DOJ memo: Drone strikes on U.S. citizens can be legal

[Drang]

Dear Leader is a long way from launching drone strikes on gun buffs in CONUS.

Promise?

[Tamara]

But this isn't about you.

I beg to differ: It's all about me. I don't pay taxes or carry a pistol or keep fresh batteries in the smoke detector because I care about you.

EDIT: Come to think of it, I want them killed to keep me safe, and if they get them and me confused, it kinda defeats the purpose.

[Jac]

And we know who THEM is.

We do? How? And who are they anyway?

And we should kill THEM all.

We should? Why? What are THEIR crimes? Who presented the evidence of said crimes, and how was it obtained?

Dear Leader is a long way from launching drone strikes on gun buffs in CONUS.

Probably not, though I hesitate to make such concrete statements about the intent of any politician. However, it doesn't really matter who the target(s) might be. At its heart, it's not even really about the US Constitution. It's about the fact that a small group of people who are supposed to be subordinate to the law have decided that they can kill people of their choosing without any oversight, any proof of actual crimes having been commited, or any real suspicion or proof that a crime MAY be commited.

It's about State sponsored murder. It's about turning the clock of law, philosophy and civilization back 300 years. And in a community which argues so strongly that the 2nd Amendment was written in recognition of every human's right to defend himself against Tyranny, you'd think there'd be more consideration given to the implications of how this country's government is trending.

But, of course, it's about THEM. And we can kill THEM without anything like due process or even after-the-fact justification. Because they're THEM. And it serves them right, for not being US.

[TGS]

We do? How? And who are they anyway?

We should? Why? What are THEIR crimes? Who presented the evidence of said crimes, and how was it obtained?


Probably not, though I hesitate to make such concrete statements about the intent of any politician. However, it doesn't really matter who the target(s) might be. At its heart, it's not even really about the US Constitution. It's about the fact that a small group of people who are supposed to be subordinate to the law have decided that they can kill people of their choosing without any oversight, any proof of actual crimes having been commited, or any real suspicion or proof that a crime MAY be commited.


It's about State sponsored murder. It's about turning the clock of law, philosophy and civilization back 300 years. And in a community which argues so strongly that the 2nd Amendment was written in recognition of every human's right to defend himself against Tyranny, you'd think there'd be more consideration given to the implications of how this country's government is trending.

But, of course, it's about THEM. And we can kill THEM without anything like due process or even after-the-fact justification. Because they're THEM. And it serves them right, for not being US.

Something to think about: an imminent terrorist act isn't just a crime. It's way beyond a criminal act. It's a matter of national security, and pursuing the terrorist is done in self-defense of the state.....not to uphold criminal law. Judicial proceedings are not required to kill terrorists. You wouldn't stop WWII and hold a civilian trial for an American who returned to the fatherland in 1939 to fight in the Wehrmacht, either. If you're watching a woman be raped, you don't have to hold a trial before shooting the rapist, either.

And, another thing to consider: the trial of terrorists in civilian courts led to a severe intelligence clusterf&ck. Severe.....as in "holy shit we have to start from scratch" severe. That's not something this nation can afford against our current enemies.

The fact that the process can be abused is not justification for not performing targeted killing on terrorists as an act of self-defense, and instead sticking our heads in the sand pretending nothing is happening and that we don't reside within a dramatically different threat spectrum from 20 years ago. Rather, it's justification for developing it, so that the nation may be protected while also upholding the protections of the citizenry. This is something that the US...nor any country in modern time.....has ever had to deal with. It's going to take some work. There is no turn-key solution.

[Corlissimo]

For me, the thought goes along the lines of:

Now they target ALQ as terrorists using stated parameters.

Putting aside the whole "screw-up" factor Tam referred to, I ask: "What's to stop the targeting of whomever is next perceived as a terrorist threat to national security?"

--
Please excuse any typos, my Droid's kinda stupid. (°_°)

[fixer]

Admittedly, I don't have employment that would make me privy to knowledge that would justify comments entrained in this memo.

However...

The citizen aspect strikes me as a clear cut case of overkill. Is there really such a huge, dire, pressing, danger from US citizens carrying out terror acts on CONUS?

not to mention targeting US citizens for amorphously and vaguely defined acts and views could make this law a friend to tyrants.

[TCinVA]

any proof of actual crimes having been commited, or any real suspicion or proof that a crime MAY be commited.

If you're referring to the hell-firing of Al-Alwaki, there was plenty of proof of his crimes. Not least of which was his participating in the ongoing operations of Al Quaeda, which is how he got zapped.

The worry here is that what was used to zap Al-Alwaki will be turned on people who aren't on record chatting about their involvement with AQ and helping out underwear bombers, Fort Hood shooters, and 9/11 hijackers.

...and given that the dude in office right now seems to have a penchant for doing things just because he thinks he can, the thought doesn't sit well. Maybe Obama is a low point. Maybe he's the beginning of something horrible.

Tough to say at this point.

[TCinVA]

Putting aside the whole "screw-up" factor Tam referred to, I ask: "What's to stop the targeting of whomever is next perceived as a terrorist threat to national security?"

The only thing that has ever really posed a threat to dictatorial intentions of politicians:

The voting public.

Yeah, I know. Doesn't give me the warm fuzzies either. But even the voting public should be able to process the difference between drone-striking someone who went to fight for the other side in a war and using predator strikes to take out drug dealers in Detroit.

...not that you'd be able to tell that a drone strike happened in Detroit.

Wait...

[JHC]

Great points all around.

As far as I'm concerned, this is war, not crime. And it's a war that is a long ways from over. I figure, the more aggressive we are OCONUS, the less likely this will get "awkward" stateside.

[LHS]

Great points all around.

As far as I'm concerned, this is war, not crime. And it's a war that is a long ways from over. I figure, the more aggressive we are OCONUS, the less likely this will get "awkward" stateside.

I have no qualms about drone striking non-citizens OCONUS. Zero. But as soon as they start to justify whacking US citizens just because they say so, and with no independent review or requirement to present evidence as to the necessity of whacking those citizens, I get nervous.