Drones... explain to me how extra-judicial killings of U.S. citizens deemed to be terrorists...

[tk2kewl]

...doesn't extend to future Occupy, environmental, or labor protesters that some POTUS decides to declare "TERRORISTS"?

We already know that Occupy and environmental groups have been treated as such and labelled as terrorists by some.

[Vincardog]

1. It does. Witness the Administration's targeted killings of reporters doctors or anyone counting

the civilian deaths in Iraq.

[el_bryanto]

2. Evidence for this claim please. n/t

[Vincardog]

5. Try this link:

link:http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/dec/04/iraq.usa|


Do you also want proof the US sanctions killing Union organizers in Columbia?

[el_bryanto]

6. If you are claiming that as well - and i don't see a link.

[Vincardog]

10. Try it now and this one:

link:http://www.google.com/url?|

[gholtron]

17. That article was written in 2004 just so you know.

[Flying Squirrel]

38. You should edit that post to say "Bush Administration"

Since the only evidence you presented was from 2004.

[Vincardog]

39. The question at hand is "does extra-judicial killings of U.S. citizens deemed to be terrorists

Portend future actions against (Occupy, Trade unionists,… anyone deemed to be an enemy)" My answer illustrates that this has ALREADY happened the past is prolog.

So YES this policy paves the way for future drone attacks on peaceful civilian exercising their rights to protest FASCIST actions and policies.

[Flying Squirrel]

43. I don't necessarily disagree with you on that point, but

still think "the Administration" is misleading and should be edited.

[Vincardog]

44. Considering that the Obama Administration has continued all the worse claimed powers

of bush the Lessor's Administration; as well as claimed more worse powers, I will let it stand.

PBO rewarded the architects of the failed wars and war policies with cabinet and high post positions.

[randome]

3. Really? You think the President will start a civil war over people occupying public parks?

:snore:

[tk2kewl]

11. i said future

This POTUS didn't mind a few bashed heads... who knows what the next POTUS might not mind?

[bhikkhu]

37. That's incentive to be careful about who we elect

...and if it came down to it, I think there's plenty of precedent around the world and through history for laws being ignored by tyrants and asshats.

[Catherina]

4. Don't forget Animal Activists, Environmental activists, supporters of Palestine etc

The elite's definition of terrorism is quite extended and vague.


As Chunkymark put it "Define Terrorism you Imperialist Fucks"

[green for victory]

23. thanks for posting that video

when he got angry he reminded me that I was indeed alive

The more I know the Brits (despite their own little adventure into Empire!) the more I love them. And their TV is simply brilliant. Makes US TV look like the crap it really is.

link for Brit TV on your laptop:
http://tvpc.com/ChannelList.php

[Catherina]

40. I listen to him daily, over and over. Here's another

&list=UUGThM-ZZBba1Zl9rU-XeR-A

Thanks very much for the link

[Demo_Chris]

29. Epic rant! Lots of truth there.

[Catherina]

41. All his rants are great

http://www.youtube.com/user/chunkymark?feature=watch

I'm glad you appreciated it.

[woo me with science]

33. Thank you. nt

[Catherina]

42. You're welcome my friend

He's worth listening to daily to offset the tripe we have to deal with.

[Fire Walk With Me]

7. Note that DHS and PDs consider the Occupy movement to be potential terrorists:

Cop strongly implies Occupy presence means increased terrorism threat; Federal agents at parade

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022137604

[randome]

8. Of course they were potential terrorists.

Since no one was in charge, anyone could use them as cover. As did the trio who were arrested for trying to blow up the...was it Cleveland?...bridge.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

14. Then we're all potential terrorists by that logic.

I really can't believe this is a progressive board.

[Egalitarian Thug]

16. It really isn't. It's a Democratic Party board with a few, and shrinking number, of progressives

posting. But judging by the number recs frequently received by those few, there are a fair number of progressives reading it.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

18. I don't know whether that is comforting or not.

At least progressives are reading.

[woo me with science]

25. Dissent is not protected anymore.

This, to me, is the most chilling aspect of all of this.

[kenny blankenship]

34. But Ann Coulter is one giant step closer to happiness.

"You mean we can kill people - Americans - for 'reasons of state,' and we don't have to even say WHY, really? Just say "They were TRAITORS!" fire away and that's the end of it, legally speaking? We don't have to PROVE anything before or after? Why didn't WE think of this? Oh wait I DID think of this :"

"We need to execute people like John Walker [Lindh] in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors," Ann Coulter. Conservative Political Action Conference 2002

"And now Obama wants the credit!"

[datasuspect]

9. BINGO!

when the state has 100% discretion where it concerns who is and isn't a terrorist, this will be the main problem.

[arely staircase]

31. well they have always had that, who else would have it?

the question is allowing the executive branch to make that determination instead of the judical.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. Wait for it. "They know more than we do" justification will follow.

Or, "accidents", "unforeseeable mistakes", or (my favorite), "regrettable incident".

[Fantastic Anarchist]

15. TATF

Terrorist After The Fact

Inquiry: "How was he a terrorist?"
Government: "Because we killed him without judicial process."

QED

[jeff47]

13. They're located within US jurisdiction

where the arguments against drone strikes being legal are actually valid.

[tk2kewl]

20. until some lawyer from some future DOJ writes a memo saying othewwise?

Last edited Wed Feb 6, 2013, 06:43 PM - Edit history (1)

[leftstreet]

21. What are Yoo talking about?

Why are you torturing us with this enhanced interrogation?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo

[Angry Dragon]

19. Nothing to stop it

[leftstreet]

22. DURec

[ecstatic]

24. Question: Are the US citizens on a foreign "battlefield" or in the US?

For me, it's a question of time and priorities. If the suspected terrorists are in the US, then they should definitely get a trial and due process.

If the "terrorists" just happen to be with a militant group they've joined in Syria or something, then I'm less concerned (neutral) about how things are handled. In other words, they aren't my top priority when it comes to figuring out the top issues affecting our lives.

Once we address the hundreds/thousands of more pressing domestic issues, then we can address how American-born AlQaida members are treated once captured.

[tk2kewl]

26. that is a good question

My concern is that we have had, for over a decade, an executive branch defining these circumstances as they see fit.

[DevonRex]

27. Oh good god. Seriously?

That's straight up ridiculous.

[tk2kewl]

28. so far that's the best answer anyone has given

to my question.

Funny how those who don't agree don't bother to provide any argument for their case.

[arely staircase]

30. the good will of the people making the decisions

ain't much i know

[FleetwoodMac]

32. They are not classified as unlawful combatants, the defining criteria

Precedent: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0317_0001_ZS.html

11. Citizens of the United States who associate themselves with the military arm of an enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts, are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war. P. 37.

Legislation: Public Law 107 - 40

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) <<NOTE: President.>> In General.--That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those
nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

[dreamnightwind]

35. This is a very important question

and I'm pretty sure I don't like the answer. Excellent OP.

[WillyT]

36. Great Question...

[hughee99]

45. It doesn't because no one has yet written a memo to explain why it's okay.

At least not that we're aware of.