Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 100
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Westchester, New York
    Posts
    67,826
    Thanks (Given)
    7315
    Thanks (Received)
    34158
    Likes (Given)
    7051
    Likes (Received)
    7777
    Piss Off (Given)
    14
    Piss Off (Received)
    19
    Mentioned
    515 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475731

    Default Holder: U.S. can lawfully target American citizens

    Rev, take a Xanax before reading this story in it's entirety, or a Valium. And then take another when you hear me say I am in 100% agreement with him!

    The U.S. government has the right to order the killing of American citizens overseas if they are senior al-Qaeda leaders who pose an imminent terrorist threat and cannot reasonably be captured, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said Monday.

    “Any decision to use lethal force against a United States citizen — even one intent on murdering Americans and who has become an operational leader of al-Qaeda in a foreign land — is among the gravest that government leaders can face,” Holder said in a speech at Northwestern University’s law school in Chicago. “The American people can be — and deserve to be — assured that actions taken in their defense are consistent with their values and their laws.”

    Holder’s discussion of lethal force against U.S. citizens did not mention any individual by name, but his address was clearly animated by the targeting of Anwar al-Awlaki, a senior figure in al-Qaeda’s Yemeni affiliate. Awlaki, who was born in New Mexico, was killed in a U.S. drone strike in Yemen in September.

    Since that operation, the Obama administration has faced calls to explain the legal framework behind its decision to target Awlaki and to release at least portions of a classified memorandum by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel that contains its evidence, reasoning and conclusions.

    Holder’s speech represented the administration’s most elaborate public explanation to date for targeted killings. And it followed a prolonged internal debate about how to inform the public about one of the most extraordinary decisions a government can take without explicitly acknowledging the ongoing classified drone program.

    Among the most revealing parts of the speech was Holder’s discussion of some of the factors the administration reviews before deciding that an individual represents an “imminent threat.” He said the critical factors include the “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.”

    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.”

    The attorney general’s “flexible definition of ‘imminent threat’ is absolutely appropriate as applied to terrorist planners, but it may be unsettling to many in the international community who criticized President Bush for his principle of preemption,” said John B. Bellinger, who served as a legal adviser to the State Department in the George W. Bush administration.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...FtR_story.html
    “You know the world is going crazy when the best rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy, the tallest guy in the NBA is Chinese, the Swiss hold the America's Cup, France is accusing the U.S. of arrogance, Germany doesn't want to go to war, and the three most powerful men in America are named "Bush", "Dick", and "Colin." Need I say more?” - Chris Rock

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    11,865
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    3
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    2
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    first thing I thought when I seen this thread, was oh Lord, Rev gonna be up in arms now.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Westchester, New York
    Posts
    67,826
    Thanks (Given)
    7315
    Thanks (Received)
    34158
    Likes (Given)
    7051
    Likes (Received)
    7777
    Piss Off (Given)
    14
    Piss Off (Received)
    19
    Mentioned
    515 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475731

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ConHog View Post
    first thing I thought when I seen this thread, was oh Lord, Rev gonna be up in arms now.
    I wish I had my hands on the controller of a drone. Just like playing a video game, I'd shoot the fuck out of a terrorist. I don't care if he's American, British, Iranian, Saudi Arabian.... matters little to me, if you're a terrorist, and you're plotting and/or have killed Americans or our interests, you deserve what every other terrorist gets - killed.
    “You know the world is going crazy when the best rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy, the tallest guy in the NBA is Chinese, the Swiss hold the America's Cup, France is accusing the U.S. of arrogance, Germany doesn't want to go to war, and the three most powerful men in America are named "Bush", "Dick", and "Colin." Need I say more?” - Chris Rock

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Virginia, U.S.A.
    Posts
    14,996
    Thanks (Given)
    4882
    Thanks (Received)
    5015
    Likes (Given)
    3259
    Likes (Received)
    1864
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    4
    Mentioned
    135 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14250995

    Default

    well well,

    Bush's Lawyer John Wu said it's legal to crush children's testicles to get info on in the war on terror, and Obama's Holder says it's legal to kill any terrorist ,so called, by their own standards anytime anywhere. Slippery Slope on presidential powers is fine though i guess. It's good to be the King.
    They are all Lawyers Obama's a constitutional lawyer so, it's OK we can trust lawyers, to do what's right here.
    A people like Jim will just kill anyone the gov't SAYS is a terrorist who MIGHT do something one day maybe. Those Pre-Criminals or Pre-Terrorist. Obama's Pre-Justice, no need for trials, no need for evidence... ever. Nat'l securty and all that, saynomore wink wink. that's the American way yes siree. Dictatorial execution powers in the hand of the president. It's legal Holder says so.

    And Jim likes it.



    there's a lot that i could say and post


    but these 2 lines from the Declaration of Independence come to mind. In the part listing complaints about the old King you know"

    "...For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
    For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences... "

    <dl><dd>


    this item from Brazil come top of mind too for some reason ...
    </dd></dl><object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/nWbIxFKtTmE?version=3&feature=player_detailpage">< param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/nWbIxFKtTmE?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>
    It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. James Madison
    Live as free people, yet without employing your freedom as a pretext for wickedness; but live at all times as servants of God.
    1 Peter 2:16

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Westchester, New York
    Posts
    67,826
    Thanks (Given)
    7315
    Thanks (Received)
    34158
    Likes (Given)
    7051
    Likes (Received)
    7777
    Piss Off (Given)
    14
    Piss Off (Received)
    19
    Mentioned
    515 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475731

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by revelarts View Post
    well well,

    Bush's Lawyer John Wu said it's legal to crush children's testicles to get info on in the war on terror, and Obama's Holder says it's legal to kill any terrorist ,so called, by their own standards anytime anywhere. Slippery Slope on presidential powers is fine though i guess. It's good to be the King.
    They are all Lawyers Obama's a constitutional lawyer so, it's OK we can trust lawyers, to do what's right here.
    A people like Jim will just kill anyone the gov't SAYS is a terrorist who MIGHT do something one day maybe. Those Pre-Criminals or Pre-Terrorist. Obama's Pre-Justice, no need for trials, no need for evidence... ever. Nat'l securty and all that, saynomore wink wink. that's the American way yes siree. Dictatorial execution powers in the hand of the president. It's legal Holder says so.

    And Jim likes it.<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"></object>
    You're a full blown idiot. You foam at the mouth because you don't like our government, and you'll make any asinine statement you can to further your idiocy. NEVER have I said anything remotely to what I placed in bold. Furthermore, this discussion is about proven terrorists who perhaps might kill imminently.

    Take the Xanax I prescribed and post again when the foaming subsides, and when you can't make a post without putting words in other peoples mouths. How many times does this make now that you have done this, Rev?
    “You know the world is going crazy when the best rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy, the tallest guy in the NBA is Chinese, the Swiss hold the America's Cup, France is accusing the U.S. of arrogance, Germany doesn't want to go to war, and the three most powerful men in America are named "Bush", "Dick", and "Colin." Need I say more?” - Chris Rock

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Westchester, New York
    Posts
    67,826
    Thanks (Given)
    7315
    Thanks (Received)
    34158
    Likes (Given)
    7051
    Likes (Received)
    7777
    Piss Off (Given)
    14
    Piss Off (Received)
    19
    Mentioned
    515 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475731

    Default

    And try telling the "truth" about the John Yoo incident. It was another kook like you asking the idiotic question to him, he simply pointed out that no treaty existed to make it unlawful. He didn't go out of his way like Holder did in this instance, he had a fruit loop professor ask him a stupid ass question, so that down the road another kook can make it appear like Yoo is a testicle fiend.
    “You know the world is going crazy when the best rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy, the tallest guy in the NBA is Chinese, the Swiss hold the America's Cup, France is accusing the U.S. of arrogance, Germany doesn't want to go to war, and the three most powerful men in America are named "Bush", "Dick", and "Colin." Need I say more?” - Chris Rock

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Elmhurst, NY
    Posts
    179
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    89631

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jimnyc View Post
    Rev, take a Xanax before reading this story in it's entirety, or a Valium. And then take another when you hear me say I am in 100% agreement with him!



    http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...FtR_story.html
    I understood that there were allegations against him, not proof. I understood too, that we had opportunities to arrest him and chose not to. Too much misinformation from this Administration. A day late and a dollar short.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    In your head
    Posts
    24,660
    Thanks (Given)
    4779
    Thanks (Received)
    5272
    Likes (Given)
    1617
    Likes (Received)
    1430
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    40
    Mentioned
    56 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    9173703

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jimnyc View Post
    Rev, take a Xanax before reading this story in it's entirety, or a Valium. And then take another when you hear me say I am in 100% agreement with him!
    It's not the place of one branch of government to be legislature, judicial, and executioner. They should propose a law and get a Congressman to sponsor it, let it be hashed out and voted on, let it be reviewable, and then let the executive act.
    "when socialism fails, blame capitalism and demand more socialism." - A friend
    "You know the difference between libs and right-wingers? Libs STFU when evidence refutes their false beliefs." - Another friend
    “Don't waste your time with explanations: people only hear what they want to hear.” - Paulo Coelho


  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Westchester, New York
    Posts
    67,826
    Thanks (Given)
    7315
    Thanks (Received)
    34158
    Likes (Given)
    7051
    Likes (Received)
    7777
    Piss Off (Given)
    14
    Piss Off (Received)
    19
    Mentioned
    515 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475731

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Intense View Post
    I understood that there were allegations against him, not proof. I understood too, that we had opportunities to arrest him and chose not to. Too much misinformation from this Administration. A day late and a dollar short.
    Read the lame wiki version alone - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

    There was MORE than enough proof to show he not only had ties to terrorism, but that he was one of the leaders of an Al Qaeda division. Even Yemen had him on their most wanted list. He was directly involved in the Fort Hood shootings that killed 13 American soldiers. There is a long and storied history between Awlaki and terrorism.

    As for the arrests, first time I'm hearing about this. When? Where? Can you give us details? Either way though, doesn't excuse his terror activities and the planning/killing of Americans.
    “You know the world is going crazy when the best rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy, the tallest guy in the NBA is Chinese, the Swiss hold the America's Cup, France is accusing the U.S. of arrogance, Germany doesn't want to go to war, and the three most powerful men in America are named "Bush", "Dick", and "Colin." Need I say more?” - Chris Rock

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Albany, NY
    Posts
    5,457
    Thanks (Given)
    14
    Thanks (Received)
    714
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    7
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    1515017

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jimnyc View Post
    Rev, take a Xanax before reading this story in it's entirety, or a Valium. And then take another when you hear me say I am in 100% agreement with him!



    http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...FtR_story.html
    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.
    "Government screws up everything. If government says black, you can bet it's white. If government says sit still for your safety, you'd better run for your life!"
    --Wayne Allyn Root
    www.rootforamerica.com
    www.FairTax.org

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Westchester, New York
    Posts
    67,826
    Thanks (Given)
    7315
    Thanks (Received)
    34158
    Likes (Given)
    7051
    Likes (Received)
    7777
    Piss Off (Given)
    14
    Piss Off (Received)
    19
    Mentioned
    515 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475731

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DragonStryk72 View Post
    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.
    “You know the world is going crazy when the best rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy, the tallest guy in the NBA is Chinese, the Swiss hold the America's Cup, France is accusing the U.S. of arrogance, Germany doesn't want to go to war, and the three most powerful men in America are named "Bush", "Dick", and "Colin." Need I say more?” - Chris Rock

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    In a house; two stories, suburban
    Posts
    7,471
    Thanks (Given)
    214
    Thanks (Received)
    264
    Likes (Given)
    3
    Likes (Received)
    7
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2395481

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fj1200 View Post
    It's not the place of one branch of government to be legislature, judicial, and executioner. They should propose a law and get a Congressman to sponsor it, let it be hashed out and voted on, let it be reviewable, and then let the executive act.
    Oh, but that's so laborious-- we got war to win here. Not to mention, we can't have a bunch political/judicial activists making decisions-- there'd be anarchy. You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists... pretty much sums it up. Though this one from Rev's Brazil video is pretty great "We're the government; we don't make mistakes." classic. That's right up there with ...we're here to help.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Albany, NY
    Posts
    5,457
    Thanks (Given)
    14
    Thanks (Received)
    714
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    7
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    1515017

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jimnyc View Post
    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).
    "Government screws up everything. If government says black, you can bet it's white. If government says sit still for your safety, you'd better run for your life!"
    --Wayne Allyn Root
    www.rootforamerica.com
    www.FairTax.org

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Virginia, U.S.A.
    Posts
    14,996
    Thanks (Given)
    4882
    Thanks (Received)
    5015
    Likes (Given)
    3259
    Likes (Received)
    1864
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    4
    Mentioned
    135 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14250995

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jimnyc View Post
    ...
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by jimnyc View Post
    ...
    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.
    It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. James Madison
    Live as free people, yet without employing your freedom as a pretext for wickedness; but live at all times as servants of God.
    1 Peter 2:16

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    In your head
    Posts
    24,660
    Thanks (Given)
    4779
    Thanks (Received)
    5272
    Likes (Given)
    1617
    Likes (Received)
    1430
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    40
    Mentioned
    56 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    9173703

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jimnyc View Post
    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.
    "when socialism fails, blame capitalism and demand more socialism." - A friend
    "You know the difference between libs and right-wingers? Libs STFU when evidence refutes their false beliefs." - Another friend
    “Don't waste your time with explanations: people only hear what they want to hear.” - Paulo Coelho


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Debate Policy - Political Forums