Posted on 06/25/2014 5:53:03 AM PDT by Enlightened1
On Monday, the White House memo used to justify drone attacks on U.S. citizens was released, and it appears to confirm the worst suspicions of its libertarian critics. The Obama administration had sought to keep the memo secret, and now we know why: Because there are no checks and balances; there are no classified courts. Indeed, the memo reveals that the president of the United States ordered the targeting killing of U.S. citizens overseas — in violation of their constitutional right to due process — sans any type of oversight outside of the executive.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
Also, the country where Obama “has taken refuge has at best duplicitous and corrupt officials. You’re never going to get them to cooperate in handing (him) over”.
Al Qaeda is on the inside of the building.
Fine, that explains why it can happen in foreign countries but it does not explain why it cannot happen here. That is the issue. The president making decisions on his own to kill American citizens, either abroad or here, is a very big problem. Take that with the president’s refusal to cooperate with Congress concerning numerous investigations and you’ve got a guy who can kill you or me and nothing can come of it.
Do you know how many of the drone hits actually hit people who were AGAINST the terrorists? We have lost the support of the anti-terrorists in places like Pakistan partly because the drone hits are hitting the wrong people, and wiping out those who are actually on the side of the US. This is infuriating those who would otherwise have wanted to be our allies against the terrorists taking over their countries. These people are on the side of freedom.
But they’re not on the side of Barack Obama, so they’re dead now.
Can’t remember where the article I was reading is at, but it gave examples.
Don’t be too hard on the guy. Have a heart!
Thanks Null. I believe...
Seems like ad hominem thrives as well. Please enthrall us with your solution.
If Bergdahl was engaging in military operatons against Americans than I would not have a problem with taking him out. We might still have 5 Taliban officers in
Gitmo.
I’m all for impeaching 0bama but I have no issues with any president waging war against our enemies who are attacking Americans and American interests. If Americans choose to join the other side than I have no problem treating them the same as any other enemy soldier.
I think this is talking about situations where we don’t have proof that they are attacking anybody because their claimed action is not actually physically attacking. And there is no accountability. With Bergdahl, for instance, there was evidence that he was helping the enemy and evidence that he joined them voluntarily. If we had done a drone hit on him it would have been done through the military and there would have to be records on what was done - records which could be brought out in court-martial if somebody was accused of killing him wrongly. Obama is talking about no accountability, if I’m understanding correctly. It’s done in total secrecy unless Obama wants to brag about it publicly. The ones he doesn’t want anybody to know about - the ones that could be sheer political hits - can’t/won’t be disclosed, and nobody can do a thing about it. Just like US citizens the regime considers “belligerent” can be detained indefinitely with no charges filed, and nobody can get any information on what is going on. The regime gets to define “belligerent”. So maybe we better switch our discussions to include “Peace Be Upon Him” every time we use the name Obama, just to make sure we’re not labeled “belligerent” by the regime...
This might all seem academic to some, but to me this is real-time. How do I know that my friend who has gone missing hasn’t been offed by the regime? They could easily call him “belligerent” for helping me, and they’ve justified secretly offing people for that reason.
This issue cuts REALLY close to home. Keep in mind that this regime has labeled those who favor small government as “potential terrorists” who need close scrutiny...
While regrettable civilians have been killed in wars for thousands of years. Some claims of drones hitting the wrong target are no doubt true however some of these claims are not true and are anti-American propaganda.
I believe 9/11 was an act of war and we are still engaged in that war and will be as long as Islamist choose to fight us. This is not a police action; we do not need to arrest enemy combatants regardless of nationality.
There are more valid reasons to seek impeachment than because of military actions. I can understand your concerns but I feel strongly it would set and equally dangerous precedent to force our military to conduct operations as a police force rather than as an Army. If an American wants to fight against American forces than I don’t want politics to determine whether he can be treated as any other enemy soldier.
If we can get control of the Senate than we can get rid of Barry for illegally by-passing congress.
The Reichstag Fire in 1933 was proof that the communists were at war against Germany. In response to that, the Reichstag gave Hitler a blank, signed check. Were the millions of dead bodies in the open pits of the concentration camps just “collateral damage” from that war against the communists who “clearly” set the Reichstag on fire?
I don’t believe in signed blank checks. Ever. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
If a US citizen is on a battlefield fighting US troops there is no question that they can be shot just like anybody else in the enemy camp. That isn’t the question.
The question here is whether secret operations can kill any US citizen that Obama calls “belligerent” - with or without any proof and with him writing all the definitions secretly with no recourse by anybody.
My friend was not on a battlefield of any kind, but according to Obama’s line of reasoning he could have been detained or killed simply because the regime doesn’t want him helping me to expose the lawlessness of the regime. All I know is that he’s missing. What assurances can you give me that he has not been detained or killed simply because Obama wants him dead? That’s precisely the kind of permission Obama is giving himself here, with NO MEANS OF ACCOUNTABILITY. Given all that, why should I believe that Obama has not killed or detained my friend?
Obama has it totally backwards. When real combat is involved, our guys have to wait for the enemy to actually shoot before they can do anything but be sitting ducks. But when it’s Obama picking and choosing who to zot with masochistic zeal, the “enemy” doesn’t have to be doing anything, and doesn’t even have to be an enemy, from the sounds of it.
Somebody said that the claims of our allies being hit with drones is a propaganda lie of the terrorists, out to hurt the US. If that is so, then why are we losing our allies in places like Pakistan? If we’re taking out terrorists left and right and standing by our allies, and the people involved (who know who was killed and what they were up to) know that the friendly-fire claims are just terrorist propaganda, then why are we losing our allies there, why is terrorism surging, and why are our allies asking Dick Cheney (for instance) why America always protects and stands with its enemies and shafts its allies?
Why should Obama be impeached rather than hit with a drone, using the legal justifications that Obama gives himself?
What would happen if Congress passed a law calling for Barack Hussein Obama to be killed with a drone because he is “belligerent” against the laws and Constitution of the USA and has taken refuge with the Muslim Brotherhood, “The New Party” back in Chicago, Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, etc - all of whom have confirmed their intent to destroy the United States of America?
Obama is supposed to enforce the laws passed by Congress. If they unilaterally made that extra-judicial decision of his guilt/”belligerence”, then wouldn’t he have to enforce it and call a drone hit on himself?
If this was about protecting the USA Congress should be able to do it as well as anybody else. Or is this all really just about WHO gets to make that call? And that they have to do it secretly, instead of openly where everybody can know the reasons and legal justification?
We are talking Apples and Oranges. Congress has authorized military action against specific terrorist organizations. The military is selecting targets and 0bama as Commander-in-Chief is approving action. If an American is participating in that terrorist organization he may be killed as an enemy combatant.
What you have described is not a military action but a police action. While Americans participating in a terrorist organization may be breaking a law they are not being targeted as a criminals but as an enemy combatants. Thats a big difference. Drone strikes against Americans as a means of law enforcement is clearly illegal.
FYI
What if the military “selected” Obama as a target because he is a foreign enemy combatant (which he in truth is, unless he has naturalized) - and then Congress mandated military action against him at the recommendation of the military? Obama would have to ENFORCE what Congress had decided - in effect, a declaration of war against him.
Right?
Oh, and BTW, Denise Lind ruled in the court-martial against Terry Lakin that the lawfulness of combat orders are not dependent on approval by the Commander-in-Chief, so if one of the- oh, let’s say - LtCol’s ordered somebody to fire off a drone at an enemy combatant, it wouldn’t have to be authorized by anybody else up the chain.
That’s what Denise Lind ruled.
Right?
And BTW, if/when it comes out that Obama is not eligible to be POTUS but was put into office through crimes perpetrated by the enemies of the USA, he would have to be classified as an enemy combatant. The rationale used to kill US citizens would mean, then, that it wouldn’t even MATTER if he naturalized as a US citizen because citizenship NOW doesn’t matter; citizens have no more protections than non-citizens.
So a secret military drone strike on him would be appropriate, BY HIS OWN MEASURE.
Hoist on his own petard.
Just to clarify: my posts on this thread are from a hypothetical standpoint, carrying Obama’s arguments to their natural conclusions. If what I am saying is considered dangerous by the powers-that-be, then OBAMA IS THE DANGEROUS ONE because he’s the one saying this stuff.
All I’m saying is turnabout’s fair play. Those who live by the sword can very easily die by that same sword. You can only ride the military tiger for so long before it turns over and you’re the one on the bottom. You have pissed off WAY too many military people, Obama the foreign enemy combatant, and a lot of people are seeing you for who you really are. The authorizations and rulings you have forced people to make..... may seal your own fate. Your own decrees will condemn you.
And I might add, a drone strike to an enemy combatant is done extra-judicially. There doesn’t have to be a court ruling that the person is an enemy combatant, doesn’t have to be a finding or decision. Combat orders are in the discretion of some LtCol out there, according to Denise Lind, and when the order is given it MUST be obeyed unless it calls for criminal action. And Obama has said that it is NOT criminal for the US military to kill even a US citizen that THEY CALL an enemy combatant - no evidence or court ruling necessary. It wouldn’t be murder for a LtCol to make the combat order and it wouldn’t be criminal for the order to be obeyed, according to Obama’s own arguments.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.