What's new
By:

Legal killing of American Citizens

Hartsock said:
I'm pretty confident going to work as a marketing director, playing basketball a few nights a week, and playing with my daughter will keep me safe. call me naive I guess
Click to expand...

All that evil needs to succeed is for good men to do nothing. Or something like that.
 
Hartsock said:
I'm pretty confident going to work as a marketing director, playing basketball a few nights a week, and playing with my daughter will keep me safe. call me naive I guess
Click to expand...

Unless you're playing basketball with me, a pesky gun owner, labeled a terrorist because I once watched a YouTube video of some nut who was hoping for a civil war.

Or maybe you donated to a charity that a future president labels a terrorist organization.

Unless the rules are clearly written, you can't say for certain that you are in compliance. You can't even say for certain that the rules will not change under the next president.
 
SaltyDawg said:
Unless you're playing basketball with me, a pesky gun owner, labeled a terrorist because I once watched a YouTube video of some nut who was hoping for a civil war.

Or maybe you donated to a charity that a future president labels a terrorist organization.

Unless the rules are clearly written, you can't say for certain that you are in compliance. You can't even say for certain that the rules will not change under the next president.
Click to expand...

Ya stay away from me terrorist
 
Hartsock said:
Ya stay away from me terrorist
Click to expand...

How can you be confident that such a statement is (and will always be) good enough to be in compliance with a secret rule?

It's all fun and games to you, but it could get pretty serious, pretty fast, if your brother has been playing basketball a few nights a week with a pro lifer who donated to some anti abortion causes in the past.

You seem to have the attitude of "I'm not doing anything wrong so I have nothing to worry about" but you don't seem to understand that what is "wrong" is what they are refusing to spell out.

So the situation is, you can be killed without any prior notice, without ever being charged with a crime, and with no evidence that you have ever committed, or were even planning to commit a crime. And this is all done with no judge, no jury, no review board.

What would cause this to happen? It's secret, we can't be trusted to know. How can we be sure it won't ever be abused? We just have to trust the powers that be, the same ones who just said they don't even trust us.

You're seriously okay with this?
 
I guess if they start killing people for single statements, or for having guns, or for being a conspiracy theorist .... at least we can curb this overpopulation crises we have going on
 
Hartsock said:
I guess if they start killing people for single statements, or for having guns, or for being a conspiracy theorist .... at least we can curb this overpopulation crises we have going on
Click to expand...

Well since they won't say why someone may be or has been killed, how do you know they aren't already doing that?
 
Hartsock said:
I guess if they start killing people for single statements, or for having guns, or for being a conspiracy theorist .... at least we can curb this overpopulation crises we have going on
Click to expand...

Liberals used to be the ones you could count on for standing up against arbitrary government powers. Probably if the head of government was George Bush you'd be singing a different tune. . . . . but just because you're unwilling to think. . . . .

read the whole link stoked gave to the guardian. It was not written by a right wingnut conspiracy theorist, but by a British lawyer whose legal understanding extends way back to the hard-won Magna Carta in the context of historical use of arbitrary political killings of opponents of all kinds.

Even the ACLU is voicing the concerns for this kind of illegal, high-handed, and arbitrary claimed power. And the thinking the current administration is claiming is no different than that which the Bush administration was claiming on a more limited scale.. . . .
 
babe said:
Liberals used to be the ones you could count on for standing up against arbitrary government powers. Probably if the head of government was George Bush you'd be singing a different tune. . . . . but just because you're unwilling to think. . . . .

read the whole link stoked gave to the guardian. It was not written by a right wingnut conspiracy theorist, but by a British lawyer whose legal understanding extends way back to the hard-won Magna Carta in the context of historical use of arbitrary political killings of opponents of all kinds.

Even the ACLU is voicing the concerns for this kind of illegal, high-handed, and arbitrary claimed power. And the thinking the current administration is claiming is no different than that which the Bush administration was claiming on a more limited scale.. . . .
Click to expand...

Bush was a tard, so is obama, I am 100% confident whomever is in office next will also be a tard .... Its a vicious cycle.
 
Same thing I point in the gun control thread.

Just read that the Bush administration argued legally that the power for some of their actions was due to the entire world being a "battleground". If Obama has continued that arguement then they could theoretically take full direct control of the National Guard since everywhere is a battleground. Or they could use that to bolster the legality of a drone strike, or other lethal method, against an individual here in the states.

The arguements that they place forward, if not contested immediately, lay the ground work for other abuses later.
 
babe said:
Liberals used to be the ones you could count on for standing up against arbitrary government powers. Probably if the head of government was George Bush you'd be singing a different tune. . . . . but just because you're unwilling to think. . . . .

read the whole link stoked gave to the guardian. It was not written by a right wingnut conspiracy theorist, but by a British lawyer whose legal understanding extends way back to the hard-won Magna Carta in the context of historical use of arbitrary political killings of opponents of all kinds.

Even the ACLU is voicing the concerns for this kind of illegal, high-handed, and arbitrary claimed power. And the thinking the current administration is claiming is no different than that which the Bush administration was claiming on a more limited scale.. . . .
Click to expand...

This story was broke by Rachel Maddow and it's being covered extensively by all the talking heads at MSNBC.
 
Stoked said:
The arguements that they place forward, if not contested immediately, lay the ground work for other abuses later.
Click to expand...
People just don't seem to get this. Even if you're fine with who Obama is killing, how can anyone be confident that it will always be used on "bad guys" if they won't spell out what makes a person a bad guy?


Due process people. That's a big part of what makes America.
 
I get why everyone is outraged, I really do, I've just got stuff that is more important in my life to worry about. I applaud everyone who is going to throw a fit, and I will even support them but I'm not going to spend a whole lot of time and energy on something that I have no control over.
 
I think there is plenty to be concerned about. But it also bears mentioning that this document that everyone is going nuts over is just a summary of a classified memo; which Obama agreed to release (just as soon as his legal folks can re-write it....LOL). So we'll get the full details soon enoug - or at least Congress' version of the full details..
 
candrew said:
I think there is plenty to be concerned about. But it also bears mentioning that this document that everyone is going nuts over is just a summary of a classified memo; which Obama agreed to release (just as soon as his legal folks can re-write it....LOL). So we'll get the full details soon enoug - or at least Congress' version of the full details..
Click to expand...

If they actually do release it and it is even the original policy without new procedures to make them look good (which I highly doubt). So much for that big to do about transparency that Obama claimed back in 2008.

Regardless of their current or past policy it has not been hadnled thru either Congress or the courts which it should have been. They could have pitched their case to classify so and so as an enemy of the state, and gotten authorization to kill them if the opportunity arrises.
 
Stoked said:
That right there is the point. You are confident but what happens if you are on that DHS list for some reason. What happens if you make it on one of those "baseball cards" on "Terror Tuesday"? You are wacked and the story is that you were planning to blow up a greyhound bus. In fact the more I think about this the more I am against it. This gives the president way more power than he should have.
Click to expand...

My understanding was that this is only with regards to U.S. citizens outside of the country. If you live in the U.S., then you have to be arrested and go through a trial as usual. Is that not correct?
 
colton said:
My understanding was that this is only with regards to U.S. citizens outside of the country. If you live in the U.S., then you have to be arrested and go through a trial as usual. Is that not correct?
Click to expand...

You need a bridge? I've got one for sale.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top