View Full Version : DOJ memo: Drone strikes on U.S. citizens can be legal
Corlissimo
02-05-2013, 02:47 PM
http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/5/justice-department-memo-drone-strikes-us-citizens-/
Snippet...
Specifically, the memo states: “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,” according to UPI. Citizens who present such “imminent threats” were defined as those who participated in violent acts — and maintained the views that led to their violent acts, according to UPI.
/snippet
Words fail me...
~ Typos brought to you by my laziness & in attention to detail.
ezthumper
02-05-2013, 03:11 PM
"I, _____, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
This Oath is very dear to me, and right now with this and everything going on, I just do not have the words to express how I am feeling.
ToddG
02-05-2013, 03:21 PM
Specifically, the memo states: “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,” according to UPI. Citizens who present such “imminent threats” were defined as those who participated in violent acts — and maintained the views that led to their violent acts, according to UPI.
Dear USDOJ,
Will that fluid definition of "imminent threat" also apply when I use my personally owned firearm in self defense against a violent criminal?
Love,
Todd
Shellback
02-05-2013, 03:33 PM
Read the NDAA, the MIAC and DHS reports on terrorist threats. This really shouldn't come as much of a surprise.
http://notalemming.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/patriot_act_terrorist_certificate1.jpg
Corlissimo
02-05-2013, 03:34 PM
Like ezthumper, I too am looking at all the other things going on around us, and I'm not liking the "vibe". Feels like there's a real possibility for some bad mojo coming at Joe Citizen in the not so distant future.
Maybe I'm just getting cynical and jaded in my advancing years! I don't know. But my gut has a bad feeling in it and I know from past history that my gut is not usually wrong... And it doesn't need a foil hat either.
~ Typos brought to you by my laziness & in attention to detail.
helothar
02-05-2013, 03:45 PM
While he was certainly a grade-A asshole, the drone strike on Anwar al-Alaki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Aulaqi) (a US citizen) without so much as a trial, struck me as a clear violation of his constitutional rights. This memo doesn't surprise me.
ezthumper
02-05-2013, 03:46 PM
Like ezthumper, I too am looking at all the other things going on around us, and I'm not liking the "vibe". Feels like there's a real possibility for some bad mojo coming at Joe Citizen in the not so distant future.
Maybe I'm just getting cynical and jaded in my advancing years! I don't know. But my gut has a bad feeling in it and I know from past history that my gut is not usually wrong... And it doesn't need a foil hat either.
~ Typos brought to you by my laziness & in attention to detail.
Coming back to the office today I was trying to understand why I am feeling the way I am, and feeling very guilty about the things I am thinking.
Maybe it is the years that is adding to the weight, and the over all jaded view that is developing with it, but never, ever did I think things would be shaping up like it is.
I served Under three presidents, Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton. And served dutifully and with out question. I never ever entertained any thought of what is welling up in me. I feel betrayed....I think? I can not identify this emotion or feeling.
Shellback
02-05-2013, 05:20 PM
The memo can be viewed here (http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2013/02/chilling-in-writing-justification-obama.html#comment-form).
Sparks2112
02-05-2013, 07:22 PM
::sigh::
Wendell
02-05-2013, 08:07 PM
What was Andrew Breitbart's cause of death?
Nik the Greek
02-05-2013, 08:33 PM
Started with the Patriot Act. When getting the bad guys at "any cost", we should in fact weigh those costs carefully. They may be more dear than we can afford to pay.
And you are a senior leader in ALQ? I can't see a problem with killing EVERY radical islamist regardless of citizenship as fast as one can draw a bead. Why should US citizenship shield somebody like Anwar al-Alaki? You think George Washington would hesitate to pull that trigger on Benedict Arnold? I don't. This war ain't nearly over.
And you are a senior leader in ALQ? I can't see a problem with killing EVERY radical islamist regardless of citizenship as fast as one can draw a bead. Why should US citizenship shield somebody like Anwar al-Alaki? You think George Washington would hesitate to pull that trigger on Benedict Arnold? I don't. This war ain't nearly over.
I agree. We're not on the same battlefield of the last century. We'd be amiss to not address the asymmetric, non-uniformed, non-state actor threat we have today.
With that said, I'm not a fan of the current execution as it's quite arbitrary with little oversight on the national command authority. There isn't enough protections built in.....and if there are, we should know about them. Transparency and all that.
Tamara
02-05-2013, 08:56 PM
And you are a senior leader in ALQ?
Oh, I'm not.
But that's not important.
What is very #$%&@$% important is that nobody in some DC basement thinks I am. Otherwise, my first warning of their ____-up will be a Hellfire coming through my ceiling, and all my lawyer will be able to do will be to whisk-broom my remains into a freezer-baggie to use as evidence in None Of Your Goddam Business v. United States.
And you are a senior leader in ALQ? I can't see a problem with killing EVERY radical islamist regardless of citizenship as fast as one can draw a bead. Why should US citizenship shield somebody like Anwar al-Alaki? You think George Washington would hesitate to pull that trigger on Benedict Arnold? I don't. This war ain't nearly over.
Posse coma whuties?
Posse coma whuties?
What??? lol
Yemeni language? ;)
I agree. We're not on the same battlefield of the last century. We'd be amiss to not address the asymmetric, non-uniformed, non-state actor threat we have today.
With that said, I'm not a fan of the current execution as it's quite arbitrary with little oversight on the national command authority. There isn't enough protections built in.....and if there are, we should know about them. Transparency and all that.
Damn fair point right there.
Oh, I'm not.
But that's not important.
What is very #$%&@$% important is that nobody in some DC basement thinks I am. Otherwise, my first warning of their ____-up will be a Hellfire coming through my ceiling, and all my lawyer will be able to do will be to whisk-broom my remains into a freezer-baggie to use as evidence in None Of Your Goddam Business v. United States.
I respect that. But this isn't about you. Or me. It's about killing THEM. And we know who THEM is. And we should kill THEM all. Dear Leader is a long way from launching drone strikes on gun buffs in CONUS.
Palmguy
02-05-2013, 09:45 PM
I respect that. But this isn't about you. Or me. It's about killing THEM. And we know who THEM is. And we should kill THEM all. Dear Leader is a long way from launching drone strikes on gun buffs in CONUS.
As much as I dislike Obama, I don't disagree.
That said, you set the precedent and you set the framework and it's there for whatever future Dear Leader assumes office.
Drang
02-05-2013, 09:45 PM
Dear Leader is a long way from launching drone strikes on gun buffs in CONUS.
Promise?
Tamara
02-05-2013, 10:00 PM
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. ;)
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.
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
02-06-2013, 12:14 AM
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
02-06-2013, 07:24 AM
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
02-06-2013, 07:54 AM
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
02-06-2013, 07:56 AM
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...
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.
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.
ezthumper
02-06-2013, 10:34 AM
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.
What concerns me is the work and purpose they put into the program to justify the use on "US citizens" with out a very clear line where they will not cross. It is open ended, as they can at a later date justify the use based on what they view as hostile or whatever they feel justifiable.
You would think, being as smart as they claim to be, they would know this is going to stir up the natives. And they would have a conversation that would include.."hey shouldn't we put in something that would let our citizens know, that we have check and balances and we would not indiscriminately level someones house based on some open ended profile?"
Corlissimo
02-06-2013, 11:39 AM
...Maybe Obama is a low point. Maybe he's the beginning of something horrible.
THIS sums up nicely the "gut feeling" that's nagging at me. Thank you for the distillation!
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...
Oh yeah... Isn't that the same voting public who just OK'd four more years of Pres. EO-bama? I feel so much better now. (Sarcasm not directed at you TC, my drone went haywire and unfortunately you were collateral damage.) :p
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?
US citizens do indeed carry out terrorism, and operate CONUS and OCONUS. You don't have to be in the intelligence community to know this.
Whether it's 1 incident per decade or 1 per day is irrelevant. The fact that it is obviously such a touchy issue means that we have to develop a way to address it. Ignoring the issue will lead to disaster.
Shellback
02-06-2013, 01:07 PM
Those who give up essential liberty...
US citizens do indeed carry out terrorism, and operate CONUS and OCONUS. You don't have to be in the intelligence community to know this.
Whether it's 1 incident per decade or 1 per day is irrelevant. The fact that it is obviously such a touchy issue means that we have to develop a way to address it. Ignoring the issue will lead to disaster.
And that's fine. Gather intelligence, build a case, arrest the person, try them in open court, and sentence them accordingly. I have no issue whatsoever with trying someone for treason and executing them upon conviction and the exhaustion of appeals. I have a big issue with some nameless 'government official' having carte blanche to assassinate a US citizen with zero oversight or need for justification.
And that's fine. Gather intelligence, build a case, arrest the person, try them in open court, and sentence them accordingly.
I have no issue whatsoever with trying someone for treason and executing them upon conviction and the exhaustion of appeals. I have a big issue with some nameless 'government official' having carte blanche to assassinate a US citizen with zero oversight or need for justification.
As if pursuing, detaining and trying terrorists is actually that simple......you realize these are terrorists, not simple criminals, right? That trying one isn't the end of terrorism, that they're part of networks that we still have to pursue after neutralizing one member?
Trying terrorists in civilian court means you have to disclose intelligence. Many times, this would mean current, actionable intelligence. So we try one dude in an open court, and we lose a significant amount of intelligence on the organization we're trying to penetrate. In addition, the enemy (actually, the whole world) can see how we operated to penetrate these networks. So then, we're set back years and have to start over on the next guy.....all the while our enemies are operating under new networks, free from our influence or monitoring.
How.....in the world.....do you expect us to actually win against terrorists if we shot ourselves in the foot every time we wanted to take someone out of their organization? Thinking it's as simple as you wrote just blows my mind. That sort of system led to such wonderful events such as the Khobar Towers, embassy bombing, USS Cole, and that little event labelled 9/11.
TCinVA
02-06-2013, 02:04 PM
Many times, this would mean current, actionable intelligence. So we try one dude in an open court, and we lose a significant amount of intelligence on the organization we're trying to penetrate.
...although with the current administration all that pretty much happens anyway when they want to make the prez look tough by blabbing all the details to actors and reporters.
If you're watching a woman be raped, you don't have to hold a trial before shooting the rapist, either.
If you're watching someone engaged in noisy public coitus, it may or may not be rape; it could be Mardi Gras. Shooting the guy off of her, at least without checking the calendar, may be a bad idea. It's not a bad parallel.
Posse comitatus is intended to limit Federal, and especially Presidential, use of the armed forces against US citizens. Bush tried to jack with it but was rebuffed; Obama has successfully altered it in the name of TWOT.
Everything that was bad about Bush, Obama is better at.
LOKNLOD
02-06-2013, 02:45 PM
I'm all for whacking the real bad guys, and would not lose a wink of sleep if I were the one who had to push the "F-U" button on the Bin Ladens of the world and then watch it happen.
Still, when it comes to stuff like this, I think the principle of imagining any powers you'd like to see granted to the guys on your side, being in the hands of your absolute worst enemies.
I can't kick the memory of the current admin spreading info to make the case that most of us here are a potential domestic terrorist threat because of our beliefs, as referenced in previous posts.
What's the difference between an Al Queda training camp, and a CONUS carbine class?
ezthumper
02-06-2013, 02:49 PM
If you're watching someone engaged in noisy public coitus, it may or may not be rape; it could be Mardi Gras.
If I am watching that...I am obviously down around the french quarter, brain full of booze and soon to be fuzzy memories.
Which reminds me, it starts the 12th this year in NO.
If you're watching someone engaged in noisy public coitus, it may or may not be rape; it could be Mardi Gras. Shooting the guy off of her, at least without checking the calendar, may be a bad idea. It's not a bad parallel.
Posse comitatus is intended to limit Federal, and especially Presidential, use of the armed forces against US citizens. Bush tried to jack with it but was rebuffed; Obama has successfully altered it in the name of TWOT.
Everything that was bad about Bush, Obama is better at.
The capabilities and operations of the US intelligence community goes way beyond the US military. Posse comitatus isn't really relevant to the core issue here.
I'm all for whacking the real bad guys, and would not lose a wink of sleep if I were the one who had to push the "F-U" button on the Bin Ladens of the world and then watch it happen.
Still, when it comes to stuff like this, I think the principle of imagining any powers you'd like to see granted to the guys on your side, being in the hands of your absolute worst enemies.
Exactly. We need to be able to pursue terrorists in an effective way. The current execution does not provide enough protections for US citizens, but that doesn't mean the answer is to revert to pre-9/11 ways of going about business.
As if pursuing, detaining and trying terrorists is actually that simple......you realize these are terrorists, not simple criminals, right? That trying one isn't the end of terrorism, that they're part of networks that we still have to pursue after neutralizing one member?
And yet we take down organized crime using these methods.
Trying terrorists in civilian court means you have to disclose intelligence. Many times, this would mean current, actionable intelligence. So we try one dude in an open court, and we lose a significant amount of intelligence on the organization we're trying to penetrate. In addition, the enemy (actually, the whole world) can see how we operated to penetrate these networks. So then, we're set back years and have to start over on the next guy.....all the while our enemies are operating under new networks, free from our influence or monitoring.
Again, see organized crime as an example.
How.....in the world.....do you expect us to actually win against terrorists if we shot ourselves in the foot every time we wanted to take someone out of their organization? Thinking it's as simple as you wrote just blows my mind. That sort of system led to such wonderful events such as the Khobar Towers, embassy bombing, USS Cole, and that little event labelled 9/11.
All of which were perpetrated by foreigners. See previous statement about not giving a crap about dropping ordnance on non-citizen bad guys OCONUS. But thinking that the executive branch should have the legal authority to execute US citizens with zero oversight, zero justification, nothing more than "Well, I say he's a bad guy so it must be so!" blows my mind.
But thinking that the executive branch should have the legal authority to execute US citizens with zero oversight, zero justification, nothing more than "Well, I say he's a bad guy so it must be so!" blows my mind.
As it does mine. I'm not an advocate for such.
ETA: To quote Andrew C McCarthy, the man who prosecuted the Blind Sheikh, "A war is a war. A war is not a crime, and you don’t bring your enemies to a courthouse."
ford.304
02-06-2013, 04:32 PM
I have no problem with killing terrorists.
I have a big problem with definition of terrorist being "Anyone the president calls a terrorist." Because regardless of how good our intelligence services are, with no oversight or due process that is all we the public are going with on this.
Due process in this case doesn't have to be our full criminal justice system, but it does need to be *something*.
ETA: To quote Andrew C McCarthy, the man who prosecuted the Blind Sheikh, "A war is a war. A war is not a crime, and you don’t bring your enemies to a courthouse."
I'm fine with that, as long as it doesn't involve killing US citizens with no due process or oversight.
Shellback
02-06-2013, 05:04 PM
The War on Crime, War on Poverty, War on Drugs, War on Terrorism...
Kyle Reese
02-06-2013, 06:46 PM
The War on Crime, War on Poverty, War on Drugs, War on Terrorism...
Don't forget Romney's "War on Women"......:rolleyes:
Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2
Promise?
Yes. I promise! :D
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.
"The Looming Tower" by Lawrence Wright is a good foundational text for establishing a baseline of THEM. Walid Phares book "Future Jihad" is outstanding for its overview of history and setting the table for what we are dealing with re THEM. I must say though, it's a little late in The Long War for establishing these baselines.
This is war. This ain't crime fighting. We could learn a lot about war 300 years ago.
Corlissimo
02-06-2013, 07:15 PM
Wow! All this "US" and "THEM"... Has everyone here read Donovan's "The Way of Men" or is it just my imagination? :)
--
Please excuse any typos, my Droid's kinda stupid. (°_°)
If there has ever been a "THEM" in history, it's the radical Islamists. Acid throwers into school girls faces, baking a 10 year old boy and serving him to tribal elders to terrorize them into compliance? Think they need Miranda protection if they happen to be Americans? Fuck em.
If there has ever been a "THEM" in history, it's the radical Islamists. Acid throwers into school girls faces, baking a 10 year old boy and serving him to tribal elders to terrorize them into compliance? Think they need Miranda protection if they happen to be Americans? Fuck em.
Don't get me wrong, I agree that radical Islamists need a hefty dose of face-shooting. That said, if you open the door to depriving Americans of due process for this, it makes it that much easier to do it for, say, "radical right-wing fundamentalists", i.e. anyone who thinks a Constitutionally limited government is a good thing. There's a ton of Al-Awlaki's crap on the internet, how hard would it be to convict him of aiding and abetting the enemy? The guy made no pretense about what he was doing, so why the need for this kind of 'because I said so' pseudo-justification?
If there has ever been a "THEM" in history, it's the radical Islamists. Acid throwers into school girls faces, baking a 10 year old boy and serving him to tribal elders to terrorize them into compliance? Think they need Miranda protection if they happen to be Americans? Fuck em.
I don't think the issue is that "they" need protection......it's that we as citizens need protection from being falsely presumed (either mistakenly or maliciously) to be them.
That's my take, at least.
Don't get me wrong, I agree that radical Islamists need a hefty dose of face-shooting. That said, if you open the door to depriving Americans of due process for this, it makes it that much easier to do it for, say, "radical right-wing fundamentalists", i.e. anyone who thinks a Constitutionally limited government is a good thing. There's a ton of Al-Awlaki's crap on the internet, how hard would it be to convict him of aiding and abetting the enemy? The guy made no pretense about what he was doing, so why the need for this kind of 'because I said so' pseudo-justification?
Plus TGS's post right after - As this is constructed I don't see the risk for attacking conservatives or libertarians in the US. Americans have no special status even in our Constitution here in the US. All our due process rights are applied to every living human on US soil regarding criminal matters. Even we don't have special status here in that respect. Illegal alien gets Mirandized etc etc. Due process. This ain't about that. So when it comes to war over there, Islamo-fascists: American, French, Egyptian all targets.
If you can face shoot them on a raid, you can Hellfire them from 5K feet.
Tamara
02-07-2013, 07:15 AM
I don't think the issue is that "they" need protection......it's that we as citizens need protection from being falsely presumed (either mistakenly or maliciously) to be them.
That's my take, at least.
That's it exactly. This kind of stuff deserves the strictest level of scrutiny from an involved citizenry because it's the very definition of the banana peel on the top of the slippery slope.
You pull some guy's charred AK-clutchin' remains out of some smoking van wreckage filled with Taliban corpses in the Hindu Kush somewhere, and I'm not going to shed any tears if you find a blackened passport with a blue cover in his pocket; I wouldn't expect Patton's Third Army to stop the drive on Bastogne and call out the lawyers if one of the Jerries in front of them yelled "Hey, Mac, I'm an American!" either.
Too far down this path, however, and I could win the argument in this thread by calling 1-800-RAT-FINK and tell them I had some rock-solid information that JHC was a... what was the term he used? a "radical Islamist"? ...and I'd win the thread by default, since he wouldn't be able to respond due to the JDAM through his roof.
If all it takes to sign a death warrant for somebody is to hang a label on them, you want to be very careful about how hard you make it to hang that label.
fixer
02-07-2013, 07:35 AM
US citizens do indeed carry out terrorism, and operate CONUS and OCONUS. You don't have to be in the intelligence community to know this.
Whether it's 1 incident per decade or 1 per day is irrelevant. The fact that it is obviously such a touchy issue means that we have to develop a way to address it. Ignoring the issue will lead to disaster.
So "the way" must be drone strikes? For discussion's sake I'll take this as a given...
My point is that there is a slippery slope between taking a casual stance on drone strikes on US citizens and the criminalizing of political dissent. If labeling someone, anyone, as terrorist, opens them up to liability to drone strikes, then such a label needs intense scrutiny before actions are carried out on US citizens. Your country shouldn't be able to kill you just because you are labeled a terrorist and stepped a few feet into Canada.
Ok...so is there a risk argument to be made here? What is the risk (probability times consequence) that an aggressive anti-terrorism policy, even on US citizens, will be mis applied with tragic consequences?
My answer is that whether it is 1 incident per decade or 1 incident per day is irrelevant.
The principle here is that the US government and the US citizen have a unique relationship described in the Constitution. This makes the whole "lets drone strike all these mother effers" argument clumsy and dangerous.
Aside from the initial revulsion that the gov't lead by a Nobel Prize winner willfully (and sneakily) engages in such activity, the problem is (at least academically) very interesting.
Drones are a wonderful way to engage targets where you only risk the done - say in Pakistan/et al. But really, just how difficult is it for a gov't/cartel/gang/etc to kill someone?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/31/us-usa-crime-texas-idUSBRE90U17320130131
Tis a very dangerous world out there. And the motives for your murder may be as little as a few bucks in your pocket up to political/terrorism based. And you don't need a JDAM to carry it out. The reason to have multiple political parties at odds fundamentally, is to serve as a another system of checks and balances. The problem is, as the "Drone Strikes" are set up, it is without oversight. On the surface, since these are operated by the US Military, you would think you could rely on the conscience of the "Officer and Gentleman/Lady" commanding, but I can tell you with no uncertainty, that they are few and far between. Many have been reduced to wage slaves here at WPAFB, who will do whatever to stay below the radar/on someone's good side/keep their job. That is not to imply any derogatory implication on the US military in any way, rather a statement of the times. Furthermore, there is often someone right next to them that will carry out a dubious order without question.
In some ways, this, at least in my mind, is related to some of the mass murder/violence/etc issues we are currently seeing. We have whole generations of people growing up that do not understand the finality of their actions when it comes to killing. I was 6 when I killed my first animal - rabbit hunting with my dad. Watching the life run out of someones/somethings eyes because you acted is a sobering experience. Detaching oneself from a situation - like sitting in a simulator piloting a drone - is a very different thing than doing so in person.
In some respects, this is much the same argument as "how can you be a Commander in Chief if you've never been commanded?"
I respect that. But this isn't about you. Or me. It's about killing THEM. And we know who THEM is. And we should kill THEM all. Dear Leader is a long way from launching drone strikes on gun buffs in CONUS.
This is where the slippery slope begins. Just because we all feel strongly about one point of contention and may give a public "mandate" to action, doing so out side the rule of law make us a nation of men. Men change minds, views, ideas, and always want power. The only thing that can slow that is the rule of law. Today it can be "them" what happens when "them" is something you respect? Incrementalism is the tool of the progressive dictator.
Using a more close to home analogy: "Its only fully automatic weapons." "Its only a background check." "Its only transferring across state lines." "Its only restricting cary outside your home." "Its only assault weapons." "Its only hi cap magazines."
Individually the argument can be (agreed or not) "common sense" but without the rule of law we are subject to the changing whims and personal gain of the man.
Martin Niemoller was a statist / borderline authoritarian. He even recognized the folly of this:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.
BaiHu
02-07-2013, 12:15 PM
I know Jon Stewart isn't the most balanced, but he's really good when he's on point:
http://www.businessinsider.com/jon-stewart-obama-drone-policy-memo-daily-show-2013-2
Chemsoldier
02-07-2013, 12:35 PM
I think that some of these guys need whacked and I dont weep over it but I am uncomfortable with a mechanism existing for it. That is something that can be abused later. If the president wants to authorize it as the commander in chief, well that is why he is paid the big bucks and I will back his play. Leaders exist to navigate the ambiguous situations where regulation breaks down. If the leader misbehaves he can be removed (say impeached) and if he misbehaves too much he can be prosecuted. But no set of rules will ever cover all situations, if there was there would be no need of leaders, just flowcharts. So I think in this case POTUS should take responsibility for authorizing it rather than come up with some convoluted mechanism that can be used by unsrupulous people later to justify whatever they want (think RICO).
cclaxton
02-07-2013, 01:05 PM
Aside from the initial revulsion that the gov't lead by a Nobel Prize winner willfully (and sneakily) engages in such activity, the problem is (at least academically) very interesting.
Tis a very dangerous world out there. And the motives for your murder may be as little as a few bucks in your pocket up to political/terrorism based. And you don't need a JDAM to carry it out. The reason to have multiple political parties at odds fundamentally, is to serve as a another system of checks and balances. The problem is, as the "Drone Strikes" are set up, it is without oversight. On the surface, since these are operated by the US Military, you would think you could rely on the conscience of the "Officer and Gentleman/Lady" commanding, but I can tell you with no uncertainty, that they are few and far between. Many have been reduced to wage slaves here at WPAFB, who will do whatever to stay below the radar/on someone's good side/keep their job. That is not to imply any derogatory implication on the US military in any way, rather a statement of the times. Furthermore, there is often someone right next to them that will carry out a dubious order without question.
In some respects, this is much the same argument as "how can you be a Commander in Chief if you've never been commanded?"
Bill,
One of the facts is not correct. These operations are carried out by the CIA, not the military. The Military may be maintaining them, but the CIA runs the missions for these kinds of missions. The command of military operations and CIA operations is under The Executive. There is Congressional Oversight through the Intelligence Committees. Those who attend those meetings are must have security clearances and even Congressmen must keep the information secret.
It's important to note that the political parties are not disagreeing with the policy to kill terrorists who are responsible for prior attacks, and actively planning attacks, whether American Citizens or not. I am fully behind the effort to eliminate these bastards, and am thankful that few loyal Americans must be put in harms way to kill them and to those who run these missions.
The problem with using "local resources" is that you can't always trust the people you hire locally. You don't know who they are talking to, you don't know if they are going to follow the plan exactly, you don't know their judgement. By using Drones, you can control the lethal force exactly as you want. You don't have to disclose the intelligence or the methods to gain information, or put those agents at risk. You also have video and pictures and verification that you don't always get with a local resource.
Many Presidents have not served in the military or law enforcement. And The Founders did not make it a requirement, and Americans like the idea of Civilian Control. In many ways it is better if the President was not in the military. So, to insult Obama for not serving seems empty.
In terms of trusting the Americans serving in the military and CIA: Look at the level of integrity and ethics and morality that Americans have compared to most other nations and you will find Americans are the best. I am proud of being an American for this one reason. Yes, there are going to be a**holes, and criminals and negligents and incompetents, and corrupt people in the military and CIA and in the government. But, those are a tiny percentage often blown out of proportion by the media. The great majority are great people doing difficult jobs and not the best pay. Many are doing their gov't jobs out of patriotism. The majority of other nations suffer from massive police corruption, massive cheating, massive incompetence, market manipulation, organized crime controlling government, etc. We don't have that here in America...and why? Because Americans are good people and we want America to continue to prosper and be a society where people trust each other.
We are trusting our security to the people in the military and CIA and government....shouldn't we return the trust out of simple respect for their risk and their sacrifice? Every day President Obama leaves the White House he puts his life on the line from a terrorist or a crazy person or a domestic militant, and I think he does that for America, even if we strongly disagree with his policies or his politics. Shouldn't we show him the same respect we show a soldier who has seen combat, or is serving in a combat role, at least? While I may not trust Obama with my gun rights, I do trust him to make the decision to kill the terrorists as Commander. That is a burden most of us would not want.
CC
Corlissimo
02-07-2013, 01:16 PM
I think that some of these guys need whacked and I dont weep over it but I am uncomfortable with a mechanism existing for it. That is something that can be abused later. If the president wants to authorize it as the commander in chief, well that is why he is paid the big bucks and I will back his play. Leaders exist to navigate the ambiguous situations where regulation breaks down. If the leader misbehaves he can be removed (say impeached) and if he misbehaves too much he can be prosecuted. But no set of rules will ever cover all situations, if there was there would be no need of leaders, just flowcharts. So I think in this case POTUS should take responsibility for authorizing it rather than come up with some convoluted mechanism that can be used by unsrupulous people later to justify whatever they want (think RICO).
I agree with this. The real issue IMO, is that there aren't any defined parameters other than "We smoked so-and-so because he was a terrorist threat."
Considering that it wasn't that long ago that the DHS "identified" Right-wing conservatives, Pro-2A folks (but just the "gun nuts" ones :sarcastic:), and returning Veterans as "potential terrorist threats", and it creates an extremely unsettling atmosphere. The potential for easy abuse is pretty obvious. Coupled with man's propensity to abuse power and/or grab more, and pretty soon it could be that, to those in power, anyone who is not one of them becomes "THEM" in their estimation.
(Donning my foil hat now... Again!)
~ Typos brought to you by my laziness & in attention to detail.
Bill,
One of the facts is not correct. These operations are carried out by the CIA, not the military. The Military may be maintaining them, but the CIA runs the missions for these kinds of missions. The command of military operations and CIA operations is under The Executive. There is Congressional Oversight through the Intelligence Committees. Those who attend those meetings are must have security clearances and even Congressmen must keep the information secret.
It's important to note that the political parties are not disagreeing with the policy to kill terrorists who are responsible for prior attacks, and actively planning attacks, whether American Citizens or not. I am fully behind the effort to eliminate these bastards, and am thankful that few loyal Americans must be put in harms way to kill them and to those who run these missions.
The problem with using "local resources" is that you can't always trust the people you hire locally. You don't know who they are talking to, you don't know if they are going to follow the plan exactly, you don't know their judgement. By using Drones, you can control the lethal force exactly as you want. You don't have to disclose the intelligence or the methods to gain information, or put those agents at risk. You also have video and pictures and verification that you don't always get with a local resource.
Many Presidents have not served in the military or law enforcement. And The Founders did not make it a requirement, and Americans like the idea of Civilian Control. In many ways it is better if the President was not in the military. So, to insult Obama for not serving seems empty.
In terms of trusting the Americans serving in the military and CIA: Look at the level of integrity and ethics and morality that Americans have compared to most other nations and you will find Americans are the best. I am proud of being an American for this one reason. Yes, there are going to be a**holes, and criminals and negligents and incompetents, and corrupt people in the military and CIA and in the government. But, those are a tiny percentage often blown out of proportion by the media. The great majority are great people doing difficult jobs and not the best pay. Many are doing their gov't jobs out of patriotism. The majority of other nations suffer from massive police corruption, massive cheating, massive incompetence, market manipulation, organized crime controlling government, etc. We don't have that here in America...and why? Because Americans are good people and we want America to continue to prosper and be a society where people trust each other.
We are trusting our security to the people in the military and CIA and government....shouldn't we return the trust out of simple respect for their risk and their sacrifice? Every day President Obama leaves the White House he puts his life on the line from a terrorist or a crazy person or a domestic militant, and I think he does that for America, even if we strongly disagree with his policies or his politics. Shouldn't we show him the same respect we show a soldier who has seen combat, or is serving in a combat role, at least? While I may not trust Obama with my gun rights, I do trust him to make the decision to kill the terrorists as Commander. That is a burden most of us would not want.
CC
Where did I "insult" Barry? I realize what I did just there, so no need to point it out. Also, I don't believe prior service precludes "Civilian Control" at all. So, I'm not sure I follow that line of thought very well.
Now, I'm climbing out on a limb here as I don't have the time to preform an exhaustive investigation in to this, but I'd venture to say that in the last 40 years, the presidents who've done more to compromise our national security have not served. For example, I'd love to hear a reason for selling F16s and M1s to Egypt. And why selling the ChiComms radiation hardened microchips was a good idea. God knows, those two countries are in my Top 5 lists of stable, egalitarian countries. (I do realize the lack of direct relationship between prior service and selling out the US, but it was to illustrate a point - don't bother to "educate" me.)
I'm not sure I buy into that last paragraph. What has that administration done to deserve my trust? They've certainly done more than a few things to dissuade me from trusting. Want the list? Fast-n-Furious? Green energy "investments?" Def Auth Act? Benghazi? The list is pretty long.
That said, going from academic discussion to practical discussion - issuing a gov't statement to the effect of: If you are in Egypt/Pak/Afgan/et al., you are there at your own risk. Drone strikes are happening, if you associate with the wrong crowd, it's on you; would serve to address any of my concern. However...that is a far cry from drone strikes on US citizens domestically. To be honest, I'm still a bit amazed that the Def. Auth. Act was allowed to stand as was. Even the ACLU squawked over that bit of legislature brilliance.
I tend to view an encroaching gov't presence domestically as a bad thing. I'm not convinced that Barry, Nasty, Dingy, Feinstie, Behner, and the rest really know what's best for me. Nor do I believe they have "best intentions" with respect to my well being. Seems to me they are more concerned with becoming more powerful and more wealthy. Though, I really don't desire to feel like a well cared for child. I'd rather drink my beer, smoke my pipe, fly my plane, drive my care, and enjoy my guns and axes in peace.
To give the government power, like the power to kill citizens without oversight...simply because of trust or "well, he's a good guy" is horribly misguided.
Like......my god, a "pick up a history book or return to 4th grade social studies" level of misguided.
BaiHu
02-07-2013, 02:38 PM
To give the government power, like the power to kill citizens without oversight...simply because of trust or "well, he's a good guy" is horribly misguided.
Like......my god, a "pick up a history book or return to 4th grade social studies" level of misguided.
+1-with-nine-zeroes
To give the government power, like the power to kill citizens without oversight...simply because of trust or "well, he's a good guy" is horribly misguided.
Like......my god, a "pick up a history book or return to 4th grade social studies" level of misguided.
Just a decent discussion of how broadly defined criteria are:
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/02/05/obama-admin-drones-can-target-americans-abroad-based-on-one-officials-opinion/
What is the basis for an American citizen having more legal right to due process when he's at war with the USA than a Yemeni national or whatever? Is it a common sense thing ie intuitively obvious to the casual observer or is there something specific being referenced as a Constitutional basis?
Any person, even if not a citizen has essentially the same rights for due process if arrested for a crime in the US. I've long argued for two tiers of civil rights; one for citizens and another for non-citizens but I've not seen any sign of that.
If we establish that foreign nationals in terrorist orgs at war with the US can be killed but US citizens that have joined those forces cannot without some system of review and oversight, we cannot sustain the logic of that distinction based on our Constitution or law. Soon we will have ROE for these operations like what the troops had in AFG trying to fight McChrystal's interpretation of COIN.
Applying domestic law enforcement guidelines to international war is proven way more misguided across history.
Just a decent discussion of how broadly defined criteria are:
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/02/05/obama-admin-drones-can-target-americans-abroad-based-on-one-officials-opinion/
What is the basis for an American citizen having more legal right to due process when he's at war with the USA than a Yemeni national or whatever? Is it a common sense thing ie intuitively obvious to the casual observer or is there something specific being referenced as a Constitutional basis?
Any person, even if not a citizen has essentially the same rights for due process if arrested for a crime in the US. I've long argued for two tiers of civil rights; one for citizens and another for non-citizens but I've not seen any sign of that.
If we establish that foreign nationals in terrorist orgs at war with the US can be killed but US citizens that have joined those forces cannot without some system of review and oversight, we cannot sustain the logic of that distinction based on our Constitution or law. Soon we will have ROE for these operations like what the troops had in AFG trying to fight McChrystal's interpretation of COIN.
Applying domestic law enforcement guidelines to international war is proven way more misguided across history.
No, I agree.
I think what you're (still) missing is that most people aren't concerned about not killing terrorists just because they're Americans......it's that we're concerned the process is too open to abuse to be used against people who aren't terrorists...whether maliciously or accidentally.
From reading through the thread, it seems that almost everyone is in agreement that a terrorist should be schwacked before they can carry out their acts....whether they're an American citizen or not. The troubling part that we need to address is a reliable metric which minimizes human error/abuse in identifying who to persecute, as many feel the current system is unacceptable in doing so. It has nothing to do with wanting to play nice and give known, undeniable terrorists a chance to appear on Judge Judy to plead their case.
No, I agree.
I think what you're (still) missing is that most people aren't concerned about not killing terrorists just because they're Americans......it's that we're concerned the process is too open to abuse to be used against people who aren't terrorists...whether maliciously or accidentally.
From reading through the thread, it seems that almost everyone is in agreement that a terrorist should be schwacked before they can carry out their acts....whether they're an American citizen or not. The troubling part that we need to address is a reliable metric which minimizes human error/abuse in identifying who to persecute, as many feel the current system is unacceptable in doing so. It has nothing to do with wanting to play nice and give known, undeniable terrorists a chance to appear on Judge Judy to plead their case.
I should not be mischaracterizing your point of view as "wanting to play nice". I should be staying focused FIRST on the point that there is no legal basis for the distinction of targetted killing standards between citizens and foreign nationals. Whatever standard is developed to authorize forces to terminate with extreme prejuidice an American in an ALQ organization would probably also be applied to the foreign national - legally.
And SECOND that in matters of war, the due process of domestic LE and criminal proceedings are out the window.
And how this is at all different than our legal prohibition on "assassination" is another distinction without a difference.
I haven't seen any scenarios posed where it sounds remotely possible to apply this lethal sanction to political opposition in the US beyond vague what if they turn this rationale on us? If the circumstances deteriorate to the point that the national command authority is engaging in targetted killings of Americans, in America then so many other Rubicons have been crossed that whatever oversight and standards created in this process will hardly matter.
ezthumper
02-07-2013, 05:26 PM
Bill,
We are trusting our security to the people in the military and CIA and government....shouldn't we return the trust out of simple respect for their risk and their sacrifice? Every day President Obama leaves the White House he puts his life on the line from a terrorist or a crazy person or a domestic militant, and I think he does that for America, even if we strongly disagree with his policies or his politics. Shouldn't we show him the same respect we show a soldier who has seen combat, or is serving in a combat role, at least? While I may not trust Obama with my gun rights, I do trust him to make the decision to kill the terrorists as Commander. That is a burden most of us would not want.
CC
The president is voted in on a popularity contest and his cronies are vetted by the same man that won that contest and not scrutinized for moral character like our military and CIA/FBI/NSA.
In order for me to work around priority 'A' resources, I had a back ground checks that went all the way back to my grade school. Not to mention trolling my neighbor hood where I grew up. I had to go through steps to become PRP cert. Personal Reliability Program.
1. The Department of Defense shall support the national security of the United States by maintaining an effective nuclear deterrent while protecting the public health, safety, and environment. For that reason, nuclear-weapons require special consideration because of their policy implications and military importance, their destructive power, and the political consequences of an accident or an unauthorized act. The safety, security, control, and effectiveness of nuclear weapons are of paramount importance to the security of the United States.
2. Nuclear weapons shall not be subject to loss, theft, sabotage, unauthorized use, unauthorized destruction, unauthorized disablement, jettison, or accidental damage.
3. Only those personnel who have demonstrated the highest degree of individual reliability for allegiance, trustworthiness, conduct, behavior, and responsibility shall be allowed to perform duties associated with nuclear weapons, and they shall be continuously evaluated for adherence to PRP standards.
A presidential candidate does not fall under the same scrutiny, nor is he held to or put through this types of screening. Yet we continually elect presidents based on some star search requirements.
TCinVA
02-07-2013, 07:10 PM
No, I agree.
I think what you're (still) missing is that most people aren't concerned about not killing terrorists just because they're Americans......it's that we're concerned the process is too open to abuse to be used against people who aren't terrorists...whether maliciously or accidentally.
Given how many examples of government using power to commit truly horrible acts there are in recent history and the knowledge that fundamental human nature is no different today than it was less than a century ago, it's perfectly sane for us to consider possible abuses...because where there is power there will be abuse of it.
Anyone who pretends that our society is somehow completely different to the point where it can't happen here is hopelessly naive.
I haven't seen any scenarios posed where it sounds remotely possible to apply this lethal sanction to political opposition in the US beyond vague what if they turn this rationale on us? If the circumstances deteriorate to the point that the national command authority is engaging in targetted killings of Americans, in America then so many other Rubicons have been crossed that whatever oversight and standards created in this process will hardly matter.
This is true, but only to a point. FISA was enacted as a result of the Church Commissions and the rampant, systematic, cultural STASI-ism of the FBI. There was an obvious need to restrict the ability of the government to easily persecute citizens or groups by labeling them as subversive, and I don't think that it would be wise to lose these.
Given how many examples of government using power to commit truly horrible acts there are in recent history and the knowledge that fundamental human nature is no different today than it was less than a century ago, it's perfectly sane for us to consider possible abuses...because where there is power there will be abuse of it.
Anyone who pretends that our society is somehow completely different to the point where it can't happen here is hopelessly naive.
Stalin, Mao, Hitler and Chavez were all awesome dudes that the people loved (understandably)..............until they weren't.
Tamara
02-07-2013, 08:54 PM
The troubling part that we need to address is a reliable metric which minimizes human error/abuse in identifying who to persecute...
Oh, that's wacky! Next thing you know, you'll be saying kooky wookie-suiter nonsense like "We should put a definition of 'Treason' right in the Constitution!" or something whack like that. ;)
Mike Honcho
02-07-2013, 08:56 PM
What's the difference between an Al Queda training camp, and a CONUS carbine class?
Monkey bars?
Odin Bravo One
02-07-2013, 10:14 PM
I'm far from a legal or Constitutional expert...........
But it seems to me there is a very fine line being towed. A military target terminated via all measures reasonably necessary and available is one thing. The killing of an American citizen, who is allegedly in a leadership role of an identified terror organization without at least an indictment is dangerously close to assassination.
cclaxton
02-07-2013, 10:32 PM
The president is voted in on a popularity contest and his cronies are vetted by the same man that won that contest and not scrutinized for moral character like our military and CIA/FBI/NSA.
A presidential candidate does not fall under the same scrutiny, nor is he held to or put through this types of screening. Yet we continually elect presidents based on some star search requirements.
That is an indictment of the Constitution and not necessarily the "man" who becomes President. If The Framers wanted a moral test, they would have added it. Instead they added an age requirement of 35yo, must be naturally born in the US, and have been a resident for at least 14 years, which leads us to believe that age itself provides enough wisdom and experience to server as The Executive. Of course the problem with the moral test is that it is subjective...whose morals? If you have lived to be 35, if you are a scoundrel, it is very likely you will have been found out by then. Of course we have some Presidents who hid it very well: Richard Nixon (crook), Ulysses S. Grant (Corruption), Andrew Johnson (Opposed 14th Amendment), and Warren Harding (Corruption).
And then there is the infamous case of Zachary Taylor, who was a great and fearless soldier, but was a terrible President, ignorant of the political process to the point of being a joke. Zachary goes to prove that being a great soldier does not qualify you for office. Second place goes to Franklin Pierce, a Mexican war veteran whose primary goal as President was to expand and preserve slavery.
Also, there is an interesting story about how popularity plays a role in the election of President. Just look at Andrew Jackson, who happened to be a Officer in the War of 1812. His war career weighed against him in the election of 1828, as he had executed the six ring-leaders of a mutinous militia of 200. The rest were fined. But it was Andrew Jackson, and the many scandalous behavior (duels, women, etc.) that resulted in the first election where the common people determined the outcome of the election. Some say that without the scandals, the common people may have not showed up.
By the time a person runs for President these days, their background has been gone over with a magnifying glass numerous times. We have a much less chance these days of a scoundrel becoming President.
CC
TCinVA
02-07-2013, 10:59 PM
By the time a person runs for President these days, their background has been gone over with a magnifying glass numerous times. We have a much less chance these days of a scoundrel becoming President.
CC
Ha! Good one!
...wait...you're serious...
Smart article by the consistently smart Andrew McCarthy. He peels the onion pretty deeply. I'd say more than one side of the debate is both challenged by parts of his analysis and validated by other parts of it.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/340225/problems-white-paper-andrew-c-mccarthy
BaiHu
02-10-2013, 09:17 PM
My favorite part:
Yes, Holder conceded, this might mean that the government will be barred from detaining and interrogating many a “dangerous terrorist.” And yes, it risks the reprise of 9/11’s slaughter of nearly 3,000 Americans. “But,” he blithely*concluded, “our Nation has always been prepared to accept some risk as the price of guaranteeing that the Executive does not have arbitrary power to imprison citizens.”
Does this go for 2A as well?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2
JMorse
02-11-2013, 02:08 AM
Looks like Dorner is the first American on US soil to warrant a drone.
http://now.msn.com/christopher-dorner-is-first-drone-target-on-us-soil
A hellfire strike would be a suitably dramatic ending to this cluster.
Looks like Dorner is the first American on US soil to warrant a drone.
http://now.msn.com/christopher-dorner-is-first-drone-target-on-us-soil
A hellfire strike would be a suitably dramatic ending to this cluster.
Article says nothing about the use of drone-launched ordinance against him, just that they are using drones to try and simply locate him. Unless I read it wrong.
Even with all the crazy crap going on, I'd still be pretty shocked if he got a missile up his butt. Though I probably shouldn't be.
Tamara
02-11-2013, 06:33 AM
Even with all the crazy crap going on, I'd still be pretty shocked if he got a missile up his butt. Though I probably shouldn't be.
Mostly because LAPD doesn't have Hellfires. (And if they did, you couldn't pay me enough to drive a pickup in the LA basin right now.)
orionz06
02-11-2013, 07:01 AM
Mostly because LAPD doesn't have Hellfires. (And if they did, you couldn't pay me enough to drive a pickup in the LA basin right now.)
How long before you see one of the dumbasses trying to use a spent rocket tube like it is a rocket?
JMorse
02-11-2013, 07:28 AM
I just added the hellfire bit for fun.
Can't tell what's real and what's humorous anymore
Drang
02-11-2013, 11:59 AM
Can't tell what's real and what's supposed to be humorous anymore
FIFY
MadMax17
02-11-2013, 10:23 PM
Google the Reichstag Fire Decree and Enabling Act of 1933...
Tamara
02-13-2013, 06:55 AM
Google the Reichstag Fire Decree and Enabling Act of 1933...
Yeah, I know what it is, but I'm not following your chain of lily pads here. How does this relate to the topic at hand?
Drang
02-13-2013, 08:31 PM
The Big Tent is made of tinfoil?
MadMax17
02-15-2013, 02:40 PM
Yeah, I know what it is, but I'm not following your chain of lily pads here. How does this relate to the topic at hand?
No real justification was required to arrest people other than someone deemed them a possible threat to the state. The socialists and communists were subsequently swept from the Reichstag, leaving an NSDAP majority. Not implying this is what's going to happen, just commenting that such ambiguous legal language is nothing new.
No real justification was required to arrest people other than someone deemed them a possible threat to the state. The socialists and communists were subsequently swept from the Reichstag, leaving an NSDAP majority. Not implying this is what's going to happen, just commenting that such ambiguous legal language is nothing new.
Right. But this issue is about Americans who have joined enemy forces overseas and are outside the reach of law enforcement and the criminal justice system which remains intact for Americans fighting for the enemy here in the States. Sending LEOs or commandos into Yemen to put handcuffs on these citizen enemies is needless reckless and disrespectful of the lives of said LEOs or commandos. So, whack 'em.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.