pacino wrote:She also indicated, for the first time, that she plans to have the committee examine the creation of a special court to evaluate evidence against Americans who might be targeted, similar to the scrutiny applied to government monitoring of the communications of Americans suspected of having connections to terrorist groups.

Monkeyboy wrote:

pacino wrote:She also indicated, for the first time, that she plans to have the committee examine the creation of a special court to evaluate evidence against Americans who might be targeted, similar to the scrutiny applied to government monitoring of the communications of Americans suspected of having connections to terrorist groups.

]


OMG, Feinstein reads my posts.

pacino wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

Werthless wrote:American Citizens Split On DOJ Memo Authorizing Government To Kill Them

good post

would read again

“On the one hand, I get it—it’s important for the government to be able to murder me and any of my friends or family members whenever they please for reputed national security reasons. But on the other hand, it would kind of be nice to stay alive and have, maybe, a trial, actual evidence—stuff like that."

“I wouldn’t mind if federal officials blew up other citizens and claimed it was in the name of my safety. But it’s just that when it comes to me, I guess I’d rather not be slaughtered by my own elected officials on charges that never have to be validated by any accountable authority. This is tough.”

Werthless wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:

pacino wrote:She also indicated, for the first time, that she plans to have the committee examine the creation of a special court to evaluate evidence against Americans who might be targeted, similar to the scrutiny applied to government monitoring of the communications of Americans suspected of having connections to terrorist groups.

]


OMG, Feinstein reads my posts.

She has you on ignore. She only sees your posts that are quoted.

Werthless wrote:

pacino wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

Werthless wrote:American Citizens Split On DOJ Memo Authorizing Government To Kill Them

good post

would read again

“On the one hand, I get it—it’s important for the government to be able to murder me and any of my friends or family members whenever they please for reputed national security reasons. But on the other hand, it would kind of be nice to stay alive and have, maybe, a trial, actual evidence—stuff like that."

“I wouldn’t mind if federal officials blew up other citizens and claimed it was in the name of my safety. But it’s just that when it comes to me, I guess I’d rather not be slaughtered by my own elected officials on charges that never have to be validated by any accountable authority. This is tough.”

While most Americans expressed conflicted feelings regarding the memo, the poll also found that 28 percent of citizens were unequivocally in favor of being obliterated at any point, for any reason, in a massive airstrike

Phan In Phlorida wrote:

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.

IIRC, Posse Comitatus prohibits all but the Coast Guard and National Guard from conducting military actions on US soil without an act of congress. It used to require governor consent for something like a natural disaster or state of emergency, but GWB overrode that requirement with the Defense Authorization Act. But I think you still need an act of congress to conduct actual military shootin' an' bombin' action within our borders (like if Canada invades).

td11 wrote:

Werthless wrote:

pacino wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

Werthless wrote:American Citizens Split On DOJ Memo Authorizing Government To Kill Them

good post

would read again

“On the one hand, I get it—it’s important for the government to be able to murder me and any of my friends or family members whenever they please for reputed national security reasons. But on the other hand, it would kind of be nice to stay alive and have, maybe, a trial, actual evidence—stuff like that."

“I wouldn’t mind if federal officials blew up other citizens and claimed it was in the name of my safety. But it’s just that when it comes to me, I guess I’d rather not be slaughtered by my own elected officials on charges that never have to be validated by any accountable authority. This is tough.”

this was my favorite line:

While most Americans expressed conflicted feelings regarding the memo, the poll also found that 28 percent of citizens were unequivocally in favor of being obliterated at any point, for any reason, in a massive airstrike

pacino wrote:the economist:

In response to questions from Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, the top Republican on the intelligence committee, Mr Brennan disagreed with the suggestion that it was better to kill terrorists with a drone than for the CIA to detain them. “I never believe it’s better to kill a terrorist than to detain him,” Mr Brennan said.

well, there's that, i guess

pacino wrote:Code pink is full of morons

drsmooth wrote:

pacino wrote:the economist:

In response to questions from Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, the top Republican on the intelligence committee, Mr Brennan disagreed with the suggestion that it was better to kill terrorists with a drone than for the CIA to detain them. “I never believe it’s better to kill a terrorist than to detain him,” Mr Brennan said.

well, there's that, i guess

last night Maddow ran a clip of the Chambliss/Brennan exchange, with a graphic showing the kills/detention count during Brennan's tenure.

it was something like 4,600:1

Chambliss is a festering pusbubble, but it was a good question

thephan wrote:Heard a good item on DC news radio this morning... how do you furlough staff that is DC based but on field assignment? Fly them back for their long weekend? Let them pay for the privilege of government employment by remaining in place and taking it out of their pay to stay in a hotel for the weekend? Out abominations.

Understand that this is essentially lobbying on behalf of the GS employees on the most listened to radio station in DC, so there is bias in play, but the underlying quandary is worth discussion.

Monkeyboy wrote:he sounds like a republican

just kidding... there are scumbags in both parties, though most things like this seem to be republican.

jerseyhoya wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:he sounds like a republican

just kidding... there are scumbags in both parties, though most things like this seem to be republican.

Selective memory