• An informed, high-level official of the US government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the US
• Capture is infeasible and the US continues to monitor whether capture becomes feasible
• The operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles
February 5, 2013
The Justice Department memo detailing when the U.S. can use drones to kill Americans.
The leaked document asserts that it's legal when:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
243 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 243 of 243this was one of the premises of going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Draw the jihadis who would fight us here to instead blow their wad fighting our troops who are far better equipped to wipe them off the map.
I notice you didn't answer my question about where the attacks were in the years following 9/11. Go back and answer it.
It was almost two years after 9/11 before we went into Iraq. The jihadis didn't flood into Afghanistan in that time -- in fact, they pretty much ran like weasels from Afghanistan and didn't return in force for years. So during those two years when they weren't fighting us much of anywhere, where were the attacks on the United States?
Anyway, the claim that we tricked them ALL into fighting us in Afghanistan and Iraq is laughable at this point, particularly since our drones keep blowing them up in countries we don't have military forces in (Pakistan, Sudan, etc).
This is certainly a little off-putting, but is it any different than America has been doing since after Word War II? You could even say it harkens back to the Spanish-American War... Remember the Maine!!!
At least we've come out of the closet as an Imperialist country, willing to kill anyone abroad who really gets in our way. And it's not extreme- Glenn Greenwald hasn't been assassinated yet, nor Julian Assange. Yet. When either of those two go down, and when the American government starts to sing the "lone guman" refrain of the 1960s again, then I'll start to get scared.
In the meantime, it's pretty much only Muslims who have to fear American firepower. Holy War, baby! The wisdom of killing Muslims for looking like they might be up to something nefarious, alå "signature strikes" and assassinating rescuers, is certainly questionable... but what else do you expect of a country that sides with the totalitarians of Saudi Arabia and has nearly a century of covert action under its belt?
Long live Emperor Obama!
(What I really mean by that last exclamation is "Don't assassinate me, bro'!!!")
armed flying death robots with stamped licenses to kill you are keeping you free!
Your smiley face imply you took offend to my aggressive criticism.
"there were questions!"
Why don't you criticize those governments I listed by explaining what is wrong with those governments right now?
I have my reasons. :)
I said I worked with Aly@ Mary Kay on that text. Not Ali @ alQa--*BOOM!*
Damn auto correct!
Offended smiley face. Who said you're forced to answer my questions? Since when asking questions deny your freedom. If you don't want to answer it, just say it so.
Also I don't listen to music, because I can't hear well. I really don't understand musics at all.
"Who were the concerned liberals supposed to vote for?"
I voted for Jill Stein.
From Wikipedia: "Jill Stein speaking at Occupy Wall Street, 27 September 2011"
Of course. That explain it.
"Is it clarified anywhere that these people cannot be in the US when struck?"
I believe the President claims the right to assassinate any person--including American citizens--anywhere--including in this country.
It would be odd, given the "preventing attacks" justification, if he *didn't* claim the power extended to US soil.
It would be like claiming the right to kill who plan bank robberies, but only if they haven't made it to the bank yet.
that should be "kill people who plan".
"...we have decimated (Al Qaeda) and are bringing them to their knees. That doesn't mean they didnt' pose a threat or still don't.
It just means we are doing a good job keeping the threat in check."
They were never a credible major threat to us. If anything, our decade plus of killing and destruction in Muslim lands has probably increased the number of anti-American terrorists as well as their desire to revenge themselves on us.
That said, they are not a threat to the existence of America...except insofar as they manage to cause us to destroy ourselves by collapsing into a police state, overspent and depleted.
The police state thing has been largely inevitable since the progressive era's removal of the Constitutional limitations on federal and Presidential power.
They could already take your property and livelihood without having to justify it. Taking your life isn't really a shocking step beyond that. Once it is conceded that the individual is less important than the collective, the rest naturally follows.
"Giving POTUS all those powers after 9/11 was a bad idea in retrospect, eh? Nobody would listen to the dirty fucking hippies though."
Lots of people, other than the dirty hippies, thought giving the POTUS that power wasn't bright, and said so then.
Of course, Bush was only expanding on the power that the dirty hippies had been glad to hand Clinton after the first World Trade Center bombing. And thus the cycle of the citizenry getting fucked over continues.
I see no problem with killing 'Americans' who are actively working to bring down the country.
To me they have forfeited the benefit of 'rights' granted by their citizenship because they are turned into traitors.
"Why you aren't concerned about Islamic Governments' actions? Why only focused on USA Government's actions, when there is many countries' human right abuses problems such as Cuba, Thailand, Venezuela, and Islamic Countries?"
This wasn't directed at me but the answer is plain for those who even try to see it: because those are other countries. Their actions do not reflect on us. Our criticisms of them are meaningless and pointless, and as little noticed (or rejected) by them as would be their criticisms of our own country's behavior.
Your question is equivalent to asking, of a person who criticizes his local police department for corruption and abuse of power, (which not only poses a possible danger to the local citizen, but also reflects badly on the local citizenry who accept or applaud the corruption and abuse of power), "Why don't you criticize the police department in that far off city in that far off state that is many many miles from here? They're worse than our police!"
Or, of a man who criticizes his father for neglecting his children, "Why don't you criticize that guy in the paper who beat his kids to death?"
We can only meaningfully criticize or hope to effect any positive change on the failings of our own town/county/state/nation. The citizens of other nations are responsible to act to check the abuses of their own governments.
"I see no problem with killing 'Americans' who are actively working to bring down the country.
"To me they have forfeited the benefit of 'rights' granted by their citizenship because they are turned into traitors."
How do you know whether an American is "actively working to bring down the country?" How do you know whether an American is a traitor? Because the President says so?
"Leland said...
What pduggie notes is missing has always been my problem with the Obama's Administration's reasoning on this topic. The target has to be a Al Qaeda operative. Perhaps the many lawyers can help me on this...
In WWII, the US government revoked the citizenships of aviators that willingly choose to fly for the British in the "Battle of Britain" prior to US entering the war. The rational is that these "former" citizens took up arms for another nation's army."
[Citation needed]
In all the books I've read about WWII - 30-40? NOT ONCE have I ever read that 1) There were US citizens flying for Britian and 2) their citizenships were revoked.
Gave us some proof please.
Really? Questioning people or politicians's view on world is equivalent to "Why don't you criticize that guy in the paper who beat his kids to death?"
Where did I said no one allow to criticize USA, because another country is worst? I should shut up about another countries' actions then? I should focused only on USA , because I live there? I have no right to live in another countries and criticize it's government? Really?
You are such a vile coward.
You leftists exist only to cause problems, nothing else. You always falsely accuse opponents of being racists, being in business with "evil rich people," "oil people," or murderous people want to kill people by allow gun rights. That is why you leftists are cowards.
Why I never heard of leftists criticizing Hugo Chavez before? Anyone? Why is that?
That is why it is important for me to understand any people's world view
That is why it is important for me to understand any people's world view
Empirical evidence suggests it isn't very important to you. You're more an "assume you know what they believe, then attack them for it" sort of fellow. :)
"Why I never heard of leftists criticizing Hugo Chavez before? Anyone? Why is that?"
What do you have to criticize him about?
Offeneded one, what is wrong with criticizing?
What is make you think they aren't important to me? They are important parts for to understand or to criticizing.
"What do you have to criticize him about?"
Taking stuffs from people by force, fixing prices by force on foods and other stuffs, murdering his opponents, blaming all his problems on other like USA, Israel, or his opponents, remove term limits so he can live like a pathetic king pig.
"You're more an "assume you know what they believe, then attack them for it" sort of fellow. :)"
As if you aren't hypocrite about that. Anyway. What is wrong with that? Don't like my "assume". Then why you dodge my other question? I'm not surprised to see you being coward about it by dodging my question you didn't answered just like typical politicians.
Robert Cook the vile parasite, do you see any problem with Hugo Chavez?
EMD, defending Islamists and their precious Islamic Government's right to murder people for being an Infidel or different views is populist? Wow who knew? Next thing is you might tell me thst Islamic Government respect womens' rights.
Um, you're missing my point. Read your criticism of Revenant and Cedarford's.
On second thought, nevermind.
"Um, you're missing my point. Read your criticism of Revenant and Cedarford's.
On second thought, nevermind."
What your point was? Explain please.
What is make you think Revenant is more populist than me? I'm willing to slit politicians throat for their drug ban support when we crossed paths.
As if you aren't hypocrite about that. Anyway. What is wrong with that? Don't like my "assume". Then why you dodge my other question? I'm not surprised to see you being coward about it by dodging my question you didn't answered just like typical politicians.
Please speak English, I'm monolingual.
HA! I didn't noticed C4. Who bother to read Jew-obsessed left-wing C4? You I guess.
Tell me what isn't make offended one's comment seem to be defending islamic culture. He think Islamic countries aren't big deal as long as he don't live there. That doesn't sound very populist to me.
Offended one, I'm sorry if I offended you. :)
So. Bottom line is you lose you're rights as a citizen as soon as you cross the boarder.
Fortunately, it was not written by John Yoo or there would be a major outcry from the left.
I asked Kyle Holmes:
"What do you have to criticize (Hugo Chavez) about?"
Kyle answered:
"Taking stuffs from people by force, fixing prices by force on foods and other stuffs, murdering his opponents, blaming all his problems on other like USA, Israel, or his opponents, remove term limits so he can live like a pathetic king pig."
Okay, even assuming these criticisms were all true, what do YOU have to criticize him about? How does Chavez's behavior in office, whatever it may be, affect YOU? Are you a citizen of Venezuela? Do you have family who are citizens of Venezuela, or living there?
If not, what point is there to your criticizing him?
One's obligation as a citizen is to hold one's own government to acceptable standards of behavior, and to criticize one's own government when it fails to meet its own standards or the standards the citizens expect of it. Criticizing other governments may have some point if the behavior is so egregious that citizens and nations around the world join together to attempt to put pressure on that government to mend its ways, (as with South Africa's odious apartheid regime). But if it's just a childish reaction, a complaint of "don't criticize our government because other governments are worse," then it's just defensive carping, a refusal to face the realities of one's own society and government by pointing fingers at others elsewhere.
John Henry:
Some information on Eagle Squadron citizenships here and here. I think this probably answers a bit more of my question.
What Roosevelt did was pass "Neutrality Laws" to threaten the loss of citizenship of Americans, who decided to go fight of the militaries of belligerent nations. It was far more narrow than Obama's doctrine to this. In 1944, according to one site, Congress pardoned anyone who might have been caught up in this, but I think what might be meant is Congress repealed the applicability of those laws or gave back the citizenship.
In short, this was a WWI, WWII issue and no longer applicable today. Not sure why this approach isn't taken now.
Anyway, the claim that we tricked them ALL into fighting us in Afghanistan and Iraq is laughable at this point, particularly since our drones keep blowing them up in countries we don't have military forces in (Pakistan, Sudan, etc).
You're viewing incidents as they stand now as if that is the same for the entire duration of hostilities.
Go back in time to when Zawahiri was waging war in Iraq. AL Qaeda was much stronger and had a front in Iraq called Al Qaeda of Iraq. And our troops were getting slammed. This was the whole point of having a surge.
Back in 2009 (?) Obama said the following about how HE was going to conduct a war on terror and our "values":
"Now let me be clear: We are indeed at war with al Qaeda and its affiliates. We do need to update our institutions to deal with this threat. But we must do so with an abiding confidence in the rule of law and due process; in checks and balances and accountability. For reasons that I will explain, the decisions that were made over the last eight years established an ad hoc legal approach for fighting terrorism that was neither effective nor sustainable — a framework that failed to rely on our legal traditions and time-tested institutions, and that failed to use our values as a compass.
What were those things that he had an objection to, those things that we "failed to use our values as a compass when passing? When Obama said a framework that failed to rely on our legal traditions and time-tested institutions", what framework did he fall back on?
The exact same framework as Bush. The ONLY difference is that he didn't allow for waterboarding, though that assumes he is telling the truth. Since we are allowing for renditions where ACTUAL torture will be comitted (i.e. things that we would never do to SERE cadets for training purposed or otherwise) it's not as if it really matters. He merely outsourced WORSE torture and then feigned moral purity.
And the lefties who voted for Obama knew this in 2009 through 2012. Or didn't bother to find out about it because their moral outrage was mere preening for political purposes.
Someone asked:
"Who were the concerned liberals supposed to vote for?"
Robert Cook responded:
"I voted for Jill Stein."
Exactly! You didn't have to vote for obama. You didn't have to vote AT ALL. I just don't think that for most libs what Obama is doing is really that important to them.
For the people who have a problem with killing Americans who are involved in terorrist operations (or suspected involvement), what if en route to our operation to kill Osama bin Laden it turned out that Adam Gadan was in the house somewhere.
Would you abort the mission becasue he's an American?
Revenant wrote:
It would be odd, given the "preventing attacks" justification, if he *didn't* claim the power extended to US soil.
It would be like claiming the right to kill who plan bank robberies, but only if they haven't made it to the bank yet.
Remember back on 9/11 two of the planes had already hit their targets and planes were sent out to try to intercept the third plane.
If they were able to do so,would you have said they should have shot the plane down before it hit it's target, EVEN though Americans might have been on board?
Post a Comment