EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americans

Status
Not open for further replies.
The US Constitution guarantees the right to due process. That you would toss this aside out of a sense of fear is ridiculous.

We are talking about giving the US Gov't the ability to kill US citizens based on rumors. Defending that is beyond insane.
 
WinterBorn said:
You haven't stuck anyone. You are defending a piece of legislation that is blatantly unconstitutional, and you are depending on the honesty and integrity of the gov't to prevent abuse of that law. That is insanity.
Click to expand...

I was not speaking to or about you in that quote, WB. I was speaking directly to the POS BAC. And, it's not up to you, thankfully, whether something might be blatantly unconstitutional or not. In military matters very little is actually constitutional including the rights of our very own troops. Try some of it on. You might better understand the dilemma.
 
Gatorman said:
I was not speaking to or about you in that quote, WB. I was speaking directly to the POS BAC. And, it's not up to you, thankfully, whether something might be blatantly unconstitutional or not. In military matters very little is actually constitutional including the rights of our very own troops. Try some of it on. You might better understand the dilemma.
Click to expand...

I have tried it on and served my tour. That is irrelevant. That fact that you are defending a piece of legislation that removes due process as a right of a US citizen is what is being discussed. Throwing out constitutionally guaranteed rights is unacceptable.
 
WinterBorn said:
The US Constitution guarantees the right to due process. That you would toss this aside out of a sense of fear is ridiculous.

We are talking about giving the US Gov't the ability to kill US citizens based on rumors. Defending that is beyond insane.
Click to expand...

Did I mention anything about fear? You're delusional, cowgirl. What we are talking about is a military decision by the CIC to protect our patriots and our assets. The only fear involved here is being placed on those that would do us harm. Rumors? Maybe you operate that way but that is NOT how these decisions are made from the offices of the Pentagon or the CIC.
 
WinterBorn said:
I have tried it on and served my tour. That is irrelevant. That fact that you are defending a piece of legislation that removes due process as a right of a US citizen is what is being discussed. Throwing out constitutionally guaranteed rights is unacceptable.
Click to expand...

At the time Yemen wasn't allowing us to serve any papers over there. I don't think that has changed.
 
WinterBorn said:
I have tried it on and served my tour. That is irrelevant. That fact that you are defending a piece of legislation that removes due process as a right of a US citizen is what is being discussed. Throwing out constitutionally guaranteed rights is unacceptable.
Click to expand...

At the time Yemen wasn't allowing us to serve any papers over there. I don't think that has changed.
 
Gatorman said:
Did I mention anything about fear? You're delusional, cowgirl. What we are talking about is a military decision by the CIC to protect our patriots and our assets. The only fear involved here is being placed on those that would do us harm. Rumors? Maybe you operate that way but that is NOT how these decisions are made from the offices of the Pentagon or the CIC.
Click to expand...

Right, because they did such a good job of vetting the claims that there were WMDs in Iraq. Because the US gov't always does what is in the best interest of the people.

And yes, it is fear. You mentioned your own safety several times. This is not about someone pointing a gun at you or even someone in a critical stage of an attack. This is political assasination of US citizens.

And this is convicting US citizens of a crime without a trial or due process. There is not excuse for that. You cannot justify that by claiming it is a war zone. If they are about to shoot you, sure shoot back. But this is about a preemptive strike without having to provice proof of anything to the public.
 
WinterBorn said:
Right, because they did such a good job of vetting the claims that there were WMDs in Iraq. Because the US gov't always does what is in the best interest of the people.

And yes, it is fear. You mentioned your own safety several times. This is not about someone pointing a gun at you or even someone in a critical stage of an attack. This is political assasination of US citizens.

And this is convicting US citizens of a crime without a trial or due process. There is not excuse for that. You cannot justify that by claiming it is a war zone. If they are about to shoot you, sure shoot back. But this is about a preemptive strike without having to provice proof of anything to the public.
Click to expand...

"Political assassination"? What do they call you around your neighborhood? Mr. Pitiful?
 
War zones are no places to be fucking around with due processes and red tape. But here are the most fervent complainers of such defending the very same thing. Riiiiiiiiiiiight.
 
Gatorman said:
"Political assassination"? What do they call you around your neighborhood? Mr. Pitiful?
Click to expand...

Did you read the OP?

"“The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future,” the memo states.

Instead, it says, an “informed, high-level” official of the U.S. government may determine that the targeted American has been “recently” involved in “activities” posing a threat of a violent attack and “there is no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities.” The memo does not define “recently” or “activities.”"

This crap allows the US Gov't to kill a citizen without there being any clear evidence that a specific attack will take place. You think that is acceptable???



And around my neighborhood most of the folks call me by my first name or call me "sir". But then, you were the one who was going to attack people who legally carried firearms, so I'm sure the things they call you in your neighborhood are funny as hell.
 
Gatorman said:
War zones are no places to be fucking around with due processes and red tape. But here are the most fervent complainers of such defending the very same thing. Riiiiiiiiiiiight.
Click to expand...

We are NOT talking about war zones. The OP clearly stated that there did not have to be any evidence of an imminent attack for the gov't to kill a US citizen.
 
WinterBorn said:
Did you read the OP?

"“The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future,” the memo states.

Instead, it says, an “informed, high-level” official of the U.S. government may determine that the targeted American has been “recently” involved in “activities” posing a threat of a violent attack and “there is no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities.” The memo does not define “recently” or “activities.”"

This crap allows the US Gov't to kill a citizen without there being any clear evidence that a specific attack will take place. You think that is acceptable???



And around my neighborhood most of the folks call me by my first name or call me "sir". But then, you were the one who was going to attack people who legally carried firearms, so I'm sure the things they call you in your neighborhood are funny as hell.
Click to expand...

The memo is designed to assist our military and intelligence operations fight on equal footing with our sworn enemies. That is the gist I get out of it and I don't quibble with much else about it. You can run around in dreamland all you want but the real world requires real action. Again, thankfully, it really ain't up to you.

Around my neighborhood most call me PawPaw. I have one lady neighbor that calls me Mr. Wonderful.

You misunderstand what I say about removing what I might perceive as a threat. I don't know what some gun monkey might be up to. I'd rather be safe than sorry. If you don't like that, and I am completely aware that you don't, then kiss my ass. I just caused a ruckus in a convenience store a week or so ago. Cowboy took his penis extender and put it in his truck. I am no shrinking violet.
 
WinterBorn said:
Did you read the OP?

"“The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future,” the memo states.

Instead, it says, an “informed, high-level” official of the U.S. government may determine that the targeted American has been “recently” involved in “activities” posing a threat of a violent attack and “there is no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities.” The memo does not define “recently” or “activities.”"

This crap allows the US Gov't to kill a citizen without there being any clear evidence that a specific attack will take place. You think that is acceptable???



And around my neighborhood most of the folks call me by my first name or call me "sir". But then, you were the one who was going to attack people who legally carried firearms, so I'm sure the things they call you in your neighborhood are funny as hell.
Click to expand...

The memo is designed to assist our military and intelligence operations fight on equal footing with our sworn enemies. That is the gist I get out of it and I don't quibble with much else about it. You can run around in dreamland all you want but the real world requires real action. Again, thankfully, it really ain't up to you.

Around my neighborhood most call me PawPaw. I have one lady neighbor that calls me Mr. Wonderful.

You misunderstand what I say about removing what I might perceive as a threat. I don't know what some gun monkey might be up to. I'd rather be safe than sorry. If you don't like that, and I am completely aware that you don't, then kiss my ass. I just caused a ruckus in a convenience store a week or so ago. Cowboy took his penis extender and put it in his truck. I am no shrinking violet.
 
WinterBorn said:
We are NOT talking about war zones. The OP clearly stated that there did not have to be any evidence of an imminent attack for the gov't to kill a US citizen.
Click to expand...

Then what assassination outside of any war zone or named terrorist state are you talking about? Don't give me any what "if" bullshit. If my aunt had balls she would have been my uncle.
 
Gatorman said:
Then what assassination outside of any war zone or named terrorist state are you talking about? Don't give me any what "if" bullshit. If my aunt had balls she would have been my uncle.
Click to expand...

No where in the legislation does it say anything about war zones, terrorist states, or even that it be outside the US.
 
WinterBorn said:
No where in the legislation does it say anything about war zones, terrorist states, or even that it be outside the US.
Click to expand...

Ohhhhhhh, I thought you could come up with an example of any action that would fit your ridiculous assertions. You're beginning to bore me enormously, WB. You're better than that!!!!!!!!
 
Gatorman said:
Ohhhhhhh, I thought you could come up with an example of any action that would fit your ridiculous assertions. You're beginning to bore me enormously, WB. You're better than that!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

Oh, so I have to come up with an example of what MIGHT happen, but I can't use any "if" bullshit? lol

Look, the OP states it very clearly. There are memos outlining killing US citizens without a trial. And it is not doing so if they are caught in the act of something. It can be done if they were involved in any planning of an attack, even if that attack is not imminent and they are not longer involved (if they did not renounce the attack).

The entire bill clearly violates the US Constitution.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top