What Say You......

[Zam-Zam]

.....about this:



The U.S. government has the right to order the killing of American citizens overseas if they are senior al-Qaeda leaders who pose an imminent terrorist threat and cannot reasonably be captured, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said Monday.

“Any decision to use lethal force against a United States citizen — even one intent on murdering Americans and who has become an operational leader of al-Qaeda in a foreign land — is among the gravest that government leaders can face,” Holder said in a speech at Northwestern University’s law school in Chicago. “The American people can be — and deserve to be — assured that actions taken in their defense are consistent with their values and their laws.”

Holder’s discussion of lethal force against U.S. citizens did not mention any individual by name, but his address was clearly animated by the targeting of Anwar al-Awlaki, a senior figure in al-Qaeda’s Yemeni affiliate. Awlaki, who was born in New Mexico, was killed in a U.S. drone strike in Yemen in September.

Since that operation, the Obama administration has faced calls to explain the legal framework behind its decision to target Awlaki and to release at least portions of a classified memorandum by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel that contains its evidence, reasoning and conclusions.

Holder’s speech represented the administration’s most elaborate public explanation to date for targeted killings.




Complete text: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...can-citizens/2012/03/05/gIQANknFtR_story.html





Opinions, please.

 

[Doc]

I agree with Holder and Obama's position on this:

If some American Citizen wishes to go and join Al-Qaeda, then, as far as I am concerned, they should expect to DIE like such vermin......

 

[Alinvegas]

I think Holder is finally seeing the light. Lets see if he can convince his fellow Democrats.

 

[Zam-Zam]

Seems this topic has scared away our more liberal friends......

 

[Doc]

Seems this topic has scared away our more liberal friends......

Two reasons:

#1. They can not figure out which position Obama/Holder are actually taking here (so, they do not have their "talking points...")

#2. They might have to agree with ME, of all people. And, by the definition of a few Liberals here, that, alone, might arguably relegate them to "warmongering, Hate-filled, Intolerant" status....

 

[Zam-Zam]

Two reasons:

#1. They can not figure out which position Obama/Holder are actually taking here (so, they do not have their "talking points...")

#2. They might have to agree with ME, of all people. And, by the definition of a few Liberals here, that, alone, might arguably relegate them to "warmongering, Hate-filled, Intolerant" status....

I think some of the smarter ones are conflicted by this. I think some of the others are waiting for someone to tell them what there position is.


I haven't heard the ACLU weigh in on this one yet either. Perhaps i missed it.......

 

[Spamature]

Two reasons:

#1. They can not figure out which position Obama/Holder are actually taking here (so, they do not have their "talking points...")

#2. They might have to agree with ME, of all people. And, by the definition of a few Liberals here, that, alone, might arguably relegate them to "warmongering, Hate-filled, Intolerant" status....

Not really. American citizenship is not an automatic shield against reprisal. If a person is an threat and they have not or will not surrender to authorities. How is it any different than when a armed individual has barricaded themselves inside a building on our soil. We don't say it was a violation of their rights when taken out by a police sniper.

Maybe you're confusing this with the belief that a person who has surrender should not be taken off our soil and beyond our laws for trial.

 

[Zam-Zam]

Allow me to correct myself: The ACLU has weighed in.


NEW YORK – In a speech today at Northwestern University School of Law, Attorney General Eric Holder spoke on national security issues and addressed the government’s targeted killing program.

“While the speech is a gesture towards additional transparency, it is ultimately a defense of the government’s chillingly broad claimed authority to conduct targeted killings of civilians, including American citizens, far from any battlefield without judicial review or public scrutiny,” said Hina Shamsi, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s National Security Project. “Few things are as dangerous to American liberty as the proposition that the government should be able to kill citizens anywhere in the world on the basis of legal standards and evidence that are never submitted to a court, either before or after the fact. Anyone willing to trust President Obama with the power to secretly declare an American citizen an enemy of the state and order his extrajudicial killing should ask whether they would be willing to trust the next president with that dangerous power.”

The ACLU has filed a lawsuit to enforce its Freedom of Information Act lawsuit seeking information about the targeted killing program, but the Justice Department and the CIA have responded to the request by saying they can neither confirm nor deny the existence of any records.

“The government has told the courts that its targeted killing program is so secret that even its existence can’t be acknowledged, but that proposition can no longer be taken seriously. If the attorney general can discuss the targeted killing program at a law school, then the administration can surely release the legal memos it uses to justify its claimed killing authority, and also defend its legal justifications in court,” Shamsi said. “The targeted killing program raises profound legal and moral questions that should be subjected to public debate, and constitutional questions that should be considered by the judiciary.”



http://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-comment-eric-holder-speech-targeted-killing-program



This will no doubt confuse some on the left. Since Holder and the ACLU hold contrary positions, one of them must be wrong. But which one?

 

[Dawg]

well, when I posted this for debate all I usually get is "You support AQ".........etc, etc.............well, if the time should arise that Holder or some future AG decieds they are a terrorist and must be dusted.well, it's too late then to complain.........

what's the ol' saying:

When they came for the Jews I said nothing, I was not a Jew/////////////----------------------> :yo:

 

[Doc]

Not really. American citizenship is not an automatic shield against reprisal. If a person is an threat and they have not or will not surrender to authorities. How is it any different than when a armed individual has barricaded themselves inside a building on our soil. We don't say it was a violation of their rights when taken out by a police sniper.

Maybe you're confusing this with the belief that a person who has surrender should not be taken off our soil and beyond our laws for trial.

No, I agree with you and the administration on this one: IF an American wishes to run off and join Al-Qaeda, then, by all means, I say they DIE like the pack of savages they call family....

 

[MrPinko]

Yes we need to kill them, allow our military to target them, hard to believe that Holder actually had the mental capacity and intellect to support this.

There are times when it appears he went to night school to earn his law degree.

And if we were talking about the Bush administration, lefties would be going nuts over this one.

The Obama administration is omnipotent in their eyes.

 

[OldGaffer]

Doc, I agree with you and Holder on this issue, fvck Al-Qaeda and any American that joins them. Obama had a tough stance on Al-Qaeda when he campaigned, and I had no problem with that, my problem was the idiot war with Iraq. I really dont know where the republican party is on this, some are trying to get to the left of the President and some are trying to get to the right of him.

 

[Zam-Zam]

Yes we need to kill them, allow our military to target them, hard to believe that Holder actually had the mental capacity and intellect to support this.

There are times when it appears he went to night school to earn his law degree.

And if we were talking about the Bush administration, lefties would be going nuts over this one.

The Obama administration is omnipotent in their eyes.

I believe you are likely correct in your asserting: "And if we were talking about the Bush administration, lefties would be going nuts over this one."


Since it is 'their guy', however, no condemnation from the left on this forum. At the same time, they aren't falling over themselves to defend his position either. I think most of them are confused, and waiting for talking points to come down from on high. Until that occurs, they will struggle with this one.

 

[Zam-Zam]

Doc, I agree with you and Holder on this issue, fvck Al-Qaeda and any American that joins them. Obama had a tough stance on Al-Qaeda when he campaigned, and I had no problem with that, my problem was the idiot war with Iraq. I really dont know where the republican party is on this, some are trying to get to the left of the President and some are trying to get to the right of him.

I commend you for taking a stand. I agree with you on this. The ACLU says we're both wrong.

 

[OldGaffer]

The ACLU is looking at this from an International Law view IMO, I normally support the ACLU but not on this issue. Terrorists forfeit all rights as far as I am concerned. McVeigh should have had a public beheading.

 

[Zam-Zam]

The ACLU is looking at this from an International Law view IMO, I normally support the ACLU but not on this issue. Terrorists forfeit all rights as far as I am concerned. McVeigh should have had a public beheading.

While I was as angry as anyone at McVeigh, there is that thing about 'cruel and unusual punishment'. We don't behead anyone in this country, and I think that's a good thing.