SUBSCRIBE | NEWSLETTERS | MAPS | VIDEOS | BLOGS | MARKETPLACE | CONTESTS
TRY BACKPACKER FREE!
SUBSCRIBE NOW and get
2 Free Issues and 3 Free Gifts!
Full Name:
Address 1:
Address 2:
City:
State:
Zip Code:
Email: (required)
If I like it and decide to continue, I'll pay just $12.00, and receive a full one-year subscription (9 issues in all), a 73% savings off the newsstand price! If for any reason I decide not to continue, I'll write "cancel" on the invoice and owe nothing.
Your subscription includes 3 FREE downloadable booklets.
Or click here to pay now and get 2 extra issues
Offer valid in US only.


» Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

 

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]

reply to topic new topic new poll
Topic: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for, drone killings< Next Oldest | Next Newest >
 Post Number: 1
dayhiker9 Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5904
Joined: Apr. 2003
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 04 2013, 9:35 pm  Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Justice Department Memo

Some might say illegal case?

QUOTE

“This is a chilling document,” said Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the ACLU, which has sued unsuccessfully in court to obtain administration memos about the targeted killing of Americans.  “Basically, it argues that the government has the right to carry out the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen. … It recognizes some limits on the authority it sets out, but the limits are elastic and vaguely defined, and it’s easy to see how they could be manipulated.”


Author appeared on MSNBC's Maddow show.


--------------
" before you make assertions about numbers, look at the numbers."   Krugman
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 2
Ben2World Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 25979
Joined: Jun. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 04 2013, 9:36 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Chilling indeed.  I'll take it one step further -- chilling for our government to engage in extra-judicial killings of anyone -- at home or abroad!!

And sheesh, we quibble about the Chinese government supposedly attacking computers!


--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page.  -- St. Augustine
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 3
Montanalonewolf Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7135
Joined: Mar. 2010
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 05 2013, 7:34 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Citizen assassination without real cause?

And the anti-gun whackjobs insist we don't need guns to defend against the government.


--------------
If you are free to be a Liberal- Thank a person with a gun.

Those who don't read have no advantage over those who can't.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 4
HighGravity Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 4518
Joined: Oct. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 05 2013, 8:03 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Montanalonewolf @ Feb. 05 2013, 7:34 am)
QUOTE
Citizen assassination without real cause?

And the anti-gun whackjobs insist we don't need guns to defend against the government.

It didn't say anything about it being without cause. I fail to see what's chilling about it. So we can kill terrorists but only if they aren't American terrorists?
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 5
JimInMD Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 3949
Joined: Feb. 2011
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 05 2013, 8:12 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

I don't believe it's "without cause", it's without "judical review".

--------------
"Your number one philosophy for personal security should be a life long commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation."

The 3 Stupids Rule:

Don’t go to stupid places, with stupid people, to do stupid things.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 6
Montecresto Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 05 2013, 9:27 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Montanalonewolf @ Feb. 05 2013, 7:34 am)
QUOTE
Citizen assassination without real cause?

And the anti-gun whackjobs insist we don't need guns to defend against the government.

+1

--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 7
Montecresto Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 05 2013, 9:29 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(JimInMD @ Feb. 05 2013, 8:12 am)
QUOTE
I don't believe it's "without cause", it's without "judical review".

True. Which is a violation of these and future American citizens constitutional rights. More people ought to be standing in outrage.

--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 8
Old Frank Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1192
Joined: Sep. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 05 2013, 10:32 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Despite the fact that this policy is presented (erroneously, I believe) by some as a reason to arm ourselves against our own government:  I'm OK with most aspects of this policy.

Having my son atop one of the towers shortly before 9/11 has caused a lot of (extra) reflection.


--------------
My favorite compliment: "GrandPa, I've seen other old men, and their faces are a whole lot cruddier than yours is".
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 9
JimInMD Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 3949
Joined: Feb. 2011
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 05 2013, 10:43 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Old Frank @ Feb. 05 2013, 10:32 am)
QUOTE
Despite the fact that this policy is presented (erroneously, I believe) by some as a reason to arm ourselves against our own government:  I'm OK with most aspects of this policy.

Having my son atop one of the towers shortly before 9/11 has caused a lot of (extra) reflection.


I favor broad latitude for killing our arresting or killing people that are a legitimate threat to the US.  If they're going to stay in parts of the world where they can not reasonably be captured/ arrested, than I don't have issue with using any reasonible means to kill them.  that said, I would want their "death warrent" signed by a US judge after a trial and the declaration of a death sentence.  I would even support means to speed up the process for exigent circumstances and it should be legal to kill someone posing an immediate threat without further review.  I DO NOT support the Executive Branch being able to draw up a hit list and proceeding to kill citizens without that citizen or anyone else ever having a chance to speak in a court of law on their behalf.


--------------
"Your number one philosophy for personal security should be a life long commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation."

The 3 Stupids Rule:

Don’t go to stupid places, with stupid people, to do stupid things.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 10
dayhiker9 Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5904
Joined: Apr. 2003
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 05 2013, 10:57 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Maddow Show

About 8 minutes in start the coverage of this issue.

About 12:00 minutes in Rep. Wyden asks some questions which need answering, for those who don't understand the potential for misuse here.

(Seems to take awhile to load right now)


--------------
" before you make assertions about numbers, look at the numbers."   Krugman
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 11
Montecresto Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 05 2013, 12:05 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(JimInMD @ Feb. 05 2013, 10:43 am)
QUOTE

(Old Frank @ Feb. 05 2013, 10:32 am)
QUOTE
Despite the fact that this policy is presented (erroneously, I believe) by some as a reason to arm ourselves against our own government:  I'm OK with most aspects of this policy.

Having my son atop one of the towers shortly before 9/11 has caused a lot of (extra) reflection.


I favor broad latitude for killing our arresting or killing people that are a legitimate threat to the US.  If they're going to stay in parts of the world where they can not reasonably be captured/ arrested, than I don't have issue with using any reasonible means to kill them.  that said, I would want their "death warrent" signed by a US judge after a trial and the declaration of a death sentence.  I would even support means to speed up the process for exigent circumstances and it should be legal to kill someone posing an immediate threat without further review.  I DO NOT support the Executive Branch being able to draw up a hit list and proceeding to kill citizens without that citizen or anyone else ever having a chance to speak in a court of law on their behalf.

A trial that would be open to public scrutiny. And what the hell are you talking about with "death warrant" signed by a judge? You want to allow a death warrant for a US citizen because we THINK they may be involved with al Qaida, and MIGHT commit a crime? First it was pre-emotive attacks on sovereign nations, now it's pre-emotive attacks on sovereign citizens, and we're told that its none of the courts business, and it finds support here!!!!!


--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 12
JimInMD Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 3949
Joined: Feb. 2011
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 05 2013, 12:15 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Montecresto @ Feb. 05 2013, 12:05 pm)
QUOTE
I favor broad latitude for killing our arresting or killing people that are a legitimate threat to the US.  If they're going to stay in parts of the world where they can not reasonably be captured/ arrested, than I don't have issue with using any reasonible means to kill them.  that said, I would want their "death warrent" signed by a US judge after a trial and the declaration of a death sentence.  I would even support means to speed up the process for exigent circumstances and it should be legal to kill someone posing an immediate threat without further review.  I DO NOT support the Executive Branch being able to draw up a hit list and proceeding to kill citizens without that citizen or anyone else ever having a chance to speak in a court of law on their behalf.[/quote]
A trial that would be open to public scrutiny. And what the hell are you talking about with "death warrant" signed by a judge? You want to allow a death warrant for a US citizen because we THINK they may be involved with al Qaida, and MIGHT commit a crime? First it was pre-emotive attacks on sovereign nations, now it's pre-emotive attacks on sovereign citizens, and we're told that its none of the courts business, and it finds support here!!!!!

One would presume a warrant in this case would be issued after a trial.

--------------
"Your number one philosophy for personal security should be a life long commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation."

The 3 Stupids Rule:

Don’t go to stupid places, with stupid people, to do stupid things.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 13
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43815
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 05 2013, 12:18 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(JimInMD @ Feb. 05 2013, 7:43 am)
QUOTE

(Old Frank @ Feb. 05 2013, 10:32 am)
QUOTE
Despite the fact that this policy is presented (erroneously, I believe) by some as a reason to arm ourselves against our own government:  I'm OK with most aspects of this policy.

Having my son atop one of the towers shortly before 9/11 has caused a lot of (extra) reflection.


I favor broad latitude for killing our arresting or killing people that are a legitimate threat to the US.  If they're going to stay in parts of the world where they can not reasonably be captured/ arrested, than I don't have issue with using any reasonible means to kill them.  that said, I would want their "death warrent" signed by a US judge after a trial and the declaration of a death sentence.  I would even support means to speed up the process for exigent circumstances and it should be legal to kill someone posing an immediate threat without further review.  I DO NOT support the Executive Branch being able to draw up a hit list and proceeding to kill citizens without that citizen or anyone else ever having a chance to speak in a court of law on their behalf.

I agree: as we learned over and over again with Bush's Guantanamo Tribunals there is a dire need for a critical test of these sorts of contentions that doesn't get accomplished within the sealed environs of one branch of government.

The needed "quality control", IMHO, is missing.

As I've stated multiple times I'm not opposed to body counts as long as they're the right bodies. Which takes a trial of some sort with an opposition critically testing the premises under consideration.

ETA: "sovereign citizens". Yes that's illuminating.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 14
Three Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1075
Joined: Dec. 2011
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 05 2013, 12:21 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

QUOTE
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.  Fifth Amendment, U.S. Constitution  
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 15
Montecresto Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 05 2013, 12:23 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

While Obama is president democrats will have no problem with this, as republicans had no problem with Bush when he engaged in constitutional challenging policies and so it just continues, on and on.

--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 16
Montecresto Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 05 2013, 12:26 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Three @ Feb. 05 2013, 12:21 pm)
QUOTE
QUOTE
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.  Fifth Amendment, U.S. Constitution  

Another problem with us remaining perpetually at war, leaning on this for extra legal killing of US citizens simply suspected of criminal or terroristic activity. And still finding support here!

--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 17
Ben2World Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 25979
Joined: Jun. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 05 2013, 12:53 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(JimInMD @ Feb. 05 2013, 5:12 am)
QUOTE
I don't believe it's "without cause", it's without "judical review".

It's exactly why our forefathers inserted 'judicial review' in the first place!  As for non Americans -- killing with cause will need to be done in accordance with the Geneva Convention -- and other pertinent treaties.

Imagine a world where all the major countries and even some of the second-tiered ones engage in similar assassinations -- and we are the ones who opened the padora's box!!


--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page.  -- St. Augustine
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 18
Dennis The Menace Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 10656
Joined: Apr. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 05 2013, 2:54 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(JimInMD @ Feb. 05 2013, 10:43 am)
QUOTE

(Old Frank @ Feb. 05 2013, 10:32 am)
QUOTE
Despite the fact that this policy is presented (erroneously, I believe) by some as a reason to arm ourselves against our own government:  I'm OK with most aspects of this policy.

Having my son atop one of the towers shortly before 9/11 has caused a lot of (extra) reflection.


I favor broad latitude for killing our arresting or killing people that are a legitimate threat to the US.  If they're going to stay in parts of the world where they can not reasonably be captured/ arrested, than I don't have issue with using any reasonible means to kill them.  that said, I would want their "death warrent" signed by a US judge after a trial and the declaration of a death sentence.  I would even support means to speed up the process for exigent circumstances and it should be legal to kill someone posing an immediate threat without further review.  I DO NOT support the Executive Branch being able to draw up a hit list and proceeding to kill citizens without that citizen or anyone else ever having a chance to speak in a court of law on their behalf.

JimMD

If you have time I suggest you take a look at that Rachel Maddow Vid dayhiker linked to.
At the end of the video Rachel Interviews long time investigative reporter Michael Isokoff
who broke the story and who first got access to this memo. At around 15:00 in the video
he says that the Obama administration used the term "Broader Concept of imminence" when it comes to
defining what is "imminent" and that according to the Obama administration "imminence does
not mean that the United States has to have clear evidence that a specific attack on US
persons or interests is underway. If the US believes that the target has in the past been
involved in such violent activities and the target has not renounced such activities it
can be assumed that they are an imminent threat now and that would justify and attack"

or from


“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.


http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news....ns?lite

Isokoff also said that memo makes it clear that some of the definitions are more flexible
and "open to interpretation" than the administration had said in the past and that future
administration could interpret differently than other administrations.


--------------
politics is the art of taking advantage of mass stupidity and ignorance
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 19
Ben2World Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 25979
Joined: Jun. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 05 2013, 2:57 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(JimInMD @ Feb. 05 2013, 7:43 am)
QUOTE
I favor broad latitude for killing our arresting or killing people that are a legitimate threat to the US.  If they're going to stay in parts of the world where they can not reasonably be captured/ arrested, than I don't have issue with using any reasonable means to kill them...

Jim, would you hold the same broad latitude when Russian or Chinese drones come our way to kill people they view as a menace to their security?  With death warrants properly signed by their judges -- and in ways they deem reasonable  -- and the times when their drones kill innocent Americans instead, they too will convey sincere apologies -- same as us??


--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page.  -- St. Augustine
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 20
Dennis The Menace Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 10656
Joined: Apr. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 05 2013, 3:05 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Montecresto @ Feb. 05 2013, 12:23 pm)
QUOTE
While Obama is president democrats will have no problem with this, as republicans had no problem with Bush when he engaged in constitutional challenging policies and so it just continues, on and on.

That isn't true or at least not according to this Democrat and Democrats like Ron Wyden. I
think Democrats have been harder On Obama on issue like this than Republican were EVER
on Bush. Its this issue(along with issues related to warrantless wiretapping/FISA and how the
Obama administration has handled Financial/banking/Wall Street or lack of handled) that IMO
has made the ceiling for the Obama administration at around a B or B- grade. I can't see
the Obama administration ever deserving a better overall grade than around B or B- because
of these particular issues. Now granted its a  not a black & white issue because I too want the US
the opportunity to take out real true terrorists who pose a real threat to our nation and at
the same time I don't want minimize American personnel getting killed in the process of trying
to capture or kill real true terrorists. Of the that comes with its own set of problems that
have been explained by Maddow, Isokoff and others in this thread. Tough issue


--------------
politics is the art of taking advantage of mass stupidity and ignorance
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 21
Dennis The Menace Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 10656
Joined: Apr. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 05 2013, 3:07 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Montanalonewolf @ Feb. 05 2013, 7:34 am)
QUOTE
Citizen assassination without real cause?

And the anti-gun whackjobs insist we don't need guns to defend against the government.

That BS because you didn't see this kind of paranoia about taking away guns during the Bush
administration. Is that because the Bush administration did things that should give people
less reason to fear the government? ya right


--------------
politics is the art of taking advantage of mass stupidity and ignorance
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 22
Montecresto Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 05 2013, 5:13 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Dennis The Menace @ Feb. 05 2013, 3:05 pm)
QUOTE

(Montecresto @ Feb. 05 2013, 12:23 pm)
QUOTE
While Obama is president democrats will have no problem with this, as republicans had no problem with Bush when he engaged in constitutional challenging policies and so it just continues, on and on.

That isn't true or at least not according to this Democrat and Democrats like Ron Wyden. I
think Democrats have been harder On Obama on issue like this than Republican were EVER
on Bush. Its this issue(along with issues related to warrantless wiretapping/FISA and how the
Obama administration has handled Financial/banking/Wall Street or lack of handled) that IMO
has made the ceiling for the Obama administration at around a B or B- grade. I can't see
the Obama administration ever deserving a better overall grade than around B or B- because
of these particular issues. Now granted its a  not a black & white issue because I too want the US
the opportunity to take out real true terrorists who pose a real threat to our nation and at
the same time I don't want minimize American personnel getting killed in the process of trying
to capture or kill real true terrorists. Of the that comes with its own set of problems that
have been explained by Maddow, Isokoff and others in this thread. Tough issue

That's cool, if your laying the pressure on your party, kudos to ya. But not enough are.

--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 23
Montecresto Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 05 2013, 5:15 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Dennis The Menace @ Feb. 05 2013, 3:07 pm)
QUOTE

(Montanalonewolf @ Feb. 05 2013, 7:34 am)
QUOTE
Citizen assassination without real cause?

And the anti-gun whackjobs insist we don't need guns to defend against the government.

That BS because you didn't see this kind of paranoia about taking away guns during the Bush
administration. Is that because the Bush administration did things that should give people
less reason to fear the government? ya right

He'll no there was no less fear under Bush.

--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 24
Montanalonewolf Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7135
Joined: Mar. 2010
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 05 2013, 6:21 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

If it's done elsewhere, what makes anyone think it wouldn't be done here?

You know... maybe one of those "gun-nut militia" compounds. Or possibly the main offices of Fox or other media sources that become too critical of the government and are decided to be "a threat to the well being and safety of the country".

Sidebar: 1918-1919 flu pandemic. The US issued a gag order to the media against revealing just how bad it really was. A newspaper office was burned and the editor murdered after publishing an article on the flu. This was suspected of having been ordered by the government although no concrete evidence was ever found (book: "The Great Influenza").


--------------
If you are free to be a Liberal- Thank a person with a gun.

Those who don't read have no advantage over those who can't.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 25
Montecresto Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 06 2013, 12:11 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Not in America Montanalonewolf.

--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 26
dayhiker9 Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5904
Joined: Apr. 2003
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 10 2013, 2:00 am Skip to the previous post in this topic.  Ignore posts   QUOTE

Yes , why would these memos be secret, I suppose parts might need to be redacted but seems like they are just hiding behind National Security etc.

--------------
" before you make assertions about numbers, look at the numbers."   Krugman
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
25 replies since Feb. 04 2013, 9:35 pm < Next Oldest | Next Newest >

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]


 
reply to topic new topic new poll

» Quick Reply Justice Department memo reveals legal case for
iB Code Buttons
You are posting as:

Do you wish to enable your signature for this post?
Do you wish to enable emoticons for this post?
Track this topic
View All Emoticons
View iB Code



Get 2 FREE Trial Issues and 3 FREE GIFTS
Survival Skills 101 • Eat Better
The Best Trails in America
YES! Please send me my FREE trial issues of Backpacker
and my 3 FREE downloadable booklets.
Full Name:
City:
Address 1:
Zip Code:
State:
Address 2:
Email (required):
Free trial offer valid for US subscribers only. Canadian subscriptions | International subscriptions