Legal killing of American Citizens

[SaltyDawg]

So the other day Rachel Maddow broke a story about the federal government justifying its legal killing of American citizens. I'm surprised it's not being discussed here yet. Is it not being covered by Fox News or something?

Anyway, apparently they are saying it's totally legal for them to kill American citizens without them ever being charged with a crime. And it's still legal even if there is no evidence that they have committed a crime, and no evidence that they ever will commit a crime.

Apparently if someone suspects you might be a terrorist, that's grounds for an immediate death penalty.

That should scare the **** out of all of us. Especially since they're trying to take our guns while this is going on.

What's next, putting all gun owners on a database and later calling them terrorists?

And this story was broke by Rachel Maddow, and is being covered by all the rest of the talking heads at MSNBC. Keep that in mind when you say they're just like a Fox News for the left.

 

[candrew]

Apparently if someone suspects you might be a terrorist, that's grounds for an immediate death penalty.

That should scare the **** out of all of us. Especially since they're trying to take our guns while this is going on.

Wrong - and your dove-tailing it into your gun paranoia is laugable:

According to the Justice Department Memo, these 3 conditions must be present.

The suspect must be an imminent threat.
Capture of the target must be infeasible.
And the strike must be conducted according to law of war principles.

Whether it's right or wrong is a separate topic - but lets at least start off the discussion based in reality.

 

[Stoked]

So the other day Rachel Maddow broke a story about the federal government justifying its legal killing of American citizens. I'm surprised it's not being discussed here yet. Is it not being covered by Fox News or something?

Anyway, apparently they are saying it's totally legal for them to kill American citizens without them ever being charged with a crime. And it's still legal even if there is no evidence that they have committed a crime, and no evidence that they ever will commit a crime.

Apparently if someone suspects you might be a terrorist, that's grounds for an immediate death penalty.

That should scare the **** out of all of us. Especially since they're trying to take our guns while this is going on.

What's next, putting all gun owners on a database and later calling them terrorists?

And this story was broke by Rachel Maddow, and is being covered by all the rest of the talking heads at MSNBC. Keep that in mind when you say they're just like a Fox News for the left.

I find that funny since more posters in the general forums political threads lean to the left instead of the right. You, Revo, Kicky, Moe, One Brow, Candrew, Thriller, Jimmy Eat Jazz...

Also a DHS report already links "gun rights" as a code work for domestic terrorists.

One story does not suddenly make them "fair and blanced". Anymore then the odd pro-Obama piece from Fox makes them non right leaning.

 

[Stoked]

Wrong - and your dove-tailing it into your gun paranoia is laugable:

According to the Justice Department Memo, these 3 conditions must be present.

The suspect must be an imminent threat.
Capture of the target must be infeasible.
And the strike must be conducted according to law of war principles.

Whether it's right or wrong is a separate topic - but lets at least start off the discussion based in reality.

From what I have read at least the bolded requirement is wrong. I read that they do not even have to be engaged in the active planning of an attack on America or its assets.

 

[colton]

From what I have read at least the bolded requirement is wrong. I read that they do not even have to be engaged in the active planning of an attack on America or its assets.

First link I found (hey, I guess this IS being covered by Foxnews after all!)

https://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/02/...k-to-kill-al-qaida-linked-us-citizens-abroad/

The 16-page document says it is lawful to target al-Qaida linked U.S. citizens if they pose an "imminent" threat of violent attack against Americans, and that delaying action against such people would create an unacceptably high risk. Such circumstances may necessitate expanding the concept of imminent threat, the memo says.

"The threat posed by al-Qaida and its associated forces demands a broader concept of imminence in judging when a person continually planning terror attacks presents an imminent threat," the document added.

A September 2011 drone strike in Yemen killed Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, both U.S. citizens linked to al-Qaida.

The memo does not require the U.S. to have information about a specific imminent attack against the U.S.

"A decision maker determining whether an al-Qaida operational leader presents an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States must take into account that certain members of al-Qaida ... are continually plotting attacks against the United States" and that "al-Qaida would engage in such attacks regularly to the extent it were able to do so," says the document.

The document also says that a decision maker must take into account that "the U.S. government may not be aware of all al-Qaida plots as they are developing and thus cannot be confident that none is about to occur; and that...the nation may have a limited window of opportunity within which to strike in a manner that both has a high likelihood of success and reduces the probability of American casualties."

Read more: https://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/02/...aida-linked-us-citizens-abroad/#ixzz2K9O7wDAz

I interpret that to mean that although the person must be in a position where they could attack the U.S. at any moment (e.g. terrorist leader), the U.S. doesn't need to know about a specific attack planned in the next few days.

 

[candrew]

From what I have read at least the bolded requirement is wrong. I read that they do not even have to be engaged in the active planning of an attack on America or its assets.

As Colton already posted the words "imminent threat" appear in the memo. I imagine whatever you read may take issue or worry about the interpretation of that phrase - but that's what they said

 

[SaltyDawg]

So as I said in the original post, Rachel Maddow broke this story the other day. Here's the follow up she did on it yesterday.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2DsqjX25fU&feature=youtube_gdata_player

 

[Stoked]

As Colton already posted the words "imminent threat" appear in the memo. I imagine whatever you read may take issue or worry about the interpretation of that phrase - but that's what they said

Yes it appears that either what I read or my memory on what I read is incorrect.

I still am not sure how I feel about that to be honest. Very slippery slope. I do find it funny that the President is taking so much heat for continuing (and expanding) a program done under the previous administration.

 

[SaltyDawg]

As Colton already posted the words "imminent threat" appear in the memo. I imagine whatever you read may take issue or worry about the interpretation of that phrase - but that's what they said

Yes, an "imminent threat" with no evidence of any involvement in a past or future crime.

We're all "imminent threats" if no evidence is required. Well, at least the pesky gun owners are.

 

[Stoked]

Yes, an "imminent threat" with no evidence of any involvement in a post or future crime.

We're all "imminent threats" if no evidence is required. Well, at least the pesky gun owners are.

Especially with that DHS report.

However you have to be a member of a terrorist organization such as Al-Qeada correct?

 

[SaltyDawg]

Especially with that DHS report.

However you have to be a member of a terrorist organization such as Al-Qeada correct?

Or a terrorist organization like the "assault weapons owners" or something.

Watch that Rachel Maddow video. They refuse to say what the requirements are to legally kill an American.

 

[One Brow]

So the other day Rachel Maddow broke a story about the federal government justifying its legal killing of American citizens. I'm surprised it's not being discussed here yet. Is it not being covered by Fox News or something?

Why would Fox News complain about it? They probably support it.

 

[candrew]

I still am not sure how I feel about that to be honest. Very slippery slope. I do find it funny that the President is taking so much heat for continuing (and expanding) a program done under the previous administration.

I don't want to open another can of worms, but the short answer is because leftists like Rachel Maddow supports ideals. While conservative entities like Fox News and Rush Limbaugh support whatever the previous president happened to be doing.

 

[George]

So the other day Rachel Maddow

I got this far in. Didn't read the rest.

-George

 

[Stoked]

i don't want to open another can of worms, but the short answer is because leftists like rachel maddow supports ideals. While conservative entities like fox news and rush limbaugh support whatever the previous president happened to be doing.

hahahahahahha.

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

So the other day Rachel Maddow broke a story about the federal government justifying its legal killing of American citizens. I'm surprised it's not being discussed here yet. Is it not being covered by Fox News or something?

Anyway, apparently they are saying it's totally legal for them to kill American citizens without them ever being charged with a crime. And it's still legal even if there is no evidence that they have committed a crime, and no evidence that they ever will commit a crime.

Apparently if someone suspects you might be a terrorist, that's grounds for an immediate death penalty.

That should scare the **** out of all of us. Especially since they're trying to take our guns while this is going on.

What's next, putting all gun owners on a database and later calling them terrorists?

And this story was broke by Rachel Maddow, and is being covered by all the rest of the talking heads at MSNBC. Keep that in mind when you say they're just like a Fox News for the left.

Who's trying to take your guns? Link?

 

[Stoked]

Who's trying to take your guns? Link?

I agree that confiscation is not likely to happen.

However there are several high profile politicians that have at the least considered it. Such as Gov. Cuomo and Senator Feinstien.

 

[SaltyDawg]

Who's trying to take your guns? Link?

I agree that confiscation is not likely to happen.

However there are several high profile politicians that have at the least considered it. Such as Gov. Cuomo and Senator Feinstien.

I don't see all that much difference in telling me to give up the gun I own, versus telling me to forget about the gun I've been saving up to buy.

 

[Stoked]

I don't see all that much difference in telling me to give up the gun I own, versus telling me to forget about the gun I've been saving up to buy.

It is different in the way it is both perceived by the general public and reacted to by the general public. Outlawing future purchases of certain rifles will be received with anger and condemnation. Attempting to confiscate already owned firearms will result in mass insurrection and untold deaths.

Keep in mind that I am staunchly anti AWB. But yes it is a slippery slope.

 

[SaltyDawg]

It is different in the way it is both perceived by the general public and reacted to by the general public. Outlawing future purchases of certain rifles will be received with anger and condemnation. Attempting to confiscate already owned firearms will result in mass insurrection and untold deaths.

Keep in mind that I am staunchly anti AWB. But yes it is a slippery slope.

I know it's generally perceived differently. I don't think it should be though. It's not that much different to me.