Excerpt from the DOJ white paper

[ProSense]

Last edited Wed Feb 6, 2013, 01:39 AM - Edit history (1)

<...>



http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf

White House: Drone Strikes ‘Legal,’ ‘Ethical’ And ‘Wise’
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022318984

Flashback: Russ Feingold 'Pleased' Anwar Al-Awlaki Was Taken Out By Drone Strike
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022319856

[coalition_unwilling]

1. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Who will guard the guardians?) - n/t

[Bonobo]

2. "Citizens who align themselves with the military arm of the enemy government...bent on hostile acts.

Funny how none of those definitions appears to be required in the killings being done.

[ProSense]

5. I could be wrong, but

I don't see any reference to targeting Americans on vacation in caribbean or France or walking down the street in Texas.

Please don't scare the wingnuts. Ron Paul did enough of that.

[Bonobo]

8. Oh I get it. You think this memo is the blueprint for action as opposed to a flimsy excuse

designed to give the President some kind of legal defense.

It's like the Yoo memo. It is designed to protect the President's ass. That's all.

So that he can say he had legal counsel that assured him it was all above board and constitutional.

[ProSense]

12. So you think

"It's like the Yoo memo. It is designed to protect the President's ass. That's all."

...this will "protect the President's ass"?

What about Americans vacationing in France?

[Bonobo]

13. America's vacationing in France are probably safe but not for the reasons you imply.

They are safe because France is a country with lots of white people, money and nuclear weapons.

If they were poor, mostly brown and non-Western, that would not be true.

Still, I am not sure why you think this "Paris" argument has any significance. Sounds kinda racist to me...as if violating sovereignty is okay in 3rd world countries.

[ProSense]

16. "They are safe because France is a country with lots of white people"

So the President is only interested in killing non-white people on vacation in a region like the Caribbean?

[Bonobo]

17. It is a question of what he can get away with, not a question of "interest". nt

[Bonobo]

15. And btw, Yoo's memo saved Bush's ass too. nt

[cherokeeprogressive]

3. An informed, high-level official of the U.S. Government...

Fucking hilarious.

[randome]

4. I get confused.

I thought it was HR347 that was to bring on the Apocalypse.
Then it was the police state of TSA and Homeland Security.
Then it was 24/7 surveillance of all our naughty, private behaviors in public places.
Now this?

Will somebody please tell me when the 'real' Apocalypse actually starts? I'm getting tired of stockpiling tinfoil, duct tape and peanut butter.

Just how many Apocalypses are there?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

6. Why a "senior operational leader" of Al Queda?

Didn't the Union Army kills lots and lots on non-commissioned officers from the South without a declaration of war? Lincoln's proclamation didn't mention war or secession, merely noted that the law was not being properly executed in certain states because of "combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings" and called for Volunteers sufficient to "suppress said combinations."

[alcibiades_mystery]

7. I learned in another thread that Ex Parte Quirin was awesome

That a direct line can be drawn from Quirin to Hamdi to this memo doesn't seem to occur to the new Quirin fans.

[ProSense]

10. It's the kind of crap

that makes any discussion impossible.

As I said in another comment, people are creating the impression that the government can target Americans on vacation in the caribbean or France or walking down the street in Texas.

Drone strikes and targeting terrorists shouldn't be demagogued.

Debate the pros and cons of drone strikes. Maybe they're completely unethical, but is war a better alternative?

Should the U.S. end the drone strikes and send troops back up into the mountains of Afghanistan or wherever its targeting terrorists?

What action should be taken if there are attacks on U.S. properties? Should the U.S. pull a Bush and ignore threats?

[MadHound]

9. ProSense, I always wondered how low you would stoop to try and defend this administration,

Always wondered if there was any crime or atrocity that they could commit that would finally make you step back and say, "Whoa, I can't go there."

Apparently there isn't, and for that you should be ashamed. For that, I pity you, because you have finally, utterly proven that you have no moral compass.

In the end, that makes you irrelevant, because a person without a moral compass doesn't have an opinion that is worth trusting or even considering.

Good night.

[ProSense]

11. Please, your self-righteous idiotic crap doesn't work on me. n/t

[MadHound]

21. LOL, right.

Your actions belie you.

[Arctic Dave]

19. Indeed.

A hanger on until the bitter end.

[Logical]

20. Well, it took her longer than I thought it would! n-t

[Logical]

14. It took longer than I expected! But still totally predictable! n-t

[MotherPetrie]

18. Poor GWB! HE would have waited a long, long time to get this kind of defense here for pulling this

shit. I guess he and Cheney will just have to be content with the knowledge that that successor is so avidly following in their footsteps.

[Fire Walk With Me]

22. Lawyers can be good and useful but in this case, not. Ye Olde lipstyck on a pigge.