[Snow-i]

White House, Justice officials defend drone program after release of memo | Fox News

This scares the crap out of me.

American citizens targeted for killing without trial, and based on classified criteria?

"As first reported Monday night by NBC News, the memo says it is legal for the government to kill U.S. citizens abroad if it believes they are senior Al Qaeda leaders continually engaged in operations aimed at killing Americans -- even if there is no intelligence pointing to an active plot against America."

What makes you "senior Al Qaeda" and where is any sort of oversight on who gets killed? Could this precedent not be used extremely nefariously?

Effectively executed with no trial? Even in absentia? This is extremely alarming and, if found constitutional, could be used as a basis for state-sponsored executions with no due process.

I'd feel more comfortable about this if before this type of activity could take place, a jury trial is held to remove citizenship and/or authorize military action.

This is why we need the 2nd amendment.

[subego]

Can't say I'm even the slightest bit surprised.

Excuse me while I go vomit.

[Snow-i]

I understand the need for these types of things in the interest of national security, but there has to be some sort of due process and/or check and balance else its just a matter of time before this power is used nefariously.

[subego]

I agree, but I'm not so sure Obama can call up Boehner and say "I need one of those 'assassination court' thingies... you with me?"

[ebuddy]

How many American citizens even fit this profile? Can't we just have a terrorist registry or something? I mean, I'd hate to live next door to this m'fer when the drones come flying over. With my luck, I'd just be finishing my painting of " AMERICA!" on his roof.

[Waragainstsleep]

"Look, its a senior member of Al Qaeda" is military equivalent to "Look out, its headed straight for us!" (from an early episode of South Park).

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I understand the need for these types of things in the interest of national security, but there has to be some sort of due process and/or check and balance else its just a matter of time before this power is used nefariously.

Absolutely. The finality and coldness of it chills me to the bones. Fuuuucccckkk...

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by subego 

Excuse me while I government.

Fixed that for ya

-t

[turtle777]

The sad thing is, this is something Bush would have been crucified for in public, but the Obama administration just gets away with this kind of shit. Obama is a fuuuuken fascist.

-t

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

The sad thing is, this is something Bush would have been crucified for in public, but the Obama administration just gets away with this kind of shit. Obama is a fuuuuken fascist.

-t

Too true. I wonder what the response would have been if the Bush Administration had firebombed a compound full of men, women, and children or if the Bush Administration were grappling with whether or not it's okay to use remote-control airplanes to off American citizens abroad without due process of any sort. Silence on the running of military-grade assault weapons in Mexico, silence on the Benghazi debacle, silence on Gitmo, silence on warrantless wiretapping, silence on unprovoked military action, silence on corporate croneyism, silence on avoiding the media and lack of transparency, silence on outright deceit...

[Uncle Skeleton]

It happens on both sides. R's pass social and environmental reforms that D's would never get through. Everyone has a better chance of getting their platform implemented by voting for the other side and crossing their fingers. It sucks because everything gets done by the party that doesn't really want it, so they do it half-assed.

[The Final Dakar]

This is so, so awful. Due process isn't supposed to be convenient.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Due process isn't supposed to be convenient.

This, young man, is the price of freedom.

**** that shit.

- Barry

[Snow-i]

Can this not be extrapolated to be used against any enemy of the state, Iran fashion? I mean, what makes killing "Al Qaeda" more legal than killing a mormon? This is wrong on so many levels. What is the process for changing the criteria? It looks like Barry and co just came up with some arbitrary guidelines that sounded good (but not good enough to declassify).

I'm not sure anyone caught my white text in the first post, I was hoping to see everyone's general opinion before bringing this up, but this is why the citizenry needs the 2nd amendment. Before we rehash how effective a citizenry would be again the likes of drones, just think that now the government has the right to kill you if they think you ought to be killed with no oversight from anyone. The president can use the US military against you (so long as this stands up in court).

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

This is so, so awful. Due process isn't supposed to be convenient.

Quite the opposite. We shouldn't cast it aside even in the name of "national security". IMO, due process is the only true national security.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I'm not sure anyone caught my white text in the first post, I was hoping to see everyone's general opinion before bringing this up, but this is why the citizenry needs the 2nd amendment.

If it can solve this situation, I'd like to see it done. Otherwise, it strikes me as a platitude.

[osiris]

Imagine what is being done without stinking memos...

I suppose fascism comes to mind.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

This is so, so awful. Due process isn't supposed to be convenient.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Quite the opposite. We shouldn't cast it aside even in the name of "national security". IMO, due process is the only true national security.

Aren't you two agreeing? What's the opposite part?

[Snow-i]

I'm saying due process is supposed to be the opposite of convenient. Agreeing with him whole heartedly.

[subego]

Oh. I knew that.

[osiris]

awww.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

The enemy's leadership has always been a valid military target. How about this scenario. A Chinese agent is sent here to gather intelligence under the cover of a grad student, then goes on to get a work visa and a job and then get citizenship. All perfectly normal under the immigration system. Then for whatever reason he's recalled to china and eventually becomes a senior member of their military. Is he now somehow not a valid target but his fellow generals are?

[osiris]

If the agent was a US Citizen, then no, the agent should be put to a jury not blown up by a drone.

edit: I suppose the theme here is that we are not savages, even if they are.

[subego]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

The enemy's leadership has always been a valid military target. How about this scenario. A Chinese agent is sent here to gather intelligence under the cover of a grad student, then goes on to get a work visa and a job and then get citizenship. All perfectly normal under the immigration system. Then for whatever reason he's recalled to china and eventually becomes a senior member of their military. Is he now somehow not a valid target but his fellow generals are?

This has nothing to do with the fact we target someone, it has to do with the target being deprived of due process.

[subego]

Originally Posted by osiris 

If the agent was a US Citizen, then no, the agent should be put to a jury not blown up by a drone.

edit: I suppose the theme here is that we are not savages, even if they are.

Even tried in absentia.

Not that I'd necessarily like that either, but it's a shitload better than the Executive saying its none of our ****ing business.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

The enemy's leadership has always been a valid military target. How about this scenario. A Chinese agent is sent here to gather intelligence under the cover of a grad student, then goes on to get a work visa and a job and then get citizenship. All perfectly normal under the immigration system. Then for whatever reason he's recalled to china and eventually becomes a senior member of their military. Is he now somehow not a valid target but his fellow generals are?

Originally Posted by osiris 

If the agent was a US Citizen, then no, the agent should be put to a jury not blown up by a drone.

edit: I suppose the theme here is that we are not savages, even if they are.

I'm not cool with detaining foreigners deemed dangerous ad infinitum without some sort of due process. The thing that makes the US so great is our standards and principles and how we don't throw them out the window just because its inconvenient.

If a higher homicide and mass murder rate is the price to pay for protection from tyranny, than I would think a little less security is a fair trade-off for retention of our rights to due process.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Even tried in absentia.

Not that I'd necessarily like that either, but it's a shitload better than the Executive saying its none of our ****ing business.

You might justify In absentia for the War on Terror™, but this shit – I just don't get the motivation.

[osiris]

Our elected leaders seem to forget that they work for us. (naive, ain't it?!) Pity.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

You might justify In absentia for the War on Terror™, but this shit – I just don't get the motivation.

Isn't this specifically tied to Al Qaeda?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Isn't this specifically tied to Al Qaeda?

Sorry, I see the two as interchangeable.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by subego 

Isn't this specifically tied to Al Qaeda?

At this point it seems "Al Qaeda" is just a catch all term for what the US (world?) considers "terrorist". IMO, Its a marketing term and one that I don't find particularly offensive, except in cases where deeming someone "Al Qaeda" gives the ruling class the power to execute at will with no oversight, due process, or judicial review.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

Originally Posted by osiris 

If the agent was a US Citizen, then no, the agent should be put to a jury not blown up by a drone.

edit: I suppose the theme here is that we are not savages, even if they are.

So we shouldn't bomb the enemies command center because one of our citizens joined their military? Instead we should arrest them?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

So we shouldn't bomb the enemies command center because one of our citizens joined their military? Instead we should arrest them?

If possible, yes. If we are congressionally declared at war its a different story.

If not, there has to be some sort of court process to either strip the offender of citizenship or a trial by jury to determine the offender's fate.

[osiris]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

So we shouldn't bomb the enemies command center because one of our citizens joined their military? Instead we should arrest them?

Yes, we should arrest them. Again, we are not savages. Look at the Nuremberg trial - based on your opinion, we should've just shot all them Nazis without the civility of the rule of law (and they weren't even our citizens!). Once that civility goes, society does not stand a chance.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Sorry, I see the two as interchangeable.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

At this point it seems "Al Qaeda" is just a catch all term for what the US (world?) considers "terrorist". IMO, Its a marketing term and one that I don't find particularly offensive, except in cases where deeming someone "Al Qaeda" gives the ruling class the power to execute at will with no oversight, due process, or judicial review.

I agree, and didn't quite read Dakar's post properly.

Did I mention ?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

So we shouldn't bomb the enemies command center because one of our citizens joined their military? Instead we should arrest them?

This strikes me as moving the goalposts.

But to help the discussion, do we have any precedent set from WWII and German-Americans who answered "The call"?

[osiris]

sorry boys, gotta run, just when it was getting interesting..

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by osiris 

sorry boys, gotta run, just when it was getting interesting..

Spotted a drone coming?

[osiris]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Spotted a drone coming?

I should've known it was yours.
later.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

But to help the discussion, do we have any precedent set from WWII and German-Americans who answered "The call"?

Huh?

Today is just not my day for comprehension.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Huh?

Today is just not my day for comprehension.

I was under the impression there were some cases of german americans going to fight for nazi germany during WWII. Not sure what the term for it was. I'm under this impression from Band of Brothers, so it won't be entirely surprising if I'm mistaken.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by subego 

Huh?

Today is just not my day for comprehension.

Dakar is asking for examples of German-American citizens who fought for Nazi Germany. I've heard tales of such but I'm sure the US did not specifically target them for assassination - if they died it was during combat or as part of a war crime (key word being crime).

[gradient]

From the article:

A Justice Department official, though, told Fox News there are at least three conditions that have to be met in order for a strike to be ordered -- there has to be an "imminent" threat, the target has to have engaged in terrorist activities, and the target has to be unable to be captured.

In this context, I don't see what the problem is.

For example: If you have a firearm and see from a distance that an attacker is about to shoot/stab/blow up one of your loved ones, would you not consider it ethical and necessary, assuming that you are too far away to make physical contact with the attacker, to shoot that person in an effort to save the life of your loved one?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by gradient 

In this context, I don't see what the problem is.

For example: If you have a firearm and see from a distance that an attacker is about to shoot/stab/blow up one of your loved ones, would you not consider it ethical and necessary, assuming that you are too far away to make physical contact with the attacker, to shoot that person in an effort to save the life of your loved one?

Good lord, it's an international Stand Your Ground law.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by osiris 

Imagine what is being done without stinking memos...

I suppose fascism comes to mind.

Yeah, and the next step is to disarm the population...

[Snow-i]

Secondary sources claim the SS had 5 US citizens throughout the whole war (keep in mind this doesn't include the german regular army, navy, or air force). No substantive records seem to exist through my cursory googling.

Either way, fighting a nation-stare that we are at war with is legal, and if an American citizens takes up arms as part of that nation-state, there would be no illegality in his combat death.

That being said, we are not at war with a nation state and "Al Qaeda" is as ambiguous as "He's a bad guy." Blaze, would you really be comfortable with an elected official having the power to use the military to kill an American citizen because he's been deemed a bad guy by the same official?

[gradient]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Good lord, it's an international Stand Your Ground law.

Pretty much. Again, I don't see the problem. TBH, I don't really get why the citizenship of a combatant matters at all. In war, you defend yourself against the enemy, whomever that enemy is. Like it or not, this is a war that's being discussed here.

[gradient]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

That being said, we are not at war with a nation state and "Al Qaeda" is as ambiguous as "He's a bad guy." Blaze, would you really be comfortable with an elected official having the power to use the military to kill an American citizen because he's been deemed a bad guy by the same official?

How is Al Qaeda an ambiguous term? Does it not refer to a very specific organization?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by gradient 

Pretty much. Again, I don't see the problem. TBH, I don't really get why the citizenship of a combatant matters at all. In war, you defend yourself against the enemy, whomever that enemy is. Like it or not, this is a war that's being discussed here.

Stand your ground laws are kinda bullshit. Way too much discretion given. (Just like here)

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by gradient 

How is Al Qaeda an ambiguous term? Does it not refer to a very specific organization?

With >12 sub-factions, not all of which are particularly violent.