U.S. Issues Someone Just Leaked Obama's Rules for Assassinating American Citizens

Taco John · 02-04-2013, 11:51 PM

Mike Riggs|Feb. 4, 2013 9:36 pm

For over a year now journalists, civil liberties advocates, and members of Congress have been asking the Obama administration to release internal memoranda from the Office of Legal Counsel justifying Obama's targeted killing program. While the White House continues to deny that such memos exist, NBC is reporting that it has acquired the next best thing: A secretish 16-page white paper from the Department of Justice that was provided to select members of the Senate last June.

Michael Isikoff reports that

[t]he 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.

[T]he 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.

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.”

Full memo:
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/se...hite_Paper.pdf

Taco John · 02-04-2013, 11:54 PM

“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."

Scary. I wonder if the Republicans use this as an opportunity to start impeachment proceedings.

ClevelandBronco · 02-05-2013, 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taco John

“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."

Scary. I wonder if the Republicans use this as an opportunity to start impeachment proceedings.

Yep. I can hardly believe their short sightedness. I stopped dead (so to speak) at that same statement. Incredible.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=269697

Direckshun · 02-05-2013, 12:10 AM

go bowe · 02-05-2013, 12:26 AM

double Q...

**J Diddy** · 02-05-2013, 12:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taco John

“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."

Scary. I wonder if the Republicans use this as an opportunity to start impeachment proceedings.

I'm curious if you've just gone senile or you are deliberately trying to make this board as shitty as yours. For christ sakes it's in the top 10 in DC dumbass.

ClevelandBronco · 02-05-2013, 12:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J Diddy

I'm curious if you've just gone senile or you are deliberately trying to make this board as shitty as yours. For christ sakes it's in the top 10 in DC dumbass.

In the light of this remarkable threat to our own citizens you're outraged at ... Taco?

**J Diddy** · 02-05-2013, 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ClevelandBronco

In the light of this remarkable threat to our own citizens you're outraged at ... Taco?

I am not only not outraged at Taco, I am equally not outraged at you.

ClevelandBronco · 02-05-2013, 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J Diddy

I am not only not outraged at Taco, I am equally not outraged at you.

What a relief. Dumb****.

**J Diddy** · 02-05-2013, 12:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ClevelandBronco

What a relief. Dumb****.

Coming from you that is a huge, huge, huge complement.

Really? What is the outrage here? That they've targeted terrorists?

You people are the same dumbshits who say blow them away when they pull into your driveway late at night, but now you wish to extend courtesy? I say **** you and your double standards with a bowl of ice cream and some milk. More than likely they saved lives.

ClevelandBronco · 02-05-2013, 12:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J Diddy

Coming from you that is a huge, huge, huge complement.

Really? What is the outrage here? That they've targeted terrorists?

You people are the same dumbshits who say blow them away when they pull into your driveway late at night, but now you wish to extend courtesy? I say **** you and your double standards with a bowl of ice cream and some milk. More than likely they saved lives.

They aren't targeting terrorists, you ****ing simpleton. They're targeting citizens that they are guessing might think about being terrorists and we can just take their word for it, thank you very much.

**J Diddy** · 02-05-2013, 12:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ClevelandBronco

They aren't targeting terrorists, you ****ing simpleton. They're targeting citizens that they are guessing might think about being terrorists and we can just take their word for it, thank you very much.

Hmm, I'm confused so " alleged al quida operatives" aren't terrorists? What are they then, girl scouts?

That's a nice theory, lol. And you called me a simpleton?

It's funny how you demand proof, yet your conspiracy theory is all the proof you need.

ClevelandBronco · 02-05-2013, 12:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J Diddy

Hmm, I'm confused so " alleged al quida operatives" aren't terrorists? What are they then, girl scouts?

They are citizens who have a right to due process, whether or not the government suspects - suspects, mind you - that those Do-Si-Dos might be wired to explode.

**J Diddy** · 02-05-2013, 01:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ClevelandBronco

They are citizens who have a right to due process, whether or not the government suspects - suspects, mind you - that those Do-Si-Dos might be wired to explode.

Hmmm. Please tell, captain smart mother****er, how that is different than the civil war? We sure as shit shot some American citizens then, however, I sure did miss that due process.

KILLER_CLOWN · 02-05-2013, 01:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J Diddy

Hmmm. Please tell, captain smart mother****er, how that is different than the civil war? We sure as shit shot some American citizens then, however, I sure did miss that due process.

That is an entirely different beast there, I don't think we're planning on another one are we?

02-04-2013, 11:51 PM
Taco John 12on Paul Join Date: Jun 2001 Casino cash: $10085272	Someone Just Leaked Obama's Rules for Assassinating American Citizens Mike Riggs\|Feb. 4, 2013 9:36 pm For over a year now journalists, civil liberties advocates, and members of Congress have been asking the Obama administration to release internal memoranda from the Office of Legal Counsel justifying Obama's targeted killing program. While the White House continues to deny that such memos exist, NBC is reporting that it has acquired the next best thing: A secretish 16-page white paper from the Department of Justice that was provided to select members of the Senate last June. Michael Isikoff reports that [t]he 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. [T]he 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. 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.” Full memo: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/se...hite_Paper.pdf
Posts: 49,410

02-04-2013, 11:54 PM	#2
Taco John 12on Paul Join Date: Jun 2001 Casino cash: $10085272	“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." Scary. I wonder if the Republicans use this as an opportunity to start impeachment proceedings. __________________ Ehyeh asher ehyeh.
Posts: 49,410

02-05-2013, 12:10 AM	#4
Direckshun Black for Palestine Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Springpatch Casino cash: $1167782	Q __________________
Posts: 37,650

02-05-2013, 12:26 AM	#5
go bowe bye bye bo... Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: independence Casino cash: $574387	double Q...
Posts: 28,192

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode