EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department Memo Reveals Legal Case For Drone Strikes On Americans - MSNBC

[WillyT]

EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americans
By Michael Isikoff, National Investigative Correspondent, NBC News
2/4/13


Tribesmen examine the rubble of a building in southeastern Yemen where American teenager Abdulrahmen al-Awlaki and six suspected al-Qaida militants were killed in a U.S. drone strike on Oct. 14, 2011. Al-Awlaki, 16, was the son of Anwar al-Awlaki, who died in a similar strike two weeks earlier. (Khaled Abdullah / Reuters file)

<snip>

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.

The 16-page memo, a copy of which was obtained by NBC News, provides new details about the legal reasoning behind one of the Obama administration’s most secretive and controversial polices: its dramatically increased use of drone strikes against al-Qaida suspects, including those aimed at American citizens, such as the September 2011 strike in Yemen that killed alleged al-Qaida operatives Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan. Both were U.S. citizens who had never been indicted by the U.S. government nor charged with any crimes.

The secrecy surrounding such strikes is fast emerging as a central issue in this week’s hearing of White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, a key architect of the drone campaign, to be CIA director. 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.”

But the confidential Justice Department “white paper” introduces a more expansive definition of self-defense or imminent attack than described by Brennan or Holder in their public speeches. It refers, for example, to what it calls a “broader concept of imminence” than actual intelligence about any ongoing plot against the U.S. homeland.

“The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States 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,” the memo states.

<snip>

More: http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/04/16843014-exclusive-justice-department-memo-reveals-legal-case-for-drone-strikes-on-americans?lite

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

:

[MotherPetrie]

1. Obama White House learned well from its criminal predecessor.

[cantbeserious]

2. Focusing On The NRA - More Guns Won't Protect Americans From A Drone Strike

eom

[dgibby]

3. What could possibly go wrong with this?

I'm guessing there's no room in the bunkers tonight.

[Coyotl]

4. I guess the USA is not a Christian Nation after all.

While I prefer a secular state if a state it must be, the "Thou shalt not kill" meme sounds real good.

[Freddie Stubbs]

68. Actually, it's "Thou shall not murder."

There is a big difference between the two.

[Coyotl]

5. In other words, if you are on our enemy list, we can kill you, we decided.

And we wonder why they want to be our enemies? Go figure.

[HiPointDem]

13. +1

[datasuspect]

25. state sanctioned homicide

Uhhhhhhmerica is still a banana republic

thanks dubya!

[WillyT]

6. And...

Although not an official legal memo, the white paper was represented by administration officials as a policy document that closely mirrors the arguments of classified memos on targeted killings by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, which provides authoritative legal advice to the president and all executive branch agencies. The administration has refused to turn over to Congress or release those memos publicly -- or even publicly confirm their existence. A source with access to the white paper, which is not classified, provided a copy to NBC News.

“This is a chilling document,” said Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the ACLU, which has sued unsuccessfully in court to obtain administration memos about the targeted killing of Americans.

“Basically, it argues that the government has the right to carry out the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen. … It recognizes some limits on the authority it sets out, but the limits are elastic and vaguely defined, and it’s easy to see how they could be manipulated.”

In particular, Jaffer said, the memo “redefines the word imminence in a way that deprives the word of its ordinary meaning.”

A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment on the white paper. The spokeswoman, Tracy Schmaler, instead pointed to public speeches by what she called a “parade” of administration officials, including Brennan, Holder, former State Department Legal Adviser Harold Koh and former Defense Department General Counsel Jeh Johnson that she said outlined the “legal framework” for such operations.

From OP/OL

[msanthrope]

35. When you read the memo, what did you disagree with? nt

[WillyT]

7. Kick !!!

[Fire Walk With Me]

8. Those tribesmen should not inspect the attack site. Drone operators are wont to perform "double taps

meaning shooting up anyone who comes to investigate/help the wounded.

Thank you for posting this story.

[WillyT]

9. They Cannot Help Themselves... They Are, After All, Human Beings...

And went there to help.



And you are quite welcome.

[Le Taz Hot]

10. So . . .

where are the Party Faithful justifying all this because, well, he's a DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT, so of course, it's OK. But if this was a "repuke" it would be different because, well, it just IS!

[WillyT]

11. Oh... If It Was A Republican President... We'd Be Screaming From The Rooftops...

[HiPointDem]

14. +1

[City Lights]

29. Indeed.

Sad, but true.

[msanthrope]

31. Actually, if Mr. Bush had used drones at Tora Bora, I'd have been just fine with that. Osama should

have been hunted down and killed in 2001.

I also had no problem with Mr. Bush's use of drones.

Didn't support the Iraq war, FYI.

[woo me with science]

45. This is something that the right and left should be capable of uniting against.

no matter which side does it.

Unfortunately, the propaganda for the one percent has so entrenched us in our little red and blue camps of hatred that we circle the wagons even around the indefensible.

And that is exactly how the one percent keep us divided and keep getting their way.

[KoKo]

86. +1 You can see that around here these days for sure...

[markpkessinger]

92. EXACTLY!

The people who defend the administration on this point seem to fail to realize that even if -- and that's a very BIG if -- one believes that the current president will only use this power with the utmost care and discernment, what happens the next time some batshit crazy Republican gets elected? The problem is that executive branch power, once claimed, almost never recedes. And when a President -- ANY President of ANY party -- declares a right to kill an American citizen absent due process in which the person deemed expendable can see and challenge evidence against him in a court of law, that President has crossed a bright line where citizens' constitutional rights are concerned. For, if the right to a trial by a jury of one's peers can be simply set aside on Presidential say-so, ALL of our constitutional rights are in serious danger -- if not directly from this President, then from another President down the line!

[Bonobo]

12. And where is the burden of proof?

Someone, in secret, says they are "leaders of an associated group" and poof. Dead. No evidence needed, no questions asked or answered. They just disappear.

If there IS any problem, just say they were collateral damage like the teenage American boy they killed, the SON of Awlaki -what a coincedence.

[Coyotl]

30. And where is the burden of proof of association?

There need not even be a misdemeanor involved, just "association" with those considered political enemies by an American politician.

[amandabeech]

64. And where is the forum for presenting a defense?

This is heinous.

This is "Hope and Change" and "Forward?"

Well, I guess it is change, but it is not change for the better.

[msanthrope]

77. Mr. Awlaki posted hundreds of videos to Youtube proclaiming his Al Qaeda membership. Rep. Weiner

finally convinced Youtube to take them down, but are you seriously suggesting that Anwar Awlaki was not a member of AlQaeda?

[woo me with science]

98. See, that's the nice thing about courts.

It's a place to take all that evidence. Kinda bolsters faith in the process when we are talking about KILLING AMERICANS, ya know?

[markpkessinger]

107. I don't think anybody is argument that Awlaki is a stand-up guy . . .

. . . but that's beside the point in any case. The Constitution regards treason as the highest crime a citizen can commit against the United States, but even then it requires a trial and conviction. If the rights of accused persons, as set forth in Article III of the Constitution, as well as the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, of a trial by jury, of the right to challenge evidence in open court, and of due process of law (prior to being of life, liberty or property), merely because a person is, or a President believes the person to be, an exceptionally bad guy, then what is to prevent some future President from deciding that, say, certain political views pose such a danger that no due process is required?

[msanthrope]

110. Oh no--we've got one prolific poster who thinks he was a "peaceful cleric." FYI--the Constitutional

protections you list do not apply to a non-custodial enemy combatant. They never have. Being an American citizen is not a protective shield.

[TheKentuckian]

121. Doesn't matter because the government is always bound by the constitution

It has no operative authority without it.

[msanthrope]

123. Right--and the AUMF of 9/18/2001 is constitutional. nt

[PennsylvaniaMatt]

147. Bingo! The information about the language of the AUMF is the point that is largely being left out..

People are leaving out the fact that the following words were in a Joint Resolution that passed almost unanimously in the House and the Senate in 2001 and subsequently became U.S. law:

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

What I have seen on the topic so far, is the misleading notion that the authority the President (no matter who it is) has in killing suspected terrorists, including American citizens, is derived from extra-judicial authority. The authority that the President has in this matter is not something that Barack Obama or, for that matter, George W. Bush, simply gave themselves.

I believe that such information should be disclosed in an open and honest way, but based on what I have seen on NBC and MSNBC about this matter, Michael Isakoff is misleading and scaring many people, and making it seem as though Barack Obama can simply kill whoever he wants.

As if there wasn't enough fear and misinformation regarding this President.

[msanthrope]

198. Well, some people forget his role in the Clinton farce impeachment...Lucianne Goldberg called him

"Spikey."

[Bonobo]

126. I am seriously suggesting this policy has no place for the concept of fairness, proof

openness, responsibility, recourse, etc.

Are you seriously pretending it is NOT out of touch with the last 1,000 years concept of justice?

[morningfog]

15. So much about this pisses me off. First, the Obama Administration has refused to produce this

for journalists, the ACLU and others. Even after suits were filed. But, one asshole getting a new job and here we have it.

The logic is entirely circular and relies, for practicable purposes, on emergency legislation from nearly 12 years ago! This is seriously messed up shit. If a repuke president proffered this tripe, it would be ripped apart like red meat to hungry wolves in minutes.

[msanthrope]

33. What, specifically about the memo do you disagree with?

The AUMF of 12 years ago remains in effect. I was surprised Kucinich never offered a resolution to revoke it.

[woo me with science]

47. It would be defended by the rabid partisans on their team,

just as Obama, doing the exact same thing, will be defended by the rabid partisans on ours.

We are divided into our red and blue teams and taught to circle the wagons no matter what our side does. And the kicker is that they own both parties, so the direction of policy does not really change from administration to administration anymore, except on wedge issues that the one percent could not care less about.

It is a huge joke on all of us...Republicans and Democrats. And the longer we eat up the propaganda and refuse to stand up against what is morally and Constitutionally wrong because our side is doing it and, *gasp,* we might have to attack a Democrat or ally on something with a Republican, the longer they will continue to rule us, simply pass the authority from one party to another, and continue their business of turning this country into a corporate, authoritarian, perpetually warmongering state.

This is an outrage that the right and the left *should* be able to come together to oppose. It is that egregiously and obviously wrong. But we are deliberately and relentlessly propagandized into a sick partisan defensiveness that will prevent that sort of unified opposition from happening, no matter which side is committing the next outrage.

That is how they keep us divided, so that we *never* have the whole country to stand up against the indefensible.

[morningfog]

16. The White Paper cites Brennen! Holy hell, it just gets worse.

[TheKentuckian]

17. Sadly, this is about the justification anticipated, "cause we said so".

[LittleBlue]

18. This is absolutely insane. Obama is totally AWOL on his constitutional duties

Secret laws that no one can scrutinize? Are we China now?

[Marr]

49. But he'z a constitooshunal lawyeeer!!!

God. The last decade has been one long demonstration of how irrelevant the law and public opinion actually is. We have a tiny ruling class in this country, and they do whatever they want to do.

[ljm2002]

19. We live in a brave new world...

...shudder.

The sooner we figure out that this nation is NOT ruled by the Constitution the sooner we can figure out what to do about it.

Think about it: The Constitution says we should not have a standing Army. The reality is that we have the largest most powerful military -- including an army -- that the world has ever seen. And it is a permanent institution.

The Constitution says that Congress must declare war. The reality is that if the Executive branch pushes hard enough for war, then Congress will abdicate its duty with some wishy-washy "authorization" and voila! there's a war or two going on without any formal declaration. And at the moment we've seen these two wars last longer than any other wars in our history.

The Constitution says that We The People have rights, such as the right against unreasonable search and seizure, and the right to due process, and the right of habeas corpus. The reality is that the government can, will and does scan our emails at will, they can and do raid houses at will, they seize property at will and use it to further fund our out-of-control police.

The Constitution says there shall be no cruel and unusual punishment. The reality is that our jails are so inhumane that it is an accepted fact that prisoners will be raped, that they will suffer in 100-degree-plus heat with no air conditioning, that they will be fed food not really fit for human consumption, et fucking cetera. The reality is that we jail more of our population than any other nation on earth -- as a percentage of our population, and in absolute numbers, beating China handily even though China has 4 times as many people and is supposedly an oppressive government.

The Constitution says that we have equal protection under the law. The reality is that there's one set of rules for the 99% and no rules at all for the 1%. The fat cats have taken over the government and the regulatory agencies, and the lobbyists write the laws, to their own benefit with little to no consideration for how it affects the bulk of the population. And organizations like ALEC coordinate it all, for the benefit of the corporations, From Whom All Good Things Flow.

This is happening here and it is happening around the world. Governments are irrelevant except insofar as they serve the agenda of the corporations. The real power resides with the monied elites. Certainly the monied elites have always maintained a disproportionate share of the power -- it's the way of the world. But what we are seeing is a global takeover on a massive scale. They aren't even hiding it anymore. It's the new feudalism. If you (like me) have often wondered why we have fewer protests today, or why the ones we have are quashed so readily before any real movement can form, look no further than the debt servitude most of us are in. People need money to eat and have a roof over their heads. They are scared to rock the boat when it's already taking on water and listing. Even students have piles of debt, and it's debt that cannot be discharged via bankruptcy.

The schools have become enterprises that are run "by the numbers". Creativity is not cherished, it is squashed. They don't want to our public schools to train the next generation of thinkers and innovators (at least not among the masses); that is best left to the fancy, expensive private schools for the children of the elites. All you have to do is become a billionaire and you, too, can be an elite. Other than that, you can suck on it. The best you can hope for is training to become employable.

People need to learn who the real enemy is. Hint: it's not your working-class neighbor (whether you are a conservative and your neighbor is a liberal, or vice versa). It's the greedy bastards who don't give a rat's ass while they plunder the environment and get rich off the labor of their overworked and underpaid employees; it's the foolish rich who hide behind $500 shades while they ride in limousines with tinted windows and board private jets, never having to sully their day by rubbing elbows with the great unwashed, never having to submit to the cattle chutes of the security line in the airports. It's the manipulative power-mongers who get off on the high of power, never pausing to consider the inevitable consequences of their choices, such as the choice to keep us in a permanent state of war so that the few can benefit while the children of the many are left behind, or used as cannon fodder.

Yes it's that bad.

/end rant

[johnnyreb]

20. +99

Arise music video

[datasuspect]

26. +1 gazillion

[Catherina]

27. Great post n/t

[woo me with science]

46. ...

[hopemountain]

112. truth empowered post

thank you. - for calling it as it is. we have so much work to do to make things just. it will not likely happen in my life time - but maybe in my grandkids lifetime when folks choose truth & justice over fantasy.

[WillyT]

117. Hear... Hear...

[justabob]

128. great post... yes, it IS that bad nt

[sekha68]

190. +Infinity

[davidpdx]

21. I came across this article recently when I was doing research for a paper

I wasn't able to use it directly, but set it aside to read anyway. It deals with the inherent powers of the president (see link at the bottom for full .pdf which is free). Granted the article is almost 5 years old, so I'm sure there has been significant legal cases since this was published.


The Law: Presidential Inherent Power:The “Sole Organ” Doctrine

LOUIS FISHER
Library of Congress

Abstract:
The executive branch relies in part on the “sole organ” doctrine to define presidential power
broadly in foreign relations and national security, including assertions of an inherent executive
power that is not subject to legislative or judicial constraints. The doctrine draws from a
statement by John Marshall as a member of the House of Representatives in 1800: “The
President is the sole organ of the nation in its external relations, and its sole representative with
foreign nations.” In dicta, the Supreme Court, in United States v. Curtiss-Wright (1936),
cited Marshall’s speech to support an independent, extra-constitutional, or exclusive power of the
president. When read in context, however, Marshall made no such claim.

http://loc.gov/law/help/usconlaw/pdf/SoleOrgan-March07.pdf

[ellisonz]

81. Downloaded for later reading.

Thanks!

[bubbayugga]

22. we can't waterboard but assassination is AOK I guess.

got it.

[KharmaTrain]

23. Welcome To The "Brave New World"...War "Jetsons" Style...

The quandry here is once again man has created a new weapon that gives one side a distinct advantage over an adversary. The technology is trumpeted as being a big "game changer" on the "War on Terra" (WTF that ever was) and the continued use means we don't put troops in harm's way and wars can be waged for far cheaper as well. This is the first big leap into the future "push button" wars where a power thousands of miles away can launch full scale attacks with a mechanized army.

The problem is that with any new technology, it never stays new nor secret for long. I'm certain other nations, including our "adversaries" (as defined as needed when needed) are watching and looking at closely mirror what the U.S. is currently doing and open the door to "low risk" warfare...very tempting to any military-oriented government/society (which includes ours).

Yes...we need questions answered about how and where drones are used...especially domestically. Unfortunately drones are and will be a new tool for war and "law enforcement"...the problem we will face is controlling those who attack first and attempt to justify later.

[marmar]

24. There's clearly more to this than the fear of "terra" or an external invasion........

...... What are they expecting? What are they prepping for?

[NOVA_Dem]

28. If GWB did this DU would be on fire right now. Where's the outrage???

Where is the usual cadre of apologists for this "Democratic" president?

[msanthrope]

34. Sorry, but if Bush had had the foresight to drone Osama in 2001, I'd have been just fine with that.

Frankly, if Bush had done his job instead of invading Iraq, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[bighart]

36. Not really relevant since Osama wasn't killed by a drone, we did that in person.

Would you be ok with bush killing American citizens with drones?
That is a more relevant point.

[msanthrope]

37. I am not sure why you think American citizens deserve more consideration than other humans---

I am okay with the President using his war powers as delineated in the AUMF of September 18, 2001.

Having read the 'white paper' I think a cogent case was made for the targeted strike of Anwar Awlaki and others, American citizens or not.

[bighart]

39. Thank you for your response.

I personally find the use of drones for weapons delivery in nations we are not involved in active military intervention deplorable and believe that the UN will at some point intervene and put a stop to it. I do understand that others have a different view and am willing to listen to that viewpoint.

[msanthrope]

40. Yemen okayed the strikes. The UN will not put a stop to it because the idea of conflict being

restricted to nation-states alone is antiquated.

[bighart]

87. You may have a point in this case but the UN is certainly NOT okay with our current drone policy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/24/un-drone-investigation_n_2542809.html


WASHINGTON -- The United Nations opened a major new investigation on Thursday into the United States' use of drones and targeted assassinations.

The U.N. investigation, led by special rapporteur on counterterrorism and human rights Ben Emmerson, is expected to focus on the legal justification for America's expansive drone program, which has largely remained secretive and unexamined.

"The exponential rise in the use of drone technology in a variety of military and non-military contexts represents a real challenge to the framework of established international law," Emmerson said in a statement released by his office.

and furthermore:

“Virtually no other country agrees with the U.S.’s claimed authority to secretly declare people enemies of the state and kill them and civilian bystanders far from any recognized battlefield," said Hina Shamsi, the director of the ACLU’s National Security Project, in a statement. "To date, there has been an abysmal lack of transparency and no accountability for the U.S. government’s ever-expanding targeted killing program.”

[msanthrope]

88. The UN is just fine with it--see Libya, Mali, etc. The UN 'investigated' the Bradley Manning

situation, too.

[WinkyDink]

97. Because waging war on one's OWN citizens is a war crime that we are allegedly against?

Just guessing here.

[NOVA_Dem]

50. So the only problem with GWB was the execution of his terror policies?

Did you approve of the torture program too?

[msanthrope]

62. There were many problems with Bush. His drone policies wasn't one of them.

His torture policies were.

[NOVA_Dem]

70. It's not ok to torture but it is ok to kill without a trial? Got it. n/t.

[msanthrope]

74. It is constitutional to kill without trial in narrowly defined circumstances. What part of the

memo, specifically, did you disagree with on that point?

Have you read the memo?

[NOVA_Dem]

79. How do you know its constitutional? There's no judicial review?

What are the circumstances?

[msanthrope]

82. No judicial review of the AUMF of 9/18/2001? Or the memo? What part of the memo

is unconstitutional?

[WinkyDink]

100. No, it is not. The Constitution defines that pretty clearly:

The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution affords criminal defendants seven discrete personal liberties: (1) the right to a Speedy Trial; (2) the right to a public trial; (3) the right to an impartial jury; (4) the right to be informed of pending charges; (5) the right to confront and to cross-examine adverse witnesses; (6) the right to compel favorable witnesses to testify at trial through the subpoena power of the judiciary; and (7) the right to legal counsel. Ratified in 1791, the Sixth Amendment originally applied only to criminal actions brought by the federal government.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Sixth+Amendment

An ethically bankrupt AG, whether Holder or Gonzalez, is yet an ethically bankrupt AG.

[msanthrope]

106. Ahem...the 6th Amendment doesn't apply to a non-custodial combatant. It never has. nt

[WinkyDink]

156. Guess what? "Combatant" applies to actual wars, not crimes such as bombings fo buildings.

Drone-killing of U.S CITIZENS WITHOUT TRIAL---U.S.CITIZENS---is against the Constitution.

Ypou are being deliberately obutes with the term "non-custodial." THE POINT OF THE AMENDMENT IS TO MAKE SUCH SUSPECTS "CUSTODIAL" IN PREPARATION FOR A TRIAL.

[msanthrope]

197. We declared actual war on 9/18/2001. It was in all the papers. nt

[bobduca]

203. Nothing to see here, the Killings will continue, and you will all be powerless to stop them

[msanthrope]

204. Nonsense. The resolution can be repealed. Just waiting for the Congresscritter who will

do so.

[bighart]

202. Hell it is even illegal to assassinate foreign state leaders even if they pose an imminent threat

but US citizens, sure go right ahead.

[choie]

38. Yup, the silence on DU is deafening...

unbelievable..

[msanthrope]

41. What silence? Since you've read the memo, tell us what you disagree with. nt

[LittleBlue]

51. How can anyone read the memo if it's confidential? nt

[msanthrope]

66. Seriously? The memo was leaked--thus the point of the OP. nt

[LittleBlue]

71. No, it's important that the government state the plan and acknowledge it

Unless they own up to the wording, they can deny it or give vague replies like "that isn't inaccurate". That's why laws in a democracy are public, so the government is accountable.

[msanthrope]

75. In other words, you haven't read the memo you are outraged over? nt

[LittleBlue]

90. I've read what was leaked. Do you not understand how important it is

for laws that sentence US citizens to death to be public?

Why are you even continuing to argue this? You clearly understand what I'm saying, and you clearly understand that we can read an unofficial leak, and how that's different to having laws that are published by the government. What would a person take to court to challenge the validity of this law? A leak sourced by NBC?

[msanthrope]

96. The law is quite public. The War Powers Act, the AUMF of 9/18/2001 are all public. The memo itself

is not a law. It's a policy position on how the Executive Branch executes the laws.

And after reading the memo, what specifically, did you disagree with?

[Comrade Grumpy]

53. The definition of "imminent," for starters. And "assassination."

But pretty much the whole notion that the US government, in its pursuit of an endless "war" against an abstraction ("terror&quot can assassinate anyone anywhere on the planet pretty much on its whim.

[msanthrope]

65. Kindly point to the part in the memo that you disagree with. Be specific. nt

[LittleBlue]

99. "Were the target of a lethal operation a US citizen who may have Due Process rights under the 4th

Amendment, that individual's citizenship would not immunize him from a lethal operation."


These "lethal operations" can be used against US citizens who are "operations leaders of Al Qaeda or an associated force."

Source: the text of the document, pages 1 and 2 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/05/obama-kill-list-doj-memo

Do you comprehend that allowing the executive branch to determine all these things, to order a death sentence, and carry it out means that our court system is not involved in any way? This means that the executive branch can act as judge, jury and executioner with no oversight from any other branch of government.


Get it?

[msanthrope]

116. I'm sorry, but who are you quoting in the first quote? The memo? nt

[LittleBlue]

119. Yes, pages 1 and 2

Go to that link and there's an interactive PDF where you can read the text

[woo me with science]

55. Here's a whole thread for you to visit:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022316078

[msanthrope]

69. Thanks, still waiting for a substantive answer on this thread before I venture out. nt

[G_j]

78. still asking people to waste their time

to explain something you do not wish to understand. I'm sure a lot of of us DID read the memo. I see don't owe you an explanation, or my time.

[msanthrope]

80. I'm asking people to read the memo they are outraged over, and point to where they disagree.

I know it's easier to read articles. I get that.

If you don't wish to engage with me, then don't.

[woo me with science]

94. Indeed.

Sheesh.

[LittleBlue]

42. I'm considering voting for a Republican president

and a Democratic congress. At least then someone will protest when a president shreds the constitution.


The absence of posters in this thread is highly conspicuous. If this were the chimperor this thread would be past 500 posts already.

[NOVA_Dem]

52. Obama is only good for Supreme Court Nominations...

I'm sure a lot of people feel duped by this President. He was very clear about Afghanistan before 2008 but everything else has been a let down.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

32. Criminal, IMO.

No different than the shit Bush pulled.

[EastKYLiberal]

43. American citizens on paper only. Good thing those of us that aren't terrorists will be fine. nt

[amandabeech]

72. I think that you forgot this:

[woo me with science]

44. K&R

Enough yet?

Yet?

[green for victory]

48. very soon

there will be constant surveillance everywhere. Will the drones be armed?

Gun owners have been called "terrorists" right here on this board. Division won, and the people lost. Everything.


A mechanic examines the targeting pod of a Reaper drone.
The jet-fighter sized Reapers are 36 feet long with 66-foot
wingspans and can fly for up to 14 hours fully loaded with
laser-guided bombs and air-to-ground missiles

[Comrade Grumpy]

54. Crap like this makes me want to find an actual progressive political party.

[woo me with science]

57. It's certainly time to wake up and realize

that the two corporate parties are working toward the same goals....because they are both purchased by the same one percent.

That *should* make uniting to oppose this shit a little easier....realizing that the real battle is between us and the oligarchs, not this little red/blue game they keep using to distract us.

When will we have had enough, that we stop circling the wagons?

When will we have had enough, that we stand up together, as Americans, regardless of party, to oppose this shit?

When?

[librabear]

114. Where's the "like" button on DU?

[mwrguy]

56. Obama is not going after innocent people, he is going after terrorists

He deserves the benefit of the doubt here.

[NOVA_Dem]

58. Did GWB deserve the benefit of the doubt?

I can't believe I'm reading this shit on DU.

[mwrguy]

60. Bush and Obama are the same thing now?

I can't believe I'm reading that.

[amandabeech]

76. It is almost a certainty that a Republican will be elected president at some time in the near future

He or she will be able to use the same precedents to go after whomever he or she wants.

Even Axelrod, Plouffe and Messina can't guarantee constant Dem winners nor can they guarantee that any Dem winner would back off this interpretation of Constitution and laws.

Do you want a Bush III type exercising the power that the White Paper outlines?

Because that's what you will eventually get here in the U.S.

What's sauce for the goose is inevitably sauce for the gander in U.S. politics.

[Waitwhat]

109. That ship has sailed.

Are you saying this is OK as long as the person deciding who lives or dies has a "D" after their name??? This is the doing of Obama. We have to quit looking back and blaming the prior President. Obama is NOW the prior President!!! I didn't vote for this sort if thing! This isn't the Hope and Change I voted for. Did you? I am starting to get sick of the excuses. This man hasn't even passed a budget since he has been in office! Not one! But they can take time to write policy like this? Sorry. It is third party for me now. This is appalling!

[amandabeech]

140. Thank you very much Mr. Troll.

Enjoy your pizza. It should come soon.

[NOVA_Dem]

83. You're right, this is WORSE THAN BUSH.

[WinkyDink]

102. They are if they behave similarly. Got that? NO DEMOCRAT SHOULD SANCTION THIS

TOTALITARIANISM.

[Waitwhat]

111. No AMERICAN should sanction this!

This is not what I voted for.

[WinkyDink]

161. A-MEN.

[woo me with science]

205. This should be something ALL Americans can oppose.

That would be the one percent's worst nightmare: a country united against this shit.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

177. Yes, they're the same thing: The President of the United States of America

You should know this already.

[mwrguy]

185. Obama is a moral, caring man. Bush was an amoral murderer. n/t

[WillyT]

189. Ironic...

What happens if the Republicans retake the White House ???

And at this point... what difference would it make ?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

192. Figure out how to codify that, and you're almost there.

Of course, you'll eventually find that you cannot codify that, which is where you run into insurmountable problems, e.g., the possibility that someone as bad as Bush will occupy the Oval Office in the future. And when that happens, you've given him full permission to kill whomever he feels like killing. That's the insurmountable part, by the way.

[cthulu2016]

59. Name anyone who has ever gone after innocent people (in his eyes)

[mwrguy]

61. GW Bush, for one

Kissinger, Nixon, Reagan

[G_j]

73. and as we no longer need courts to decide these things

and one person can play God. What difference does innocence make?

[WinkyDink]

103. "in his eyes"???? THAT'S ALL IT TAKES NOW? "IN HIS EYES"??! RIP, CONSTITUTION.

[LittleBlue]

91. And what do we do when the next Nixon is elected?

I'm genuinely curious to hear your answer.

[WinkyDink]

101. I thought "terrorists" were so ascertained by a trial. At least, they used to be.

[Rex]

63. I hear the drones a hummin, a hummin overhead!

Overlord! Er Airborne!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

67. "broader concept of imminence". Is that like "enhanced interrogation techniques"?

Or, is it more like "collateral damage"?

Or is it merely another pathetic attempt to use doublespeak to cover up murder?

[WinkyDink]

104. Re-defining language is the hallmark of a TOTALITARIAN.

[patrice]

125. No, telling people they can't mean what they mean and how they mean it is totalitarian.nt

[WinkyDink]

154. "Imminent" means "imminent," not "sometime in the future." BTW, are you claiming Humpty-

Dumptyism---"A word means whatever I want it to mean"?

INSISTING THAT PEOPLE CANNOT RE-DEFINE WORDS IS NOT TOTALITARIAN, FGS.

[patrice]

172. So assuming that you know enough to define what is and what is not imminent is not true. nt

[patrice]

173. Words have both connotative and denotative meanings & they are pretty fungible, not

absolutely fungible, but context specific nonetheless. Otherwise we wouldn't not be able to refer to something like a "water table" and be understood.

Imminence would have to do with a level of information, for example, that you do not possess.

[WinkyDink]

200. I taught English; I'm QUITE familiar with "connotations", etc. "Imminence" IN THIS CONTEXT

has no connotation. Do you think our leaders would be speaking poetically of a possible attack?

I am also fully aware that "imminence" might be defined specifically in terms of minutes, hours, days, depending; however; the very fact that someone is trying to ADD to this definition ought to give one some serious pause.

Because WE ARE TALKING OF KILLING INNOCENT-UNTIL-PROVEN-GUILTY U.S. CITIZENS.

[winter is coming]

84. Apparently, we have many John Yoos. n/t

[Fire Walk With Me]

85. KICK

[bighart]

93. Interesting info at the link.

[WinkyDink]

95. Not good. REALLY, REALLY not good. Criminal, IMO (courts can be, as well, we've seen).

[woo me with science]

105. +10000 What will it take for Americans to stop circling the wagons

around the indefensible, based on party alone?

What will it take for all of us to stand up as Americans, regardless of party, and say no to this shit?

What, exactly, will it take?

[theaocp]

113. Sandy Hook via drone?

What's interesting is what reaction will come about when one of the people who care about their relative/friend getting blow'd up by drone attacks somewhere/someone we care about. Who will we blame then? My guess is we won't be looking in the mirror.

[woo me with science]

134. +1 It makes you ill, doesn't it, thinking about where this is leading.

That's a very good question about blame.

We are propagandized to blame the "terrorists" and the other party.

Who knows how long the one percent will be able to pull that off. I make myself sick sometimes thinking about the posts we used to write, in which we talked about where the line in the sand might be, that would get people to stand up and say "no more." So many of the things that we used to say as hyperbole, to talk about how bad things might get.....are now considered normal.

We used to talk in jest about the possibility that our phone calls and emails would be surveilled by the government.

We used to talk in jest about how we would have drones in our skies, or how it would be legal for the government to "disappear" people.

Well, here we are, our Constitution now rendered optional for our rulers, in ever-expanding ways.

And *still* circling the wagons.

Sometimes reading the news is too much to bear.

[patrice]

142. How many dead people are too many to (according to you) "protect the Constitution"? nt

[patrice]

146. Do you support a presumed 2A "right" to go to war with the government for guns? nt

[patrice]

118. It will take recognition that some opposition to your point is NOT about party. It's about

ALTERNATIVES to deal with the likely problems that these policies are supposed to deal with and that some alternatives other than another political party.

It will take some recognition that if people are not expendable in the name of whatever you say they are not expendable for, then they aren't expendable for other principles too. I truly am sorry that all of the laws and processes are so imperfect and DO yield errors, but you and those who agree with you are NOT the SOLE determiners of who dies for what and when.

So, I guess that would begin with some recognition of what those dangerous probabilities, which your cohort appears to deny, are and then some ideas about what else there is that could reduce not only the likelihood that these things will happen, but also perhaps even reduce the dangerousness of those possible future events.

Or should all of us just wait until whatever happens, because everything is just fine when we get another political party? Do you KNOW if we have that kind of time?

It will take some kind of recognition of something like the U.N., or the World Court, somekind of recognition of that necessity beyond "Big Brother & the New World Order" or other than "The U.N. is corrupted by bankers". More or less true I'm sure, but that is beside the point of HOW do we do something about dangers, whether you and those who agree with you recognize them or not. And if you are willing to choose that risk, what about the rights of others who consciously do not make that choice? Why aren't their rights respected as much as yours?

I recognize all of the risks to my perspective on this. Do you admit the risks to yours? Why are your risks more PC than mine?

[woo me with science]

127. Patrice,

Last edited Tue Feb 5, 2013, 08:19 PM - Edit history (1)

as so often happens, I don't have a clue what to say to you.

I read that four times, I promise, and I still find it incoherent. It appears to have something to do with your perceptions of "my cohort" (?) versus a cohort that you apparently feel you have (?), along with some very vague, accusatory, and rambling accusations about "those who agree with me" and and "Big Brother" and the UN and third parties (?) and "risks to perspective" that I frankly cannot make heads or tails of.

All I can do is let it stand here, and perhaps someone else can make some sense of it.

You have a good day, okay?

[patrice]

136. You, "stop circling the wagons around the indefensible, based on party alone"

#1. PO's position is indefensible is an assumption based upon way less information than we can reasonably assume certain professionals have. BTW, I could accept your evaluation of PO's position on this if I EVER saw anything that demonstrates that you have actually weighed out positives compared to negatives. I have never seen anything like that from you on anything, so the conclusion that you likely are biased should not be surprising.

#2. "party alone" you assume that no one could disagree with your position, and that of those you agree with, on any basis other than party. You assume that there are no authentic rational reasons to consider somekind of necessity for drone policies, therefore anyone trying to evaluate rationally is actually just a political dupe.

[patrice]

139. Is this clear enough: What are the risks associated with your preferred course of action? nt

[woo me with science]

151. You mean our President NOT having the power to assassinate Americans without due process?

Like our Constitution has guaranteed for generation after generation....until now?

The "risks" of that? The "risks"?

Oh, Patrice...Patrice...

[patrice]

155. Is today the same as yesterday? Answer my question: WHAT ARE THE RISKS of your preferred course of

action?

[patrice]

157. HOW MANY DEAD PEOPLE ARE TOO MANY?? for your preferred course of action. nt

[patrice]

158. PROPOSE YOUR ALTERNATIVE SOLUTION SCENARIOS. nt

[WinkyDink]

164. They're called "arrests and trials." Ask the Baader-Meinhof Gang. Or McVeigh.

[patrice]

168. I'm for that, but the World Court and/or the U.N. usually aren't very popular with the crowd

that's riding herd on this issue politically. Orwellian, Big Brother, New World Order and all of that you know.

I also understand that the World Court and the U.N. both need reform or to be replaced with something that works better; now do you honestly see the bunch that is bitching about how information is collected and used to identify the risk of terrorism, supporting anything even remotely like that.

[WinkyDink]

162. Sorry, cannot understand.

[rhett o rick]

108. I bet the Republicans are drooling over prospects of getting control of this.

Patriot Act, domestic spying, indefinite detention, and now killer drones. What has happened to us?

[Waitwhat]

115. Looks like the democrats were drooling more.

Bush didn't write this. He is gone and has been for over four years! This was done by Obama and his administration. Not what he promised. Not what he said he would do. AND THIS IS NOT WHAT I VOTED FOR!

[patrice]

120. You all are constantly saying this shouldn't be about party, then you MAKE it about party. nt

[justabob]

135. It is wrong, period

What is hard to understand about that?

[patrice]

137. And so would be the things that COULD happen if we don't meet our responsibilities to

avoid them.

And if you tell me that it's okay for people to die for YOUR principles, then you are a hypocrite. Those principles are not, CANNOT, be perfectly encoded in the laws themselves, so SOMEONE has to take responsibility for what happens.

[justabob]

141. so we should just kill people because they MIGHT do something, sometime?

fuck that.

Have a nice night.

[patrice]

143. Let's see your solution scenario & please distinguish between might and "might". nt

[justabob]

150. you really don't understand? might = maybe in my post

Killing someone who has had impure thoughts (or even actions) regarding the USA is no guarantee that bad things won't happen to Americans or others. But what the hell, let's just kill or torture some people just in case.... Fred on the seventh floor has a bad feeling about them.

Nothing I say is going to make a difference to you, so good night.

[patrice]

153. I'm referring to the probabilities upon which policy and action are based. Some things are more

likely, some things are less likely.

Your objection was "killing people for what they might do" and I am referring to the fact that "might" does not have the same weight in any and all situations and we make those kinds of judgements as to how likely things are all of the time.

It's is highly likely that certain types of people will do certain types of things and it is less likely that certain types of other people will do other stuff and there is every degree of what is likely, what people might or might not do, in between highly likely and not likely at all. Identifying that kind of stuff is something we are very good at; for example, it's what runs the business of advertising, but it's used in lots of other ways too in design and engineering.

So I'm pointing out to you the differences in what the word "might" means. You referred to it as though it has the same meaning in any and all cases, so the government is planning to kill anyone who might whatever and that's not the case. It's NOT just anyone; it's those who are more likely to do certain things compared to those who are less likely. "Might" doesn't mean the same thing about each and every person. It's stronger in some cases and weaker in others.

You do know how statistical probabilities are derived from information, right? It's like card counting in poker.

[patrice]

144. Tell me how many people's lives the difference between might and "might" is worth. nt

[WinkyDink]

166. OFGS. Paranoid much?

[patrice]

183. No, just not willing to PRETEND "Imagine all the people ...".

[patrice]

138. What if similar actions could've prevented 9/11 and, therefore, all that happened as a result of it?

[WinkyDink]

169. You DO know that men were ARRESTED in 1993 heading to NYC with bombs? Yeah, ARRESTED, not KILLED.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_landmark_bomb_plot

[patrice]

179. I'm all for arrest, but that was domestic and much of what we are talking about isn't, so the

possibilities of arrest are limited by international and regional factors that could be beyond our control for reasons that are both international and domestic, e.g. the real antagonism toward the World Court.

As far as domestic arrests are concerned, with recent developments about extremist support for 2nd Amendment groups who have been active in promoting armed violence for gun ownership, that is, the expressed intent to kill for guns, it appears that the same people who oppose drone programs are also saying things about watering the tree of "liberty" (ha!) with blood, so what about the rights of the rest of us who would prefer not to have that sort of thing going on around us? And what about the rights of law enforcement and our military who would prefer not to be put in that situation either? Why do we just automatically assume that just anyone who makes this claim about "the tree of liberty" is in the right? , so we should just either sign up or stand back and let that happen.

I don't see a solution here, but pretending that there isn't a problem could make things quite a bit worse.

[patrice]

122. I want to see one godamned viable ALTERNATIVE in this thread, right the frack now! If people

shouldn't die for X, they shouldn't die for Y either, or Z or whatever, WHENEVER.

I understand your point. How about honest consideration of a DIFFERENT perspective. I'd be able to accept all of this bitching if someone would come up with one likely solution. Something besides pretending "Imagine all the people . . . . "

I'm asking for a solving scenario here, please.

Put up or shut up, because the risks of pretending that we don't live in a dangerous world are really just making all of you appear to be hypocrites. I could be wrong.

What don't I get here? Let's see it right now.

[Marr]

149. I expect people didn't answer your question because it's absurd and cowardly.

You're saying exactly the same things Conservatives said about the Patriot Act during Bush's presidency. "The world is dangerous, we have to make this sacrifice in order to be safe". Have you forgotten all the ridiculous "ticking time bomb" scenarios that were offered as arguments for why we should allow the government to torture, to spy on us without impediment, etc.?

Here's the fact. No big strong daddy/President is ever going to make you safe. The best protection-- the only protection, in fact-- that you have is an institutionalized respect for the rule of law. You throw that out, and you've traded everything for a fucking security blanket and a pacifier.

[patrice]

165. So people's LIVES are expendable, just as long as we pretend that laws are perfect. nt

[Marr]

167. Can I assume that you supported the Patriot Act?

[patrice]

184. No. One of my main points here is that some of those who oppose it are also very chary

with the alternatives and they even actively work against some things like the World Court and the U.N.

[Marr]

193. And your position is no less hypocritical and transparently partisan.

Accept one, reject the other. The arguments are the same, the abuses are the same... the only difference is party affiliation.

[KakistocracyHater]

187. so who is dying RIGHT NOW!!!111!!! if we DON'T

assassinate by drones? ANSWER ME NOW! IMMEDIATELY!

[WinkyDink]

171. Arrests and trials. Why are you refusing to address this Constitutional answer?

[patrice]

191. It's not perfect. It never was. e.g. There are people claiming that it enshrines the right to

kill those whom we have designated as representative of our (yes! imperfect) government for guns. They are claiming that right without addressing the choices of others in that matter and they are claiming it on CONSTITUTIONAL grounds.

Just like The Bible, the Constitution can be treated like a banana, throw away its nutritive contents and make a FALSE God out of the peel.

The Constitution and what it means could be more like the North Star, so that our lives CAN be about our lives, not some stuff that a bunch of propertied pseudo-reformed white male tories got more or less right and wrong a few centuries ago.

Have you read Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States?

[KakistocracyHater]

199. Techniques for dilution, misdirection and control of a internet forum

http://pastebin.com/irj4Fyd5

..."14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10."....

[patrice]

124. If I don't see an answer to my question, I'll have to take it that people DYING more PC is OKAY

and all very acceptable to all of you.

There are no such things as perfect laws. There never have been and there never will be. The difference between perfection and what we have going on is called politics. You appear to support a position that, as long as the politics suits you, those imperfections are just fine, even if lots of people die as long as it is under the principles that you define.

I cannot see how that is any different from what you say you oppose, except that those whom you oppose actually do know quite a bit more than you do about who is doing what and what the risks are for EVERYONE. So, pardon the fuck me, if I side with them and remind us all that it is our responsibilities to keep ANY of them on the straight and narrow, as much as possible, about all of this.

And also pardon me if that IS what SOME of you are trying to do, while others in your cohort quite likely have higher priorities that they are not sharing, hence their willingness that OTHER people tolerate the dangers that some of those you oppose are honestly trying to reduce.

[Mutiny In Heaven]

145. I think the drone 'project' needs a lot of refinement

because there appear to be far too many collateral fatalities, but I just don't see why the life of one whose goal is to torment and instigate terrorist atrocities against a nation should be given special dispensation via the accident of his birthplace.

Sure, if people want to be consistent across the board and completely oppose military operations designed to target and kill enemies of the country regardless of their origins, I can accept that. But there seems to be a disconnect.

[patrice]

148. Agree. This IS some fucked up stuff, but pretending that there aren't dangers could be worse.

I'm having trouble with the fact that a lot of what we see above cannot possibly be based on anything near the amount of information the CIA has, so it's like none of those other facts matter . . . ?

YES, the CIA and our government have messed up, but saying that there should be no attempt to deal with this stuff because of what went wrong in the past just isn't reasonable, especially when some of the same crowd we see above gets all freaked out about "The New World Order" and "Big Brother" any time anyone wants to consider some alternative that relieves the U.S. of the majority of the responsibility for everything. Now, WHY IS THAT???? Why would they not only be quite willing to risk a bunch of people's lives in the name of some ideology (that never existed in The Constitution anyway) - AND - oppose entirely new, more shared, approaches to the REAL problems which they, btw, are largely ignorant about???

Sorry, I have some sympathy with the point of view this thread is cheerleading for, but when you examine it rationally, SOMETHING just doesn't make sense. My explanation for that is that not all of their cards are on the table and I suspect one of the most powerfully effective cards up a few of the sleeves above is "states rights" hence all of this anti-government stuff.

It's frustrating, because government has in fact earned many of the criticisms that are implied here, but bottom line for me is people's lives and if people's lives should not be sacrificed for whatever principle those above are "defending", then they shouldn't be sacrificed for any other reason either, such as letting Plausible Deniability do its work again, just like it did on 9/11.

So, it all comes down to informational statistics that describe probabilities and associate those probabilities with people and authentically identifying how many people are involved or related to a given situation and how they are related to it and taking MORE responsibility to get the innocent whatever choices they have to decide their own behaviors.

I honestly do wish it was different, but just pretending isn't going to get us there and it can in fact make all of the oppression much worse.

[Marr]

152. That is a whole lot of sophistry right there.

But keep it up. I'm sure you can convince yourself if you repeat it long enough.

[patrice]

159. HOW MANY DEAD PEOPLE ARE TOO MANY?? for your preferred course of action. nt

[patrice]

160. How's that for "sophistry" for you? HOW MANY DEAD PEOPLE is what you want worth???

[Marr]

163. Hit a nerve?

My 'preferred method' is checks and balances, and an insistence that the President isn't above the law and cannot execute people by fiat. That's not an extremist position-- yours is.

But I'd turn your question back around on you. How many lives does it take to make you wet your pants and surrender all of your stated principles?

[patrice]

170. Please answer the question: How many dead people are too many for your ideology? nt

[Marr]

174. That's exactly the position the Republicans took under Bush-- did you buy it then?

It's an appeal to fear. Are you really this cowardly?

[patrice]

180. Are you willing to let others who did not CHOOSE whatever you have chosen die? Do you have

a right to choose what happens to you and they don't?

[Marr]

194. I have no idea what you're talking about. /nt

[patrice]

181. Because someone made mistakes or outright LIED in the past, does that mean ALL others

will do the same?

Is it not possible to learn from mistakes and evilness and to do better?

[WillyT]

175. Let's Ask Benjamin Franklin...

AUTHOR: Benjamin Franklin (1706–90)

QUOTATION: Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Link: http://www.bartleby.com/73/1056.html

[WinkyDink]

176. Look, WTH are you going on about, with "DEAD PEOPLE"? McVeigh had a trial. Bush

refused to allow the FBI to pursue leads re: WTC attacks (although I hold a MUCH different view of them). We held trials for other alleged would-be bombers (shoe; underwear).

Do you think burning up the SLA was proper police procedure? Or Kent State? Or MOVE? Or Waco? Or Jackson State?

Me? I'm for proper police procedures.

WE ARE NOT IN A "WAR." THE "WAR ON TERRORISM" TERM IS MEANINGLESS. (Which is why we don't declare "war on hatred" or "war on apathy".)

[justabob]

178. thank you Marr and WinkyDink

I couldn't get my answer(s) into words as well as either of you have.

Patrice... reread their answers and ditto them for the questions you asked me

[patrice]

182. You can bet your life on a probability of 0 threat. You can CHOOSE to do that. You cannot choose

for others.

Right or wrong, in your own choices, or right or wrong in THEIR own choices, if freedom means anything, it means that each person gets a chance to choose and to accept the consequences of having chosen.

You can claim your right to that choice in the name of ___________________________ , but what the fuck ever ________________ is, you have no right to choose for others. If you think _____________________ is so fucking great (the Constitution or WHATEVER it is) that its greatness gives you a right to choose for others what they will sacrifice to ______________________________ , then that isn't a right at all, because you have not allowed it for all. Rights by definition belong to everyone, so if there is a right to choose, it belongs to everyone and if that is prevented it's not a right. It is, instead, a privilege to decide what others will die for without asking them to choose and that's a privilege I did not grant you. You have not earned that privilege and you didn't ask for it. At least through our government, we have delegated SOME of that responsibility, imperfectly I ADMIT, but that's at least somewhat more collaborative than individuals freelancing on what risks the rest of us should give our lives for.

[WinkyDink]

201. Trust me; you wouldn't want me to grade your writing. And adding the "F bomb"

does not increase the strength of one's argument.

[KakistocracyHater]

186. however many DEAD Iraqis there are

as a result of W Bush & his wmd lies

[KakistocracyHater]

188. I'm interested in when Mexico uses drones to take out

suspected big time drug dealers in the U.S., because they've already stated how disgusted they are that the U.S. has refused to reduce its' demand for illegal drugs.

[Fire Walk With Me]

195. Search "drones US border" and similar and you'll see the US already patrols the Canadian border

with lethal drones, and is discussing the same regarding Mexico.

[KakistocracyHater]

196. no, I mean drones OWNED & OPERATED BY MEXICO,

not American drones. I'm saying Mexican authorities going after "known American drug lords" & killing them via drone, in Los Angeles, San Diego, etc.

[woo me with science]

206. kick