Drone Strikes on Americans OK

I agree, sadly.

This speaks to the other thread about where Republicans went wrong. instead of being strong on national defense, they just want to be able to do whatever they want. Ever since 9/11, both sides have intentionally given outrageous powers to the presidency to order whatever actions they feel is necessary. Just as terrible as this, the indefinite detention policy in the NDAA is mostly being ignored by everyone.

If you're not doing anything wrong, who cares if they listen to your phone?

If you're not doing anything wrong, who cares if they read your email?

If you're not doing anything wrong, who cares if they spy on you with drones?

If you're not doing anything wrong, who cares if they kill you with drones?

I mean... you were probably going to do something in the future, so it's totally for the best.

You mean they will bomb someone even if there is NO intelligence that they are engaged in terrorist activity?  So......I could just make a phone call, claim I know about a terrorist, and get a drone strike on someone? Sweet!!!

~getting a list together~

You probably should delete this post first. It's also probably too late, they have it captured. They should be knocking on your door soon.

A little late for that.  I think the 3 of us are already on several lists.

It's always Tyranny, some people are just okay with it as long as it's for a cause they support.

Have you boys not been using your assumed identities again??

Yeah, but still........being wacked by a drone for no reason....that's pretty cool!

Have you read the actual memo?

The sentence you highlight is a paraphrasing of the memo by NBC, and is not a quote from the memo.

The memo states that:

" . . . a U.S. operation using lethal force against a U.S. citizen who is a senior operational leader of al-Qa'ida or an associated force would be lawful (1) if 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; (3) the operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principals."

The memo then goes on to clarify what is meant by "imminent threat" and states that it does not "require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons or interest will take place in the immediate future."  The subject though has to be a person known to be involved with planning previous attacks and believed to be involved with planning future attacks.  It just doesn't require that the drone strike wait until the planning of another strike is completed and the timing known.

In limited circumstances, the government has always had the the power to use lethal force against U.S. citizens on U.S. soil without a trial.  If you point a gun at a police office, they can shoot to kill - no warrant, arrest, or trial needed.  Is this really so different? 

I agree it is a slippery slope, but what isn't.  I am bothered by the drone strikes, but I can envision situations like those contemplated by the memo that would be consitutional.

Not if you're Jeremy Renner. You'd hear them coming and then go investigate only to watch Bill get blown up.

The government's not that good.  They've been chasing that Bourne guy for 3 full feature movies without catching him and now there's another one of them...

I do wonder what secret stuff the President knows because before the 2008 election he was all "We need to close Gitmo!" and "We need to end this war on Terror".  Now he's all "Gitmo?  Well Look, let's talk about Gun Control."

I wonder if during the transition period before he got into office the below conversation happened:

Obama- Look, uhhhh, We really need to close Gitmo.  Iiiii Wanna move forward with that on day one...

Bush- Hey Maakel Hayden, can you please give President Obamer the secret fahl? 

Obama- Holy S%^&T!!!

Bush- It burns a bit don't it?

Barack is not in a hurry to close Gitmo and now he wants permission to kill Americans with no evidence (granted, I'm quite certain they will have evidence that they are AQ before they issue a go order).

Yes I did. And I'm not worried about the gov't randomly knocking off people they do not like.  It still opens up a Pandora's box however.

I'm not complaining at all.  I support the Global War on Terror and I have no idea what to do about Gitmo.  I wouldn't close it because what would you do with those people?  If Obama really hated America, he'd release those people.  He doesn't hate America.

As for Drone Strikes on US Citizens.  This has to do with Americans who become members of AQ.  I would support drone strikes on them televised as a warning to other wackos.  If Obama really hated America, he'd do these drone strikes without discussing his authority to do so.  He doesn't hate America.

I think we're also pretty naive to believe that we're not doing enhanced interrogations.  If anything, we aren't because the Israeli/Saudi/Kuwaiti/Turkish/Polish/Hungarian intelligence official is the one doing it, we're just in the room while that guy is asking the questions we want asked.  After the interrogators give up on them, we send them to Gitmo for 3 hots and a cot. I believe we're doing this and the administration is being quiet about it. See no evil, speak no evil.

There's an easy way to close the Gitmo camps.  Execute the folks we've been holding there indefinitely.  OMG you say??  Ok how about if we do it via a drone strike?

^^I feel so wrong to have laughed at this...

Hey I'm all about saving taxpayer dollars

In a twist of irony, they could paint the miranda rights on the nose of the Hellfire Missle.

Just package an attorney with every missile.  Two birds with one stone and all that.