|
On February 07 2013 02:42 hinnolinn wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 02:39 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 02:37 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 02:35 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 02:32 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 02:22 BronzeKnee wrote:I think you guys should read the memo itself. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdfThe conclusion: "In conclusion, it would be lawful for the United States to conduct a lethal operation outside the United States against a US citizen who is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida without violating the constitution or the federal statues discussed in this white paper under the following conditions:..." And then it goes out to lay three conditions, which are: (1) that an informed high level official determine the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States, (2) that their capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible, and (3) that the operation is conducted in a manner consistent with the four fundamental principles of the laws of war governing the use of the force. I know everyone is scared that Obama will start killing everyone who didn't vote for him, you'd have to be to quote: " Here the Justice Department concludes only where the following there conditions are met..."(1) You are a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida. (2) You poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States. (3) Your capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible. The paper limits itself to justifying force in those conditions. Read it!Does anyone really disagree with that? Interestingly, wouldn't these requirements usually be enough for the judicial branch to make a decision? If so, why does it only require the executive branch's say so? It isn't the judicial branches job to defend the United States. To quote "This white paper sets forth a legal framework for considering the circumstances in which the US government could use lethal force in a foreign country outside the area of active hostilities against a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans." It isn't the executive branch's job to pass sentence on United States citizens either, but apparently you're willing to cede it to them. So we have two choices here. Either: We allow the government to kill someone who they cannot capture who is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida and poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States. Or we don't, which then allows them to violently attack the United States. That's rather myopic. We could have specific panels set up for quick and appropriate judgements, with lifetime appointed judges and perhaps an observer or two to help keep them accountable to the public if they start just rubber stamping things. We could, I don't know, maybe get congress/senate to grant this power to the president instead of him just taking it for himself. There's plenty of possible solutions. Only allowing yourself to see this as a binary choice is just laziness....
We don't disagree. I was simply saying either we allow the government to do it or we don't and you're saying that we can setup panels, ect... so in essence you agree we allow it (ie that the government has the power). You in fact, don't even see it as a choice, you're just arguing that a different branch of government should have the power. You even suggest lifetime judges do it...
As for due process, read the memo it explains that due process protects life, but argues it should be circumvented when that individual threatens the lives of other and the individual who threatens is a senior operational leader involved with Al-Qaida, who cannot be captured.
Which is basically saying, a US citizen who is a soldier serving in a hostile nations army has no rights to due process.
Read it, and think about it.
|
On February 07 2013 02:44 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 02:42 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 02:39 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 02:37 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 02:35 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 02:32 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 02:22 BronzeKnee wrote:I think you guys should read the memo itself. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdfThe conclusion: "In conclusion, it would be lawful for the United States to conduct a lethal operation outside the United States against a US citizen who is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida without violating the constitution or the federal statues discussed in this white paper under the following conditions:..." And then it goes out to lay three conditions, which are: (1) that an informed high level official determine the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States, (2) that their capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible, and (3) that the operation is conducted in a manner consistent with the four fundamental principles of the laws of war governing the use of the force. I know everyone is scared that Obama will start killing everyone who didn't vote for him, you'd have to be to quote: " Here the Justice Department concludes only where the following there conditions are met..."(1) You are a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida. (2) You poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States. (3) Your capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible. The paper limits itself to justifying force in those conditions. Read it!Does anyone really disagree with that? Interestingly, wouldn't these requirements usually be enough for the judicial branch to make a decision? If so, why does it only require the executive branch's say so? It isn't the judicial branches job to defend the United States. To quote "This white paper sets forth a legal framework for considering the circumstances in which the US government could use lethal force in a foreign country outside the area of active hostilities against a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans." It isn't the executive branch's job to pass sentence on United States citizens either, but apparently you're willing to cede it to them. So we have two choices here. Either: We allow the government to kill someone who they cannot capture who is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida and poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States. Or we don't, which then allows them to violently attack the United States. That's rather myopic. We could have specific panels set up for quick and appropriate judgements... We don't disagree. I was simply saying either we allow it or we don't and you're saying that we can setup panels, ect... so in essence you agree we allow it. You in fact, don't even see it as a choice, you're just arguing that a different branch of government should have the power. You even suggest lifetime judges... As for due process, read the memo it explains that due process protects life, but argues it should be circumvented when that individual threatens the lives of other Americans from an individual involved with Al-Qaida. Which is basically saying, a US citizen who is a soldier serving in a hostile nations army has no rights to due process.
First of all, that's pretty much not at all what I was saying. One of these things follows the laws that we have in this country, and the other does not. Secondly, just because the paper says that, doesn't mean that's what due process means. It's a memo written by the DoJ to justify the use of said power, not a scholarly interpretation for peer review.
And yes, I suggest lifetime judges, because when you're in a position to make determinations on nation security with sensitive security access, it would not be in the interests of justice to allow those judges to be swayed by the fact that they could be fired from the job, arrested, or anything else. There is already a precedent for lifetime appointed judges.
|
Read it, and tell me what is wrong with it's analysis of due process.
And you don't think that the government should have the power to kill US citizens who are abroad, can't be captured, and are senior Al-Qaida members who pose an imminent risk of violent attack on the US?
If you don't think the government should, then yes, we don't agree.
|
On February 07 2013 02:44 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 02:42 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 02:39 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 02:37 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 02:35 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 02:32 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 02:22 BronzeKnee wrote:I think you guys should read the memo itself. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdfThe conclusion: "In conclusion, it would be lawful for the United States to conduct a lethal operation outside the United States against a US citizen who is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida without violating the constitution or the federal statues discussed in this white paper under the following conditions:..." And then it goes out to lay three conditions, which are: (1) that an informed high level official determine the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States, (2) that their capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible, and (3) that the operation is conducted in a manner consistent with the four fundamental principles of the laws of war governing the use of the force. I know everyone is scared that Obama will start killing everyone who didn't vote for him, you'd have to be to quote: " Here the Justice Department concludes only where the following there conditions are met..."(1) You are a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida. (2) You poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States. (3) Your capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible. The paper limits itself to justifying force in those conditions. Read it!Does anyone really disagree with that? Interestingly, wouldn't these requirements usually be enough for the judicial branch to make a decision? If so, why does it only require the executive branch's say so? It isn't the judicial branches job to defend the United States. To quote "This white paper sets forth a legal framework for considering the circumstances in which the US government could use lethal force in a foreign country outside the area of active hostilities against a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans." It isn't the executive branch's job to pass sentence on United States citizens either, but apparently you're willing to cede it to them. So we have two choices here. Either: We allow the government to kill someone who they cannot capture who is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida and poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States. Or we don't, which then allows them to violently attack the United States. That's rather myopic. We could have specific panels set up for quick and appropriate judgements, with lifetime appointed judges and perhaps an observer or two to help keep them accountable to the public if they start just rubber stamping things. We could, I don't know, maybe get congress/senate to grant this power to the president instead of him just taking it for himself. There's plenty of possible solutions. Only allowing yourself to see this as a binary choice is just laziness.... We don't disagree. I was simply saying either we allow the government to do it or we don't and you're saying that we can setup panels, ect... so in essence you agree we allow it (ie that the government has the power). You in fact, don't even see it as a choice, you're just arguing that a different branch of government should have the power. You even suggest lifetime judges do it... As for due process, read the memo it explains that due process protects life, but argues it should be circumvented when that individual threatens the lives of other and the individual who threatens is a senior operational leader involved with Al-Qaida, who cannot be captured. Which is basically saying, a US citizen who is a soldier serving in a hostile nations army has no rights to due process. Read it, and think about it.
No, a US citizen who is ACCUSED of being a soldier serving blablabla.
There's a major difference between 'is' and being accused of something by the US state. I imagine the standards to be 'found' guilty are significantly lower for an individual than a country, and yet look at how Iraq turned out.
On February 07 2013 02:48 BronzeKnee wrote:
Read it, and tell me what is wrong with it's analysis of due process.
And you don't think that the government should have the power to kill US citizens who are abroad, can't be captured, and are senior Al-Qaida members who pose an imminent risk of violent attack on the US?
If you don't think the government should, then yes, we don't agree.
Again, there is no 'are'.
|
On February 07 2013 02:52 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 02:44 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 02:42 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 02:39 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 02:37 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 02:35 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 02:32 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 02:22 BronzeKnee wrote:I think you guys should read the memo itself. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdfThe conclusion: "In conclusion, it would be lawful for the United States to conduct a lethal operation outside the United States against a US citizen who is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida without violating the constitution or the federal statues discussed in this white paper under the following conditions:..." And then it goes out to lay three conditions, which are: (1) that an informed high level official determine the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States, (2) that their capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible, and (3) that the operation is conducted in a manner consistent with the four fundamental principles of the laws of war governing the use of the force. I know everyone is scared that Obama will start killing everyone who didn't vote for him, you'd have to be to quote: " Here the Justice Department concludes only where the following there conditions are met..."(1) You are a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida. (2) You poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States. (3) Your capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible. The paper limits itself to justifying force in those conditions. Read it!Does anyone really disagree with that? Interestingly, wouldn't these requirements usually be enough for the judicial branch to make a decision? If so, why does it only require the executive branch's say so? It isn't the judicial branches job to defend the United States. To quote "This white paper sets forth a legal framework for considering the circumstances in which the US government could use lethal force in a foreign country outside the area of active hostilities against a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans." It isn't the executive branch's job to pass sentence on United States citizens either, but apparently you're willing to cede it to them. So we have two choices here. Either: We allow the government to kill someone who they cannot capture who is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida and poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States. Or we don't, which then allows them to violently attack the United States. That's rather myopic. We could have specific panels set up for quick and appropriate judgements, with lifetime appointed judges and perhaps an observer or two to help keep them accountable to the public if they start just rubber stamping things. We could, I don't know, maybe get congress/senate to grant this power to the president instead of him just taking it for himself. There's plenty of possible solutions. Only allowing yourself to see this as a binary choice is just laziness.... We don't disagree. I was simply saying either we allow the government to do it or we don't and you're saying that we can setup panels, ect... so in essence you agree we allow it (ie that the government has the power). You in fact, don't even see it as a choice, you're just arguing that a different branch of government should have the power. You even suggest lifetime judges do it... As for due process, read the memo it explains that due process protects life, but argues it should be circumvented when that individual threatens the lives of other and the individual who threatens is a senior operational leader involved with Al-Qaida, who cannot be captured. Which is basically saying, a US citizen who is a soldier serving in a hostile nations army has no rights to due process. Read it, and think about it. No, a US citizen who is ACCUSED of being a soldier serving blablabla. There's a major difference between 'is' and being accused of something by the US state. I imagine the standards to be 'found' guilty are significantly lower for an individual than a country, and yet look at how Iraq turned out.
The memo doesn't say accused, it says is.
Read it: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf
Obviously the government can't justify going around and killing everyone it accuses of being this or that.
|
On February 07 2013 02:44 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 02:42 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 02:39 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 02:37 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 02:35 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 02:32 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 02:22 BronzeKnee wrote:I think you guys should read the memo itself. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdfThe conclusion: "In conclusion, it would be lawful for the United States to conduct a lethal operation outside the United States against a US citizen who is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida without violating the constitution or the federal statues discussed in this white paper under the following conditions:..." And then it goes out to lay three conditions, which are: (1) that an informed high level official determine the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States, (2) that their capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible, and (3) that the operation is conducted in a manner consistent with the four fundamental principles of the laws of war governing the use of the force. I know everyone is scared that Obama will start killing everyone who didn't vote for him, you'd have to be to quote: " Here the Justice Department concludes only where the following there conditions are met..."(1) You are a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida. (2) You poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States. (3) Your capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible. The paper limits itself to justifying force in those conditions. Read it!Does anyone really disagree with that? Interestingly, wouldn't these requirements usually be enough for the judicial branch to make a decision? If so, why does it only require the executive branch's say so? It isn't the judicial branches job to defend the United States. To quote "This white paper sets forth a legal framework for considering the circumstances in which the US government could use lethal force in a foreign country outside the area of active hostilities against a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans." It isn't the executive branch's job to pass sentence on United States citizens either, but apparently you're willing to cede it to them. So we have two choices here. Either: We allow the government to kill someone who they cannot capture who is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida and poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States. Or we don't, which then allows them to violently attack the United States. That's rather myopic. We could have specific panels set up for quick and appropriate judgements, with lifetime appointed judges and perhaps an observer or two to help keep them accountable to the public if they start just rubber stamping things. We could, I don't know, maybe get congress/senate to grant this power to the president instead of him just taking it for himself. There's plenty of possible solutions. Only allowing yourself to see this as a binary choice is just laziness.... We don't disagree. I was simply saying either we allow the government to do it or we don't and you're saying that we can setup panels, ect... so in essence you agree we allow it (ie that the government has the power). You in fact, don't even see it as a choice, you're just arguing that a different branch of government should have the power. You even suggest lifetime judges do it... As for due process, read the memo it explains that due process protects life, but argues it should be circumvented when that individual threatens the lives of other and the individual who threatens is a senior operational leader involved with Al-Qaida, who cannot be captured. Which is basically saying, a US citizen who is a soldier serving in a hostile nations army has no rights to due process. Read it, and think about it.
Read it. Still don't agree. Also, seeing as how it looks like over 50% of prisoners sent to Guantanamo Bay were not involved in anything that should have put them there, I don't have any faith in those officials in the know.
Edit: I'll actually tell you where I don't agree.
The paper does make a good point when it mentions that on the side of requiring due process that allowing this power would cause people to fear for the wrongful taking of their life without the chance to defend themselves. Then the paper goes on to present the weight on the other side of the scale and makes the decision that the other side is heavier, whereas I believe that it's not.
|
On February 07 2013 02:55 hinnolinn wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 02:44 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 02:42 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 02:39 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 02:37 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 02:35 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 02:32 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 02:22 BronzeKnee wrote:I think you guys should read the memo itself. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdfThe conclusion: "In conclusion, it would be lawful for the United States to conduct a lethal operation outside the United States against a US citizen who is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida without violating the constitution or the federal statues discussed in this white paper under the following conditions:..." And then it goes out to lay three conditions, which are: (1) that an informed high level official determine the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States, (2) that their capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible, and (3) that the operation is conducted in a manner consistent with the four fundamental principles of the laws of war governing the use of the force. I know everyone is scared that Obama will start killing everyone who didn't vote for him, you'd have to be to quote: " Here the Justice Department concludes only where the following there conditions are met..."(1) You are a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida. (2) You poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States. (3) Your capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible. The paper limits itself to justifying force in those conditions. Read it!Does anyone really disagree with that? Interestingly, wouldn't these requirements usually be enough for the judicial branch to make a decision? If so, why does it only require the executive branch's say so? It isn't the judicial branches job to defend the United States. To quote "This white paper sets forth a legal framework for considering the circumstances in which the US government could use lethal force in a foreign country outside the area of active hostilities against a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans." It isn't the executive branch's job to pass sentence on United States citizens either, but apparently you're willing to cede it to them. So we have two choices here. Either: We allow the government to kill someone who they cannot capture who is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida and poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States. Or we don't, which then allows them to violently attack the United States. That's rather myopic. We could have specific panels set up for quick and appropriate judgements, with lifetime appointed judges and perhaps an observer or two to help keep them accountable to the public if they start just rubber stamping things. We could, I don't know, maybe get congress/senate to grant this power to the president instead of him just taking it for himself. There's plenty of possible solutions. Only allowing yourself to see this as a binary choice is just laziness.... We don't disagree. I was simply saying either we allow the government to do it or we don't and you're saying that we can setup panels, ect... so in essence you agree we allow it (ie that the government has the power). You in fact, don't even see it as a choice, you're just arguing that a different branch of government should have the power. You even suggest lifetime judges do it... As for due process, read the memo it explains that due process protects life, but argues it should be circumvented when that individual threatens the lives of other and the individual who threatens is a senior operational leader involved with Al-Qaida, who cannot be captured. Which is basically saying, a US citizen who is a soldier serving in a hostile nations army has no rights to due process. Read it, and think about it. Read it. Still don't agree. Also, seeing as how it looks like over 50% of prisoners sent to Guantanamo Bay were not involved in anything that should have put them there, I don't have any faith in those officials in the know.
Let's not argue about whether or not the US with a pristine history ect... As I said, we can all go through the history of any given nations and find hypocrisy, but that is besides the point.
It is irrelevant. This discussion is about the papers, and the papers alone and whether or not it is okay for the government to kill a US citizen who they cannot capture and who is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida and poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States.
|
United States43764 Posts
On February 07 2013 02:22 BronzeKnee wrote:I think you guys should read the memo itself. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdfThe conclusion: "In conclusion, it would be lawful for the United States to conduct a lethal operation outside the United States against a US citizen who is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida without violating the constitution or the federal statues discussed in this white paper under the following conditions:..." And then it goes out to lay three conditions, which are: (1) that an informed high level official determine the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States, (2) that their capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible, and (3) that the operation is conducted in a manner consistent with the four fundamental principles of the laws of war governing the use of the force. I know everyone is scared that Obama will start killing everyone who didn't vote for him, but that would happen only when, and I quote " Here the Justice Department concludes only where the following there conditions are met..."
(1) You are a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida.
(2) You poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States.
(3) Your capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible.The paper limits itself to justifying force in those conditions. To quote "This white paper sets forth a legal framework for considering the circumstances in which the US government could use lethal force in a foreign country outside the area of active hostilities against a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans." Read it!Does anyone really disagree with that?
And which body does the President need to convince that these conditions have been met before they allow him to carry out a strike?
|
On February 07 2013 02:57 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 02:22 BronzeKnee wrote:I think you guys should read the memo itself. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdfThe conclusion: "In conclusion, it would be lawful for the United States to conduct a lethal operation outside the United States against a US citizen who is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida without violating the constitution or the federal statues discussed in this white paper under the following conditions:..." And then it goes out to lay three conditions, which are: (1) that an informed high level official determine the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States, (2) that their capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible, and (3) that the operation is conducted in a manner consistent with the four fundamental principles of the laws of war governing the use of the force. I know everyone is scared that Obama will start killing everyone who didn't vote for him, but that would happen only when, and I quote " Here the Justice Department concludes only where the following there conditions are met..."
(1) You are a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida.
(2) You poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States.
(3) Your capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible.The paper limits itself to justifying force in those conditions. To quote "This white paper sets forth a legal framework for considering the circumstances in which the US government could use lethal force in a foreign country outside the area of active hostilities against a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans." Read it!Does anyone really disagree with that? And which body does the President need to convince that these conditions have been met before they allow him to carry out a strike?
None, but if those conditions are not met and the strike is carried out, then the President is in trouble. The white papers are just saying that under those conditions if they are met, then it justifies the force. So the President better be darn sure those conditions are met.
Let me remind you that the President can also send the entire nation to war without needing anyone's approval for up to 60 days.
You know, we actually have to give the President some power, otherwise why would we call him the President? And also to remind everyone, this person is elected.
|
On February 07 2013 02:58 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 02:57 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 02:22 BronzeKnee wrote:I think you guys should read the memo itself. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdfThe conclusion: "In conclusion, it would be lawful for the United States to conduct a lethal operation outside the United States against a US citizen who is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida without violating the constitution or the federal statues discussed in this white paper under the following conditions:..." And then it goes out to lay three conditions, which are: (1) that an informed high level official determine the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States, (2) that their capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible, and (3) that the operation is conducted in a manner consistent with the four fundamental principles of the laws of war governing the use of the force. I know everyone is scared that Obama will start killing everyone who didn't vote for him, but that would happen only when, and I quote " Here the Justice Department concludes only where the following there conditions are met..."
(1) You are a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida.
(2) You poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States.
(3) Your capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible.The paper limits itself to justifying force in those conditions. To quote "This white paper sets forth a legal framework for considering the circumstances in which the US government could use lethal force in a foreign country outside the area of active hostilities against a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans." Read it!Does anyone really disagree with that? And which body does the President need to convince that these conditions have been met before they allow him to carry out a strike? None, but if those conditions are not met and the strike is carried out, then the President is in trouble. Let me remind you that the President can also send the entire nation to war without needing anyone's approval for up to 60 days. You know, we actually have to give the President some power, otherwise why would we call him the President? And also to remind everyone, this person is elected.
I don't remember this being one of the powers the president had when he was elected.
|
On February 07 2013 03:01 hinnolinn wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 02:58 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 02:57 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 02:22 BronzeKnee wrote:I think you guys should read the memo itself. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdfThe conclusion: "In conclusion, it would be lawful for the United States to conduct a lethal operation outside the United States against a US citizen who is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida without violating the constitution or the federal statues discussed in this white paper under the following conditions:..." And then it goes out to lay three conditions, which are: (1) that an informed high level official determine the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States, (2) that their capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible, and (3) that the operation is conducted in a manner consistent with the four fundamental principles of the laws of war governing the use of the force. I know everyone is scared that Obama will start killing everyone who didn't vote for him, but that would happen only when, and I quote " Here the Justice Department concludes only where the following there conditions are met..."
(1) You are a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida.
(2) You poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States.
(3) Your capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible.The paper limits itself to justifying force in those conditions. To quote "This white paper sets forth a legal framework for considering the circumstances in which the US government could use lethal force in a foreign country outside the area of active hostilities against a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans." Read it!Does anyone really disagree with that? And which body does the President need to convince that these conditions have been met before they allow him to carry out a strike? None, but if those conditions are not met and the strike is carried out, then the President is in trouble. Let me remind you that the President can also send the entire nation to war without needing anyone's approval for up to 60 days. You know, we actually have to give the President some power, otherwise why would we call him the President? And also to remind everyone, this person is elected. I don't remember this being one of the powers the president had when he was elected.
http://www.justice.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm
The President has broad constitutional power to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001.
The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations.
The President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11.
|
On February 07 2013 03:02 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 03:01 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 02:58 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 02:57 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 02:22 BronzeKnee wrote:I think you guys should read the memo itself. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdfThe conclusion: "In conclusion, it would be lawful for the United States to conduct a lethal operation outside the United States against a US citizen who is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida without violating the constitution or the federal statues discussed in this white paper under the following conditions:..." And then it goes out to lay three conditions, which are: (1) that an informed high level official determine the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States, (2) that their capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible, and (3) that the operation is conducted in a manner consistent with the four fundamental principles of the laws of war governing the use of the force. I know everyone is scared that Obama will start killing everyone who didn't vote for him, but that would happen only when, and I quote " Here the Justice Department concludes only where the following there conditions are met..."
(1) You are a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida.
(2) You poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States.
(3) Your capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible.The paper limits itself to justifying force in those conditions. To quote "This white paper sets forth a legal framework for considering the circumstances in which the US government could use lethal force in a foreign country outside the area of active hostilities against a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans." Read it!Does anyone really disagree with that? And which body does the President need to convince that these conditions have been met before they allow him to carry out a strike? None, but if those conditions are not met and the strike is carried out, then the President is in trouble. Let me remind you that the President can also send the entire nation to war without needing anyone's approval for up to 60 days. You know, we actually have to give the President some power, otherwise why would we call him the President? And also to remind everyone, this person is elected. I don't remember this being one of the powers the president had when he was elected. http://www.justice.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm The President has broad constitutional power to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001. The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations. The President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11.
Not talking about the ability to go to war for 60 days, I'm talking about the assassination/murder of american citizens.
|
United States43764 Posts
On February 07 2013 02:58 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 02:57 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 02:22 BronzeKnee wrote:I think you guys should read the memo itself. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdfThe conclusion: "In conclusion, it would be lawful for the United States to conduct a lethal operation outside the United States against a US citizen who is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida without violating the constitution or the federal statues discussed in this white paper under the following conditions:..." And then it goes out to lay three conditions, which are: (1) that an informed high level official determine the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States, (2) that their capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible, and (3) that the operation is conducted in a manner consistent with the four fundamental principles of the laws of war governing the use of the force. I know everyone is scared that Obama will start killing everyone who didn't vote for him, but that would happen only when, and I quote " Here the Justice Department concludes only where the following there conditions are met..."
(1) You are a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida.
(2) You poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States.
(3) Your capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible.The paper limits itself to justifying force in those conditions. To quote "This white paper sets forth a legal framework for considering the circumstances in which the US government could use lethal force in a foreign country outside the area of active hostilities against a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans." Read it!Does anyone really disagree with that? And which body does the President need to convince that these conditions have been met before they allow him to carry out a strike? None, but if those conditions are not met and the strike is carried out, then the President is in trouble. Let me remind you that the President can also send the entire nation to war without needing anyone's approval for up to 60 days.
In trouble with whom?
There is no scrutiny. You say that it isn't an accusation that they are a senior Al-Qaeda member, they only strike when they know, but there is no judicial review. It is a process in which the man who wants to do it is the same man who claims it's legal who is also the man who chooses whether or not to do it and the whole process is under a cloud of secrecy.
I don't have a problem with killing terrorists. I have a problem with a system where the guy who wants to kill another guy is also the one who gets to define whether the other guy fits the category and is also the guy who gets to decide whether to go ahead. These conditions are a nonsense.
|
On February 07 2013 03:03 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 02:58 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 02:57 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 02:22 BronzeKnee wrote:I think you guys should read the memo itself. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdfThe conclusion: "In conclusion, it would be lawful for the United States to conduct a lethal operation outside the United States against a US citizen who is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida without violating the constitution or the federal statues discussed in this white paper under the following conditions:..." And then it goes out to lay three conditions, which are: (1) that an informed high level official determine the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States, (2) that their capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible, and (3) that the operation is conducted in a manner consistent with the four fundamental principles of the laws of war governing the use of the force. I know everyone is scared that Obama will start killing everyone who didn't vote for him, but that would happen only when, and I quote " Here the Justice Department concludes only where the following there conditions are met..."
(1) You are a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida.
(2) You poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States.
(3) Your capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible.The paper limits itself to justifying force in those conditions. To quote "This white paper sets forth a legal framework for considering the circumstances in which the US government could use lethal force in a foreign country outside the area of active hostilities against a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans." Read it!Does anyone really disagree with that? And which body does the President need to convince that these conditions have been met before they allow him to carry out a strike? None, but if those conditions are not met and the strike is carried out, then the President is in trouble. Let me remind you that the President can also send the entire nation to war without needing anyone's approval for up to 60 days. In trouble with whom? There is no scrutiny. You say that it isn't an accusation that they are a senior Al-Qaeda member, they only strike when they know, but there is no judicial review. It is a process in which the man who wants to do it is the same man who claims it's legal who is also the man who chooses whether or not to do it and the whole process is under a cloud of secrecy. I don't have a problem with killing terrorists. I have a problem with a system where the guy who wants to kill another guy is also the one who gets to define whether the other guy fits the category and is also the guy who gets to decide whether to go ahead. These conditions are a nonsense.
You say things so much prettier then I can. Thank you.
|
On February 07 2013 03:03 hinnolinn wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 03:02 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:01 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 02:58 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 02:57 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 02:22 BronzeKnee wrote:I think you guys should read the memo itself. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdfThe conclusion: "In conclusion, it would be lawful for the United States to conduct a lethal operation outside the United States against a US citizen who is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida without violating the constitution or the federal statues discussed in this white paper under the following conditions:..." And then it goes out to lay three conditions, which are: (1) that an informed high level official determine the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States, (2) that their capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible, and (3) that the operation is conducted in a manner consistent with the four fundamental principles of the laws of war governing the use of the force. I know everyone is scared that Obama will start killing everyone who didn't vote for him, but that would happen only when, and I quote " Here the Justice Department concludes only where the following there conditions are met..."
(1) You are a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida.
(2) You poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States.
(3) Your capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible.The paper limits itself to justifying force in those conditions. To quote "This white paper sets forth a legal framework for considering the circumstances in which the US government could use lethal force in a foreign country outside the area of active hostilities against a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans." Read it!Does anyone really disagree with that? And which body does the President need to convince that these conditions have been met before they allow him to carry out a strike? None, but if those conditions are not met and the strike is carried out, then the President is in trouble. Let me remind you that the President can also send the entire nation to war without needing anyone's approval for up to 60 days. You know, we actually have to give the President some power, otherwise why would we call him the President? And also to remind everyone, this person is elected. I don't remember this being one of the powers the president had when he was elected. http://www.justice.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm The President has broad constitutional power to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001. The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations. The President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11. Not talking about the ability to go to war for 60 days, I'm talking about the assassination/murder of american citizens.
Read it again: The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations.
What else do I need to say. The President has the power.
On February 07 2013 03:03 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 02:58 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 02:57 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 02:22 BronzeKnee wrote:I think you guys should read the memo itself. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdfThe conclusion: "In conclusion, it would be lawful for the United States to conduct a lethal operation outside the United States against a US citizen who is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida without violating the constitution or the federal statues discussed in this white paper under the following conditions:..." And then it goes out to lay three conditions, which are: (1) that an informed high level official determine the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States, (2) that their capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible, and (3) that the operation is conducted in a manner consistent with the four fundamental principles of the laws of war governing the use of the force. I know everyone is scared that Obama will start killing everyone who didn't vote for him, but that would happen only when, and I quote " Here the Justice Department concludes only where the following there conditions are met..."
(1) You are a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida.
(2) You poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States.
(3) Your capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible.The paper limits itself to justifying force in those conditions. To quote "This white paper sets forth a legal framework for considering the circumstances in which the US government could use lethal force in a foreign country outside the area of active hostilities against a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans." Read it!Does anyone really disagree with that? And which body does the President need to convince that these conditions have been met before they allow him to carry out a strike? None, but if those conditions are not met and the strike is carried out, then the President is in trouble. Let me remind you that the President can also send the entire nation to war without needing anyone's approval for up to 60 days. In trouble with whom? There is no scrutiny. You say that it isn't an accusation that they are a senior Al-Qaeda member, they only strike when they know, but there is no judicial review. It is a process in which the man who wants to do it is the same man who claims it's legal who is also the man who chooses whether or not to do it and the whole process is under a cloud of secrecy. I don't have a problem with killing terrorists. I have a problem with a system where the guy who wants to kill another guy is also the one who gets to define whether the other guy fits the category and is also the guy who gets to decide whether to go ahead. These conditions are a nonsense.
Well, you have a problem with systems then. The strong nations define in the UN what nations can and cannot do in warfare, and they do in so to maximize their advantage on the battlefield. Interesting isn't it?
That is the nature of power, why we elect our leaders, and why the UN is folly.
There can be plenty of review after the what happened that can damn the President, simply put, if the President assassinates US citizens he will be held accountable. But to insert review before the strike inhibits the ability of President to protect the nation.
|
Relax guys,
You all act like the Obama Administration is doing these assassinations nonchalantly. Tossing baseball cards around and picked who dies. You really think they would be that irresponsible? I am the first to admit I did not vote for Obama, or support his policies. But at some point you have to give the man some credit. Assuming he takes this ability as anything but of the utmost seriousness is short-changing the president.
As far as the balance of power goes, the democrats will not challenge this because they don't want any bad press. The initiative is on the republicans to investigate this and see exactly what is going on (just as the democrats questioned bush on torture). To think the democrats would question a democrat president is hilarious. This is the beauty of the two party system, if one does something slightly overbearing on power the other will create a royal shitstorm. This is why threads like the "will the u.s. become totalitarian" is so far fetched. The two party system keeps that from ever happening, and the less popular third parties keep the main two parties in check.
I don't like Obama or agree with his policies. He however is my president and I respect him. He is a nice guy, and very well versed in public speaking, charm, and is very empathetic.
So, if you have a problem with this I would suggest writing a republican representative from your state letting them know that you want them to get to the bottom of this. They will love the chance to please a constituant, especially if you are left leaning.
Strangely enough I trust the government so I have no problem with this policy. I have nothing to hide, no crimes I don't want the state to find out about. As long as Obama deems the strikes make us safer, I'm A-ok with it. I have faith the system to eventually correct any overbearing of power. It is a slow process, but it is one will eventually find the correct answer.
|
On February 07 2013 02:22 BronzeKnee wrote:I think you guys should read the memo itself. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdfThe conclusion: "In conclusion, it would be lawful for the United States to conduct a lethal operation outside the United States against a US citizen who is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida without violating the constitution or the federal statues discussed in this white paper under the following conditions:..." And then it goes out to lay three conditions, which are: (1) that an informed high level official determine the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States, (2) that their capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible, and (3) that the operation is conducted in a manner consistent with the four fundamental principles of the laws of war governing the use of the force. I know everyone is scared that Obama will start killing everyone who didn't vote for him, but that would happen only when, and I quote " Here the Justice Department concludes only where the following there conditions are met..."
(1) You are a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida.
(2) You poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States.
(3) Your capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible.The paper limits itself to justifying force in those conditions. To quote "This white paper sets forth a legal framework for considering the circumstances in which the US government could use lethal force in a foreign country outside the area of active hostilities against a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans." Read it!Does anyone really disagree with that?
Yes, it is extremely reasonable. You can be from the country and still be an enemy of the country. If we cannot capture them, it makes sense to kill those who try to kill us. It's just that people on this website are unusually dramatic, and you can especially see it in the USA big brother thread.
|
On February 07 2013 03:05 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 03:03 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 03:02 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:01 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 02:58 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 02:57 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 02:22 BronzeKnee wrote:I think you guys should read the memo itself. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdfThe conclusion: "In conclusion, it would be lawful for the United States to conduct a lethal operation outside the United States against a US citizen who is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida without violating the constitution or the federal statues discussed in this white paper under the following conditions:..." And then it goes out to lay three conditions, which are: (1) that an informed high level official determine the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States, (2) that their capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible, and (3) that the operation is conducted in a manner consistent with the four fundamental principles of the laws of war governing the use of the force. I know everyone is scared that Obama will start killing everyone who didn't vote for him, but that would happen only when, and I quote " Here the Justice Department concludes only where the following there conditions are met..."
(1) You are a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida.
(2) You poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States.
(3) Your capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible.The paper limits itself to justifying force in those conditions. To quote "This white paper sets forth a legal framework for considering the circumstances in which the US government could use lethal force in a foreign country outside the area of active hostilities against a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans." Read it!Does anyone really disagree with that? And which body does the President need to convince that these conditions have been met before they allow him to carry out a strike? None, but if those conditions are not met and the strike is carried out, then the President is in trouble. Let me remind you that the President can also send the entire nation to war without needing anyone's approval for up to 60 days. You know, we actually have to give the President some power, otherwise why would we call him the President? And also to remind everyone, this person is elected. I don't remember this being one of the powers the president had when he was elected. http://www.justice.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm The President has broad constitutional power to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001. The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations. The President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11. Not talking about the ability to go to war for 60 days, I'm talking about the assassination/murder of american citizens. Read it again: The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations.What else do I need to say. The President has the power.
I would be interested in whether this act super-cedes the fifth amendment guarantees against lose of life without due process afforded to citizens of the United States. Like I said, I wasn't aware this was a power he had, because I think it would be a difficult question of whether Congress would have to change the actual amendment for this power to extend to US citizens.
|
On February 07 2013 03:12 hinnolinn wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 03:05 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:03 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 03:02 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 03:01 hinnolinn wrote:On February 07 2013 02:58 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 07 2013 02:57 KwarK wrote:On February 07 2013 02:22 BronzeKnee wrote:I think you guys should read the memo itself. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdfThe conclusion: "In conclusion, it would be lawful for the United States to conduct a lethal operation outside the United States against a US citizen who is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida without violating the constitution or the federal statues discussed in this white paper under the following conditions:..." And then it goes out to lay three conditions, which are: (1) that an informed high level official determine the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States, (2) that their capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible, and (3) that the operation is conducted in a manner consistent with the four fundamental principles of the laws of war governing the use of the force. I know everyone is scared that Obama will start killing everyone who didn't vote for him, but that would happen only when, and I quote " Here the Justice Department concludes only where the following there conditions are met..."
(1) You are a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida.
(2) You poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States.
(3) Your capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible.The paper limits itself to justifying force in those conditions. To quote "This white paper sets forth a legal framework for considering the circumstances in which the US government could use lethal force in a foreign country outside the area of active hostilities against a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans." Read it!Does anyone really disagree with that? And which body does the President need to convince that these conditions have been met before they allow him to carry out a strike? None, but if those conditions are not met and the strike is carried out, then the President is in trouble. Let me remind you that the President can also send the entire nation to war without needing anyone's approval for up to 60 days. You know, we actually have to give the President some power, otherwise why would we call him the President? And also to remind everyone, this person is elected. I don't remember this being one of the powers the president had when he was elected. http://www.justice.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm The President has broad constitutional power to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001. The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations. The President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11. Not talking about the ability to go to war for 60 days, I'm talking about the assassination/murder of american citizens. Read it again: The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations.What else do I need to say. The President has the power. I would be interested in whether this act super-cedes the fifth amendment guarantees against lose of life without due process afforded to citizens of the United States. Like I said, I wasn't aware this was a power he had, because I think it would be a difficult question of whether Congress would have to change the actual amendment for this power to extend to US citizens.
Yes, you weren't aware because you won't read what I've been giving you!
Yes, it does super-cedes the fifth amendment in the case of a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans, who cannot be captured.
That is whole point of the white papers. Read the section of the white papers regarding due process and you'll understand. You never told me the issue you have with it.
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf
|
On February 07 2013 03:09 unteqair wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 02:22 BronzeKnee wrote:I think you guys should read the memo itself. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdfThe conclusion: "In conclusion, it would be lawful for the United States to conduct a lethal operation outside the United States against a US citizen who is a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida without violating the constitution or the federal statues discussed in this white paper under the following conditions:..." And then it goes out to lay three conditions, which are: (1) that an informed high level official determine the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States, (2) that their capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible, and (3) that the operation is conducted in a manner consistent with the four fundamental principles of the laws of war governing the use of the force. I know everyone is scared that Obama will start killing everyone who didn't vote for him, but that would happen only when, and I quote " Here the Justice Department concludes only where the following there conditions are met..."
(1) You are a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida.
(2) You poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States.
(3) Your capture is infeasible and that the United States has monitored whether or not capture is infeasible.The paper limits itself to justifying force in those conditions. To quote "This white paper sets forth a legal framework for considering the circumstances in which the US government could use lethal force in a foreign country outside the area of active hostilities against a US citizen who is a a senior, operational leader of Al-Qaida or an associated force of Al-Qaida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans." Read it!Does anyone really disagree with that? Yes, it is extremely reasonable. You can be from the country and still be an enemy of the country. If we cannot capture them, it makes sense to kill those who try to kill us. It's just that people on this website are unusually dramatic, and you can especially see it in the USA big brother thread.
Or we are people that believe that checks and balances are an important part of the system and should be maintained.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
