You're owned, like any other slave.

ACTIVATE. Write that damned letter. Call your state and federal legislators. KEEP THEM ON THE PHONE until you've made your points heard. If they brush you off, call 'em back. If you can no longer reach them, post their names EVERYWHERE and rightfully say, "He/She would not take my calls." If they vote differently to your input, write them a letter, but by ALL MEANS, PLEASE get it out here on the Internet. Show that you suggested x, y, and z, and your rep instead voted for c, d, and f, as in WTF?

Call them on it. Use facts, figures, statistics. Show them how mere rhetoric and public opinion should NEVER form the basis of public policy, that they should have either seen through the crap or they should have had the integrity to never have accepted the office in the first place.

Badda-boom, badda-bing.

This is where we are at, people. We have humans ruling us who know little of statistics, economics, political science, and the underlying disciplines, yet WE THE PEOPLE need to get a WHOLE LOT SMARTER. We're doing this to ourselves When we elect stupes to office, do you expect excellence? No. You elected a stupe, and a stupe is what you've got.
 

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
I trust the government to do what is right. People want power and expensive contracts to keep me safe. We all have to sacrifice some privacy and liberty to be safe from the turists. If it saves one life or catches Goldstein, they can use drones in my city all day long. I just wish a Republican administration were spying on me. I don't think the current one is tough enough on turr.

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
Silly distraction. Not worth answering.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

No this is exactly what you're proposing, that using military force is acceptable for law enforcement action. A domestic terrorist on US soil who's a US citizens must be subject to police action. Unless its a whole platoon of militarily equipped AQ fighters moving in military formation, I see no reason why the trained law enforcement arms of our government can handle it.

The only military force that should be acceptable on US soil should be national guard troops called by their state governors and under control of state officers. Federal forces should only be used on us soil in actual cases of invasion
 

77zach

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,913
Location
Marion County, FL
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin

I was just trollin'. It's what neocons say when their puppet is in power.
 
Last edited:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
No this is exactly what you're proposing, that using military force is acceptable for law enforcement action...

I said no such thing. Do NOT put words in my mouth!

The military should only be used for military purposes--which CAN include strikes against enemy leadership within our borders--if that is where they are. That law enforcement is also an option does not mean that a military response is necessarily a law enforcement action.

STOP putting words in my mouth. That particular kind of dishonesty is probably the most despicable.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
I said no such thing. Do NOT put words in my mouth!

The military should only be used for military purposes--which CAN include strikes against enemy leadership within our borders--if that is where they are. That law enforcement is also an option does not mean that a military response is necessarily a law enforcement action.

STOP putting words in my mouth. That particular kind of dishonesty is probably the most despicable.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

no, the fact that you're being so confusing that no one can make sense of what you're saying is despicable.

why don't you explain, who gets to decide someone is an "AQ leader" does Q publish a leadership list? chain of command? grant Officer's Commissions?

why don't you explain, clearly, where the line is between a military action, and a domestic policing action? both should not be an option for the same circumstance, either LE is warranted, or the military is warranted, when is each warranted?

And I get accused of being a "statist"
 
Last edited:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Are you being tedious deliberately?

I'll say one more thing and then I am done.

Intel.

Moving on. Usually you provide good discussion, even when we disagree. Today, you ain't worth my time.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

palerider116

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2010
Messages
572
Location
Unknown
There is a difference between law enforcement and military action.

That being said, this enemy combatant gibberish is vague and undefined. The war on terror is a war on an opposing ideology. Any opposing ideology can be substituted for purposes of making war. Today it's religion based acts of violence. Tomorrow it could be something else that meets the "terror" billing.

American citizens should not be executed by drones if possible. If its an active firefight, then that is the price of doing business. To make it standing practice to drone someone as long as they meet some arbitrary standard set by a government that advocates due process for terrorists such as the blind sheik, is a dangerous proposition. The hypocrisy is outstanding.

There is no doubt that they should be tried and executed if guilty of waging war against the US. Rule of law and Constitutional rights must be upheld. The evidence must support the government's assertion this citizen waged war against the US. He must have legal counsel for his defense. He must be found guilty by a jury of his peers and executed in a manner that is neither cruel or unusual.

There is a reason why we have a judicial system and the executive branch cannot execute people it deems dangerous to the country.

The fourth, sixth, eighth, and fourteenth amendments prohibit this type of action.
 
Last edited:

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,621
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
Not true. Did you know that the US declared war on the Barbary Pirates?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Yes, I did! It was Jefferson who asked Congress for this to protect US interests along a portion of the NORTH AFRICAN Coast know as the Barbary Coast at that time! Anything else?
 

Saxxon

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2012
Messages
222
Location
Northglenn, Colorado
The thing is, I don't have a problem with this when going after a citizen who is hiding outside the US, making war on us and attacking our citizens/troops. At that point they have de facto renounced their citizenship and beome an enemy combatant. There is no bona-fide rebellion of secession currently in progress for them to belong to (much as the totality of Obama's policies seem to eb geared toward starting one).

Now if they turn these drones onto targets on US soil, where they obiously have access with police and courts - that is the same as using troops against our own citizens. That will be the sign of a rogue, tyrannical regime and would justify a bona-fide rebellion.

Obama's walking a very sharp razor there.
 
Top