100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Anwar al-Aulaqi Killed in Yemen | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sat 10/01/11 09:54 AM
|
|
IT seems the CIA has a kill or capture list that appears to be legal and also be possible for the president to sign off on to add names to the CIA target list are "all reviewed carefully, not just by policy people but by attorneys," said the second U.S. official. "Principles like necessity, proportionality, and the minimization of collateral damage -- to persons and property -- always apply." The memos proposing new targets are drafted by analysts in the CIA's Counter-Terrorism Center. Former officials said analysts typically submit several new names each month to high-level officials, including the CIA general counsel and sometimes Director Leon E. Panetta. Former officials involved in the program said it was handled with sober awareness of the stakes. All memos are circulated on paper, so those granting approval would "have to write their names in ink," said one former official. "It was a jarring thing, to sign off on people getting killed." The program is governed by extensive procedures and rules, but targeting decisions come down to a single criterion: whether the individual in question is "deemed to be a continuing threat to U.S. persons or interests." The list is scrutinized every six months, officials said, and in some cases names are removed if the intelligence on them has grown stale. "If someone hadn't popped on the screen for over a year, or there was no intelligence linking him to known terrorists or plans, we'd take him off," the former official said. The National Security Council oversees the program, which is based on a legal finding signed after the Sept. 11 attacks by then-President George W. Bush. But the CIA is given extensive latitude to execute the program, and generally does not need White House approval when adding names to the target list. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2034158 "appears to be legal" the memos authorizing waterboarding appeared to be legal as well. it is funny how lawyers can make just about anything appear legal. but in the end it doesn't matter what the lawyers say it matters what the courts say. when courts start allowing a president to determine when American citizens can be killed without a trial, we are in serious trouble. those are the kind of powers afforded tyrants. and one day a tyrant may decide that what you believe is treason. I disagree, in terms of consistency. If someone is a 'terrorist' towards america, the fact they are american should not get them off the hook anymore than a murderer being a cop should get him off the hook and I hope treason is not decided by a tyrant but by a lengthy investigation and information that leads to actual PLOTS and CALLS upon others to attack america and americans if anything, perhaps MORE should be expected from americans, and soldiers, and cops and thus harsher punitive consequences shown to them,,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Texas Rangers have been killing bad guys since 1823. This post wasn't meant to be a joke. It is quite true. Bonnie and Clyde were good examples of vermin that just needed a bullet. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IT seems the CIA has a kill or capture list that appears to be legal and also be possible for the president to sign off on to add names to the CIA target list are "all reviewed carefully, not just by policy people but by attorneys," said the second U.S. official. "Principles like necessity, proportionality, and the minimization of collateral damage -- to persons and property -- always apply." The memos proposing new targets are drafted by analysts in the CIA's Counter-Terrorism Center. Former officials said analysts typically submit several new names each month to high-level officials, including the CIA general counsel and sometimes Director Leon E. Panetta. Former officials involved in the program said it was handled with sober awareness of the stakes. All memos are circulated on paper, so those granting approval would "have to write their names in ink," said one former official. "It was a jarring thing, to sign off on people getting killed." The program is governed by extensive procedures and rules, but targeting decisions come down to a single criterion: whether the individual in question is "deemed to be a continuing threat to U.S. persons or interests." The list is scrutinized every six months, officials said, and in some cases names are removed if the intelligence on them has grown stale. "If someone hadn't popped on the screen for over a year, or there was no intelligence linking him to known terrorists or plans, we'd take him off," the former official said. The National Security Council oversees the program, which is based on a legal finding signed after the Sept. 11 attacks by then-President George W. Bush. But the CIA is given extensive latitude to execute the program, and generally does not need White House approval when adding names to the target list. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2034158 "appears to be legal" the memos authorizing waterboarding appeared to be legal as well. it is funny how lawyers can make just about anything appear legal. but in the end it doesn't matter what the lawyers say it matters what the courts say. when courts start allowing a president to determine when American citizens can be killed without a trial, we are in serious trouble. those are the kind of powers afforded tyrants. and one day a tyrant may decide that what you believe is treason. Waterboarding is and was legal! 
They are so discutsting I wouldnt dare post them here. If you have the stomach for it here is the link. http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444 Rather horrible isnt it that the more we fight terror the more reasones we give the terrroist to hate us. This country has lost its collective mind. I am ashamed to call myself an american. Waterboarding is not torture. Try again. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IT seems the CIA has a kill or capture list that appears to be legal and also be possible for the president to sign off on to add names to the CIA target list are "all reviewed carefully, not just by policy people but by attorneys," said the second U.S. official. "Principles like necessity, proportionality, and the minimization of collateral damage -- to persons and property -- always apply." The memos proposing new targets are drafted by analysts in the CIA's Counter-Terrorism Center. Former officials said analysts typically submit several new names each month to high-level officials, including the CIA general counsel and sometimes Director Leon E. Panetta. Former officials involved in the program said it was handled with sober awareness of the stakes. All memos are circulated on paper, so those granting approval would "have to write their names in ink," said one former official. "It was a jarring thing, to sign off on people getting killed." The program is governed by extensive procedures and rules, but targeting decisions come down to a single criterion: whether the individual in question is "deemed to be a continuing threat to U.S. persons or interests." The list is scrutinized every six months, officials said, and in some cases names are removed if the intelligence on them has grown stale. "If someone hadn't popped on the screen for over a year, or there was no intelligence linking him to known terrorists or plans, we'd take him off," the former official said. The National Security Council oversees the program, which is based on a legal finding signed after the Sept. 11 attacks by then-President George W. Bush. But the CIA is given extensive latitude to execute the program, and generally does not need White House approval when adding names to the target list. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2034158 "appears to be legal" the memos authorizing waterboarding appeared to be legal as well. it is funny how lawyers can make just about anything appear legal. but in the end it doesn't matter what the lawyers say it matters what the courts say. when courts start allowing a president to determine when American citizens can be killed without a trial, we are in serious trouble. those are the kind of powers afforded tyrants. and one day a tyrant may decide that what you believe is treason. Waterboarding is and was legal!
They are so discutsting I wouldnt dare post them here. If you have the stomach for it here is the link. http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444 Rather horrible isnt it that the more we fight terror the more reasones we give the terrroist to hate us. This country has lost its collective mind. I am ashamed to call myself an american. Waterboarding is not torture. Try again. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IT seems the CIA has a kill or capture list that appears to be legal and also be possible for the president to sign off on to add names to the CIA target list are "all reviewed carefully, not just by policy people but by attorneys," said the second U.S. official. "Principles like necessity, proportionality, and the minimization of collateral damage -- to persons and property -- always apply." The memos proposing new targets are drafted by analysts in the CIA's Counter-Terrorism Center. Former officials said analysts typically submit several new names each month to high-level officials, including the CIA general counsel and sometimes Director Leon E. Panetta. Former officials involved in the program said it was handled with sober awareness of the stakes. All memos are circulated on paper, so those granting approval would "have to write their names in ink," said one former official. "It was a jarring thing, to sign off on people getting killed." The program is governed by extensive procedures and rules, but targeting decisions come down to a single criterion: whether the individual in question is "deemed to be a continuing threat to U.S. persons or interests." The list is scrutinized every six months, officials said, and in some cases names are removed if the intelligence on them has grown stale. "If someone hadn't popped on the screen for over a year, or there was no intelligence linking him to known terrorists or plans, we'd take him off," the former official said. The National Security Council oversees the program, which is based on a legal finding signed after the Sept. 11 attacks by then-President George W. Bush. But the CIA is given extensive latitude to execute the program, and generally does not need White House approval when adding names to the target list. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2034158 "appears to be legal" the memos authorizing waterboarding appeared to be legal as well. it is funny how lawyers can make just about anything appear legal. but in the end it doesn't matter what the lawyers say it matters what the courts say. when courts start allowing a president to determine when American citizens can be killed without a trial, we are in serious trouble. those are the kind of powers afforded tyrants. and one day a tyrant may decide that what you believe is treason. I disagree, in terms of consistency. If someone is a 'terrorist' towards america, the fact they are american should not get them off the hook anymore than a murderer being a cop should get him off the hook and I hope treason is not decided by a tyrant but by a lengthy investigation and information that leads to actual PLOTS and CALLS upon others to attack america and americans if anything, perhaps MORE should be expected from americans, and soldiers, and cops and thus harsher punitive consequences shown to them,,,,, you are attempting to redefine treason. if there was no conviction for treason based on what the constitution says there needs to be then it isn't treason. there should be no presumption that a certain person or group receive anything other than is provided by the law. that is why there are laws. so people can't go around arbitrarily assassinating people. do you want us to go back to the days of posses and lynch mobs? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, if it's WWII, and an American joins the German Army, does the Constitution allow him to be killed?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, if it's WWII, and an American joins the German Army, does the Constitution allow him to be killed? Any soldier fighting in uniform for a country which has signed the Geneva Convention treaty has to be treated a certain way if captured. However, before capture or surrender, any combatant can be killed by any legal method at any time. Nukes are OK, mustard gas is not. The citizenship of a combatant is meaningless other than special deals one country may make with another. The uniform issue is big. If a combatant is out of uniform, they can be treated as a spy and shot. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, if it's WWII, and an American joins the German Army, does the Constitution allow him to be killed? Any soldier fighting in uniform for a country which has signed the Geneva Convention treaty has to be treated a certain way if captured. However, before capture or surrender, any combatant can be killed by any legal method at any time. Nukes are OK, mustard gas is not. The citizenship of a combatant is meaningless other than special deals one country may make with another. The uniform issue is big. If a combatant is out of uniform, they can be treated as a spy and shot. If they are fighting and trying to kill Americans or allies then well... Sure. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sets a dangerous precedent!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nah. It has long been our policy to defend ourselves from any and all who threaten us with deadly force whether they were once US citizens or not.
It is nothing new. |
|
|
|
|
