America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Someone Just Leaked Obama's Rules for Assassinating American Citizens Mike Riggs | Feb. 4, 2013 9:36 pm

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.

Michael Isikoff reports that

[t]he 16-page memo, a copy of which was obtained by NBC News, provides new details about the legal reasoning behind one of the Obama administration’s most secretive and controversial polices: its dramatically increased use of drone strikes against al-Qaida suspects, including those aimed at American citizens, such as the September 2011 strike in Yemen that killed alleged al-Qaida operatives Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan. Both were U.S. citizens who had never been indicted by the U.S. government nor charged with any crimes.

[T]he confidential Justice Department “white paper” introduces a more expansive definition of self-defense or imminent attack than described by Brennan or Holder in their public speeches. It refers, for example, to what it calls a “broader concept of imminence” than actual intelligence about any ongoing plot against the U.S. homeland.

Instead, it says, an “informed, high-level” official of the U.S. government may determine that the targeted American has been “recently” involved in “activities” posing a threat of a violent attack and “there is no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities.” The memo does not define “recently” or “activities.”

Dey be sayin' "roll me a bigg phattie an twist mes up in it"...lick lick lick..."who gonna spark dis up in da hizzy?"

That's what the paper is sayin Special K!

And throw their sorry asses in Guantanamo FOREVER!


They got no rights...over there...here...screw 'em!

Until they take out uncle Fred...then the water works start and it's a national call to arms.

We can all see just how wonderful the Patriot Act worked out...no? Homeland Security?

Feeling better yet? Safer?

You're not.

Ah...yes...the ol' John Wayne...DEAD or ALIVE...yes...has a dramatic flair about it...sounds macho and absolute. Why if you dare ask a question well they'll throw YOU up against the wall screaming "You're either with us or against us"...yes...now where have I heard this before?

Tellin' ya...it just never works out. Used to be a time when being a US citizen meant you had certain freedoms...liberties...sigh...those were the days.

You Robert are fine with one man deciding a US citizen can be murdered without trial?

Obama is the deciderer.

Victor the website has a link for the entire doc.

NBC leaked the document.

Hey you are going to process and think what you want, just thought it was interesting.

Sorry. I just couldn't find anything on NBC's website about this but I was able to find multiple Blog sites with the info.

Really I don't care if US Citizens who associate with known terrorists are snuffed out in a military operation.

If they truly are guilty I agree.


But who is deciding that and based off of whose information at what threshold is that decision made.

And secondly is that whole process constitutional?

do terrorist have insurance..??
would suck to be their agent now.....

So...now the 6th Amendment is under attack?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution


This by the MOST transparent administration evah!

I think this is a bad idea as well, much like waterboarding. I think most in here will say one is ok theother is not based on their politics. Apparently it was presented to the Senate (in some form). I think we have two branches of the tree that are willing to bend things to fit their needs. Maybe all three.

+1000

.
Ron Paul is blaming foreign wars for the death of ex-Navy sniper Chris Kyle at a Texas gun range.

Never one to hold his tongue about U.S. military policy, the former congressman and presidential candidate caused a bit of controversy this week by tweeting that ex-Navy SEAL Chris Kyle, who was shot and killed at a gun range in Texas, had lived "by the sword" and died by it.

Chris Kyle's death seems to confirm that "he who lives by the sword dies by the sword." Treating PTSD at a firing range doesn't make sense

- Ron Paul (@RonPaul) February 4, 2013

Kyle was shot and killed Sunday, allegedly by a 25-year-old Iraq veteran. Kyle was the author of "American Sniper" and, with more than 150 kills, was the deadliest sniper in U.S. history when he left the military in 2009.

After receiving some criticism on Twitter, Paul, 77, later clarified his comment on Facebook, posing Kyle's death as an unintended consequence of "unconstitutional and unnecessary wars." On Monday evening, Paul posted the following note:

As a veteran, I certainly recognize that this weekend's violence and killing of Chris Kyle were a tragic and sad event. My condolences and prayers go out to Mr. Kyle's family. Unconstitutional and unnecessary wars have endless unintended consequences. A policy of non-violence, as Christ preached, would have prevented this and similar tragedies. -REP

Paul has vocally opposed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as unwarranted and unconstitutional. In his two recent presidential runs, Paul warned repeatedly of the consequences of America's wars and global military presence, citing the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks as blowback from U.S. foreign intervention.

I love this.

Certain people here were bleeding out their eyeballs that terrorists were being "tortured" by pouring water on their faces, and phone calls to places outside this country were being monitored. Now citizens - CITIZENS - of the United States traveling outside this country are being summarialy executed without due process, and without trial. The response by the same people mentioned above? Ho Humm.

The former were terrorists, not covered AT ALL by the Geneva Convention, and were no better than meat byproducts is captured. The latter have rights grated to them by their citizenship status.

It is little wonder why a Idi Amin wannabe is still in the Oval Office...

Well...
Ya gotta break a few eggs to make an omelette

A few legal precedents and a few more fringe wackos killing people and we could realistically be living in a nightmare world, with no privacy, no property rights, no guns, no freedom of assembly, and only the illusion of freedom of speech left.