Holder: U.S. can lawfully target American citizens

[jimnyc]

Hm, I'm not strictly against, as really, a person wanting to kill hundreds of people is a person wanting to kill hundreds of people, and as our swears, we hold against all threats both foreign and domestic. However, it does need an appropriate degree of oversight on this. They need to have reasonable cause to believe he's getting ready to take lives, just like our SWAT snipers require before they take their shots.

And Jim, it's not as easy to take a life as you think. It's isn't like a video game, because if you shoot the wrong person in MW3, you just load the last checkpoint and get another shot.

I didn't mean to imply that it's easy. But if it's a terrorist on the other end, American or not, I wouldn't mind trying. Boldy put, put him in front of me and give me a high caliber weapon - I'll make sure I don't miss.

And I don't mind what your first paragraph addresses. They had years of intel on the guy. They should be addressing this with the national security committees. And maybe in cases like this they should be convening special committes and going before judges for determinations. I don't know. Hell, like FJ stated, I'm not against bringing it through congress and getting various laws passed to address these things. BUT...

Suppose laws are passed that make it acceptable to kill American citizens abroad, that are known terrorists, with irrefutable proof, and we know an attack is imminent. Even with all that said, people like Rev would whine because they STILL didn't get the same due process as others.

[DragonStryk72]

I didn't mean to imply that it's easy. But if it's a terrorist on the other end, American or not, I wouldn't mind trying. Boldy put, put him in front of me and give me a high caliber weapon - I'll make sure I don't miss.

And I don't mind what your first paragraph addresses. They had years of intel on the guy. They should be addressing this with the national security committees. And maybe in cases like this they should be convening special committes and going before judges for determinations. I don't know. Hell, like FJ stated, I'm not against bringing it through congress and getting various laws passed to address these things. BUT...

Suppose laws are passed that make it acceptable to kill American citizens abroad, that are known terrorists, with irrefutable proof, and we know an attack is imminent. Even with all that said, people like Rev would whine because they STILL didn't get the same due process as others.

The problem is what our definition of what a terrorist is because. right now, we do not have a real working definition other than "causes terror". Well, the nazis caused terror, lots of it, but they were clearly soldiers, AQ are easily labeled terrorists, but Taliban troops sort of fell into a quasi-state, along with the insurgents in Iraq.

A guy defending his home in the middle of a warzone with an AK-47 isn't necessarily a terrorist, regardless of what holy book he uses. If war broke out between Texas and Mexico tomorrow, with the Mexicans as the invaders, we wouldn't dream of calling Texans terrorists for whipping out their arsenal of firepower to defend themselves with (batshit insane might stick for some of them, but it's Texas).

[revelarts]

...
And I don't mind what your first paragraph addresses. They had years of intel on the guy. They should be addressing this with the national security committees. And maybe in cases like this they should be convening special committes and going before judges for determinations. I don't know. Hell, like FJ stated, I'm not against bringing it through congress and getting various laws passed to address these things. BUT...

Why do all that when you LIKE what GW OBama's claims he got going now, no oversight, no judges, no congress, no constitutional authority, just ditatoral execution powers. are you saying you might be a bit mistaken here. that it might be to much? well, That's a step in the right direction Jim.

...
Suppose laws are passed that make it acceptable to kill American citizens abroad, that are known terrorists, with irrefutable proof, and we know an attack is imminent. Even with all that said, people like Rev would whine because they STILL didn't get the same due process as others.

So you say that MAybe the prez should have a Judge or Judges look at, I'd prefer a confidentiality bound grand jury of informed citizens. That'd be one standard.
now you add..

Known terrorist implies they've already harmed or attempted to harm, there'd be a standard of evidence for "known". NOT JUST "INTENT" as holder says.
Irrefutable Proof, takes it up another BIG notch, someone would have to be able to determine that, and the general public should be able to see that proof at some point.
we know an attack is imminent, Imminent is in the eye of the BE-holder as it stand now though. But if a Fixed time could be added to thw other items you've listed Is another nocth of higher in responsible response, If there was a law that could included all of these standard I'd be FAR less concerned.


Holder is no where NEAR what you've outlined Jim
"He said the president is not required by the Constitution to delay action until some “theoretical end stage of planning — when the precise time, place and manner of an attack become clear.”
“relevant window of opportunity to act, the possible harm that missing the window would cause to civilians and the likelihood of heading off future disastrous attacks against the United States.”
“flexible definition of ‘imminent threat’."


KNOWN Irrefutable are not in the cards
and Imminent could be 10 days 20 days 30days 1 year 2 years oneday
plan stages could be we have the maps the routes and know the explosive OR
we heard 2 guys talking about it.
and the president is the only one who would know for sure, Know at least what HE was told.

But why stop overseas, and what is an "attack" and what is "harm". I've posted several iems where Fatherland security has tried people AS terrorist who have done things like "counterfeit money". And other things that most people wouldn't consider anywhere near terrorist acts.

And the authority assumed is not warranted by the level of threat from the handful of terrorist around the world.
But you see the power as ONLY being used against those YOU understand to be you REAL mass murders, but the powers ASSUMED here is much broader than that. For you not to be alarmed by THAT is short sight and foolish. plan and simple.

[jimnyc]

Why do all that when you LIKE what GW OBama's claims he got going now, no oversight, no judges, no congress, no constitutional authority, just ditatoral execution powers. are you saying you might be a bit mistaken here. that it might be to much? well, That's a step in the right direction Jim.


So you say that MAybe the prez should have a Judge or Judges look at, I'd prefer a confidentiality bound grand jury of informed citizens. That'd be one standard.
now you add..

Known terrorist implies they've already harmed or attempted to harm, there'd be a standard of evidence for "known". NOT JUST "INTENT" as holder says.
Irrefutable Proof, takes it up another BIG notch, someone would have to be able to determine that, and the general public should be able to see that proof at some point.
we know an attack is imminent, Imminent is in the eye of the BE-holder as it stand now though. But if a Fixed time could be added to thw other items you've listed Is another nocth of higher in responsible response, If there was a law that could included all of these standard I'd be FAR less concerned.


Holder is no where NEAR what you've outlined Jim
"He said the president is not required by the Constitution to delay action until some “theoretical end stage of planning — when the precise time, place and manner of an attack become clear.”
“relevant window of opportunity to act, the possible harm that missing the window would cause to civilians and the likelihood of heading off future disastrous attacks against the United States.”
“flexible definition of ‘imminent threat’."


KNOWN Irrefutable are not in the cards
and Imminent could be 10 days 20 days 30days 1 year 2 years oneday
plan stages could be we have the maps the routes and know the explosive OR
we heard 2 guys talking about it.
and the president is the only one who would know for sure, Know at least what HE was told.

But why stop overseas, and what is an "attack" and what is "harm". I've posted several iems where Fatherland security has tried people AS terrorist who have done things like "counterfeit money". And other things that most people wouldn't consider anywhere near terrorist acts.

And the authority assumed is not warranted by the level of threat from the handful of terrorist around the world.
But you see the power as ONLY being used against those YOU understand to be you REAL mass murders, but the powers ASSUMED here is much broader than that. For you not to be alarmed by THAT is short sight and foolish. plan and simple.

You're the one who states that no one should be brought forth to answer for crimes until they actually kill someone, and that it needs to be a certain amount of deaths before it should be prosecuted.

[fj1200]

And I don't mind what your first paragraph addresses. They had years of intel on the guy. They should be addressing this with the national security committees. And maybe in cases like this they should be convening special committes and going before judges for determinations. I don't know. Hell, like FJ stated, I'm not against bringing it through congress and getting various laws passed to address these things. BUT...

Suppose laws are passed that make it acceptable to kill American citizens abroad, that are known terrorists, with irrefutable proof, and we know an attack is imminent. Even with all that said, people like Rev would whine because they STILL didn't get the same due process as others.

Sometimes you just have to let rev be rev and you always need someone to be an ardent backer of government restraint and liberty anyway.

IMO, bringing it through Congress should be what you are FOR not just that you're not AGAINST it. We have processes and hurdles, checks and balances, etc. for a reason, there is and should be high standards in place to act as a restraint.

[jimnyc]

Sometimes you just have to let rev be rev and you always need someone to be an ardent backer of government restraint and liberty anyway.

IMO, bringing it through Congress should be what you are FOR not just that you're not AGAINST it. We have processes and hurdles, checks and balances, etc. for a reason, there is and should be high standards in place to act as a restraint.

We are in the midst of war. I think right now the 1st priority is protecting American lives, but I think they should work on congress at the same time to close up the loose ends.

[revelarts]

We are in the midst of war. I think right now the 1st priority is protecting American lives, but I think they should work on congress at the same time to close up the loose ends.

War on fear, war on hype, war on lies, war on terror,... sigh...

never ending war justifies all.

A state of war only serves as an excuse for domestic tyranny.
~Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

No protracted war can fail to endanger the freedom of a democratic country.
~Alexis de Tocqueville

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised "for the good of its victims" may be the most oppressive.
~C. S. Lewis


We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security.
~Dwight D. Eisenhower




How far can you go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without?
~Dwight D. Eisenhower

[jimnyc]

Rev, just because you think there is a threshold of a certain amount of deaths needed before Americans can even investigate people, doesn't mean others have to think alike. I'm not the one who said there should be an individual investigation for each and every suspect and have congressional hearings before we can even eavesdrop on that person.

Btw - how do you think Ron Paul's ass feels today from the major spanking he received? LOL

[DragonStryk72]

We are in the midst of war. I think right now the 1st priority is protecting American lives, but I think they should work on congress at the same time to close up the loose ends.

I really think that they need judicial review, as opposed to congressional, since it's a joint venture between Congress and the President, having the Judiciary do the oversight is proper as per our checks and balances as a nation.

[revelarts]

.... you always need someone to be an ardent backer of government restraint and liberty anyway...

I thought that was everyone's job, at least most republicans claim they are for those. right?
am i way out in the hinter lands here?
I guess everyone else are ardent, well at least nominal, backers of gov't power and gov't control then?
For Safety/Security reasons, becuase that's more important than Liberty.


And having congress pass a law that makes it ok for the president to execute citizens without trial doesn't really cut it either does it FJ.

Whats the real difference in the end?

[fj1200]

We are in the midst of war. I think right now the 1st priority is protecting American lives, but I think they should work on congress at the same time to close up the loose ends.

We could always be in the midst of "war" so I think it best that we follow the methods of passing law that we have available to us. We should not be using circumstances to justify actions that would be unthinkable without the circumstances.

I thought that was everyone's job, at least most republicans claim they are for those. right?
am i way out in the hinter lands here?
I guess everyone else are ardent, well at least nominal, backers of gov't power and gov't control then?
For Safety/Security reasons, becuase that's more important than Liberty.


And having congress pass a law that makes it ok for the president to execute citizens without trial doesn't really cut it either does it FJ.

Whats the real difference in the end?

I was using "ardent" in the specific circumstance that Jim pointed out. It was a... nicer... term than I could have used.

And you might want to actually consider my position before creating one for me.