White House to release legal rational...

White House to release legal rationale for killing of US citizens with drones

There are 182 comments on the The Guardian story from Feb 6, 2013, titled White House to release legal rationale for killing of US citizens with drones. In it, The Guardian reports that:

The White House's decision to release its legal reasoning for the killing of US citizens by armed drones is likely defuse some of the tension at John Brennan's confirmation hearing as CIA director.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Guardian.

Justin

Richmond, VA

#45 Feb 7, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact that right-wingers support it at all should have him crying and sobbing. That and the fact that he's violating the Constitution.
I don't think that the Justice Department or military should discriminate based on nationality, race, or religion. How I would interpret that is: Don't target people just because they are foreign, and don't cut them any slack just because they are American. The issue should be wether due diligence was applied when deciding to use lethal force and choosing the target.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#46 Feb 7, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>there is also the provision that they cannot be able to arrest those terrorists to bring them to trial...ie, they are in another country and embedded with known terrorists...
if US citizens are known to be helping and plotting with terrorists to harm the US, would you rather they run free? isn't treason stilla capital offense?
I'd rather our government not decide on its own who the "terrorists" are and simply murder them long-distance on a video-game console via drone.

I would oppose this if Bush were in office, and oppose it while Obama's President, too. Can you say the same?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#47 Feb 7, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
That IS the rationale, but it's a false one. American citizens are and should be protected by the guarantees built into the Constitution.
Who declares them "terrorists?" On what authority, with what evidence? What restrictions would prevent them from declaring ANY American citizen a "terrorist?"
You need to think these things through, not just take a knee-jerk approach because a Dem's in the White House.
They declare themselves to be terrorists, just like Anwar Al-alawacko did in numerous youtube videos and through their anti-US activities.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#48 Feb 7, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
I'd rather our government not decide on its own who the "terrorists" are and simply murder them long-distance on a video-game console via drone.
I would oppose this if Bush were in office, and oppose it while Obama's President, too. Can you say the same?
Ummm...they do that all the time. it is called war.

congress gave the military authorization to wage war against Al Queda and it's afilliates.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#49 Feb 7, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
I'd rather our government not decide on its own who the "terrorists" are and simply murder them long-distance on a video-game console via drone.
I would oppose this if Bush were in office, and oppose it while Obama's President, too. Can you say the same?
so before a Us soldier fires on someone so they have to call the Senate and have them hold a committee meeting to determine if that person is a terrorist?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#50 Feb 7, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
I'd rather our government not decide on its own who the "terrorists" are and simply murder them long-distance on a video-game console via drone.
I would oppose this if Bush were in office, and oppose it while Obama's President, too. Can you say the same?
would you prefer the evidence gathered against these people on the list be reviewed by somone to see if, in fact, it constitutes proof of being a traitor/terrorist?

who would you choose to do that?

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#51 Feb 7, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
They declare themselves to be terrorists, just like Anwar Al-alawacko did in numerous youtube videos and through their anti-US activities.
But who collects those videos, analyzes them, determines their true source? Could someone be making him film them, is it really him, is he really committing these alleged "anti-US activities?"

American citizens get a trial. Shame on you for thinking otherwise.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#52 Feb 7, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>would you prefer the evidence gathered against these people on the list be reviewed by somone to see if, in fact, it constitutes proof of being a traitor/terrorist?
who would you choose to do that?
That would be a bare minimum. Ideally it would go to a judge who would issue a writ in order to justify seizure of the suspect and bringing them back to the U.S. for trial.

Why would you NOT want to do that?

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#53 Feb 7, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>Ummm...they do that all the time. it is called war.
congress gave the military authorization to wage war against Al Queda and it's afilliates.
Show me the authorization, and that you can "wage war" against an organization - a loosely-knit one at that. Show me where it's been decided by the Supreme Court that a President has the authority to suspend the Constitution in favor of targeted assassinations?

There is no "war on terror." It is a myth created by Bush, whom you probably condemned for it.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#54 Feb 7, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>so before a Us soldier fires on someone so they have to call the Senate and have them hold a committee meeting to determine if that person is a terrorist?
If that "someone" is an American citizen, they would have to follow American law and try him in an American court. I don't know what you mean by a "committee meeting." Who decides who is and who isn't a "terrorist" in your world?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#55 Feb 7, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
But who collects those videos, analyzes them, determines their true source? Could someone be making him film them, is it really him, is he really committing these alleged "anti-US activities?"
American citizens get a trial. Shame on you for thinking otherwise.
That would be the CIA & FBI.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#56 Feb 7, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
If that "someone" is an American citizen, they would have to follow American law and try him in an American court. I don't know what you mean by a "committee meeting." Who decides who is and who isn't a "terrorist" in your world?
right now it is often our military inthe field, isn't it?

i see what you are saying,. and i know you to be a rational, freethinking human and i respect you opinion. i do not want our government just wantonly killing whomever stands in theri way when it seems convenient, but i do not see that happening here. We already do this same thing on teh battlefield this, while it needs to be carefully,(very carefully) watched over. seems to be a prudent extension of that.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#57 Feb 7, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
That would be a bare minimum. Ideally it would go to a judge who would issue a writ in order to justify seizure of the suspect and bringing them back to the U.S. for trial.
Why would you NOT want to do that?
So if the CIA has evidence an American citizen has a dirty nuke and is going to detonate it in Boston in 30 minutes they should go to a judge and get a writ instead of taking him out?

The radioactive citizens of Boston thank you for sacrificing their innocent lives by standing up for the constitutional rights of their murderer.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#58 Feb 7, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
That would be a bare minimum. Ideally it would go to a judge who would issue a writ in order to justify seizure of the suspect and bringing them back to the U.S. for trial.
Why would you NOT want to do that?
that would be great! and I am sure that is what would be done if possible, but is that really possible for US citizen holed up with terrorists in a ymeni bunker?
serfs up

Melbourne, FL

#59 Feb 7, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
So if the CIA has evidence an American citizen has a dirty nuke and is going to detonate it in Boston in 30 minutes they should go to a judge and get a writ instead of taking him out?
The radioactive citizens of Boston thank you for sacrificing their innocent lives by standing up for the constitutional rights of their murderer.
The CIA and other government security agencies would have acted on it before all of these laws were passed and expanded. Governments always start by saying the laws passed will never be used against you. And it eventually ends up being used against anyone. Sometimes, the people we admire are not what they seem. Those drones have much potential.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#60 Feb 7, 2013
serfs up wrote:
<quoted text> The CIA and other government security agencies would have acted on it before all of these laws were passed and expanded. Governments always start by saying the laws passed will never be used against you. And it eventually ends up being used against anyone. Sometimes, the people we admire are not what they seem. Those drones have much potential.
Too bad Bush didn't have them huh? When he had that "prrof" of WMDs he could have used the drones to watch them so they didn't 'disappear' by the time they got there...

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#62 Feb 7, 2013
serfs up wrote:
<quoted text> The CIA and other government security agencies would have acted on it before all of these laws were passed and expanded. Governments always start by saying the laws passed will never be used against you. And it eventually ends up being used against anyone. Sometimes, the people we admire are not what they seem. Those drones have much potential.
So it's okay to risk the lives of a CIA agent to have to personally kill a terrorist, instead of just bomb them with an unmanned drone?

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#63 Feb 7, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
They're terrorists, no more rationale is needed.
I concur......

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#64 Feb 7, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
So it's okay to risk the lives of a CIA agent to have to personally kill a terrorist, instead of just bomb them with an unmanned drone?
Old school....Mitch Rapp would have done it that way....
Justin

Richmond, VA

#65 Feb 7, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
They declare themselves to be terrorists, just like Anwar Al-alawacko did in numerous youtube videos and through their anti-US activities.

I don't want to beat Obama up over this, but in addition to the debate over the drone strike agianst the cleric / AlQueda recruiter Mr. Anwar al-Aulaqi (which most people don't have issue with), there are also questions being raised about why his [16 year old son] was killed in a seperate drone strike weeks before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_al-A...

This is two very different incidents.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News In climate denial, again (Oct '10) 1 min Into The Night 111
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 2 min WasteWater 13,048
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 3 min Coffee Party 216,696
News Valedictorian shocks in speech 4 min WeTheSheeple 101
News Study: Trump budget, tax plans add at least $10... 4 min Chilli J 11
News Trump's failed Baja condo resort left buyers fe... 5 min Mikey 9
News Trump Isn't Bluffing, He'll Deport 11 Million P... 6 min Earl 3,413
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 7 min OzRitz 1,395,081
News Hillary Clinton wavers on Second Amendment righ... 25 min spocko 1,113
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 25 min Coffee Party 388,035
News 50 dead in Florida nightclub shooting, worst in... 28 min spocko 1,327
More from around the web