Considering no one seems willing to actually read the memo before defending it (or arguing against my concerns), here's one of my favorite gems that made me so concerned. I had to re-type it so I apologize for any typos:

The fact that an operation may target a U.S. citizen does alter this conclusion. As explained above, the Supreme Court has held that the military may constitutionally use force against a U.S. citizen who is a part of enemy forces. Similarly, under the Constitution and the inherent right to national self-defense recognized in international law, the President may authorize a use of force against a U.S. citizen who is a member of al-Qa'ida or its associated forces and who poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States.

(citations omitted)

It further goes on to discuss how it wouldn't violate assassination ban and must be conducted in accordance with the laws or war.

Soooo... where is the limitation on borders? Simply the prohibition on the use of US military assets within the US, would be my guess. But there's already bans on targeted assassinations, and the WH carefully maneuvers around that problem, so why wouldn't we expect more of the same?

ETA: I've kind of moved the discussion into the slippery slope arena, but there's still a pretty fundamental problem here. And that is this: two US citizens could be engaging in the exact same activities, but one is in a Texas border town and the other is 100 miles across the border into Mexico. One has to be arrested and tried before being executed, but the other can be killed after we say "Hey Mexico do you mind if we send a SEAL team into your territory and capture one of our peeps (pleasesaynopleasesayno)? You do mind? Aw shucks, send in the drones then." Or "Hey Mr. Joint Chiefs, do you think that some of our boys would get killed if we sent them to get John Q. Terrorist? You do? Aw shucks, send in the drones then." That's okay with some of you?

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

drsmooth wrote:The power a nation-state's people has - especially a people whose government is of/by/for them - is to demand that it have a say in how those murders might take place; who decides and what the state's obligations are with respect to them.

And if the people decide through electoral choices and my #$!&@ polls to say they're good with having little to no input in how the murders might take place?

I really can't believe that a small government conservative such as you believes that.

How does that make any more sense then me saying I can't believe a big government liberal like pacino has problems with drones?

(eyeroll)
I'm sorry, it's completely logical that the most intrinsic fundamental right (life) should be dictated by the whims of the majority. And that supposed "conservatives" would support that notion.

The first function of the federal government is defense of the country and its citizens. I think the executive generally deserves a fair bit latitude in carrying out that task. Congress has its role to play and the courts are right to object to parts that are unconstitutional in their view. But foreign policy and national defense work better speaking from one voice and not 9 or 535.

If you object to a specific policy, by all means speak up. But that doesn't mean the people as a whole haven't weighed in. If elections and public opinion polls are to be discounted, what other mechanism are you looking for?

We elected the guy president, and he's making decisions he thinks will keep Americans safe. The majority of Americans agree with his decisions in this matter, as do I. That's good enough for me.

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:Considering no one seems willing to actually read the memo before defending it (or arguing against my concerns), here's one of my favorite gems that made me so concerned. I had to re-type it so I apologize for any typos:

The fact that an operation may target a U.S. citizen does alter this conclusion. As explained above, the Supreme Court has held that the military may constitutionally use force against a U.S. citizen who is a part of enemy forces. Similarly, under the Constitution and the inherent right to national self-defense recognized in international law, the President may authorize a use of force against a U.S. citizen who is a member of al-Qa'ida or its associated forces and who poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States.

(citations omitted)

It further goes on to discuss how it wouldn't violate assassination ban and must be conducted in accordance with the laws or war.

Soooo... where is the limitation on borders? Simply the prohibition on the use of US military assets within the US, would be my guess. But there's already bans on targeted assassinations, and the WH carefully maneuvers around that problem, so why wouldn't we expect more of the same?

I think not using the American military against American citizens on American soil is a pretty bright line.

Monkeyboy wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

drsmooth wrote:The power a nation-state's people has - especially a people whose government is of/by/for them - is to demand that it have a say in how those murders might take place; who decides and what the state's obligations are with respect to them.

And if the people decide through electoral choices and my fucking polls to say they're good with having little to no input in how the murders might take place?

teach them. teach them in elementary school. Teach people what it means to be part of the greatest self-governing experiment in human history - what the possibilities are. What the benefits are. What the risks are. It doesn't take deep learning, or even imagination, to understand you're obliged to do so in the democracy we've erected.

Your attitude seems to be "what they don't know won't hurt them", which is of course rank nonsense.

How is it that you've chosen to devote your professional life to a topic so closely tied to matters for which you evidently have the lowest possible regard?

He wants to make government so small that he and his buddy Grover can drowned it in the bathtub. Well, that's not completely true, they would try to save the parts that help the rich.

Monkeyboy has never met a caricature he couldn't beat in an argument.

I'm glad you guys are critical thinkers. The overwhelming majority of people I speak with have no idea what our drone policy is, much less what its ramifications are. Most of these people also are the same people who voted for Obama because "he's liberal with his drug policy"...haha yeah sure he is. Many Americans are stupid and have no concept of critical thinking skills...but they can tell you who got voted off Americas Got Talent!

It's dangerous when the people have lost the ability to hold our leaders accountable. It's far too easy to come home from work and flip on the tube and forget about life, however as more and more people fall into this complacency the government will continue to operate unchecked. I'm just glad there are people out there who are paying attention.

jerseyhoya wrote:

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:Considering no one seems willing to actually read the memo before defending it (or arguing against my concerns), here's one of my favorite gems that made me so concerned. I had to re-type it so I apologize for any typos:

The fact that an operation may target a U.S. citizen does alter this conclusion. As explained above, the Supreme Court has held that the military may constitutionally use force against a U.S. citizen who is a part of enemy forces. Similarly, under the Constitution and the inherent right to national self-defense recognized in international law, the President may authorize a use of force against a U.S. citizen who is a member of al-Qa'ida or its associated forces and who poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States.

(citations omitted)

It further goes on to discuss how it wouldn't violate assassination ban and must be conducted in accordance with the laws or war.

Soooo... where is the limitation on borders? Simply the prohibition on the use of US military assets within the US, would be my guess. But there's already bans on targeted assassinations, and the WH carefully maneuvers around that problem, so why wouldn't we expect more of the same?

I think not using the American military against American citizens on American soil is a pretty bright line.

So is the ban on targeted assassinations, jh. (FTR, it says "No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination." No limiting language that narrows the ban to foreign leaders or political motives.) Bright lines are easily stepped around by disingenuous applications of fuzzy (and still developing) statutory authority and case law involving the "war" against an international criminal organization.

Seriously though, I'd love to agree with you. Make an actual legal argument about the application of this memo to domestic incidents that amounts to more than "nuh uh" and I'll stand corrected. I know you're not an attorney, but you are a poli sci guy, so you shouldn't be completely helpless here. Hell, I'm still not sure you've even read this thing yet.

jerseyhoya wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

drsmooth wrote:The power a nation-state's people has - especially a people whose government is of/by/for them - is to demand that it have a say in how those murders might take place; who decides and what the state's obligations are with respect to them.

And if the people decide through electoral choices and my fucking polls to say they're good with having little to no input in how the murders might take place?

teach them. teach them in elementary school. Teach people what it means to be part of the greatest self-governing experiment in human history - what the possibilities are. What the benefits are. What the risks are. It doesn't take deep learning, or even imagination, to understand you're obliged to do so in the democracy we've erected.

Your attitude seems to be "what they don't know won't hurt them", which is of course rank nonsense.

How is it that you've chosen to devote your professional life to a topic so closely tied to matters for which you evidently have the lowest possible regard?

He wants to make government so small that he and his buddy Grover can drowned it in the bathtub. Well, that's not completely true, they would try to save the parts that help the rich.

Monkeyboy has never met a caricature he couldn't beat in an argument.

But you kinda are a caricature.

Though you can probably beat me up. I'm old and feeble, you know.

scott brown apparently joining fox news

i'm sure he'll do a heck of a job

td11 wrote:scott brown apparently joining fox news

I heard they dropped Palin, too.

Monkeyboy wrote:

td11 wrote:scott brown apparently joining fox news

I heard they dropped Palin, too.

And Dick Morris too.

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:

td11 wrote:scott brown apparently joining fox news

I heard they dropped Palin, too.

And Dick Morris too.

i still can't get over the fact that his twitter handle is @dickmorristweet

Monkeyboy wrote:But you kinda are a caricature.

Lines like this remind me of an amusing PM I received from another board conservative that pointed out you don't actually engage with anything that is written by the right leaning folks here, and every response is written as if replying to your warped idea of a generic conservative with nefarious intentions regardless of the topic at hand.

jerseyhoya wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:But you kinda are a caricature.

Lines like this remind me of an amusing PM I received from another board conservative that pointed out you don't actually engage with anything that is written by the right leaning folks here, and every response is written as if replying to your warped idea of a generic conservative with nefarious intentions regardless of the topic at hand.

so we're all gonna chip in and get you an actual charicature drawn at the park at BSGV now. Let's think of some themes we can give to the artist.

Bucky wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:But you kinda are a caricature.

Lines like this remind me of an amusing PM I received from another board conservative that pointed out you don't actually engage with anything that is written by the right leaning folks here, and every response is written as if replying to your warped idea of a generic conservative with nefarious intentions regardless of the topic at hand.

so we're all gonna chip in and get you an actual charicature drawn at the park at BSGV now. Let's think of some themes we can give to the artist.

jerz as a monkey

jerseyhoya wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:But you kinda are a caricature.

Lines like this remind me of an amusing PM I received from another board conservative that pointed out you don't actually engage with anything that is written by the right leaning folks here, and every response is written as if replying to your warped idea of a generic conservative with nefarious intentions regardless of the topic at hand.

cool, and this reminds me of the messages I've gotten about you being a fake and only caring about your side winning regardless of the consequences.

and just so you know, I used to vote republican about half the time and I don't hate conservatives. I hate people pretending to be conservatives when they are just really trying to change this country back to the way it was in the early 1900's when the poor had no voice. Just so we understand each other.

Bucky wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:But you kinda are a caricature.

Lines like this remind me of an amusing PM I received from another board conservative that pointed out you don't actually engage with anything that is written by the right leaning folks here, and every response is written as if replying to your warped idea of a generic conservative with nefarious intentions regardless of the topic at hand.

so we're all gonna chip in and get you an actual charicature drawn at the park at BSGV now. Let's think of some themes we can give to the artist.

picture of JH drowning Uncle Sam in a bathtub.

Monkeyboy wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:But you kinda are a caricature.

Lines like this remind me of an amusing PM I received from another board conservative that pointed out you don't actually engage with anything that is written by the right leaning folks here, and every response is written as if replying to your warped idea of a generic conservative with nefarious intentions regardless of the topic at hand.

cool, and this reminds me of the messages I've gotten about you being a fake and only caring about your side winning regardless of the consequences.

and just so you know, I used to vote republican about half the time and I don't hate conservatives. I hate people pretending to be conservatives when they are just really trying to change this country back to the way it was in the early 1900's when the poor had no voice. Just so we understand each other.

It's chilling how you can see right through my facade to uncover my true intentions.

huge pdf of brennan's pre-hearing answers to the Senate Intelligence Committee: http://t.co/RGEsIVrn

Olivier Knox ‏@OKnox
Brennan says civilian deaths from drone strikes are "exceedingly rare, and much, much rarer than many allege." (last answer)

Senator Wyden told nbc news that he's gonna grill the shit out of brennan tomorrow on the "legal analysis" of the strikes. should be interesting

jerseyhoya wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:But you kinda are a caricature.

Lines like this remind me of an amusing PM I received from another board conservative that pointed out you don't actually engage with anything that is written by the right leaning folks here, and every response is written as if replying to your warped idea of a generic conservative with nefarious intentions regardless of the topic at hand.

cool, and this reminds me of the messages I've gotten about you being a fake and only caring about your side winning regardless of the consequences.

and just so you know, I used to vote republican about half the time and I don't hate conservatives. I hate people pretending to be conservatives when they are just really trying to change this country back to the way it was in the early 1900's when the poor had no voice. Just so we understand each other.

It's chilling how you can see right through my facade to uncover my true intentions.

I think you mostly just care about winning. You're in it for the game more than the actual substance of the prize. But that's just an impression based on message board posts. I think it's quite hard to tell much based on posts. I think the core of the republican party in DC is now made up of people that would be very happy to turn the clock back to pre-Roosevelt. I think they would be happy to take the money from the middle class and make a huge class of poor. You know, like they do in the Mariana Islands. But I'm not sure what their intentions say about you, probably not much. Like I said,I think you're in it for the game,but that's just an impression.