backtop


Print 76 comment(s) - last by CristinaGibbs2.. on Feb 9 at 9:24 PM


A drone strike in 2011 killed to American citizens associating with the terrorist group al-Qaida. The citizens had not been charged with crimes.  (Source: Drone Wars UK)
If Americans become “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida or “an associated force”, the memo suggests a death strike

The U.S. Department of Justice and Obama administration likely wished that a 16-page memo/white paper building a detailed case justifying killing American citizens with drone strikes never made it into the hands of the media.  But that is precisely what ended up happening.  The memo -- titled "Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen who is a Senior Operational Leader of Al Qa’ida or An Associated Force" -- leaked to NBC News via a source who had access to it.  And the memo's suggestion of highly qualified scenarios for death strikes is reviving a major debate over due process and terrorism.

I. Should the Feds Kill American Terrorists With Drones?

The memo in question was distributed to members of the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary committees in June.  The committee members were asked to keep the information secret from the public and not discuss the memo's existence.  Now the secret has slipped.

The debate revolves around whether Americans involved in terrorist groups such al-Qaida can reasonably be killed overseas, even if there is no intelligence to indicate that they are actively engaged in a plot to attack the U.S.  Such was the case in the Sept. 2011 strike in Yemen that killed alleged al-Qaida operatives Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan.  Neither man had ever been indicted by the U.S. government or formally charged.

The memo leak comes on the eve of the confirmation hearing for potential U.S. Central Intelligence Agency director John Brennan.  Mr. Brennan, a former counterterrorism advisor to President Obama, was among the first to make the case publicly for deadly drone strikes on Americans involved with terrorist groups.  At a speech last year he argued such strikes were "consistent with the inherent right of self-defense."

Those comments were echoed in March at a Northwestern University speech by Attorney General Eric Holder, who argued killing Americans targets could be justified if there is "an imminent threat of violent attack."

II. Memo Argues for Redefinition of "Imminent Threat" for Drone Killings

But the white paper goes beyond the public comments of Mr. Brennan and the Attorney General, arguing that even in cases where there is not a known imminent risk, use of deadly force is justified.  This principle is described therein as a "broader concept of imminence", which suggests that mere membership and training activities in high-profile terrorist groups represents an imminent risk.

The memo suggests that if a capture operation on an American involved with a terrorist group would pose "undue risk" to American special forces soldiers, a death strike may become lawful, even if it was not already.

AG Holder perhaps alluded to such a premise in a comment in his speech, in which he said, "The Constitution does not require the president to delay action until some theoretical end-stage of planning, when the precise time, place and manner of an attack become clear."

Al-Qaida
The memo suggests joining a terrorist group and committing to "threatening" activities may be justification enough for the U.S. government to kill an American citizens without warrant.
[Image Source: Al Arabiya]

States the paper:

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.
...

A lawful killing in self-defense is not an assassination.  In the Department’s view, a lethal operation conducted against a U.S. citizen whose conduct poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States would be a legitimate act of national self-defense that would not violate the assassination ban. Similarly,  the use of lethal force, consistent with the laws of war, against an individual who is a legitimate military target would be lawful and would not violate the assassination ban.

The Obama Administration argues that targeted killings do not constitute assassinations (which an executive order bans).  It also argues that they are Constitutional and not a war crime, when placed in the context of counterterrorism.

II. Even More Classified Memos Remains Secret

But the Obama Administration has also fought to keep precise details of its policy secret.  The white paper, while confidential, mirrors arguments in even more highly classified memos on targeted killings from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, memos that are used as the basis for actual operations.  Reportedly, the DOJ has refused to turn over these memos to Congress or even acknowledge they exist.

Sen. Ron Whyden (D-OR) and a bipartisan group 10 other senators, have written a letter [PDF] to President Obama asking him to release the rumored classified DOJ memos on drone strikes on Americans.  In the letter the group writes, "[T]here will clearly be circumstances in which the president has the authority to use lethal force [against Americans who fight against their own country]... [However] it is vitally important ... for Congress and the American public to have a full understanding of how the executive branch interprets the limits and boundaries of this authority."

Obama upset
The Obama administration opposed releasing classified details on its rules about killing terrorist American citizens. [Image Source: Matt Ortega/Flickr]

Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), argues in an NBC News interview about the less-classified memo, "This is a chilling document.  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.  [It] redefines the word imminence in a way that deprives the word of its ordinary meaning."

The fight to release the more classified memos has been the subject of a court case brought by the ACLU and reporters at The New York Times.  In U.S. federal District Court in New York, Judge Colleen McMahon expressed sympathy and support for the plaintiffs' arguments.

In her opinion she writes, "[Administration officials] had engaged in public discussion of the legality of targeted killing, even of citizens.  [But they did so] in cryptic and imprecise ways, generally without citing … any statute or court decision that justifies its conclusions."

She told the plaintiffs that she would like to order the release of certain classified documents, but that a "thicket of laws" prevented her from releasing the information, even if it pertained to a topic in which the government, at face value, appeared to be behaving unconstitutionally.

Sources: NBC News [1], [2; memo], DOJ



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Everyone watch what you comment
By jimbojimbo on 2/5/2013 2:22:03 PM , Rating: 4
You guys had better watch what you say now otherwise they'll drop a hellfire on your head.




RE: Everyone watch what you comment
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 2/5/2013 2:25:00 PM , Rating: 5
Just a few years ago under Bush, Dems were throwing their hands up in the air about terrorists being detained/tortured at Guantanamo. Eric Holder was calling for a release of documents and details on the proceedings.

Fast forward to now; forget capture/detaining, forget torture, we'll just pop a rocket in your ass from 5,000 feet above.

The hypocrisy in Washington is delicious.


RE: Everyone watch what you comment
By stm1185 on 2/5/13, Rating: -1
RE: Everyone watch what you comment
By Flunk on 2/5/2013 3:41:33 PM , Rating: 3
I don't think assault rifles are going to save you from jet-propelled, bullet-resistant, heavily-armed drones. Besides, if they really want you dead they can always send more.


RE: Everyone watch what you comment
By 91TTZ on 2/5/2013 4:03:27 PM , Rating: 2
Predators are not jet propelled or bullet resistant.


RE: Everyone watch what you comment
By johnsmith9875 on 2/5/2013 4:14:32 PM , Rating: 2
Unless your rifle can shoot down a drone at 10,000 feet, you're outa luck.


RE: Everyone watch what you comment
By 91TTZ on 2/5/2013 4:20:54 PM , Rating: 2
I'm guessing that in a revolt, the same thing would happen like it does in every other country with a revolt- the aircraft are immune to in the air, but take damage on the ground when people shoot at them while they're sitting still at the airfield.


By RufusM on 2/7/2013 11:09:27 AM , Rating: 2
In a true nationwide revolt, various factions within the military would likely fight each other and factions within the civilian population given different ideologies and allegiances.

I doubt each arm of the military would fully turn on large groups of the US civilian population in support of a tyrannical government. At least some would be swayed.


By mmatis on 2/6/2013 12:58:40 PM , Rating: 2
Or just shoot the drone operator. Do you understand where THEY are based?


RE: Everyone watch what you comment
By NellyFromMA on 2/5/2013 4:51:34 PM , Rating: 2
See Black Ops 2 for proof against your arguement :)


By tamalero on 2/8/2013 12:01:24 PM , Rating: 2
black ops?
LOL


RE: Everyone watch what you comment
By chmilz on 2/5/2013 2:29:03 PM , Rating: 2
America the Great: more concerned with murdering citizens and foreigners alike with no due process than it is with giving gays the right to prop up your failing economy with lavish weddings. Huzzah!


RE: Everyone watch what you comment
By ppardee on 2/5/2013 2:40:55 PM , Rating: 1
LOL! I never thought of gay marriage as an economic stimulus... I think I'm for it now!


By sixteenornumber on 2/5/2013 3:57:08 PM , Rating: 1
lets not forget about gay divorce court.


By johnsmith9875 on 2/5/2013 4:15:12 PM , Rating: 5
Gays should have the right to be as unhappy as straight people, stuck in loveless co-dependent marriages.


RE: Everyone watch what you comment
By FITCamaro on 2/5/2013 3:56:57 PM , Rating: 2
We have pretty clear precedent around what to do with those committing treason and acts of war against the country. Same as any other country.


RE: Everyone watch what you comment
By chmilz on 2/5/2013 7:30:36 PM , Rating: 4
No, you don't. Other countries hold trials. You know, with crazy stuff like evidence. Maybe gathering evidence is TV fiction for America, but it's real in all those "other countries", save the theocracies and authoritarian regimes. Not that I have an easy time differentiating America from those at times.


By Reclaimer77 on 2/5/2013 8:06:48 PM , Rating: 2
Then again there are lots of countries where your ass just disappears and nobody comes looking for you /shrug


RE: Everyone watch what you comment
By topkill on 2/5/2013 11:44:36 PM , Rating: 1
I'm usually one of the more liberal posters on this board, but in this case I gotta say: quit your whining. I'm glad we blew the stupid bastards into little fucking pieces.

American born cleric? Good, then he should be really happy with his 72 young virgins right about now....probably little boy virgins.


RE: Everyone watch what you comment
By lilBuckwheat on 2/6/2013 7:24:19 AM , Rating: 3
Yeah who wants 72 virgins when you can die to be in church for all eternity.


RE: Everyone watch what you comment
By maugrimtr on 2/6/2013 10:49:24 AM , Rating: 2
The problem here is the re-definition of "imminent". Every moron in the US knows what that means. The US government, however, threw its dictionary away as a pretense to expand its powers and authority to kill US citizens.

Let's face it, anyone who is not a US citizen should expect to be killed out of hand. We can't even uphold due process for US citizens anymore let alone remotely contemplate a just system for anyone else.


RE: Everyone watch what you comment
By MrBlastman on 2/6/13, Rating: -1
By topkill on 2/7/2013 9:24:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
when you can die to be in church for all eternity


Not sure what you're saying? You assuming I'm Christian and think that is better than Islam and that I'm looking forward to floating around on a cloud singing sweet songs forever?


RE: Everyone watch what you comment
By 91TTZ on 2/6/2013 10:46:44 AM , Rating: 3
I don't think being liberal really opposes the idea of you supporting the killing of those you don't like.

In fact, that's one of the downsides of very liberal people. They tend to think more emotionally than libertarian people and therefore are more likely to support using heavy-handed tactics if it ensures that they get their way. Lots of hardcore liberals like leftist dictators that oppress their people. It lines up with their political views of socialism even if it has to be forced on people against their will.


By dragonbif on 2/5/2013 2:40:20 PM , Rating: 2
If this was on American lands I would be a little more upset. Sending in troops to capture someone in the mountains in the middle east is costly and dangerous. The person they are trying to capture would probably end up dead anyway during the fire fight anyway.
So what should the government do? Leave them be or kill them? Who gets to decide if they need to die? Do they get a judge and jury and have a trial even if the person is not willing to come in?
It is just not that simple.


RE: Everyone watch what you comment
By Reclaimer77 on 2/5/2013 4:44:12 PM , Rating: 2
And you're just now getting this? Weren't you calling me a "right wing extremist" for saying this years ago?

Ah well, too late now for eyes to be opened now that Obama has his second term. The country is lost.


RE: Everyone watch what you comment
By Pirks on 2/5/2013 4:48:19 PM , Rating: 1
c'mon man, maybe the country will survive, maybe in 2016 americans will elect one of your favorite types, say, a texas redneck with a bible and a shotgun or something. so don't be real sad yet, okay?


RE: Everyone watch what you comment
By Reclaimer77 on 2/5/2013 4:54:42 PM , Rating: 2
Pirks that isn't even GOOD trolling. You lose.


RE: Everyone watch what you comment
By Pirks on 2/5/13, Rating: 0
By ppardee on 2/5/2013 6:18:01 PM , Rating: 2
I'm waiting for someone with the Bible laser-etched on their shotgun.

It amazes me how people on the left, including the President, use the Bible and guns as descriptors of bad people. The VAST majority (as in greater than 99.5%) of people who own guns will never use them for anything other than sport or protection. And Christians are responsible for the majority of the charity in this country.

I guess you leftist prejudices are so deeply ingrained in the ideology that you can't have one without the other. It's a shame.

Still, I'd rather have Chris Christie or Marco Rubio (partially because they have the coolest names in politics) than what Texas has to offer currently.


By KCjoker on 2/5/2013 6:20:29 PM , Rating: 2
Didn't think I'd say this but I'd rather have one of those than Obama.


RE: Everyone watch what you comment
By MrBlastman on 2/6/2013 1:26:37 AM , Rating: 1
Anything is better than the current sack of crap we have in the White House. Even Jimmy Carter. Yes, I went there. At least he had SOME respect for our Constitution. The guy we have now would rather use it as toilet paper as he dances his way into figuring out a way to re-write it to suit his interests.


RE: Everyone watch what you comment
By Reclaimer77 on 2/6/13, Rating: 0
By MrBlastman on 2/6/2013 4:59:38 PM , Rating: 2
They obviously don't care or they wouldn't have voted for him at all. :(

America is screwed. We might as well replace the white and blue with yellow and call it done.


RE: Everyone watch what you comment
By anactoraaron on 2/6/2013 9:22:00 PM , Rating: 2
You do realize that it's the job of congress to pass a budget? I don't see either side doing anything on this front. Don't forget to read that thing that that one guy wipes his ass with.


By Reclaimer77 on 2/7/2013 12:55:31 AM , Rating: 2
Actually it's the job of the SENATE to pass a budget to be voted on. You know, the Senate that's Democrat controlled and takes it's cues right from Obama?

It's not a coincidence why these people don't pass a budget. It's not because they can't, it's because they don't want the American people to really see in black and white what their agenda is, and where all the money is going.


By ArcsinZ on 2/6/2013 8:20:03 PM , Rating: 2
I like how you posted that about 15 minutes after Hannity talked about on his radio show. I wonder what radio station you listen to...


By JasonMick (blog) on 2/5/2013 2:28:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You guys had better watch what you say now otherwise they'll drop a hellfire on your head.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8XrE0FSQv4&t=0m32s


By Phoque on 2/7/2013 9:12:20 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with not creating privileged classes of terrorists. What about the right for a fair trial? Everybody should have it. But I don't see why US citizens should have it when foreign citizens can't. Basicly, all the president have said is that US terrorists are no better than foreign terrorists. I'm ok with that. I believe though that killing without due process is completely wrong.


Coupled with gun control...
By ppardee on 2/5/2013 2:39:34 PM , Rating: 1
Obama already ordered the execution of an American citizen without trial because he was a suspected terrorist... this is old news in that respect.

This action becoming POLICY would qualify the government as a terrorist organization, IMO. Execution without a trial is murder. When the government becomes criminal, it is our duty to rise up and depose them.

And they know this. Which is why they are trying to limit our ability to do so by taking away military-style rifles. All rifles combined kill about 300 people per year in the US, which is far behind stabbing, strangulation or beating someone to death with hands/feet. Military-style rifles are even a smaller number than this. They have a legitimate Constitutional defense use.

I'm not calling Obama and Holder Hitler and Goebbels, but everything Hitler did was legal. Passing laws that make the people easier to subjugate is the first step towards tyranny.




RE: Coupled with gun control...
By MaulBall789 on 2/5/2013 2:49:45 PM , Rating: 2
So you're saying that Osama Bin Laden didn't get a fair trial and therefore was murdered? Interesting.


RE: Coupled with gun control...
By kyuuketsuki on 2/5/2013 3:12:56 PM , Rating: 1
Osama bin Laden was not an American citizen. Also, he was pretty thorougly implicated in a number of attacks against Americans.

I don't support the tin-foil hat brigade's theory that Obama is secretly trying to become the next Hitler, but killing American citizens without any sort of due process is pretty obviously unconstitutional. It doesn't matter if they're not on American soil. The fact that a judge can't do anything about such obvious executive overreach is rather troubling, and is a serious breach of the concept of checks and balances between the three branches of government.


RE: Coupled with gun control...
By kyuuketsuki on 2/5/2013 3:14:38 PM , Rating: 2
I should say, it's troubling that neither Congress nor a judge can seem to do anything about this.


RE: Coupled with gun control...
By Pirks on 2/5/2013 3:44:32 PM , Rating: 3
It's simple, both Congress and judges prefer the concept of a preemptive strike. If you know the guy is preparing to blow up and kill Americans - better take him out BEFORE he blew 'em up, ya know. Ever heard of precrime and minority report? This is conceptually the same thing - government is kinda precog who "knows the future" so they... err... "prevent the future crime" by "erasing" the future perpetrator of the crime out of existence. Simple and effective tactic. But it's actually just as murky and slippery as precogs in minority report. If you know for sure the murder will happen, shall you kill the murderer by the preemptive strike? If you see the crazy guy entering the kindergarden shooting right and left, should you kill him immediately, BEFORE he committed a murder, or should you wait until he kills at least one kid first? So that you would know the murder would HAVE HAPPENED already and then your action is JUSTIFIED?

I'm not flaming anyone, just asking tough questions. I dunno what would I do in such a situation, both scenarios (wait for him to kill a kid or shoot him first BEFORE he did it) are not so simple. Just remember about this, guys, before flaming or praising your President. I'm sure he asks same questions too, he's a normal American after all, not a crazy Hitler or Stalin type, fortunately.


RE: Coupled with gun control...
By ppardee on 2/5/2013 6:40:41 PM , Rating: 2
The problem isn't the preemptive strike thing. If they had solid intel saying that you're going to bomb the White House, or even PLOTTING to bomb the White House, I think most Americans would agree with the plan.

The problem is that they don't even need any intelligence that you're going to commit a crime. They can say that you're a threat, take you out and NEVER justify it to anyone. There is 0 oversight and Obama et al have already shown (Fast & Furious, Benghazi) that they will not release internal documents.

So, here's the scenario: Your daughter's protesting some legislation or the president's policies. They determine that she and her group are gaining traction and may 'destabilize' the government (meaning change who is in power) and they take her out. You ask why they killed your daughter and her friends and they give you no answer. You submit a Freedom of Information Act request and denied because of the reasons the judge in the article sites. Your Congressmen can't help either because the White House claims executive privilege.

Obama has already intentionally killed 2 Americans with drones. He might stop there and only use it on people in terrorist camps overseas, but, with no oversight, who's to say that terrorist camp isn't a hippie commune?

You can say that an American President wouldn't resort to criminal actions to stay in power, but then we look at Watergate.

Obama was elected originally because he is black and John McCain is horrid, not because he was the best man in America for the job. Only about 20% of the people in this country who vote actually know who they are voting for. Are you REALLY willing to give EVERY President in the future the right to murder ANYONE they choose for ANY reason in the hopes that all of them will be responsible with the power?


RE: Coupled with gun control...
By Pirks on 2/5/2013 7:00:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Are you REALLY willing to give EVERY President in the future the right to murder ANYONE they choose for ANY reason in the hopes that all of them will be responsible with the power?
That has nothing to do with killing two Taliban terrorists in Afghan mountains (terrorist's citizenship doesn't matter)


RE: Coupled with gun control...
By Cluebat on 2/6/2013 2:44:33 PM , Rating: 2
There were actually a total of three. Samir Khan- a naturalized citizen and al-Awlaki were killed in a drone strike on Sept. 30, 2011. Awlaki's 16 year old son was taken out in a mop-up drone strike two weeks later. The Awlakis were both born in the US.

Funny how GWB was called a war criminal by the same bunch who are using pretzel logic now to defend targeted assassinations of americans.

Not that I disagree in this case- but this slope is very slippery.


RE: Coupled with gun control...
By Rukkian on 2/6/2013 1:38:35 PM , Rating: 2
So how did watergate turn out for Nixon? I am not one of the in-foil hat wearers, and figure that somebody would blow the whistle if that sort of thing happened. It is nearly impossible to keep information like that safe for long.


By ImJustSaying on 2/6/2013 7:15:11 PM , Rating: 1
'Liberal' here: The intelligence reports that the executive presented in argument for the preemptive strike on, and subsequent occupation of Iraq, were flimsy at best, if not outright contrived. And that was gathered for an ENTIRE REGIME. I have absolutely ZERO confidence that this executive could gather credible evidence to support a preemptive strike against an individual, constitution and citizen-status aside. That is clearly why this is being conducted in secret. Current and past administrations know that, were they to present evidence in a court of law, it would not even come close to passing muster.

The executive branch is setting its own precedent and creating its own definitions at its convenience. This isn’t new, but doing it in the name of the so-called ‘Global War On Terror’ (GWOT) is particularly insidious due to the fluid definition of what it is to be a terrorist. It is abundantly clear that the label ‘terrorist’ is arbitrarily given to those who the State deems to be a threat. There is no internationally agreed upon definition of terrorism, which is why governments are able to do this to begin with. Take Syria for example, the Assad regime has labeled the rebels as terrorists from day one. But from our perspective, they aren’t terrorists as much as they are freedom fighters. Of course, it works the other way too. From the US government’s perspective, those who were resisting the occupation in Iraq were deemed terrorists, but to those who cared to oust the occupying forces from Iraq, the terrorists suddenly became, once again, freedom fighters, for all intents and purposes. Herein lays the core problem, barring constitution and citizen-status, of the GWOT: Anyone at any time, can become a terrorist, which in past executives and the current executive, is evidence enough for assassination (murder).

And to those who insist that just because you don’t see ‘lefties’ criticizing the Obama administration on this website about its fucked up policies, that it must mean there’s a tacit lefty agreement for those policies, I say to you “pull your heads out of your asses.” I frequent some pretty liberal websites (mainly for the witty banter in the comments), and get news-letters from an anarchist publication and I have not ONCE read an article or comment in support of the extrajudicial killing of ANY world citizens, American or not.

Also, to you Second Amendment freaks out there: Your gun as your defense in your upcoming imaginary (civil) war against a tyrannical government is pipe dreams. You would do well to concern yourselves with the gutting of the 4th , 6th, and 14th Amendments first, before setting your sites on the 2nd, because by the time you do that, the government will already know EVERYTHING there is to know about you, and will simply lock your ass up for thought crime. Also, just to entertain the idea of a civil war, it’s not going to be divided neatly among loyalists v revolutionaries. It will be a fucking mess, and you will be pit against your family, friends, and neighbors. So get the god damn fantasy out of your gourds.


RE: Coupled with gun control...
By ppardee on 2/5/2013 3:58:03 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think Obama is secretly trying to become the next Hitler. I really believe he thinks he is doing whats right. I also think he is delusional.

I'm less concerned about what our current president can do with it (although he's already proven he will misuse his power to the detriment of the People) and more concerned about the continued extremifaction (BOOM! just coined a new word! I'm like Sarah Palin!) of the US political system. If trends continue, we're likely to end up with some nut job radical in a couple of elections that will use this power to execute people with dissenting opinions.

And with the changes this administration and Congress are making, we'll have absolutely no ability to fight back.

And my hat is aluminum, for the record. Only crazy people use tin.


RE: Coupled with gun control...
By bah12 on 2/6/2013 10:31:32 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
I don't think Obama is secretly trying to become the next Hitler. I really believe he thinks he is doing whats right.
Hitler really believed what he was doing was right. The Catholic church really believed what they were doing was right during the crusades, and numerous other examples of abuse of power throughout history come to mind.

It is because he is lead by belief and emotion, that we should be mindful, as he has shown time and again that he will circumvent lawfulness and logic if it serves his "beliefs".

Chris Rock in Dogma was spot on.
quote:
“I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier....


RE: Coupled with gun control...
By AntiM on 2/5/2013 3:29:32 PM , Rating: 2
I'm starting to think that this Illuminati, New World Order crap is for real. Almost everyday, our government proves that it has no regard for the Constitution, or any basic human rights for that matter, foreign or domestic. The more I dig, the more I'm convinced that there's treachery afoot! They will be coming for your gun, sooner or later.


RE: Coupled with gun control...
By mmatis on 2/6/2013 1:01:03 PM , Rating: 2
By Director12 on 2/5/2013 3:40:37 PM , Rating: 1
They also murdered his innocent 16 year old son in the same attack.

So now we have government approved torture, non judicial state murder, a policy of punishing people who inform the citizens of what the government is doing. Kinda sounds like some other countries from history to me. How much worse does it have to get before the sheep wake up?


RE: Coupled with gun control...
By TSS on 2/5/2013 6:36:47 PM , Rating: 2
You can certainly call him Goebbels. Don't forget, he was the minister of Propaganda under hitler. And there's definitly as much if not more propaganda in the USA then there was in nazi germany.

Though it's far more refined. Nazi germany basically had movies (which goebbles did pioneer wonderfully) and the good old "support hitler or we'll shoot you". AKA the Gestapo.

These days there's a wealth of means for propaganda. The bottom 47% not paying tazes, that's a form of propaganda as well. If they don't pay taxes, they will never vote for somebody who asks them to pay more. Especially in a self-interest nation like the US.

Video is still used, just turn the TV on during elections. Political ads like that don't happen here in europe (atleast not here in holland). The dutch elections cost about 50 million euro's on a population of 17 million. If we inflate that to a population of 310 million like the US has, it'd be 911 million euro's or about a billion dollars, to elect president and senate. The US spends $6 billion for that. That buys you a lot of propaganda.

Not to mention the fudging of the statistics, the whole US economy is nothing but a sham. Yet look at the media and the word "recovery" is all over the place.

If the average american knew how bad the situation was there'd been a revolution a decade ago by now. The fact that hasn't happened shows how big the propaganda mountain has gotten. Thus, goebbles.

As for hitler... well... Let's give the gay rights thing a couple more years, see how the next republican president does on that issue. Don't think a dictatorship with changing "elected leaders" isn't possible.


RE: Coupled with gun control...
By Manch on 2/6/2013 10:30:31 AM , Rating: 2
Oh man....you shouldn't have said that...

Meanwhile back at the whitehouse

Holder: ppardee is advocating the overthrowing of the government.

Brennan: Do we have his location?

Holder: Yes and he has...."Assault Rifles"!

Obama: So is he a terrorist?

Brennan: Well, he hasn't done anything but, he was at a shooting range with a lot of white people we have identified as Tea Partiers!

Obama: My God! He's training to overthrow us!

Holder: Should we have him arrested?

Obama: hmmm.....

Brennan: I think we may have a hard time apprehending him. They have guns, lots of guns!

Obama: Take him out, and call Kathryn Bigelow. I have another movie idea


All things are justified...
By rs2 on 2/5/2013 8:56:18 PM , Rating: 3
...so long as you remember to call your victims "terrorists" either before or after you kill them. And what's a terrorist? Pretty much anyone the government doesn't like, it would seem.

Yeah, I don't see any problems with that at all. /sarcasm




RE: All things are justified...
By roykahn on 2/5/2013 9:29:06 PM , Rating: 2
Well said and quite true.

Just look at the way definitions are used. All military-age males in a strike zone are defined as combatants. So, yes, they are given that definition after the attack, not before. And the media just plays along and dutifully reports crimes according to the traditional narrative.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/06/u-s-labels-...


RE: All things are justified...
By rs2 on 2/6/2013 12:54:52 AM , Rating: 2
That would be interesting if true. Unfortunately that source undermines its own credibility by referencing something it calls the "Obama Kill Doctrine".

According to every reliable source I've checked, "Obama Kill Doctrine" is not actually a kind of thing. The only people claiming otherwise are in the same boat as the birthers, the "9/11 was an inside job" truthers, and similar groups who have an established history of ignoring facts and fabricating their own histories.

I disagree vehemently with policies that allow the government to summarily execute, abuse, detain, or otherwise mistreat anyone it slaps the "terrorist" label on without accusation, proof, trial, or imminent tangible threat. But that doesn't mean I buy into the whole "New World Order" conspiracy theory.


RE: All things are justified...
By roykahn on 2/6/2013 7:43:02 PM , Rating: 2
The Obama Kill Doctrine isn't the name that government officials use, so it is probably a term that journalists invented. I believe it would refer to the preference of Obama's administration to kill enemies rather than detain them. As you can see from the main article, the government is also inventing laws, terminology, and basically justifying what it wants to do. Remember the days when the term "terrorism" referred to acts by the state? Now its meaning is the opposite thanks mostly to the US and UK.

I have to ask you why you think governments like the US uses terms like "terrorist" and "enemy combatant" and "unlawful combatant". The language they use is VERY important. It serves to manufacture consent amongst its native population. It's been done for decades by a superior power to justify its bullying tactics which are often violent. There is little to no oversight of the government's methods of labeling someone a threat. Almost everything is a secret and any efforts to uncover the truth is considered a risk to national security. Once someone is labeled a threat, then *bam*, their life is forfeit. No one cares about them any more. It's all part of the process to dehumanize the enemy. It's sad how the vast majority of people get fooled, generation after generation, by such propaganda techniques. Fear is a very strong emotion and this is cleverly exploited by our leaders.

If you spend even a few minutes to read some proper information about the detainees at Guantanamo Bay then you will realize how pathetic the government's justifications are. Many of the detainees were simply at the wrong place at the wrong time. Yet Bush laughingly labels them all "the worst of the worst" while the media and public numbingly nodded their heads in agreement. Have you learned nothing from Wikileaks? This should be common knowledge given the amount of media coverage it's had.

Also, I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to as the "New World Order conspiracy". George Bush senior famously used that term. I guess you could define it as America's strategy to control as much of the world as possible - a strategy that's been played out since World War 2. Again, I don't know why you label it as a conspiracy because it's pretty plain when you look at international affairs during the last several decades. I'll give you a head-start for your research by mentioning that oil, natural resources, and cheap labor have been the key components of most international conflicts.


Hypocrisy
By johnsmith9875 on 2/5/2013 4:13:59 PM , Rating: 4
A summary of Hypocrisy:

Bush supporters: Criticizing Obama for doing what Bush did before.

Obama supporters: Not criticizing Obama for doing what Bush did before.




RE: Hypocrisy
By stm1185 on 2/5/2013 5:16:25 PM , Rating: 4
I don't remember Bush assassinating US citizens. Wiretapping, intimidating, all around dickish stuff sure, but not actually killing them.

The Obama administration just gave itself the right to kill any American. All they have to do is say you were a part of a terrorist organization and a threat. They don't have to prove that to anyone.


Shoot first, ask questions later
By In2Boost on 2/5/2013 8:06:46 PM , Rating: 2
You know, this is really sad. It's disappointing.
Everything we were taught growing up about holding true to our principles, ideals, integrity, morality, and honor...the thought behind a document like this appears to push them away.

There will always be "terrorists," or whatever the current adjective of the time is. There will always be madmen who devalue life and place themselves over the personal liberties of others. Do we allow our foundation to crumble in order to combat them?

Warrant-less wiretapping, automated surveillance, the slow and steady elimination of constitutional rights, and even disregard for human rights, and now (the proposition and analysis of) drone strikes on our home soil...all in the name of "national security." It really is the age-old cry of the oppressor...a scapegoat for these curtailments...and such like chemotherapy in its destruction.

We've fought so hard, lost our friends and family in pursuit of freedom...only to now seemingly strangle ourselves with our idle hands and complacent bellies. Are we becoming the U.S.S.R., are we becoming what we fought for so long to contain? I fear the sacrifices our soldiers have made are in danger of being in vain, the further we move down this dark and perverted path.




By PaFromFL on 2/6/2013 8:05:07 AM , Rating: 2
Tearing up the constitution may be convenient, but I'm not convinced it is "necessary".


By M'n'M on 2/6/2013 1:03:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There will always be "terrorists," or whatever the current adjective of the time is. There will always be madmen who devalue life and place themselves over the personal liberties of others. Do we allow our foundation to crumble in order to combat them?

Sadly the answer to your question would seem to be yes. It's also sad how trusting people are in their Govt so long as the "correct" party is in charge. Govt only has to say person X is a terrorist and people believe that's true. Nobody wants to ask "what if TPTB got it wrong this time".
The problem of killing terrorists comes from equating terrorism with war. In a war all sorts of civil liberties get suspended. But wars end. Terrorism has aspects of war but it'll never end. There will always be some group of people intent on causing harm to the US or it's people. I worry less about Obama than what some president 25 years from now will do with the precedent and powers now "granted". I have little faith in our legislators doing much, appearing to be soft on terrorism will scare them off. And so long as the sheeple can watch American Idol w/o too many commercials, they'll not demand any action from them.


More reading material
By roykahn on 2/5/2013 9:21:04 PM , Rating: 2
One cannot believe any official statements made by the US government. The moment you see them excusing any of their violent acts and extending their power, then feel free to block your ears because you'll only hear lies and propaganda.

I'm sorry to say that most of the information from the main article is not new. It's just an extension of old fears that have been given more strength.

One story that caught my eye a while ago was that of a 16 year old boy who was attempting to document civilian casualties of US drone strikes in Pakistan. It served as just one example of how the drone program has little oversight or accountability.
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/11/7/us_drone_kil...

Below are a few other stories similar to the one posted on this site.

Study Finds U.S. Drone Strikes in Pakistan Miss Militant Targets and "Terrorize" Civilians
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/9/26/study_finds_...

With Control of Drone Strikes, Is Counterterror Chief John Brennan the U.S. "Assassination Czar"?
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/5/24/with_control...

Attorney General Eric Holder Defends Legality of Targeted Killings of U.S. Citizens Overseas
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/3/6/attorney_gene...

With Death of Anwar al-Awlaki, Has U.S. Launched New Era of Killing U.S. Citizens Without Charge?
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/9/30/with_death_o...




nazism inevitable
By Shadowmaster625 on 2/6/2013 10:31:14 AM , Rating: 2
This government could start bombing the hell out of innocent civilians, and these dumbed down tv-head stoopie-tube loving zombies will just eat it up and ask for sloppy seconds. Hell, they'll all line up to turn their guns in and march into the arbeit macht frei camps and straight into the gas chambers, if that godforsaken tube tells them to do it. The vast majority has no frickin common sense left in them and will do whatever the propaganda programming tells them, Iraq & 9/11 proved that.




!!!
By NicholeGibbs22 on 2/6/2013 4:39:06 PM , Rating: 2
Carson. even though Janice`s postlng is unimaginable, yesterday I got a great new Lancia since getting a cheque for $8236 this last 4 weeks and in excess of ten-k this past-month. without a question it is the most-rewarding I've ever had. I started this seven months/ago and pretty much immediately started to make more than $71... per-hour. I use this great link,Fox76.comTAKE A LOOK




!!!!
By JasmineGibbs22 on 2/7/2013 6:53:26 PM , Rating: 2
Mason. I can see what your saying... Andrew`s artlclee is really cool, on thursday I got a top of the range Buick after I been earnin $6816 this - four weeks past and in excess of ten/k last munth. this is definitely the easiest-work I have ever had. I actually started nine months/ago and right away was bringin in over $84... per-hr. I went to this site, Great60.comTAKE A LOOK




OUTRAGEOUS!!!
By mavricxx on 2/7/2013 9:01:00 PM , Rating: 2
People don't be fooled by this act! If they pass this, they will annialate ANYONE whom they consider a threat to "National Security"! By anyone, I mean any innocent by standard who has knowledge or witnessed anything shady from the our government. We have plenty of means within our country to pursue and catch terrorists within the US already, why are they going so far as using such deadly weapons? Because they want to have the ability to hide stuff from us and blame it on terrorist groups!




!!
By CristinaGibbs22 on 2/9/2013 9:24:16 PM , Rating: 2
upto I looked at the draft for $8782, I be certain that my neighbour woz like they say actualey erning money part time on their computer.. there dads buddy started doing this for only about 19 months and just cleared the morgage on their house and bourt a new BMW M3. we looked here, Fox76.comTAKE A LOOK




I have no problem with this strategy at all
By Beenthere on 2/5/13, Rating: -1
RE: I have no problem with this strategy at all
By mik123 on 2/5/2013 7:48:11 PM , Rating: 4
I think the concern is about who is to be considered a "terrorist". That definition can become fuzzy really fast.
If a random guy on the street says he's going to kill Obama, should we arrest him, or should we just kill him?


By BrgMx5 on 2/6/2013 10:09:15 AM , Rating: 4
And that is the real concern. Courts are there to prevent abuse of power and to protect the citizen.

The right to protection against an imminent threat, is the right of self-defence in it's strictest sense, it should not be open to creative interpretation.


By Skywalker123 on 2/5/2013 11:00:41 PM , Rating: 5
you are a confirmed idiot


"My sex life is pretty good" -- Steve Jobs' random musings during the 2010 D8 conference

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki