Surreous Question: X

IMG_0357.JPG



Obama lawyers: Citizens targeted if at war with US

So according to this AP report, Obama's lawyers have determined that US citizens are legitimate military targets if the Executive Branch determines that said citizens are working with al Qaeda.

Of course, I object to this determination, as it strips citizens of their Constitutional rights at the whim of the Executive Branch alone. But there is a larger implication. The implication is that US citizens are legitimate military targets.
Isn't that precisely the same argument made by Osama bin Laden when his affiliates attacked on 9/11?

Doesn't this legal ruling legitimize the very terrorist tactics used against the US?
 
No POTUS will EVER want to give up power... at least that's my .02.

Left, right, they all want power over each and every one of us and will piss on the Constitution and our rights to get it!
 
This bothers me. Yet, this is the same administration that does not want to use the military or intelligence personnel to implement enhanced interrogation techniques against enemy combatants. The same administration and DOJ that wanted a criminal trial in NYC against an enemy combatant and to afford them all the constitutional rights of an American citizen. But in it's wrongheadedness, thinks that they can use the US military to target it's own citizens.
 
This bothers me. Yet, this is the same administration that does not want to use the military or intelligence personnel to implement enhanced interrogation techniques against enemy combatants. The same administration and DOJ that wanted a criminal trial in NYC against an enemy combatant and to afford them all the constitutional rights of an American citizen. But in it's wrongheadedness, thinks that they can use the US military to target it's own citizens.

Not a very consistent policy they have is it?
 

Jagger69

Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
This is the very scary and unfortunate reality of living in the present-day USA. Sacrifice freedoms for perceived security? We all know what Franklin had to say about that.

When you think about it, the very imposition of such policies makes Al-Qaeda the winner since they succeed in destroying the fundamental freedoms on which our nation was founded. If we are willing to give up such basic rights in order to maintain the American way of life, how does that way of life in fact remain intact?

We have met the enemy and he is us I am afraid.
 
lol.....if you liked W, you ought to LOVE Obama.....read up on National Defense Authorization Act . He is W Part II, except less transparent



BC, I surreously hope you're not trying to make some assertion that "Obama is soft on turrism".

Not at all. But I believe Obama came into office with some seriously ill conceived notions on how to fight the war on terrorism. To his credit, somewhere he weighed the vast information made available to him as president that he did not have as candidate Obama and has done a good job on the terror front. I really have no qualms with him except that I believe EIT does work, and that he has reaped the benefits of them in capturing and killing terrorists.
 
http://www.npr.org/2011/12/01/143029639/senate-approves-662b-defense-bill
Ignoring a presidential veto threat, the Democratic-controlled Senate on Thursday overwhelmingly approved a massive, $662 billion defense bill that would require the military to hold suspected terrorists linked to al-Qaida or its affiliates, even those captured on U.S. soil.

The vote was 93-7 for the bill authorizing money for military personnel, weapons systems, national security programs in the Energy Department, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the fiscal year that began Oct. 1. Reflecting a period of austerity and a winding down of decade-old conflicts, the bill is $27 billion less than what President Obama requested and $43 billion less than what Congress gave the Pentagon this year.

Shortly before final passage, the Senate unanimously backed crippling sanctions on Iran as fears about Tehran developing a nuclear weapon outweighed concerns about driving up oil prices that would hit economically strapped Americans at the gas pump. The vote was 100-0.

The Senate's version of the defense bill still must be reconciled with the House-passed measure in the final weeks of the congressional session.

In an escalating fight with the White House, the bill would ramp up the role of the military in handling terror suspects. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and FBI Director Robert Mueller both oppose the provisions as does the White House, which said it cannot accept any legislation that "challenges or constrains the president's authorities to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists and protect the nation."

Late Thursday, a White House official said the veto threat still stands.

The bill would require military custody of a suspect deemed to be a member of al-Qaida or its affiliates and involved in plotting or committing attacks on the United States. American citizens would be exempt. The bill does allow the executive branch to waive the authority based on national security and hold a suspect in civilian custody.

The legislation also would give the government the authority to have the military hold an individual suspected of terrorism indefinitely, without a trial. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., had sought an exception to the provision for U.S. citizens. Lengthy negotiations produced a face-saving move that the Senate backed 99-1, a measure that said nothing in the bill changes current law relating to the detention of U.S. citizens and legal aliens.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., repeatedly pointed out that the June 2004 Supreme Court decision in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld said U.S. citizens can be detained indefinitely.
 
But how come it's not all over the news media with pundits condeming him? Oh, because it's a DEMOCRAT president.

Anyway, as an American citizen, there's a good reason I don't join up with Al Qaida, apart from not agreeing with their ideology, and that's because I don't want to face the U.S. military!

Anyone who willingly joins up with a group like Al Qaida must know the risks they run, and if an American citizen decides to wage war against America, that's treason anyway. So if said American becomes a leder in Al Qaida (the enemy army) that American is a valid military target.

Fighting terrorism ABROAD should be a mission for DOD and all intelligence agencies. Terrorism within our borders, that's for the FBI and the courts. But there should be a lot of coordination between all of them. If the CIA knows some terrorists are coming to the U.S., they should inform the FBI. Plus, I didn't know the U.S. constitution applied outside America.

Plus as far as I'm concerned, when an American citizen decides to wage war against America and leaves the country to join up with like-minded individuals in their fight against us, he's made himself a valid military target and he's a problem for the DOD or CIA to.... "solve". Had he stayed IN America and tried to wage war from here, he'd be a problem for the FBI and the courts.

So, wow, I can't believe I actually agreed with Obama on something! :tongue:
 
so, if you have no trial, can be detained indefinitely......where are your rights as an American citizen and who determines if you are a "terrurist" (without a trial, no evidence is needed and you have no recourse to prove your innocence)? You clearly didn't think this one through.
 
Top