The Justice Department's Legal Argument for Drone Strikes on Americans

[warpus]

If it's legal for drone strikes to kill Americans without due process, then it shouldn't be legal for drone strikes to kill Americans without due process. The government using loopholes to kill its citizens? That's not going to end well for anyone

 

[Antilogic]

I'm going to try and tackle this memo at some point, but I had a comment based on the articles/coverage of it.

I'm somewhat concerned by the first point illram brought up earlier--the perpetual nature of the current conflict (whatever you want to call it, war on terror or some other name) seems to give the executive branch the ability to assassinate/kill a target that must be associated in some form with a terrorist activity, yet there is no review before, during, or after to ensure that condition is met.

 

[Hygro]

If US citizens, insist on trying to harm the USA, what exactly do you expect the Fed Gov to do?

Wait for proof? Are you serious? If I had one ton of weaponized Ricin, and was about to release
it in central park.....your telling me you would prefer sending in the NYPD rather than stopping me cold with a hellfire?

People scream to be defended, and then about their freedoms. Make up your minds.
In a perfect world, an armed citizen IN central park would stop me cold.

There's a big difference between codifying oppression and someone breaking a rule to do a good thing. We don't need to make a bunch of horrible things legal just because of some "what if". On the extremely unlikely chance your scenario ever have to light, then someone can take the initiative and do what has to be done, and deal with the cleanup later.

 

[warpus]

I'm going to try and tackle this memo at some point, but I had a comment based on the articles/coverage of it.

I'm somewhat concerned by the first point illram brought up earlier--the perpetual nature of the current conflict (whatever you want to call it, war on terror or some other name) seems to give the executive branch the ability to assassinate/kill a target that must be associated in some form with a terrorist activity, yet there is no review before, during, or after to ensure that condition is met.

That's exactly why it's so vague.. "war on terror". It can keep on going forever. The guys in charge must like it because it gives them more legal leeway to do stuff they otherwise might not have been able to pull.

 

[Formaldehyde]

This does nothing to address the fact that domestic enemies do exist, and why they should be treated any differently that foreign enemies. This is just a lame attempt to blame shift the issue.

Try addressing the point Form, instead of attempting to divert it.

You mean as you continue to do by not specifying exactly what "domestic enemies" the US military is supposed to attack in order to "defend" your obvious misunderstandings concerning the actual meaning of our own Constitution, Bill of Rights, and federal statutes which protect US citizens from its own military in their own country?

Who exactly do you wish to torture, murder, and even assassinate with drone strikes within the borders of the US by using the US military? Why isn't this the province of the FBI and state law enforcement authorities to arrest these individuals and try them in a court of law instead of declaring war on them in their own country?

So let's hear your own "lame attempt" to rationalize and defend the indefensible yet again.

 

[MobBoss]

You mean as you continue to do by not specifying what "domestic enemies" the US military is supposed to attack in order to "defend" your obvious misunderstandings concerning the actual meaning of our own Constitution, Bill of Rights, and federal statutes?

My question was how do we specify them, and once identified, do we treat them differently than we would any other enemy.

But thats ok. If you are having trouble grasping my questions, and would rather try to say I misunderstand the consitution, then you can fish that red herring all you want. Ymmv of course.

Who exactly do you wish to torture, murder, and even assassinate with drone strikes within the borders of the US by using the US military? Why isn't this the province of the FBI and state law enforcement authorities?

I didnt read anything within the OP brief that would indicate that strikes within the US borders would be prosecuted, and to allege that is even a remote possibility is most likely a grossly irresponsible statement. The OP brief does in fact state: "In addition to the suspect being an imminent threat, capture of the target must be “infeasible"....

I think it would be a very tough argument for the administration to claim that it is infeasible to capture someone within the borders of the USA. And to claim otherwise is just simply fear mongering.

I would agree with you that it is more the job of the FBI than any other government entity to do so within the borders of the USA.

So let's hear your own "lame attempt" to rationalize and defend the indefensible this time.

What's indefensible here? That we indentify, find and kill the enemies of the USA that are intent on killing our own citizens if given a chance to? How is that indefensible?

And for once, could you at least try to keep your loathing of the USA in check enough to actually have a discussion on the merits? Probably not, but I still hold down hope from time to time.

 

[Formaldehyde]

So you again completely misunderstood the actual context of my remarks, and just made up yet another absurd strawman instead?

Why exactly did you delete this portion of my post thereby completely changing the context?

Are folks advocating that we up the ante on US soil and allow un-reviewable Predator drone strikes in NY City?

Apparently so:

My statement had nothing whatsoever to do with the OP. It clearly had to do with Illram's question and your own statement regarding using the US military to attack "domestic" enemies.

Again, is this your position or not?

 

[Agent327]

If it's legal for drone strikes to kill Americans without due process, then it shouldn't be legal for drone strikes to kill Americans without due process. The government using loopholes to kill its citizens? That's not going to end well for anyone

Yes, errr... tyranny! ("Where's the rage?") But hey, we're killing bad guys, aren't we? Or rather, that's what we assume, according to the memo, without any solid proof.

The point, however, is that there really isn't any "loophole" to begin with. Which is why this internal memo is selfcontradictory in its argumentation - such as it is; it is looking for a loophole that isn't there.

I don't really want to give up the right to bear arms either.

Join the military. They always bear arms - unless they can't afford them.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Join the military. They always bear arms - unless they can't afford them.

I want them so the state can't (As easily) take away my freedom, not so I can take freedom away from everyone else instead of defending it at home.

I'd rather die than join the US military as it currently stands.

 

[Hygro]

I'd rather die than join the US military as it currently stands.

That's kind of badass.

 

[MobBoss]

So you again completely misunderstood the actual context of my remarks, and just made up yet another absurd strawman instead?

That offer by Illram wasnt part of the OP was it?

But to answer him. No.

My statement had nothing whatsoever to do with the OP.

Way to stay on topic then.

It clearly had to do with Illram's question and your own statement regarding using the US military to attack "domestic" enemies.

I made no mention or implication that it would involve strikes upon US soil. I merely asked the question of how we identify such domestic enemies and then how do we treat them in comparison to our other enemies.

Again, is this your position or not?

I havent really taken a position in this thread yet, aside from what I just said in this post.