Drone Strikes on Americans 'Legal'

NBC News:

http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_new...egal-case-for-drone-strikes-on-americans?lite

So isn't this just great?

Yet some of you STILL defend Obama??

Someone help us.

 

Isn't that the Governments job?

 

Well, that's what 95% of the people here believe, except you, me and a few other people.

 

We're racist bigot rich homophobic brainwashed conspiracy theorist republicans though, we don't count.

 

U mad?

 

I don't believe anything I read in the MSM.

Seriously, so, If a US citizen was firing a rocket at a US/Nato helicopter or was known to be fighting with the Taliban etc - they should leave that person be, and not treat them the same? If so, why?

 

Right, Odon... kind of like the Patriot Act is used only against "terrorists."

If you believe this shit, what won't you believe?

There is no arguing with people who take everything they read at face value and place 100% trust in authority. I just cannot waste my time trying to convince you of anything. It's fruitless.

 

You're dodging Odon's pretty straight forward question, Rat.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5N2Uko8sEHs"]The (BAT-WING) Awesome Scratch built 64mm EDF RC Jet. - YouTube

Make yourself a few thousand of these.. go get em bat man..

 

Someone defended Obama on Facebook in regards to this, and the argument centered around the fact that House and Senate often put forth cases before Obama is made aware of them. Whether Obama actually agrees with going forward with what the memo suggests remains to be revealed.

 

Pressed_Rat

I'm not talking about speculation regarding drones firing rockets at ma and pa on there way to the farmers market. That discussion with people such as yourself is indeed fruitless - because neither of us can prove our case. Although my argument would hold until it occurs, obviously. I was talking about a particular situation. If you don't care if drones shoot Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan if they are shooting at US/Nato troops, fair enough.

 

The admin has spoken: “These strikes are legal, they are ethical and they are wise”

http://freebeacon.com/carney-drone-strikes-legal-ethical-wise/

 

yes..i think it is great

i dont care what fucking country a terrorist has citizenship in...kill them all

 

BBAD, and even I admit it is wrong, the whole problem most people have with this is that the article mentions the strikes will happen without any intelligence to back up the claim that the individuals being attacked are terrorists. The only thing needed is a suspicion.

 

IIRC, it said without any intelligence that they are involved in an active terror plot, not without any intelligence that they are terrorists.

 

To be fair: Although not an official legal memo, the white paper was represented by administration officials as a policy document that closely mirrors the arguments of classified memos on targeted killings by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, which provides authoritative legal advice to the president and all executive branch agencies. The administration has refused to turn over to Congress or release those memos publicly -- or even publicly confirm their existence. A source with access to the white paper, which is not classified, provided a copy to NBC News.

Meaning it isn't US policy that we know of, and isn't something refered to before a drone strike. I don't think it has any legal wait at all.

 

I hope you are right.

 

Odon,

The scenario you're presenting isn't the situation we fear. If someone is shooting at a helicopter, their nationality is a non issue. The military will shoot back. I don't think this new law changes anything in that regard.

The disturbing part about this, is the part that the suspect doesn't have to commit any crimes. There doesn't even have to be any evidence that a crime is being planned. Someone shooting at troops is a completely different story.

 

What does it take to be considered a terrorist? Who has the authority to say who is and who isn't? I agree with your statement, but the issue we take is that there doesn't need to be any evidence of any act of terror. It leaves it open so the Government can place a hit on anyone they want to, so long as they say "it's ok, he/she was a terrorist." Do you really trust the American Government enough to give them a liscence to kill at their own discretion?


Thy have already labeled Annon as a terrorist organization. Do you feel comfortable with the idea of killing anyone who they can link to Annon, without giving them a chance to defend themselves?

What about the occupy movement? The tea party? Should we kill everyone involved with these as well??

 

Well, that's why I asked my original question - I wondered if it did.
If it does not matter to you, fair enough. I just wanted to gauge how 'extreme' his opinion was going to get (you never can tell).
What I also thought might be brought up is: The right to due process and the fourth amendment (as described within the memo).

I don't think it is a law. It is a none legal memo. But lets say it is.

To be fair, for me it is a very complex memo. I have to take a simplistic view: Do I care if a person who has been identified as being linked to Al-Quaeda is killed - the answer is NO.
I wouldn't actually know till after the fact, but in principle...
It's definitely a moral grey area.