This PDF from Obama's DOJ that says it's ok for him to kill Americans without charge

[Happy Face 29]

PDF available to read in full here....

 

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf

 

It's been known for years, but with the leak of official documentation to confirm it, always good to be reminded....

 

1. Equates government accusation with guilt

assassinations are justified when "an informed, high-level official of the US government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the US"

 

2. Creates a ceiling, not a floor

"This paper does not attempt to determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful." Instead, as the last line of the memo states: "it concludes only that the stated conditions would be sufficient to make lawful a lethal operation" - not that such conditions are necessary to find these assassinations legal.

 

3. Relies on the core Bush/Cheney theory of a global battlefield

Anyone on a battlefield can be killed or imprisoned without charges....the whole world is a battlefield.

 

4. Expands the concept of "imminence" beyond recognition

the memo expressly states that it is inventing "a broader concept of imminence" than is typically used in domestic law. Specifically, the president's assassination power "does not require that the US have clear evidence that a specific attack . . . will take place in the immediate future"

 

5. Converts Obama underlings into objective courts

This memo is not a judicial opinion. It was not written by anyone independent of the president. To the contrary, it was written by life-long partisan lackeys.

 

6. Mocks "due process"

"while the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of due process applied, it could be satisfied by internal deliberations in the executive branch." or as Stephen Colbert put it "first the president meets with his advisers and decides who he can kill. Then he kills them."

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/05/obama-kill-list-doj-memo

 

But he says they'll have a look at gun laws at some point, hurrah for Obama.

[Happy Face 29]

Was also interested to read the reports about the worldwide system of torture that was implemented.

 

54 nations complicit one way or another. A quarter of the nations in the world.

 

 

The 54 governments identified in this report span the continents of Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe, and North America, and include: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Egypt, Ethiopia, Finland, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jordan, Kenya, Libya, Lithuania, Macedonia, Malawi, Malaysia, Mauritania, Morocco, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Uzbekistan, Yemen, and Zimbabwe.

 

 

http://www.thenation.com/article/172669/fifty-four-nations-are-implicated-cia-torture-scheme#

 

Only one (Canada) has admitted it and apologised.

[Toonpack 10384]

Some of my right wing leaning US chums use this very argument to defend their gun ownership, that and the fact that homeland security (who's remit is solely within the borders) have ordered several million rounds of hollow point ammo, which is an illegal round and not even used by the military.

[Happy Face 29]

Some of my right wing leaning US chums use this very argument to defend their gun ownership, that and the fact that homeland security (who's remit is solely within the borders) have ordered several million rounds of hollow point ammo, which is an illegal round and not even used by the military.

 

I'll bet they favoured gun ownership before America started assassinating citizens too though.

 

Their Uzi will be ineffective when they're practising on the range and a drone controlled from hundreds of miles away wipes them out.

[Toonpack 10384]

I'll bet they favoured gun ownership before America started assassinating citizens too though.

 

Their Uzi will be ineffective when they're practising on the range and a drone controlled from hundreds of miles away wipes them out.

 

Oh they do, and did, (mainly because they hunt) or rather they had guns and never gave it a thought, guns were a day to day fact of life, but the current/recent government policies have reawakened their spouting of the second (or whichever it is) amendment, and the right to bear arms against oppression by the state or government bit.

 

None of them own Uzi's btw (responsible gun owners don't) and I appreciate the drone bit, but this type of legislation/law is a strong argument handed on a plate in the defence of a right to bear arms.

Edited February 7, 2013 by Toonpack

[ewerk 31580]

They reckon that they can overthrow the government with their combined arsenal?

[Happy Face 29]

Oh they do, and did, (mainly because they hunt) or rather they had guns and never gave it a thought, guns were a day to day fact of life, but the current/recent government policies have reawakened their spouting of the second (or whichever it is) amendment, and the right to bear arms against oppression by the state or government bit.

 

None of them own Uzi's btw (responsible gun owners don't) and I appreciate the drone bit, but this type of legislation/law is a strong argument handed on a plate in the defence of a right to bear arms.

 

It's a centuries old defense of a centuries old law. You might as well argue that private sword ownership will be used to overthrow the government.

[sniffer 0]

I have no problem with torture when the means justifies the ends. I find it hard to believe that there is not a drug available to that will facilitate the process.

 

Its not that difficult to envisage a situation where I'd be surprised that anybody would be unwilling to use any means at their disposal to get information.

[Happy Face 29]

I have no problem with torture when the means justifies the ends. I find it hard to believe that there is not a drug available to that will facilitate the process.

 

Its not that difficult to envisage a situation where I'd be surprised that anybody would be unwilling to use any means at their disposal to get information.

 

If only Saddam Hussein had you to defend him in his trial. He would have been pleased to have such a staunch supporter of his torture regime.

[sniffer 0]

So you cannot envisage a situation in which you need information from somebody and you'd be willing to use any means available?

[Happy Face 29]

So you cannot envisage a situation in which you need information from somebody and you'd be willing to use any means available?

 

Of course. I can envisage situations where I personally might murder, or steal, or smoke a doobie too.

 

That's irrelevant to their legality and whether governments of the world should set-up a sophisticated system to industrialise it.

[sniffer 0]

Call it what you like, legal,illegal,immoral. At the end of the day,as I said, the end justifies the means.

 

I'd like to live in a perfect world as well.

[ewerk 31580]

Call it what you like, legal,illegal,immoral. At the end of the day,as I said, the end justifies the means.

 

What if it doesn't though? What if the person being tortured is the wrong guy or genuinely isn't hiding anything?

[sniffer 0]

As I said, its not a perfect world.

 

You can only minimize the errors and move on. Do I like it? No. But do I see a need for it? Unfortunately, yes.

[ewerk 31580]

Why minimise errors though? There's no oversight so why bother taking any care?