xeni at June 23rd, 2014 15:08 — #1
tornpapernapkin at June 23rd, 2014 15:27 — #2
Wait, so if any US citizen is suspected of affiliation with any terrorist organization then the US government can kill them based on that suspicion alone should the person leave the country? I'm trying to find a quote. Am I not seeing a link somewhere? Because that is actually pretty scary.
EDIT: Oh... I see it now. That is what I get for reading on my phone I guess.
anonkopimi at June 23rd, 2014 15:34 — #3
WEIRD. Who does the killing? SAME PEOPLE making the determination of "Terror Affiliation."
Man > Hammer > Nails EVERYWHERE.
ragingroosevelt at June 23rd, 2014 15:47 — #4
Which, I think, is why metadata collection is scary. It can easily give false positives when trying to establish a link between an individual and an ideology.
deidzoeb at June 23rd, 2014 16:01 — #5
I have a little quibble with that headline. Something more like "Obama Administration confident that it can get away with killing US citizens..." [for reasons]. Just because they declare themselves exempt from clear laws does not mean they are. The Constitution still trumps a legal memo. I mean, I still have hope that somehow Obama and Bush and others will be brought to justice, even though I realize it's unlikely.
Tree can fall in unpopulated woods without making sound, declares person outside woods. No. There's still a sound.
... I don't mean to imply that Xeni is carrying water for Obama. But it's an important distinction. They can "declare" all they want, just like John Yoo and Jay Bybee and others have. We don't have to accept or repeat them as if they're true.
vonbobo at June 23rd, 2014 16:15 — #6
Pfft... Kennedy was killed in downtown Dallas.
earnestinebrown at June 23rd, 2014 16:19 — #7
Due process! Cruel and unusual? You bet! This is completely unacceptable.
dacree at June 23rd, 2014 16:25 — #8
haven't we known this for a few years? a la Anwar al-Awlaki
boundegar at June 23rd, 2014 16:26 — #9
If they're "declared" part of an enemy organization. But who does the declaring? Is this not paving the road to the day one party "declares" the other to be enemies of the state?
fluffitfluffit at June 23rd, 2014 16:28 — #10
this is a direct consequence of the AUMF:
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary
and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons
he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such
organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of
international terrorism against the United States by such nations,
organizations or persons.
Congress can repeal it (and Obama has asked that they do so) any time it wants.
anonkopimi at June 23rd, 2014 16:53 — #11
You think it's bad NOW just wait til UNIFORMED flag-rank military officers start shilling for Candidates running in Congress or Presidential races.
After that, the same Generals and Admirals will start RUNNING for office themselves, still in the military, while in uniform. This WILL HAPPEN in your lifetime. It's inevitable.
llamaspit at June 23rd, 2014 17:11 — #12
Yeah, what could possibly go wrong?
deidzoeb at June 23rd, 2014 17:39 — #13
Like Eisenhower or US Grant? Or do you mean they weren't allowed to shill or run in uniform, but they will soon be able to?
disarticulate at June 23rd, 2014 17:57 — #14
So the legal justification appears to say that the US itself is not bound to it's own laws when it operates outside of the US?
That's a seriously misguided set of ethics right there.
I guess, this is what stems from allowing only natural born citizens to become president.
imb at June 23rd, 2014 18:36 — #15
without judicial process or geographic limitation
That makes it sound as though people could be killed anywhere, including here.
anonkopimi at June 23rd, 2014 18:54 — #16
Not like Ike or Grant. More like Caesar and Pompey and Sulla etc.
joshuap at June 23rd, 2014 21:16 — #17
US can murder/assasinate US citizens overseas just as easily as it can the rest of us if they're declared part of an enemy organization, just-released doc reveals
There, fixed that for you.
william_holz at June 23rd, 2014 21:16 — #18
Well, to be fair to the government, they've always behaved well when given this sort of power and I'm sure we can expect them to use it in the most responsible way possible.
Also, I bet they've got that sarcasm filter working.
willondon at June 23rd, 2014 23:51 — #19
billstewart at June 24th, 2014 01:26 — #20
No, they don't need to be suspected of affiliation with terrorist organizations. Just accused.
And yes, it's scary.
next page →