Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Military United States Politics

Leaked: Obama's Rules For Assassinating American Citizens 800

Posted by timothy
from the how-much-different-were-the-previous-tenants'-rules? dept.
cathyreisenwitz writes "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." Spencer Ackerman at Wired says the leaked rules "[trump] traditional Constitutional protections American citizens enjoy from being killed by their government without due process" by redefining the concept of "imminence."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Leaked: Obama's Rules For Assassinating American Citizens

Comments Filter:
  • Oh, the surprise. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gestalt_n_pepper (991155) on Tuesday February 05, 2013 @11:59AM (#42797243)

    Governments involved in clandestine assassinations. Who would have thought? And of course, it only happens in other countries, to Al Qaeda and the like. Surely. Oh, and if you believe this, I have a bridge or two I can sell you....

    • by fustakrakich (1673220) on Tuesday February 05, 2013 @12:03PM (#42797297) Journal

      Yeah, but it's no longer 'clandestine'. We can do it out in the open in broad daylight, and nobody will raise a finger to stop it.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by mabhatter654 (561290)

        These people have chosen to be enemies of the USA. Back in the days of Cowboys and Indians, your only defense against "aiding the enemy" was to be as far away as possible. The US Army killed plenty of American citizens that lived with Natives...

        The only real change here is that the DoD is actually targeting the terrorist bases WHEN American "citizens" are standing on them. They used to pretend they were getting them along with the other terrorists... But no more.

        I have less of a problem with the government

        • by JWW (79176) on Tuesday February 05, 2013 @01:28PM (#42798623)

          This issue has really far less to do with whether the targets are traitors or not and more to do with who is allowed to determine which Americans are and which Americans aren't traitors....

        • by almitydave (2452422) on Tuesday February 05, 2013 @01:46PM (#42798887)

          These people have chosen to be enemies of the USA.

          So says the government that carries out their execution without trial, evidence, or conviction.

          ...The only real change here is that the DoD is actually targeting the terrorist bases WHEN American "citizens" are standing on them.

          Or when they happen to be out on the open road [wikipedia.org], not on a terrorist base.

          ...I have less of a problem with the government killing confirmed traitors while ENGAGED in plotting against the USA, in a foreign country, with other enemies. That's open and shut...

          Except if you read the article, that's not the case at all. An "imminent threat" now means: "recently involved in activies posing a violent threat...", so in other words, not imminent.

          You don't want to get blowed up, don't stand with the enemy.

          Also make sure that you're not falsely identified by an informant being tortured, and make sure that US intelligence makes no mistakes. I find your faith in the infallibility of the US government disturbing. Why do we even have trials with juries and evidence? I mean if the military (or police) know you're guilty, why waste time and resources? After all, American citizenship should have no bearing if someone says you're guilty, right?

          I understand if a citizen is killed in combat while taking up arms for the enemy - that's normal warfare - but a drone strike outside of combat based solely on the assertions of intelligence? Even if the intelligence is correct, and the target is a Bad Guy, it's still a violation of due process prohibited by the constitution, and becomes unchecked power of life and death in the hands of the executive branch. I would hope everyone understands why that's a Bad Thing.

          • by interkin3tic (1469267) on Tuesday February 05, 2013 @02:30PM (#42799555)

            These people have chosen to be enemies of the USA.

            So says the government that carries out their execution without trial, evidence, or conviction.

            To add what I think is an important part to that "So says the government that is constantly making mistakes that carries out their execution without trial, evidence, or conviction.

            For me, the scary part isn't that the government is killing people. It's that said people don't get a chance to respond to the charges and get things straight. They put Ted Kennedy on a no-fly list. The senator. Transparency is important because they're terrible at their jobs.

            Government: "We have eyewitness testimony that you're a terrorist operative!"
            Bob:"What?!?"
            Government: "Yeah, Joe said you were building a dirty bomb you were going to detonate in a crowded area."
            Bob: "Joe is just mad because I stole his girlfriend."
            Government" "... Oh... well, dick move, but we're not going to kill you for it. I guess we probably should have asked Joe why he reported you. Or taken that facebook status update where he says 'going to report Bob to homeland security for stealing Staci' into consideration."

            • by almitydave (2452422) on Tuesday February 05, 2013 @03:49PM (#42800629)

              Exactly. Government, when composed of noble, capable people passionate about civic virtue and beholden to the rule of law, can be a wonderful thing and a force for great good. When composed of corrupt or inept people who don't give a damn about the governed, it's horrible. I think people tend to think of the ones ordering drone strikes to fall in the former category (and they very well may), but they should think about what happens when they're in the latter.

              Image that the bureaucrats behind your worst-ever DMV experience are making the calls on which Americans driving down a desert road get wiped out. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that anyone considers Brazil [imdb.com] closer to reality than fantasy opposes this sort of thing.

            • by IAmR007 (2539972) on Tuesday February 05, 2013 @06:56PM (#42802717)
              We've mistakenly executed enough innocent people who were found guilty by trial to throw the entire death penalty into question. The idea of not even having a trial is obsurd.
          • by DeadCatX2 (950953) on Tuesday February 05, 2013 @04:22PM (#42801025) Journal

            Or when they happen to be out on the open road [wikipedia.org], not on a terrorist base.

            Or when they're the 16-year-old American son of an alleged terrorist who hasn't seen their father in over two years [theatlantic.com]

        • by LateArthurDent (1403947) on Tuesday February 05, 2013 @02:13PM (#42799321)

          Back in the days of Cowboys and Indians, your only defense against "aiding the enemy" was to be as far away as possible. The US Army killed plenty of American citizens that lived with Natives...

          I don't understand. Typically we remember the mistakes of the past to avoid repeating them, not to justify making them again.

          I have less of a problem with the government killing confirmed traitors while ENGAGED in plotting against the USA, in a foreign country, with other enemies. That's open and shut...

          How does one confirm traitors? Is it not through due process? In fact, the US Constitution names very specific requirements for due process regarding treason. Article 3, Section 3: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

          The military KILLS PEOPLE...

          The US military KILLS PEOPLE...who are not American citizens. Unless, of course, they've been engaged by said citizen.

          .. They don't arrest people.

          They are, in fact, required to take prisoners if their enemy surrenders. Article 3 of the fourth Geneva convention specifies that you cannot harm anyone who has laid down their arms and surrendered.

          This nonsense of picking up US Citizens, on US soil for things that may have happened, then shipping them OUT of the USA without trial was a much larger affront to the Constitution than this new procedure is.

          That would also be unacceptable, what's your point?

          You don't want to get blowed up, don't stand with the enemy. American citizenship has no bearing if you are actively engaged in planning WAR against the USA.

          If American citizens are collateral damage as a result of a strike on another target, that's a completely different story, and it would cover this situation. For you to specifically target an American citizen would require a trial. If, through due process, the citizen is found to be committing treason, Congress has the ability to define the punishment, which could be death through military strike. You can't skip the due process part, though.

        • by Ironchew (1069966) on Tuesday February 05, 2013 @02:47PM (#42799765)

          American citizenship has no bearing if you are actively engaged in planning WAR against the USA.

          Actually, yes, it does. Sorry to burst your authoritarian bubble there, but U.S. citizenship and due process are not things the U.S. government can remove without consent. If you hear otherwise, the U.S. government was doing something outrageously illegal.

          The War on Terror is deliberately blurry to the point that any organization suspected of subversion can be considered an enemy. Even if they aren't citizens, does that make it just? You live in a fantasy world where the U.S. government can do no wrong.

    • by Remus Shepherd (32833) <remus@panix.com> on Tuesday February 05, 2013 @12:15PM (#42797483) Homepage

      Governments involved in clandestine assassinations against their own citizens is a fairly rare and outrageous event in a democracy, I assure you.

      I'd think it would be easier to issue a presidential edict saying that anyone who swears allegiance to Al Qaeda also renounces their American citizenship. Then you can kill them as foreign enemies without compunction. I don't know why they'd go to all this trouble to justify killing Americans, unless they wanted the ability to do it on a larger scale.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by DJ Jones (997846)
        I'm not supporting Obama's policy but I don't think this is as evil as everyone is making it out to be. Our country is theoretically "at war" with Al Quada as an organization (whether that makes any sense is a whole other tangent). During World War II, plenty of German-American citizens living in the US flue back to Germany and fought against American forces. We didn't need due process to kill them on the battlefield. Whether you're an American citizen or not, if you're on foreign territory and pose a
        • by crakbone (860662) on Tuesday February 05, 2013 @12:37PM (#42797803)
          There is a difference in actively moving in an armed group and aggressive tactics toward a front line and never committing a crime and being guilty for what you feel is right. In Germany you had people actively picking up arms against the US. In the drone strikes you had people actively driving or riding in a car. And while I hold no affinity for Al Qaeda I feel its treasonous for government official to kill a US citizen without a proper trial.
        • by Applekid (993327) on Tuesday February 05, 2013 @12:58PM (#42798105)

          I'm not supporting Obama's policy but I don't think this is as evil as everyone is making it out to be. Our country is theoretically "at war" with Al Quada as an organization (whether that makes any sense is a whole other tangent). During World War II, plenty of German-American citizens living in the US flue back to Germany and fought against American forces. We didn't need due process to kill them on the battlefield. Whether you're an American citizen or not, if you're on foreign territory and pose a threat to our armed forces, there's not a large legal barrier to killing you.

          Sure, there's nothing wrong with his policy. Until some faceless bureaucrat pops your name on some list and a sequence of different equally unaccountable government employees push buttons and gets you bombed by remote. When someone that cared about you objects, they're told that you were a terrorist, and they get on that list themselves.

          If the human race fails in it's rampage towards extinction for the next 500 years, we'll look back on this era as the second dark ages.

        • Just stop for a moment and think about the different conclusions you would reach were Bush president rather than Obama. A lot of people can't bring themselves to criticize Obama because of the race angle.
        • by aaaaaaargh! (1150173) on Tuesday February 05, 2013 @01:04PM (#42798199)

          Our country is theoretically "at war"

          That's a pretty weird choice of words, if you think about it.

        • Re:Oh, the surprise. (Score:4, Interesting)

          by OldSport (2677879) on Tuesday February 05, 2013 @01:15PM (#42798371)

          Our country is theoretically "at war"
          theoretically "at war"
          theoretically
          "at war"

          Remind me again when Congress declared war on Al-Qaeda?

        • Re:Oh, the surprise. (Score:4, Informative)

          by b5bartender (2175066) on Tuesday February 05, 2013 @01:19PM (#42798463)
          One should keep in mind that the NDAA defined "battlefield" to mean domestic [aclu.org] as well as foreign soil...
        • by Alastor187 (593341) on Tuesday February 05, 2013 @02:27PM (#42799511)

          I'm not supporting Obama's policy but I don't think this is as evil as everyone is making it out to be. Our country is theoretically "at war" with Al Quada as an organization (whether that makes any sense is a whole other tangent). During World War II, plenty of German-American citizens living in the US flue back to Germany and fought against American forces.

          So now a theoretically declared war against a poorly defined group of individuals is the same as a congressional deceleration of war against a sovereign nation?

          We didn't need due process to kill them on the battlefield. Whether you're an American citizen or not, if you're on foreign territory and pose a threat to our armed forces, there's not a large legal barrier to killing you.

          In a genuine time of war exceptions to due process are made. We are not at war. We are not at war with Yemen, yet American citizen Anwar al-Aulaqi was killed there by a drone strike because of the memo you support. He was considered to be a high ranking al-Qaeda agent.

          Two-weeks later is 16 year old son, Abdulrahman al-Aulaqi, was killed in similar air-strike. He too was an American citizen. He was traveling with a high ranking al-Qaeda agent, who was the actual target of the air strike. The strike was 'OKed" because Abdulrahman al-Aulaqi was considered to be a "military-age male."

          We are not at war. As a country we have lost our way. A secret memo is released and we justify why it is OK to kill Americans abroad without any due-process. We claim we want transparency, and yet accept secret memos. We accept killing of foreign men, woman, and child in countries in which we are not at war, because 'civilian causalities are low'.

          The President says "If We Can Just Save One Child..." we should give up are constitutional rights. According the Bureau of Investigative Journalism some 175 children have been killed by the drone program. What about saving just one of those lives? No, lets all attack the Bill of Rights when American children die, but programs that operate on the fringe of legality are OK because foreign children are not afforded the same protections.

          Does our hypocrisy as a country have any limits? Do we ever look around, and say WTF is wrong with us. Do we not believe our rights to be natural, and our government is unique in that it recognizes and protects those natural rights? And if we believe these rights natural are they not natural to all people? If natural to all, then shouldn't our government, a government that respects natural rights, also at a minimum respect the natural rights of people in foreign countries, US citizen or otherwise? Or are the principles upon which the country was founded, tied only to the earth on which it is rooted?

      • I agree. But due process would also require a lengthy ordeal to prove that they did the action that renounced their citizenship. Unless you want to skip that.

        Also, people are people and should be afforded the same fundamental rights whether American or otherwise. Why not make slaves of non-Americans? If we can kill non-Americans without due process, why not make slaves of them? This whole obsession with assassination of Americans (as if killing non-citizens is obviously alright) makes me very uncomfortable

  • by stoolpigeon (454276) * <bittercode@gmail> on Tuesday February 05, 2013 @12:00PM (#42797257) Homepage Journal

    I'd like to think that this is going to change or this leak will help but I've pretty much given up on that.

    Most people don't care and even if they did, they couldn't do anything. AND if they got to a position to do something I think they would become an imminent threat.

    • I think it's worse than that... they actually think that these killings are the proper way to deal with terrorists.Quite frankly, at this point, the American public deserves the authoritarian government, because they're actually clamoring for it. The Fox News crowd is just disappointed that the wrong guy is being authoritarian, and the anti-war crowd is so tiny to be pretty much irrelevant.

  • Impeachment (Score:5, Insightful)

    by C0R1D4N (970153) on Tuesday February 05, 2013 @12:02PM (#42797287)
    This calls for Impeachment and trial of everyone involved. It will not happen of course, because murder is not as big a deal as getting a blowjob from an intern.
    • Re:Impeachment (Score:5, Insightful)

      by GodfatherofSoul (174979) on Tuesday February 05, 2013 @12:06PM (#42797341)

      Impeachment might be seen as a serious option if it hadn't been brought up about a 100 times by partisans since 2008. "Wolf" has been cried too many times.

      • Re:Impeachment (Score:5, Insightful)

        by scubamage (727538) on Tuesday February 05, 2013 @12:23PM (#42797585)
        Sadly this is true. This would be a golden moment for the right side of the house to start flipping out. However, they've cried wolf too many times whining about socialism and birth certificates.
      • Re:Impeachment (Score:5, Insightful)

        by DerekLyons (302214) <fairwater AT gmail DOT com> on Tuesday February 05, 2013 @12:34PM (#42797769) Homepage

        Impeachment might be seen as a serious option if it hadn't been brought up about a 100 times by partisans since 2008. "Wolf" has been cried too many times.

        Since 2008? You've either been living in a cave or are wearing a seriously impervious set of bias blinders. It's been a favorite weapon of partisans since *at least* opening years (and the multiple scandals thereof) of the first Clinton Administration, and has only gotten worse since then. During the 2000-2008 Bush Administration, it was practically the only plank in the position of opposing partisans.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      The Clinton impeachment had nothing to do with "getting a blowjob from an intern". Clinton was impeached because he committed perjury, lying under oath.

      Any other American citizen that lied under oath would face imprisonment, why is he a special case? Why do you feel the need to trivialize it and make it seem like it was about something else, namely his infidelity?

      • Re:Impeachment (Score:5, Insightful)

        by thoth (7907) on Tuesday February 05, 2013 @01:17PM (#42798417) Journal

        Right... but the point is look at the investigative time and effort put into even putting Clinton is the position of being able to commit perjury.

        Then look at the similar effort put into bringing Cheney or Bush up for malfeasance concerning the Iraq War, exposing Plame as a CIA employee, hell any number of other things. Republicans so quick to crucify Clinton apparently lost their principles when it was their guys doing far worse.

      • Re:Impeachment (Score:5, Insightful)

        by dkleinsc (563838) on Tuesday February 05, 2013 @01:20PM (#42798483) Homepage

        Here are some presidential statements now known to be lies. Which one is the most serious crime? Which one is the least serious crime?

        1. "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky." (Body count: 0. US crimes committed: 0. War crimes committed: 0)
        2. "You must pursue this investigation of Watergate even if it leads to the president. I`m innocent." (Body count: 0. US crimes committed: several. War crimes committed: 0)
        3. "There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction." (Body count: 600000. US crimes committed: several. War crimes committed: several)

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by tgd (2822)

      This calls for Impeachment and trial of everyone involved. It will not happen of course, because murder is not as big a deal as getting a blowjob from an intern.

      Impeachment can only happen if a law has been broken, and US law explicitly grants those rights. If you don't like that, you need to contact your senators and representatives, and get them to propose a law changing that. And wait for it to happen. And you still couldn't impeach because *its not illegal right now*.

      Or you can just post bumbling stupidity on the Internet.

  • by TheCarp (96830) <sjc@caRASPrpanet.net minus berry> on Tuesday February 05, 2013 @12:04PM (#42797309) Homepage

    Then they have declared they can do whatever they want. If the standard is they just "determine" who is a member of al queda and whether there is some vague emminant danger, the big question is, who, either before or after the fact, has standing to question these determinations?

    If there is nobody who can bring this to court, and no way to have oversight, then this is nothing more than a declaration that Due Process is optional in their eyes and they can suspend it whenever they determine they have the need.... because assasination is de facto denial of due process.

    These standards should be considered criminally negligent.

    • by Loadmaster (720754) on Tuesday February 05, 2013 @12:14PM (#42797473) Homepage

      Good question. You should have brought it up when the legislation was passed in September 2001. Here's the applicable language from the Authorization to Use Military Forced (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.

      You see the "he determines?" The Obama administration didn't make that up, because it's currently valid law. And it will be valid law until it is defeated in court or repealed. Section (b) says the AUMF complies with the War Powers Act which is complete BS, and the AUMF in total is an over delegation of congressional power a la Chadha.

      But I don't make the rules.

      • Beat me to it. But yes, the rage over drone killings is nothing but rage against the wrong person wielding the power granted by Congress in the aftermath of 9/11.

  • by PPH (736903) on Tuesday February 05, 2013 @12:10PM (#42797393)

    1. The person who leaked this memo.
    .
    .
    .

  • by JayTech (935793) on Tuesday February 05, 2013 @12:13PM (#42797451)
    This doesn't surprise me considering how far removed the US government is from understanding her primary function - to protect her own citizens. What's to stop them from declaring a leader of a political movement as dangerous, having “recently” been involved in “activities” posing a threat of a violent attack - for example, declaring that the government has no right to interfere with private enterprises, or even supporting 2nd amendment rights?
  • incorrect leftist BS (Score:4, Interesting)

    by peter303 (12292) on Tuesday February 05, 2013 @12:14PM (#42797461)
    US citizens relinquished citizenship [cornell.edu] and due process if they joined an enemy army of the US, whether it was the Redcoats, Germans, or Al Cada.

    Its important to set clear boundaries. Joining the US Communist party or neo-nazis should not have had the same consquences because it never declared war on the US.
    Plus I am concerned about growing use of domestic drone technology like for the in the Alabama kidnapping this week. Only a short step to arm them.
    • by Loadmaster (720754) on Tuesday February 05, 2013 @12:30PM (#42797717) Homepage

      Well, sub-section 3 says "entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state" which Al Qaeda is not a foreign state. This is the same reason we keep detainees in Quantanamo instead of prisoners of war or prisoners. The Bush administration claimed they weren't enemy combatants because they didn't fight for a foreign state (standardized uniform and all that). Number 7 is more applicable, because it allows citizenship to be stripped for "bearing arms against the United States." However, section (b) states that the burden to prove loss of citizenship is on the party claiming the loss not on the supposed, um, loser. That's basic due process. Essentially if the government said he was no longer a citizen they have to prove it first.

    • Wait wait wait - it's leftist BS to argue that drone killings are unconstitutional? You might want to inform Fox News and the entire set of commentators on there that they're now just one hair short of growing a Lenin mustache and singing The International.

    • So does the Govt have to prove the said person did whatever they did which led to their relinquishing citizenship?

  • by 140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) on Tuesday February 05, 2013 @12:15PM (#42797485) Journal
    This is the country that sings "Land of the free and home of the brave". Talk about second amendment and the right/duty of the citizens to guard against tyranny. Then we go to our airports to be gate raped by TSA agents. The lunacy of the procedure is beyond comprehension. There was a picture of a returning war veteran removing his belt and boots to place on the conveyor belt, while a friendly smiling helpful TSA agent was holding his service rifle for him. The stupidity of the situation seemed to escaped both of them.
  • by Spectre (1685) on Tuesday February 05, 2013 @12:17PM (#42797511)

    My experience has been that whenever this comes up in conversation with actual adults who, while not brilliant, are not stupid either ... they get this dismissive look on their face. It is obvious they are thinking "oh, you are one of those conspiracy nuts, there is no way this could be real".

    Most people don't believe this has actually happened.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by medv4380 (1604309)
      No, some of them that look isn't "there is no way this could be real". It's more like "are you really so nieve to believe this isn't how all countries run. Even Democracies". Are you honestly trying to convince people that "The South" had all the rights of US Citizens during the Civil War? Because that's the only logical conclusion of your argument. If you are in a state of Rebellion against the Government ether by Joining Al-qaeda, or the Confederacy you shouldn't be too surprised if the Government, Milit
  • Yet another reason (Score:4, Insightful)

    by no-body (127863) on Tuesday February 05, 2013 @12:44PM (#42797903)
    for much of the rest of world to think that US is going even more nuts:

    a - murdering with drones, collateral murders don't matter, no court system/laws involved, no war declared (endless war), getting more pissed off, keep the mill going

    b - TSA shows at airports

    c - 2-class humans - NON-Americans, Americans perceived as arrogant/bullies,

    (leaving the Israel/nuclear/Iran next theater show out)
  • Confederates (Score:4, Insightful)

    by HighOrbit (631451) on Tuesday February 05, 2013 @12:58PM (#42798111)
    This is all nonsense. By most people's reckoning and the US Government's own declaration, every Confederate killed at Antietem or Gettysburg was a US Citizen. By what legal authority did the Federal Government kill them? Shall the ACLU and their decendents sue the Government for killing them without due process?

    Oh wait.. they were in open rebellion and waging war against the Republic. Citizens who join Al-Qeda are in open rebellion and are waging war against the Republic. The simple fact is, when you join the enemy and wage war, you can be killed. War is War. No convoluted legal reasoning is needed to kill the enemy in war. If you think otherwise, your mind is clouded with nonsense and you are lost in non-reality.
  • by rs1n (1867908) on Tuesday February 05, 2013 @01:05PM (#42798209)
    As the title suggests, please read the fucking article (PDF, not the lame NBC summary), for fuck's sake, before commenting. Let me quote from the very first paragraph for those too lazy:

    Here the Department of Justice concludes only that where the following three conditions are met, a US operation using lethal force in a foreign country against a US citizen who is a senior operational leader of al-Qa'ida or an associated force would be lawful;

    This is not a memo on how to "assassinate" just any US citizen. Rather, it is a memo on how when lethal force can be applied to a "citizen gone bad" if you will -- if one could even call "a senior operational leader of al-Qa'ida or an associated force" a US citizen (see: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1481 [cornell.edu]). What's really sad is that the memo is plastered with the NBC logo all over, making it hard to read. Given this, and the apparently lack of reading comprehension and cherry picking of words, it seems NBC was too eager to up their readership with bold claims of assassinations of US citizens.

    • by moeinvt (851793) on Tuesday February 05, 2013 @01:48PM (#42798911)

      I say that YOU are a senior operational leader of al-Qa'ida or an associated force (like WikiLeaks, Anonymous, OWS or some other evil group plotting against Western economic interests).

      Want to see the evidence against you? Sorry
      Want your lawyer? Sorry
      Want a trial before a jury of your peers? Sorry
      BOOM!

      In our Constitutional Republic it is illegal for the government to murder people simply because of the command of some bureaucrat. What the government "believes" about an accused "terrorist" could easily be based on false or fabricated evidence. That's why the government brings their evidence before a grand jury and IF an indictment is issued, the accused has a right to confront the evidence against them in a court of law.

      If the government thinks they have enough evidence to KILL someone, surely they could get a damned indictment!

      This is an impeachable offense. Too bad that there isn't a shred of integrity left in Washington DC.

The test of intelligent tinkering is to save all the parts. -- Aldo Leopold

Working...