Chilling legal memo from Obama DOJ justifies assassination of US citizens

The president's partisan lawyers purport to vest him with the most extreme power a political leader can seize

The most extremist power any political leader can assert is the power to target his own citizens for execution without any charges or due process, far from any battlefield. The Obama administration has not only asserted exactly that power in theory, but has exercised it in practice. In September 2011, it killed US citizen Anwar Awlaki in a drone strike in Yemen, along with US citizen Samir Khan, and then, in circumstances that are still unexplained, two weeks later killed Awlaki's 16-year-old American son Abdulrahman with a separate drone strike in Yemen.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/05/obama-kill-list-doj-memo

This is an extremely interesting post and I glad I didn't miss it as the basic theme is one of my pet peeves. Not the drone strikes but the methodology that allows it to happen.

First this trait extends all the way back to the beginning, in fact it is included in the Constitution, Article 1, Section 9, Item 8...

"No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."

But there was a problem that was recognized by the founders, there was no penalty for anyone in violation of the article. So there came The Original Thirteenth Article of Amendment To The Constitution For The United States. But before the 13th and final state could ratify in it's turn the amendment, there came the War of 1812. Now Virginia did ratify on March 18, 1819 but now the rules changed and by some fortuitous incident, all the papers were burned during the burning of Washington by the British.

So how does this really apply? Or does anyone really care?

It's hard for me to get all riled up over the death of a guy hiding with terrorists in Yemen, when he helped others plan attacks on so many Americans. But in your mind we should have just waited for Awlaki to answer subpoenas or lawyer up for his "due process?" Care to explain how you think the US should've dealt with him?

Looks like you're just mad that a Democrat did it.

Easy, pretend its you.

I never even implied that our government can do no wrong. However, weighing Al-Awlaki recruiting more terrorists and all the evil they will do, versus the ease of lobbing a single hellfire missile at that joker looks a hell of a lot easier than declaring war and even invading yet another country. Awlaki was asking for it and he got it.

But go ahead and humor us, alnewman. What would you rather do about it? Are you just another Con bitching and moaning about President Obama either doing too much or not enough and either too soon or too late--whichever makes him seem worse?

I don't disagree with you here, Americans can be terrorists too...

Was wondering when the Sheeples would come back!
But it is quite a nice Piccie,though!

So you don't believe in the Constitution and Bill of Rights..... but Awalaki is the terrorist? And his 16 yr old son and his friends at the BBQ?

Secret courts are a good thing in America now? Hitlers Germany thought so too.....and many agreed.

You liberals amaze me! You want your rights but will quickly take them from others at your whim if you disagree with them..... and call it justice, or right. Like droning a 16 yr old kid and his friends, or a wedding party in a foreign nation is sanity, and just!

Why is Hanoi Jane still alive and prospering under that way of thinking? She did the same thing or worse, and liberals want to laud her with awards and praise instead of a drone up her azz!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVdvoCIM8ak#t=278