Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
Impeachment
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

 
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Muso
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 656
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu

PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 7:37 am    Post subject: Impeachment Reply with quote

Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americans

Quote:
A confidential Justice Department memo concludes that the U.S. government can order the killing of American citizens if they are believed to be “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida or “an associated force” -- even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S.


Let that sink in for a bit. I'm sure you think that there is some air-tight legalese that somehow meets constitutional muster... but you'd be wrong.

Quote:
The 16-page memo, a copy of which was obtained by NBC News, provides new details about the legal reasoning behind one of the Obama administration’s most secretive and controversial polices: its dramatically increased use of drone strikes against al-Qaida suspects, including those aimed at American citizens, such as the September 2011 strike in Yemen that killed alleged al-Qaida operatives Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan. Both were U.S. citizens who had never been indicted by the U.S. government nor charged with any crimes.

The secrecy surrounding such strikes is fast emerging as a central issue in this week’s hearing of White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, a key architect of the drone campaign, to be CIA director. Brennan was the first administration official to publicly acknowledge drone strikes in a speech last year, calling them “consistent with the inherent right of self-defense.” In a separate talk at the Northwestern University Law School in March, Attorney General Eric Holder specifically endorsed the constitutionality of targeted killings of Americans, saying they could be justified if government officials determine the target poses “an imminent threat of violent attack.”

But the confidential Justice Department “white paper” introduces a more expansive definition of self-defense or imminent attack than described by Brennan or Holder in their public speeches. It refers, for example, to what it calls a “broader concept of imminence” than actual intelligence about any ongoing plot against the U.S. homeland.


Ok, so what are the criteria?

Quote:
“The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future,” the memo states.


WTF? Surely it must define these concepts in a clear and concise manner that won't allow for some bureaucrats to just arbitrarily decide to whack US citizens in a mafia style manner.

Quote:
Instead, it says, an “informed, high-level” official of the U.S. government may determine that the targeted American has been “recently” involved in “activities” posing a threat of a violent attack and “there is no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities.” The memo does not define “recently” or “activities.”


8O

Never mind.


Mcgruff, go ahead. Defend this.
_________________
I, for one, am glad to be living on a planet with 776x the mass of the super-massive black hole at the center of the milky way.
auf alten Schiffen lernt man Segeln.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1569
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 10:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

A whistle blower must have leaked this, because the Obama Administraton has refused all FOI requests pertaining to it, saying in essence, we don't know what your talking about.

This is exactly what impeachment is for. Need to get rid of some Senate Democrats first, though.
_________________
Naib wrote:
you need a dick sometimes to deal with the assholes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
juniper
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 758
Location: EU

PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 10:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

They won't come after you if you have nothing to hide :lol:

As I said long ago, you should have disarmed your government (instead of arming your citizens).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Prenj
n00b
n00b


Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Posts: 13

PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 10:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
A whistle blower must have leaked this, because the Obama Administraton has refused all FOI requests pertaining to it, saying in essence, we don't know what your talking about.

This is exactly what impeachment is for. Need to get rid of some Senate Democrats first, though.


Notice the recent dust-rising on topic of NDAA and whistle-blower persecutions.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1569
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 12:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

juniper wrote:
They won't come after you if you have nothing to hide :lol:

As I said long ago, you should have disarmed your government (instead of arming your citizens).

Maybe in a hundred years, when Canada has grown big and powerful (due to oil and global warming), the U.S. is the new Mexico, and we can just peacefully go about our Eloi existence under the protection of Canda, then the citizenry will do so, if by then there is still someone around who remembers how to spell Liberty.
_________________
Naib wrote:
you need a dick sometimes to deal with the assholes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1569
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 1:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Prenj wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
A whistle blower must have leaked this, because the Obama Administraton has refused all FOI requests pertaining to it, saying in essence, we don't know what your talking about.

This is exactly what impeachment is for. Need to get rid of some Senate Democrats first, though.


Notice the recent dust-rising on topic of NDAA and whistle-blower persecutions.

This is why Obama will just throw the whole gun control issue over the fence to Congress to deal with (other than to occasionally demagogue about how the three-toothed rednecks are comin to gitcha rather than have anybody realize gun violence is largely a black problem), and will not do any of the more pernicious and oppressive things he had flapped his lips about: he needs to maintain the Democrat Senate majority in order to not be impeached (like Clinton). If he gets impeached, they probably won't put him on Mount Rushmore (with modified ears, for structural feasibility) or make a big marble memorial to him in the Capital alongside those of Washington, Lincoln, and Jefferson like he closes his eyes and fantasizes about when boning Michelle to avoid the growing sense of subconscious anxiety that she is going to eat him or that he might be swallowed up by one of her cavernous orifices.
_________________
Naib wrote:
you need a dick sometimes to deal with the assholes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bogamol
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 01 Nov 2009
Posts: 84
Location: Detroit, Michigan - The Home of Rock and Roll

PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 1:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

juniper wrote:
They won't come after you if you have nothing to hide :lol:

As I said long ago, you should have disarmed your government (instead of arming your citizens).


if we did that we would have been subjugated by the British. Eg war of 1812 or sooner.

When our founders started this whole exercise there would have been a lot of people who did not want America or democracy to succeed. If we didnt even have the ability to defend our nation we would have lost it in its infancy.
_________________
Freedom is the oxygen of the soul. -Moshe Dayan

Juniper wrote:
I fail to see the relevance.


Last edited by bogamol on Tue Feb 05, 2013 1:44 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Prenj
n00b
n00b


Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Posts: 13

PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 1:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
This is why Obama will just throw the whole gun control issue over the fence to Congress to deal with (other than to occasionally demagogue about how the three-toothed rednecks are comin to gitcha rather than have anybody realize gun violence is largely a black problem), and will not do any of the more pernicious and oppressive things he had flapped his lips about: he needs to maintain the Democrat Senate majority in order to not be impeached (like Clinton).


Exactly.

I mean back in the days, I thought that GWB was a scum on an epic scale (well I still do), but he becomes little kitty compared to Obama.

Think about it: GWB administration spent billions on lies and fabrication of evidence-chain, and it didn't hold because of the internet, and the power of independent observers pointing things out to the apathethic crowd. Majority of population simply have no time to cross reference different things to form a coherent picture.

Obama administration, knowing this, is pushing for legislation that will at least intimidate those independent observers into silence. NDAA is essentially targeting journalists who dare stray away from simply parroting the "official version". They are not even pretending nor trying to lie anymore, they are simply talking power-speak.

Which is why I start fuming when I see some sheeple parroting their "story" simply because he/she is psychologically impaired when it comes to living in reality and would rather live in some la-la-land. It just irks me to no end.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bogamol
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 01 Nov 2009
Posts: 84
Location: Detroit, Michigan - The Home of Rock and Roll

PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 1:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Prenj wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
This is why Obama will just throw the whole gun control issue over the fence to Congress to deal with (other than to occasionally demagogue about how the three-toothed rednecks are comin to gitcha rather than have anybody realize gun violence is largely a black problem), and will not do any of the more pernicious and oppressive things he had flapped his lips about: he needs to maintain the Democrat Senate majority in order to not be impeached (like Clinton).


Exactly.

I mean back in the days, I thought that GWB was a scum on an epic scale (well I still do), but he becomes little kitty compared to Obama.

Think about it: GWB administration spent billions on lies and fabrication of evidence-chain, and it didn't hold because of the internet, and the power of independent observers pointing things out to the apathethic crowd. Majority of population simply have no time to cross reference different things to form a coherent picture.

Obama administration, knowing this, is pushing for legislation that will at least intimidate those independent observers into silence. NDAA is essentially targeting journalists who dare stray away from simply parroting the "official version". They are not even pretending nor trying to lie anymore, they are simply talking power-speak.

Which is why I start fuming when I see some sheeple parroting their "story" simply because he/she is psychologically impaired when it comes to living in reality and would rather live in some la-la-land. It just irks me to no end.


Yiu have refrrences? Everything I find on NDAA FY13 is that the controvrrcial bits are funding for an invasion of iran and also guantanmo stuff. I dont see anything abiut journalists. edit sorry on typos Its too difficukt to go back aand fix them on my phone
_________________
Freedom is the oxygen of the soul. -Moshe Dayan

Juniper wrote:
I fail to see the relevance.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Prenj
n00b
n00b


Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Posts: 13

PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 2:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bogamol wrote:
Yiu have refrrences? Everything I find on NDAA FY13 is that the controvrrcial bits are funding for an invasion of iran and also guantanmo stuff. I dont see anything abiut journalists. edit sorry on typos Its too difficukt to go back aand fix them on my phone


http://amberlyonlive.com/2012/10/10/how-the-ndaa-is-a-direct-threat-to-average-americans-protesters-journalists/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/17/obama-ndaa-signing-statement_n_2497828.html

David Seaman (was running for Congress) on Joe Rogan Podcast about NDAA, Trapwire, WikiLeaks, etc. (ignore the music stuff, cant find the link with just talk)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYiIuaEDIno


Full podcast here (3 hours): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmtgpcZTr8Q
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16116
Location: Colorado

PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 11:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Weren't Democrats frothing about Bush and some American being considered an enemy combatant, and how it had to be addressed in court, etc., etc.? And related to that, wasn't it legally decided that in fact you couldn't arbitrarily call them enemy combatants? So as you can see, this is clearly Bush's fault for not having found a loophole.
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Prenj
n00b
n00b


Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Posts: 13

PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 12:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

https://www.stopndaa.org/2013/01/08/call-to-action-appeals-court-date-feb-6-2013/

There you go, don't say you didn't know. :lol:
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jonnevers
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 02 Jan 2003
Posts: 1593
Location: Gentoo64 land

PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 12:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

this thread is exactly like the sean hannity show today.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
McGruff
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 147

PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 1:55 am    Post subject: Re: Impeachment Reply with quote

Muso wrote:
Quote:
Attorney General Eric Holder specifically endorsed the constitutionality of targeted killings of Americans, saying they could be justified if government officials determine the target poses “an imminent threat of violent attack.”


Mcgruff, go ahead. Defend this.


Assuming there is an imminent threat of violent attack, I thought you were an advocate of the power of the gun for self-defence?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
big dave
n00b
n00b


Joined: 03 Jul 2009
Posts: 0
Location: land of first world problems

PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 2:23 am    Post subject: Re: Impeachment Reply with quote

mcgruff wrote:
Muso wrote:
Quote:
Attorney General Eric Holder specifically endorsed the constitutionality of targeted killings of Americans, saying they could be justified if government officials determine the target poses “an imminent threat of violent attack.”


Mcgruff, go ahead. Defend this.


Assuming there is an imminent threat of violent attack, I thought you were an advocate of the power of the gun for self-defence?

"some dude is sitting in a room somewhere across the planet and we don't know what he's doing" is a world apart from "some jackass walking into a school and pulling a gun on children". if you can't tell the difference, you shouldn't be voting or procreating. on the bright side, you're too much of a liberal to pick up a gun.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
McGruff
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 147

PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 3:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If you know a terrorist attack is being planned that could kill hundreds or even thousands of people, what choice do you have? It could be justifiable - but only if you know.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Prenj
n00b
n00b


Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Posts: 13

PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 3:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcgruff wrote:
If you know a terrorist attack is being planned that could kill hundreds or even thousands of people, what choice do you have? It could be justifiable - but only if you know.


So one guy killing people at whim without any responsibility to provide evidence is fine with you? Wow. You grew up in Genghis Khan horde or something? It's not cool even in Balkans.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/05/obama-kill-list-doj-memo

Dont you get it that you are basically supporting fascism? What the hell is wrong with you?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16116
Location: Colorado

PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 4:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

jonnevers wrote:
this thread is exactly like the sean hannity show today.
How can you tolerate listening to him? Every now and again I listen to a few minutes of his show, and he annoys me every time.
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Old School
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 236
Location: The Covered Bridge Capital of Oregon

PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 4:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

pjp wrote:
jonnevers wrote:
this thread is exactly like the sean hannity show today.
How can you tolerate listening to him? Every now and again I listen to a few minutes of his show, and he annoys me every time.


++
_________________
I am not young enough to know everything.
- Oscar Wilde
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Old School
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 236
Location: The Covered Bridge Capital of Oregon

PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 4:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Prenj wrote:
mcgruff wrote:
If you know a terrorist attack is being planned that could kill hundreds or even thousands of people, what choice do you have? It could be justifiable - but only if you know.


So one guy killing people at whim without any responsibility to provide evidence is fine with you? Wow. You grew up in Genghis Khan horde or something? It's not cool even in Balkans.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/05/obama-kill-list-doj-memo

Dont you get it that you are basically supporting fascism? What the hell is wrong with you?


Hope and Change and Forward!

He just believes in sophomoric slogans, totalitarianism, and Five Year Plans. :P
_________________
I am not young enough to know everything.
- Oscar Wilde
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Muso
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 656
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu

PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 8:18 am    Post subject: Re: Impeachment Reply with quote

mcgruff wrote:
Muso wrote:
Quote:
Attorney General Eric Holder specifically endorsed the constitutionality of targeted killings of Americans, saying they could be justified if government officials determine the target poses “an imminent threat of violent attack.”


Mcgruff, go ahead. Defend this.


Assuming there is an imminent threat of violent attack, I thought you were an advocate of the power of the gun for self-defence?


Wow. You know your post is complete bullshit when you've edited the truth out of it.

Here is what I actually posted :

Muso wrote:
Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americans

Quote:
A confidential Justice Department memo concludes that the U.S. government can order the killing of American citizens if they are believed to be “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida or “an associated force” -- even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S.


Let that sink in for a bit. I'm sure you think that there is some air-tight legalese that somehow meets constitutional muster... but you'd be wrong.

Quote:
The 16-page memo, a copy of which was obtained by NBC News, provides new details about the legal reasoning behind one of the Obama administration’s most secretive and controversial polices: its dramatically increased use of drone strikes against al-Qaida suspects, including those aimed at American citizens, such as the September 2011 strike in Yemen that killed alleged al-Qaida operatives Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan. Both were U.S. citizens who had never been indicted by the U.S. government nor charged with any crimes.

The secrecy surrounding such strikes is fast emerging as a central issue in this week’s hearing of White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, a key architect of the drone campaign, to be CIA director. Brennan was the first administration official to publicly acknowledge drone strikes in a speech last year, calling them “consistent with the inherent right of self-defense.” In a separate talk at the Northwestern University Law School in March, Attorney General Eric Holder specifically endorsed the constitutionality of targeted killings of Americans, saying they could be justified if government officials determine the target poses “an imminent threat of violent attack.”

But the confidential Justice Department “white paper” introduces a more expansive definition of self-defense or imminent attack than described by Brennan or Holder in their public speeches. It refers, for example, to what it calls a “broader concept of imminence” than actual intelligence about any ongoing plot against the U.S. homeland.


Ok, so what are the criteria?

Quote:
“The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future,” the memo states.


WTF? Surely it must define these concepts in a clear and concise manner that won't allow for some bureaucrats to just arbitrarily decide to whack US citizens in a mafia style manner.

Quote:
Instead, it says, an “informed, high-level” official of the U.S. government may determine that the targeted American has been “recently” involved in “activities” posing a threat of a violent attack and “there is no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities.” The memo does not define “recently” or “activities.”


8O

Never mind.


Mcgruff, go ahead. Defend this.


So my question was specific to this :
Quote:
Instead, it says, an “informed, high-level” official of the U.S. government may determine that the targeted American has been “recently” involved in “activities” posing a threat of a violent attack and “there is no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities.” The memo does not define “recently” or “activities.”

You completely ignored the very essence of the story and then selectively chose a single quote to which your only (and I mean only) argument works... the strawman.
_________________
I, for one, am glad to be living on a planet with 776x the mass of the super-massive black hole at the center of the milky way.
auf alten Schiffen lernt man Segeln.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tylerwylie
Guru
Guru


Joined: 19 Sep 2004
Posts: 456
Location: /US/Illinois

PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 9:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Prenj wrote:
It's not cool even in [the] Balkans.
:lol:
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jonnevers
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 02 Jan 2003
Posts: 1593
Location: Gentoo64 land

PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 2:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

pjp wrote:
jonnevers wrote:
this thread is exactly like the sean hannity show today.
How can you tolerate listening to him? Every now and again I listen to a few minutes of his show, and he annoys me every time.

yes, its annoying but it depicts how some people approach USian political discourse.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16116
Location: Colorado

PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 11:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't need to listen to everyone to know there are a lot of different people out there.
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jonnevers
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 02 Jan 2003
Posts: 1593
Location: Gentoo64 land

PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2013 1:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

pjp wrote:
I don't need to listen to everyone to know there are a lot of different people out there.

thats where you and i differ, i guess.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum