|
|
| Post Number: 1
|
|
|
| Post Number: 2
|
Ben2World 
Group: Members
Posts: 24127
Joined: Jun. 2005
|
 |
Posted on: Feb. 04 2013, 9:36 pm |
|
    |
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
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 3
|
Montanalonewolf
Group: Members
Posts: 4886
Joined: Mar. 2010
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 05 2013, 7:34 am |
|
|
Citizen assassination without real cause?
And the anti-gun whackjobs insist we don't need guns to defend against the government.
--------------
Ignorance is curable with education. Stupidity is refusing to be educated.
Those who don't read have no advantage over those who can't.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 4
|
|
|
| Post Number: 5
|
JimInMD
Group: Members
Posts: 3112
Joined: Feb. 2011
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 05 2013, 8:12 am |
|
|
I don't believe it's "without cause", it's without "judical review".
--------------
Checking out for a while, find me on FB.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 6
|
|
|
| Post Number: 7
|
|
|
| Post Number: 8
|
Old Frank
Group: Members
Posts: 648
Joined: Sep. 2007
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 05 2013, 10:32 am |
|
|
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".
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 9
|
|
|
| Post Number: 10
|
dayhiker9
Group: Members
Posts: 5309
Joined: Apr. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 05 2013, 10:57 am |
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 11
|
Montecresto
Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 05 2013, 12:05 pm |
|
|
(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
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 12
|
|
|
| Post Number: 13
|
High_Sierra_Fan
Group: Members
Posts: 39802
Joined: Aug. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 05 2013, 12:18 pm |
|
|
(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.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 14
|
Three
.jpg)
Group: Members
Posts: 765
Joined: Dec. 2011
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 05 2013, 12:21 pm |
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 15
|
Montecresto
Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 05 2013, 12:23 pm |
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 16
|
Montecresto
Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 05 2013, 12:26 pm |
|
|
(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
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 17
|
|
|
| Post Number: 18
|
Dennis The Menace
Group: Members
Posts: 8482
Joined: Apr. 2007
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 05 2013, 2:54 pm |
|
|
(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.
--------------
if you first punch someone and then that someone punches back and then you complain to
someone else that you were punched, then you're a silly fool
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 19
|
|
|
| Post Number: 20
|
|
|
| Post Number: 21
|
|
|
| Post Number: 22
|
Montecresto
Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 05 2013, 5:13 pm |
|
|
(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
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 23
|
Montecresto
Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 05 2013, 5:15 pm |
|
|
(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
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 24
|
Montanalonewolf
Group: Members
Posts: 4886
Joined: Mar. 2010
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 05 2013, 6:21 pm |
|
|
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").
--------------
Ignorance is curable with education. Stupidity is refusing to be educated.
Those who don't read have no advantage over those who can't.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 25
|
Montecresto
Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 06 2013, 12:11 am |
|
|
Not in America Montanalonewolf.
--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 26
|
dayhiker9
Group: Members
Posts: 5309
Joined: Apr. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 10 2013, 2:00 am |
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Survival Skills 101 • Eat Better
