Someone leaked Obamas rules for killing Americans. This is YOUR guy waterwings.

http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/04/so...-rules-for-ass




For over a year now journalists, civil liberties advocates, and members of Congress have been asking the Obama administration to release internal memoranda from the Office of Legal Counsel justifying Obama's targeted killing program. While the White House continues to deny that such memos exist, NBC is reporting that it has acquired the next best thing: A secretish 16-page white paper from the Department of Justice that was provided to select members of the Senate last June. Michael Isikoff reports that

[t]he 16-page memo, a copy of which was obtained by NBC News, provides new details about the legal reasoning behind one of the Obama administration’s most secretive and controversial polices: its dramatically increased use of drone strikes against al-Qaida suspects, including those aimed at American citizens, such as the September 2011 strike in Yemen that killed alleged al-Qaida operatives Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan. Both were U.S. citizens who had never been indicted by the U.S. government nor charged with any crimes.
[T]he confidential Justice Department “white paper” introduces a more expansive definition of self-defense or imminent attack than described by Brennan or Holder in their public speeches. It refers, for example, to what it calls a “broader concept of imminence” than actual intelligence about any ongoing plot against the U.S. homeland.
Instead, it says, an “informed, high-level” official of the U.S. government may determine that the targeted American has been “recently” involved in “activities” posing a threat of a violent attack and “there is no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities.” The memo does not define “recently” or “activities.”

You can read the full memo below the jump.

Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen who is a Senior Operational Leader of Al Q... by

It pretty much says that the President can kill anyone he wants, whenever he wants, and wherever he wants, even if that is on US soil.

It's nice to be king.

Check this out.

5 Disturbing Aspects of the DOJ White Paper on the President's License to Kill

The Justice Department white paper on "The 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," noted earlier tonight by Mike Riggs, fills in the fine print of the license to kill claimed by President Obama in several ways, none of them reassuring. The main conclusion of the paper, which was obtained by NBC News, is that "it would be lawful for the United States to conduct a lethal operation outside the United States against a U.S. citizen who is a senior, operational leader of al-Qa'ida or an associated force of al-Qa' ida without violating the Constitution or...federal statutes...under the following conditions: (1) an informed, high-level official of the U.S. government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States; (2) capture is infeasible, and the United States continues to monitor whether capture becomes feasible; and (3) the operation is conducted in a manner consistent with the four fundamental principles of the laws of war governing the use of force"—i.e., "necessity, distinction, proportionality, and humanity." Here are five points worth highlighting:

1. There may be other situations in which the president believes he has the authority to order the death of someone he perceives as an enemy. As the Justice Department repeatedly warns, "This paper does not attempt to determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful, nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances."

2. The determination of whether someone is in fact "a senior, operational leader of al-Qa'ida or an associated force" is made entirely within the executive branch, presumably by the same "informed, high-level official" who decides whether the target is an imminent threat.

3. The "imminent threat" determination is not really a distinct step in the process of authorizing summary execution by drone. "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," the paper explains. For example, "where the al-Qa'ida member in question has recently been involved in activities posing an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States, and there is no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities, that member's involvement in al-Qa'ida's continuing terrorist campaign against the United States would support the conclusion that the member poses an imminent threat." In other words, identifying someone as a current or past operational leader is pretty much the same as deciding he poses an imminent threat.

4. Although the requirement that capture be "infeasible" could be read as ruling out targeted killings within the United States or in friendly countries willing and able to assist in the apprehension of suspected terrorists, the paper identifies no geographic limit on lethal strikes against people deemed to be imminent threats. It explicitly rejects the notion that attacks should be limited to "the zone of active hostilities." (Hence the drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen.) As for obtaining permission from the government of the country where the target is located, the paper says "a lethal operation in a foreign country would be consistent with international legal principles of sovereignty and neutrality if it were conducted, for example, with the consent of the host nation's government or after a determination that the host nation is unable or unwilling to suppress the threat posed by the individual targeted." In other words, firing missiles at a suspected terrorist is permissible under international law only if the host nation's government 1) agrees to allow the attack or 2) refuses to allow the attack. (OP Note: What the hell?)

5. Although permission from the host nation's government clearly is not required for a drone attack, the white paper says capture may be deemed "infeasible" if "the relevant country were to decline to consent to a capture operation." The president also may decide to kill rather than capture if he believes the latter would pose "undue risk to U.S. personnel." And lest you think that the determination of whether death by drone is justified would benefit from a second opinion, the white paper notes that "feasibility would be a highly fact-specific and potentially time-sensitive inquiry"—i.e., not the sort of thing anyone outside the executive branch should be second-guessing.

More generally, the white paper fleshes out the Obama administration's argument that U.S. citizens killed by drones are getting all the process that is appropriate in the circumstances; hence the Fifth Amendment, though implicated, is not violated. And since these targeted killings are lawful acts of self-defense, the Justice Department says, they do not violate the law against killing U.S. nationals in foreign countries or the executive order banning assassination. After all, "A lawful killing in self-defense is not an assassination." Duh.

The problem is that to accept this position, you have to put complete trust in the competence, wisdom, and ethics of the president, his underlings, and their successors. You have to believe they are properly defining and inerrantly identifying people who pose an imminent (or quasi-imminent) threat to national security and eliminating that threat through the only feasible means, which involves blowing people up from a distance. If mere mortals deserved that kind of faith, we would not need a Fifth Amendment, or the rest of the Constitution.

http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/04/th...s-license#fold

And the usual suspects will chime in on how this is ok, and even necessary in order to protect our "freedom." They choose to be ignorant. It's a damn shame.

No, I don't think our government is going to come out and actually kill us all... it's just that these things kinda stick out a little.

Actually it can be interpreted any way you chicken littles wanna read it.

Looks to me like this is all about the war on TEAR that GW Bush started. Only defined, and made transparent so learned policy experts like the two of you could fill a few more sandbags...

Actually it can be interpreted any way you chicken littles wanna read it.

Looks to me like this is all about the war on TEAR that GW Bush started. Only defined, and made transparent so learned policy experts like the two of you could fill a few more sandbags... Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

War on TEAR? WTH?

Actually it can be interpreted any way THE PRESIDENT wants to, and that's where the danger lies. But we already know that you will support ANYTHING Obama wants to do, even if it is opposed to liberty and freedom. That's why you are the . . .

DIPSHIT OF THE YEAR 2013

ASSUP!!!

Can you imagine if GW Bush administration concluded the same ?

This is far worse than Bush's "Torture Memos"...

The media (and liberals) crucified Bush and his White House counsels; they threatened to have him arrested when he traveled overseas !

John Yoo couldn't go out in public because of his DOD opinions known as the "torture memos"...they have their own place on Wiki......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_Memos

Think they are talking about Americans not on US soil conspiring with terrorists,but it should be stopped.

So we confer rights to due process on terrorists captured on the battlefield, yet take those same rights away from actual citizens thought to be engaged in similar activities.

These assholes are out of control.

So we confer rights to due process on terrorists captured on the battlefield, yet take those same rights away from actual citizens thought to be engaged in similar activities.

These assholes are out of control. Originally Posted by EXTXOILMAN

+1

It's a war. In war, military objectives may be lawfully attacked. When a terrorist, US citizen or not, is actively engaged in warfare against the United States, or supporting those who are actively engaged in warfare with the United States, they become a military objective and may be lawfully attacked and killed.

You know this is true, just stirring shit as usual.

War on TEAR? WTH?

Actually it can be interpreted any way THE PRESIDENT wants to, and that's where the danger lies. But we already know that you will support ANYTHING Obama wants to do, even if it is opposed to liberty and freedom. That's why you are the . . .

DIPSHIT OF THE YEAR 2013

ASSUP!!!

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

It's a war. In war, military objectives may be lawfully attacked. When a terrorist, US citizen or not, is actively engaged in warfare against the United States, or supporting those who are actively engaged in warfare with the United States, they become a military objective and may be lawfully attacked and killed.

You know this is true, just stirring shit as usual. Originally Posted by timpage

American citizens, on American soil, are military objectives that can be killed without due process, or even any proof. [sarcasm on] You're a great American, Timmy! [sarcasm off]

American citizens, on American soil, are military objectives that can be killed without due process, or even any proof. [sarcasm on] You're a great American, Timmy! [sarcasm off]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

No, you're the great American....who wants to provide terrorists in Pakistan with due process, search warrants, a lawyer on the tax payers' dime, a show trial so the terrorist can have a soapbox to stand on and 20 years of appeals before the terrorist gets a lethal injection. What an excellent idea.

BTW, doesn't the post your threw up explicitly state >>>>The main conclusion of the paper, which was obtained by NBC News, is that "it would be lawful for the United States to conduct a lethal operation outside the United States against a U.S. citizen who is a senior, operational leader of al-Qa'ida or an associated force of al-Qa' ida <<<<

There are no geographical limitations contained in the guidelines, Timmy. Why do you try to defend what you obviously don't understand?

It pretty much says that the President can kill anyone he wants, whenever he wants, and wherever he wants, even if that is on US soil.

It's nice to be king.

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Here's what you posted. Where does it say we can kill US citizens on US soil?

And, how on earth can you argue with the premise that high level, senior, operational leaders of al-Qaeada who have been determined to pose an imminent threat of violent attack against the US shouldn't be killed with whatever means available? You are truly an astonishing idiot.

I can just see you and the rest of your band of 'tards yelping and whining if it came out that Obama had just that sort of information, did nothing and American's died because of it.

Christ, you idiots expected him to land the 101st Airborne in Benghazi on two hours notice in order to assault the embassy attackers.

The main conclusion of the paper, which was obtained by NBC News, is that "it would be lawful for the United States to conduct a lethal operation outside the United States against a U.S. citizen who is a senior, operational leader of al-Qa'ida or an associated force of al-Qa' ida without violating the Constitution or...federal statutes...under the following conditions: (1) an informed, high-level official of the U.S. government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States; (2) capture is infeasible, and the United States continues to monitor whether capture becomes feasible; and (3) the operation is conducted in a manner consistent with the four fundamental principles of the laws of war governing the use of force"—i.e., "necessity, distinction, proportionality, and humanity."