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

Status
Not open for further replies.
As an addendum to my above post - it is now Constitutional for Obama to send drones to kill Tina Turner, since she is no longer a US citizen. Now all we need is for her to become a threat to this country, and perhaps some permission from the Swiss government to launch an attack on their soil.
 
Threedee said:
For the record - ZERO is the number of Americans that have been killed under Obama's drone program. ZERO is the number of Americans which Obama's drone program can kill at present. When the president announces (or does in clandestine fashion - either way) that he is expanding the drone program to strike at American criminals and dissidents (either here on US soil or those hiding overseas), then there will be a Constitutional crisis.
Click to expand...

Do you have a link?
 
Anyway, a Yemini judge had ordered he be captured "dead or alive" for al-Queda crimes he had committed over there. Previously, he can be tied to 9/11 hijackers, Major Hasan, and the Christmas Day bomber who tried to blow-up the airliners. He could have been targeted for those crimes via the legal system (although the Yemeni police would likely have killed him, anyway), but since he was engaged in al-Queda's war, it was a different matter.
 
Gatorman said:
Critical thinking is my forte' and you are certainly no challenge. You've obviously ignored most of what is written in this thread. Your primary concern is yourself. Who gives a missionary fuck?
Click to expand...

:whoa:

Keep telling yourself that over and over .. then close your eyes and click your heels 3 times. Perhaps then you'll be whisked away to the land of critical thought.

If you actually were a critical thinker, your response to Turley's sane and rational thought would not have been "Blah, blah, blah." It's just that simple.

You're not interested in actual debate dude .. you're just here to cover Obama's ass.
 
Last edited:
Threedee said:
Specifically to fight against us. Thus, Jane Fonda is still a US citizen.
Click to expand...

Then wouldn't one need a trial to prove "specifically" why they were in a war zone? How do we know they are not there as private citizen peace negotiators?
 
Threedee said:
Anyway, a Yemini judge had ordered he be captured "dead or alive" for al-Queda crimes he had committed over there. Previously, he can be tied to 9/11 hijackers, Major Hasan, and the Christmas Day bomber who tried to blow-up the airliners. He could have been targeted for those crimes via the legal system (although the Yemeni police would likely have killed him, anyway), but since he was engaged in al-Queda's war, it was a different matter.
Click to expand...

What of Al-Awlaki's 16 year old son, also killed in a drone strike, also an American citizen, and with no known or suspected ties to Al Quaida?
 
Rune said:
Then wouldn't one need a trial to prove "specifically" why they were in a war zone? How do we know they are not there as private citizen peace negotiators?
Click to expand...

According to Eric Holder, there are "no boundaries."

Obama can have you killed whether one is in a war zone or not.

According to many legal analysts, he can kill you on American soil.

What happens when the next republican president comes along and has that power?
 
blackascoal said:
According to Eric Holder, there are "no boundaries."

Obama can have you killed whether one is in a war zone or not.

According to many legal analysts, he can kill you on American soil.

What happens when the next republican president comes along and has that power?
Click to expand...

This can't stand.

If the ACLU is good for anything at all, they will bring this to SCOTUS.
 
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...

What legislation? It was a justice department memo. It was the administration acting as CIC.

I appreciate the feigned indignation by some of the libs here, but there will be no protests. They might squirm a little, but they won't do anything to upend their Messiah
 
Rune said:
This can't stand.

If the ACLU is good for anything at all, they will bring this to SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

They will not. Obama will not be treated like a Republican. You will wring your hands, but in the end you will be brought into line and claim this is "for the greater good"
 
I Love America said:
What legislation? It was a justice department memo. It was the administration acting as CIC.

I appreciate the feigned indignation by some of the libs here, but there will be no protests. They might squirm a little, but they won't do anything to upend their Messiah
Click to expand...

Just out of curiosity, what are you planning on doing about it, hotshot?
 
WinterBorn said:
Then you clearly do not understand. They have decided they have the authority to kill US citizens. The citizen does not have to be in the act of attacking the US, nor do they have to be on a battlefield or in a terrorist state.

Your federal gov't has decided that it can forego the entire due process, skip the trial completely, and go straight to the execution. And they answer to no one when they do
Click to expand...

gatorman is not going to care. in matters of 'war', as clear or as vague as they can put it, he is all for executive action and the constitution just doesn't matter. he's a plebe.
 
blackascoal said:
According to Eric Holder, there are "no boundaries."

Obama can have you killed whether one is in a war zone or not.

According to many legal analysts, he can kill you on American soil.

What happens when the next republican president comes along and has that power?
Click to expand...

Yeah, this won't end well. I don't know how anyone can support this. The fact that 3d is supporting it should be a huge red flag to everyone. He's an idiot.

Gatorman I really don't know much of. I saw that Senator Wyden is planning on bringing it up during confirmation hearings, but I think this calls for a lot more than that.
 
Dungheap said:
Just out of curiosity, what are you planning on doing about it, hotshot?
Click to expand...

What I am going to Sonia irrelevant because nothing is going to be done. I can twist myself in knots over it, but this will fade away in a couple of days

If people didnt get fired up over any of the other illegal unconstitutional bullshit Obama has done, why would I think this is any different.

In a couple of days liberals will make the calculation than banning guns, controlling banks and all of their other leftist wet dreams will trump any discomfort this gives them.

So they will employ thier favorite psychological friend cognitive dissonance and it will all be OK.

Soon those wringing thier hands today will sound no different than Gator. With the exception of BAC who is consistent on these issues.
 
"Nothing" would have been fine.

The reality is that nothing will be done because Congress doesn't want to do anything about. The intelligence committees have known about this for quite some time and have done exactly jack shit about it. What the hell do you want from me or any other liberal?

Personally, I think the 2001 AUMF should be repealed. It's the root of the problem.
 
I Love America said:
What I am going to Sonia irrelevant because nothing is going to be done. I can twist myself in knots over it, but this will fade away in a couple of days

If people didnt get fired up over any of the other illegal unconstitutional bullshit Obama has done, why would I think this is any different.

In a couple of days liberals will make the calculation than banning guns, controlling banks and all of their other leftist wet dreams will trump any discomfort this gives them.

So they will employ thier favorite psychological friend cognitive dissonance and it will all be OK.

Soon those wringing thier hands today will sound no different than Gator. With the exception of BAC who is consistent on these issues.
Click to expand...


You are wrong.

I would be very surprised to see Chief Jusice Roberts endorse this.

Now that the idiots were brazen enough to issue an opinion, action can be taken. As I said, this needs to go before SCOTUS.
 
Last edited:
Rune said:
You are wrong.

I would be very surprised to see Chief Jusice Roberts endorse this.

Now that the idiots were brazen enough to issue an opinion, action can be taken. As I said, this needs to go before SCOTUS.
Click to expand...


SCOTUS probably can't do anything about it. I don't see how a case challending the authority ends up there because I don't know that anyone has standing to bring a lawsuit in the first instance.

Congress can do something about it, but won't.
 
As the supreme arbiter of all things constitutional, SCOTUS must see this.
Being that all americans are susceptible to this opinion, perhaps a class action?

Obviously any individual who is targeted will never get the chance to sue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top