Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Your government can kill you if...
The Week ^ | February 4, 2013 | Marc Ambinder

Posted on 02/05/2013 8:11:49 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet

A Justice Department memorandum apparently prepared for Congress lays out for the first time the criteria that the national security establishment uses to decide whether to kill an American who is a senior al Qaeda leader or the the leader of one of its operational arms. Honors go to NBC's Mike Isikoff for the score. The memo has no classification markings on it, which tells me that it is a distillation from a larger, probably classified document prepared by the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice. Generally, the executive branch keeps secrets in one of two of ways. They classify something formally, or they claim that something not classified is tantamount to internal work product or private legal advice intended for the president and his advisers only.

This allows the administration to keep its internal legal memos away from other branches of government, which it claims the right to do. The Bush Administration revealed operational details of secret programs to Congress but refused to provide the legal reasoning. The Obama administration has, at least in the past two years, begun to brief members of Congress proactively on both sets of details. This is one reason why Congress, for the most part, isn't complaining about "secret laws." (There are some exceptions.)

Anyway, here is what the lawyers to the president's lawyer say about the legality of killing Americans who are constituted as al Qaeda or al Qaeda-linked threats. (The memo makes it clear that its language does not apply to other instances where American citizens might be killed by their government.)

1. "An informed, high-level official" must determine that the person represents "an imminent threat" of "violent attack against the United States."(continued)

(Excerpt) Read more at theweek.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government
KEYWORDS: drones; fascism; obama; wot

1 posted on 02/05/2013 8:11:55 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet; All

Gun-Boy Holder gave Hussein Obama a Memo/LAW that bypasses any involvement by the US Congress or THE NINE SUPREMES.

What we have here is a Dictatorship for the next 4 years.


2 posted on 02/05/2013 8:23:19 PM PST by Graewoulf ((Traitor John Roberts' Commune Obama"care" violates Anti-Trust Laws, AND the U.S. Constitution.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I’m waiting for the liberals to jump all over Obama over this. The liberals had a meltdown about the Bush administration tracking cell phone calls and e-mails from overseas, due to civil liberty concerns. What about the White House unilaterally deciding that certain Americans can be killed???

This will be a good test to see if liberals have any consistency in their thinking. Or will Obama get a pass because he’s a good Democrat and a good liberal.


3 posted on 02/05/2013 8:24:38 PM PST by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I’m waiting for the liberals to jump all over Obama over this. The liberals had a meltdown about the Bush administration tracking cell phone calls and e-mails from overseas, due to civil liberty concerns. What about the White House unilaterally deciding that certain Americans can be killed???

This will be a good test to see if liberals have any consistency in their thinking. Or will Obama get a pass because he’s a good Democrat and a good liberal.


4 posted on 02/05/2013 8:24:45 PM PST by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Don’t forget all the dead babies in Waco.


5 posted on 02/05/2013 8:26:21 PM PST by Dogbert41
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Graewoulf

The liberals had a meltdown over the memo written regarding waterboarding. The liberals claimed that you can’t just write a memo to outline what is legal and what is going too far in the case of waterboarding.

So will liberals give Obama a pass because he’s a good liberal???? Is it okay if a good liberal violates civil liberties, and decides without any legal proceeding that an American citizen can be executed???


6 posted on 02/05/2013 8:27:04 PM PST by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego
So will liberals give Obama a pass because he’s a good liberal?

We'll have to ask Captain Obvious as soon as he becomes available.

7 posted on 02/05/2013 8:28:57 PM PST by Revolting cat! (Bad things are wrong! Ice cream is delicious!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Found this. Looks the Dingle Barry wants a mooslim ground army.

http://www.barenakedislam.com/2013/02/05/are-these-muslim-graduates-of-the-first-ever-mosque-police-academy-part-of-barack-hussein-obamas-civilian-national-security-force/


8 posted on 02/05/2013 8:29:08 PM PST by dragonblustar (Allah Ain't So Akbar!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Graewoulf

By what logic do you argue the U.S. Government cannot wage war upon and kill U.S. Citizens engaging in belligerant actions against tthe U.S. Government and/or its foreign allies?


9 posted on 02/05/2013 8:32:35 PM PST by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego
This will be a good test to see if liberals have any consistency in their thinking.

They don't care what you think about their congnitive consistency. They have a goal.

If you persist in the rule following, fair play thing, you are going to lose in the big game.

They aren't playing by your rules.

Adapt and overcome.

/johnny

10 posted on 02/05/2013 8:33:01 PM PST by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

[[A Justice Department memorandum apparently prepared for Congress lays out for the first time the criteria that the national security establishment uses to decide whether to kill an American who is a senior al Qaeda leader or the the leader of one of its operational arms.]]

And be sure that if the goveernment pulls another waco or ruby ridge, or takes out folks who simply just speak abotu government but pose no threats, that said person or people WILL be declared to have ties with al Qaeda, and WILL be declared to be an ‘enemy of the state’- Our gobvernment is settign htemselves up to be justified for ANYTHING- Just liek NY is settign htemselves up to be jusdtified for denying peopel the right to bear arms simply by issuing mental health evaluations which you can bet will show hte person is ‘mentally unfit’ to own a gun- especially IF they have ever taken anti-depressents, pain meds, or some form of mind alterign meds- hence the national database for health records


11 posted on 02/05/2013 8:37:16 PM PST by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Hey, just think. Nixon could have offed John Kerry for being a Viet Cong operative. Reagan could of taken out Ted Kennedy for helping the Soviet Union defeat our nuclear defenses.


12 posted on 02/05/2013 8:39:04 PM PST by running_dog_lackey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Leaked US justification for drone killings assailed as rewriting definition of ‘imminent threat’

http://www.stripes.com/news

MmmmMmm, R.


13 posted on 02/05/2013 8:40:47 PM PST by Rabin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

>Is it okay if a good liberal violates civil liberties, and decides without any legal proceeding that an American citizen can be executed???”

There is a difference between an execution and a combat.


14 posted on 02/05/2013 8:41:17 PM PST by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

The liberals (BO included) had a fit over water boarding but only because Bush authorized it. Can you imagine if Bush and Cheney approved this stuff?


15 posted on 02/05/2013 8:46:46 PM PST by dandiegirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Graewoulf
What we have here is a Dictatorship for the next 4 years.

That's good.

16 posted on 02/05/2013 8:52:33 PM PST by null and void (Gun confiscation enables tyranny. Don't enable tyranny.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: running_dog_lackey

Based on this, why are PFC Bradley Manning, Cynthia McKinney, Code Pink, International ANSWER and Roseanne Barr still alive?


17 posted on 02/05/2013 8:55:11 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet (I'll raise $2million for Sarah Palin's presidential run. What'll you do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

we don’t use our military against our own civillians.

further there’s a lot of ambiguous terms throughout your question that i don’t believe you have any obvious definition for that matches what ohole or the administration may regard as their definitions.


18 posted on 02/05/2013 9:11:57 PM PST by Secret Agent Man (I can neither confirm or deny that; even if I could, I couldn't - it's classified.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

There is no “War” in Yemen. Hussein O. has just been illegally authorized by Gun-Boy Holder to kill anybody he wants to in any foreign nation. It is a short step to “suspect” you and me here in America.

Hussein O. is a pint short of a full cup, and is borderline untouchable Dictator for Life.

Ponder this:

” - - - kill Americans abroad SUSPECTED of terror activity. - - - “

Benghazi-Coward Hussein Obama has discarded “Due Process of Law” for pushbutton murder.

I ‘suspect’ that this is going to be a very looooooooooooooooooooooong 4 years!

Gotta git! Sounds like an incoming Obamadrone!


19 posted on 02/05/2013 9:16:26 PM PST by Graewoulf ((Traitor John Roberts' Commune Obama"care" violates Anti-Trust Laws, AND the U.S. Constitution.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man
"... we don’t use our military against our own civillians...."

LOL. What do you think all those military-gear police raids are, in essence?

20 posted on 02/05/2013 9:17:32 PM PST by James C. Bennett (An Australian.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: James C. Bennett

police wannabees playing soldier. and not under executive branch direct control.


21 posted on 02/05/2013 9:24:08 PM PST by Secret Agent Man (I can neither confirm or deny that; even if I could, I couldn't - it's classified.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

...and if you cost the health care system too much for your expected contribution to society.


22 posted on 02/05/2013 9:32:28 PM PST by Vince Ferrer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

“we don’t use our military against our own civillians.”

You are living in a fantasy world. Since time immemorial and since the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, the military in the form of the militia, the state military forces, and the Federal military forces have been authorized to combat and suppress insurrections, riots, other civil disturbances, and acts of piracy and brigandage, subject to some restrictions by the later Posse Comitatus laws. Under a declaration of martial law, in particular, U.S. Citizens are certainly subject to military actions.

In 1974, I was ordered to undergo additional training and duties for specializzed riot control duties. One of the duties we were trained to perform was a smiper mission to shoot Weathermaen terrorists plotting to assasinate a black leader at the forefront of an urban race riot. The Weathermen terrorists schemed to create a false flag incident much like they did at kent State to blame the government for the ensuing chos an shootings. Our mission was to stop the assasination by shooting the Weatherman before he could pull the trigger on the black protest leader.

It is unfortunate when you adopt the Marxist anti-military propaganda without trying to learn about and understand the actual scope of military law, before the Liberals tried to re-write istory and thee law.


23 posted on 02/05/2013 9:33:15 PM PST by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX
By what logic do you argue the U.S. Government cannot wage war upon and kill U.S. Citizens engaging in belligerant actions against tthe U.S. Government and/or its foreign allies?

Since the definition of imminent threat was changed to continued 'plotting'.

It is all about the due process required PRIOR to removing an inalienable right (namely LIFE) of US citizens that are not directly engaged in an illegal activity though they may be plotting one. This equates to summary executions of US Citizens by the Executive.

Using the new definition, Obama could execute Tea Party or NRA members who actively plot to overthrow Obama UNLESS some good men stopped him BECAUSE the laws clearly in this cause are not stopping him.

In summary, to answer your question with a question regarding limited government and the rule of law -by what logic do you argue the U.S. Government can arbitrarily kill U.S. Citizens that may have committed a crime but have never been found guilty of such AND at the time they are killed are not an immediate threat warranting self defense -let alone the fact that ONLY the drone is in danger during the supposed 'war effort"? US citizens placed on a kill list and targeted without due process is not an America I want to live in. Regarding US Citizens I could MAYBE buy into using drones to execute death sentences resulting from some form of due process or even using drones in self defensive measures on a battle field as a means of saving lives on that battlefield; HOWEVER, neither of those scenarios is what is being discussed.

24 posted on 02/06/2013 12:33:33 AM PST by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: DBeers

He was an admitted member of al queda. Why do you feel sorry for dead terrorists?


25 posted on 02/06/2013 1:52:42 AM PST by J05h
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: DBeers

[Quote]
By what logic do you argue the U.S. Government cannot wage war upon and kill U.S. Citizens engaging in belligerant actions against tthe U.S. Government and/or its foreign allies?
Since the definition of imminent threat was changed to continued ‘plotting’.

It is all about the due process required PRIOR to removing an inalienable right (namely LIFE) of US citizens that are not directly engaged in an illegal activity though they may be plotting one. This equates to summary executions of US Citizens by the Executive.
[Unquote]

You are falsely claiming the U.S. Citizens under discussion were “ not directly engaged in an illegal activity” despite the fact they had associated themselves with an organization engaged in warfare in direct violation of the laws of war and the laws of nations, who in past years and millenia authorized the immediate enslavement or execution upon sight or capture by any person, military or civilian. Pirates, brigands, and persons engaging in combat without a commission of the sovereign power were subject to the penalty of death without due process by anyone and anywhere. Nowadays, the legal profession has severely reigned in such practices sometimes and in some places, yet the law and principle still exists, especially in combat situations. Arguing due process becomes ludicrous in most combat situations, as the right of a law enforcement officer or a citizen to commit lawful homicide without due process under exigent circumstances of imminent threat which you allude to. Combat and certain types of intelligence activities involving the risks of personal combat and combat intelligence are likewise circumstances where due process is not reasonable or required by law and where the writ of habeus corpus does not and should not exist as a right because of the inappropriate consequences.

[Quote]
Using the new definition, Obama could execute Tea Party or NRA members who actively plot to overthrow Obama UNLESS some good men stopped him BECAUSE the laws clearly in this cause are not stopping him.
[Unquote]

The Obama Administration does not have the lawful right to so target the members of the TEA Party under such legislation, but that does not mean he would not abuse the interpretation of the law to do so or has already done so in some covert actions. The Obama Administration and prior Presidents have always had the Constitutional power to suspend habeus corpus with the consent of Congress, and they have actually done so on a number of occasions. What should be dome about this power to suspend the writ of habeus corpus and/or suspension of due process is another question pending since the Constitution was adopted. Before answring the question, however, a peerson has to be careful not to invalidate the inalienable rights of citizens nor unnecessarily deny the military to effectively perform its mission to protect and defend those Constitutional rights and freedoms against foreign and domestic enemies who would destroy them while abusing the Constitutional protections.

[Qutoe]
In summary, to answer your question with a question regarding limited government and the rule of law -by what logic do you argue the U.S. Government can arbitrarily kill U.S. Citizens that may have committed a crime but have never been found guilty of such AND at the time they are killed are not an immediate threat warranting self defense -let alone the fact that ONLY the drone is in danger during the supposed ‘war effort”? US citizens placed on a kill list and targeted without due process is not an America I want to live in. Regarding US Citizens I could MAYBE buy into using drones to execute death sentences resulting from some form of due process or even using drones in self defensive measures on a battle field as a means of saving lives on that battlefield; HOWEVER, neither of those scenarios is what is being discussed.
[Unquote]

You are wrong in saying “neither of those scenarios is what is being discussed.” On the contrary, such attacks are being discussed, and they cannot be arbitrary by definition, since they are targeted as you have observed. Neither are the attacks entirely without due process. The attacks are subject to due process determinations of compliance with the Constitution’s enumerated Power for Congress to define the rules and laws for piracy and the Law of Nations for example. The legal compliance for due process under those laws and the Uniform Code for Military Justice are quite different from domestic civilian legal codes, and for good reasons not to be trifled with without very good cause to do so. It may very well be a need for improvements in due process to military law, the Laws of War, and the Law of Nations to prevent dictatorial abuses; yet the current laws do in fact provide some due process despite any impressions you find to the contrary. Consequently, your argument serves as a non-existant strawman argument and not the actual circumstances which exist.


26 posted on 02/06/2013 2:44:14 AM PST by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

“By what logic do you argue the U.S. Government cannot wage war upon and kill U.S. Citizens engaging in belligerant actions against tthe U.S. Government and/or its foreign allies?”.......

Exactly! When they decide that someone or some group of American’s are planning or appear to be organizing agains’t the gov’t., in their eyes they will have the right to use those drones agains’t the American people. There will be no questions, they WILL DO IT!


27 posted on 02/06/2013 6:05:31 AM PST by DaveA37
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

Odd you mention the Weather underground.

I’m looking at a copy of the translation of an al Qaida doc recovered in Afgan. It came straight from UBL himself.

Take the info in this doc and guess what. The terrorist attacks are following the Weather underground playbook and have been since 1993’s 1st WTC bombing.

Whole lot of false flags since 1993. The latest one was the attack in Libya.

Nice little attempt to make it appear as if Mitt Romney and the repubs were collaborating with the terrorist to paint Zippo as Peanuts Carter.

BTW, Hillary’s ‘spontaneous” lie has it’s roots in the lie the dems tried to create after the 1st WTC bombing.

Dem operatives tried a somewhat similar lie once again in January of 2006. Got UBL himself to help them with that lie.


28 posted on 02/06/2013 6:18:29 AM PST by IMR 4350
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Progov

The Armmy and Army National Guard along with the New orleans Police Department (NOPD) were used to confiscate guns by kicking down doors and forcibly entering homes at gunpoint during the Hurricane Katrina. People are still disbelieving. It is a curious thing to see so many people still ignorant of what martial law means and their expectations of Constitutional Laws under martial law.


29 posted on 02/06/2013 6:31:51 AM PST by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX
Consequently, your argument serves as a non-existant strawman argument and not the actual circumstances which exist.

We will have to agree to disagree. A drone strike employed as a targeted assassination outside of a battlefield is not a combat situation; therefore, there is no immediate personal self defense issue. As I stated prior I can buy an execution; however, why not publish the US citizen execution list so that all may know who are declared enemies and as well provide a check on such powers?

There is no reason to hide the kill list.

30 posted on 02/06/2013 8:26:46 PM PST by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

Martial law is not germane to this topic.


31 posted on 02/06/2013 8:28:31 PM PST by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX
As an aside let me add the inescapable logical conclusion that you seem blind to. IF this was as you assert normal warfare and combat THEN there would have been no deed for special memos and legal opinions to have been drafted.

The kenyan marxist tramples upon new territory with this joy stick assassination game he employs.

32 posted on 02/06/2013 8:35:54 PM PST by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: DBeers

On the contrary, military history compels me to conclude you are using an illogical strawman argument, because it erroneously asserts the introduction of a new and effective weapons system would necessarily be considered normal warfare and free of legal and moral challenges in the hands of most any government.

During the American Revolution, for example, the British were generally opposed to the use of rifles as military weapons. The rifles of the day were typically unable to mount a bayonet, which the infantry required as a weapon to repel cavalry and engage in close combat with infantry. Furthermore, the infantry could load and fire a muzzleloading infantry musket much faster than a muzzleloading rifle., which gave the muskets a greater weight in firepower that won battles while in line of battle formations. Consequently, the slower loading rifle without a bayonet was seen as too defective for use like a standard infantry musket with a bayonet, and its only remaining value on the European style battlefield was for use in sniper work to kill officers. At this point of time the selective killing of officers was seen by the British Army and some other armies as something more akin to dishonoarble assasination and murder on the battlefield than some form of honorable and manly duel in battle. Some officers in the British Army went so far as to propose treating Americans captured with a rifle as some kind of war criminals. The British Army used rifles and snipers, but it was s source of controversy for some time before, during, and after the Revolutionary War. One historical fact did force the British Army to consider its position on the matter. At the Battle of Bunker Hill (Breed’s Hill), the American army used the Indian fighting tactics they were accustomed to using in the colonial wars and used their rifles to snipe and kill the British officers leading the attack up the hill. Out of all the losses of officers incurred during the Revolutionary War, something on the order of one-fourth of those officer losses occurred in the assault on that hill in just one day. Some of the surviving British officers described the American use of the rifle that day as murder because of its selective killing of gentlemen officers supposedly needed to control the rabble of the lower ranks.

The controversy over the role of sniping on the battlefield has continued to some degree to this very day. It’s morality and honorability remains in greater and lesser controversy because it gives the attacker greater opportunities for immunity while greatly increasing the vulnerability of the targets. These are the same factors which brought the introduction of other new eapons into moral question and legal challenges. This was true of artillery and its fragmentation shells striking infantry from a distance, submarines such as the Turtle and CSS Hunley striking from hidden underwater approaches, aircraft dropping bombs and strafing from the sky with impunity, shotguns used in trench warfare, and hollow point bullets fragmenting into wounds. The armed drone is just the latest weapons system combining many of these same features which have sparked unending controversy over its ability to effectively and selectively make a target greatly more vulnerable and the attacker greatly more immune to counterattack. The arme drone can snipe a target almost like a rifle, attack from a hidden position in the sky like a submarine underwater, attack from the sky and retreat to the sky like a warplane, use fragmentation projectiles causing grievous wounds like fragmentation artillery rounds striking from a distance, and gives the attacker an unmatched degree of immunity against counterattack. Given the endless precedents for controversy over each new type of weapon, it must be asked how can it be remotely considered normal or logical for such a weapon to be free of the kind of controversies which lawyers inevitably exploit and cause legal opinions and memoranda to fly about like shrapnel from an artillery shell burst?


33 posted on 02/07/2013 2:28:23 AM PST by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX
Your voluminous dissertation on "new and effective weapons" completely misses the point and is eerily reminiscent of the leftist "assault" weapon argument.

I never question the weapon but rather the use. Deal with the argument e.g. executive assassinations of US Citizens not in a combat zone and not declared guilty and sentenced to die via due process.

34 posted on 02/07/2013 3:07:05 AM PST by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: J05h
He was an admitted member of al queda. Why do you feel sorry for dead terrorists?

Go back to DU leftist troll where they are able to freely worship their homosexual manboy king obama.

35 posted on 02/07/2013 3:14:50 AM PST by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson