Obama Claims Authority To Murder U S Citizens On U S Soil

[qfnol31]

I didn't have to read it since it was read aloud during the filibuster today, but thanks. :) I went back to read it again anyway. I posted my response above because those examples he gave were fairly extreme and I'm not certain that a drone strike is the most appropriate response to them.

[KnightofChrist]

And I wouldn't have brought it up except for your decision to paint me as the one with a record of blindly trusting the government on national security matters.

You do have a record of rushing in and defending Obama anytime someone is critical of him. Just as you did with your first post. I've not seen these threads where you are critical of Obama's policies but I'll take your word they exist.

How? Specifically?

His administration has been far more secretive and far less open. He bypasses and manipulates the the Press far more (even though most reporters willfully allow it), not only did he continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan he has greatly expanded directly and indirectly the warfare in that region to other nations. He has claimed the right to murder US citizens without due process both outside and inside of US soil. I could go on but I have to go to bed soon.

memo doesn't carry any legal authority. It's a position paper.

Current position paper, that can be easily changed.

That is a legitimate concern. The memo doesn't really have anything to do with that, however.

The problem is the Administration is claiming authority to kill Americans without due process, which it does not have, memo or not.

[Mercy me]

The memo doesn't carry any legal authority.  It's a position paper. 

 

 

That is a legitimate concern.  The memo doesn't really have anything to do with that, however.  

 

And the position doesn't bother you?  

 

Does the Constitution mean anything to you?  

 

The way I see it is that to anyone who believes in the Constitution could not possibly hold such a position.  It bothers me more that this is coming from the Justice department.

[Nihil Obstat]

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/BrennanHolderResponse.pdf

Mmm, dem big assets. Thanks for the link.

[KnightofChrist]

Basically, if you are deemed a threat, you can be executed at range. Not killed in an attempt at apprehension. Not stopped in the midst of an attack. Blown up, by a missile.

Yep.

[Winchester]

"We'll wait until there's a crisis, then kind of hash it out at the last second.

 

Sincerely,

Holder, Arms Dealer to Mexican Drug Cartels"

[Winchester]

His two examples involved a military, and a terrorist group (of foreign nationals) carrying out attacks. So he didn't actually answer the question. But OBAMA HOPE CHANGE NOBEL PRIZE.

[4588686]

His two examples involved a military, and a terrorist group (of foreign nationals) carrying out attacks. So he didn't actually answer the question. But OBAMA HOPE CHANGE NOBEL PRIZE.

 

 

Because he said that the appropriate way to stop any such threats would be law enforcement.  The point of his response was the the only situation where it would be appropriate to not use existing law enforcement would be some highly unrealistic and hypothetical scenario where for some reason existing law enforcement would not have the capacity to halt such an attack, like the Japanese invading.   

[4588686]

And the position doesn't bother you?  

No, this particular memo doesn't bother me.  It really doesn't.  The drone program as a whole, and other classified memos laying out the legal justification for killing Americans overseas who are not immediately engaged in actions aimed at attacking American citizens , do bother me a great deal.  

 

 

Does the Constitution mean anything to you?  

It has its moments

 

 

The way I see it is that to anyone who believes in the Constitution could not possibly hold such a position.  It bothers me more that this is coming from the Justice department.

 

 

What specific part of the memo bothers you?   

[Luigi]

And the position doesn't bother you?  

 

Does the Constitution mean anything to you?  

 

The way I see it is that to anyone who believes in the Constitution could not possibly hold such a position.  It bothers me more that this is coming from the Justice department.

 

It bothers me the more because Obama's legal specialty is constitutional law. 

[Winchester]

Because he said that the appropriate way to stop any such threats would be law enforcement.  The point of his response was the the only situation where it would be appropriate to not use existing law enforcement would be some highly unrealistic and hypothetical scenario where for some reason existing law enforcement would not have the capacity to halt such an attack, like the Japanese invading.   

 

It was a dodge, and it didn't answer the question. Drop the party loyalty. It's beneath you.

[Winchester]

It bothers me the more because Obama's legal specialty is constitutional law. 

 

His specialty was reading Supreme Court opinions on cases.

[Luigi]

His specialty was reading Supreme Court opinions on cases.

 

well I'm no lawyer myself, but it would seem to me that Supreme Court opinions revolve around questions or points of constitutional law. 

 

I don't know all the courses he took at Harvard Law School, but according to Answers.com, "After Barack Obama graduated from Harvard Law School, he was hired, first as an instructor, and then as an adjunct professor of law, at the University of Chicago Law School; he taught three courses, including Constitutional Law, from 1992 to 2004."

 

The only point I was trying to make was that Obama should know - and claims to know - a good deal  about constitutional law. And yet it seems that he or his designees are pretty willing to disregard some fairly basic tenets of the Constitution. 

 

Also, I'm willing to concede that Holder is a bonehead. I do think he was trying to say that it would be done in only the most extreme circumstances, but the way he structured his response, the emphasis came out wrong. He could say:

"We do have the right; we wouldn't use it unless forced to,"     OR

"I can't see that ever being necessary; but I guess if we had to..." 

They mean the same thing, but the emphasis is different. His response emphasize the "we have the right" element, which was not the politic way of expressing the concept. 

[Winchester]

well I'm no lawyer myself, but it would seem to me that Supreme Court opinions revolve around questions or points of constitutional law.

Yes. The Supreme Court is the body that upheld the fugitive slave laws and ruled the Federal government could regulate the growing of crops on your own property for your own consumption, based on the commerce clause.

It was never envisioned as the final word on the Constitution. Study of the Constitution needs to go beyond the opinion of the Federal government.

[Evangetholic]

(But the Constitution itself is an anti-Catholic document. We shouldn't bother with it. With my conversion I've gone from a general dislike and distrust of the US government to a belief that it's irreconcilable with Catholic understandings and must either be overthrown or rendered toothless enough to not harm the faith.)