Reply With Quote
Hmm.. I wonder who created that policy...
But I digress. This administration is certainly guilty of following that path.
Only with permission from higher-ups though.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...an-terrorists/
'Permission' needed to kill U.S. terrorists
The U.S. intelligence community policy on killing American citizens who have joined al Qaeda requires first obtaining high-level government approval, a senior official disclosed to Congress on Wednesday. Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair said in each case a decision to use lethal force against a U.S. citizen must get special permission.
"We take direct actions against terrorists in the intelligence community," he said. "If we think that direct action will involve killing an American, we get specific permission to do that."
He also said there are criteria that must be met to authorize the killing of a U.S. citizen that include "whether that American is involved in a group that is trying to attack us, whether that American is a threat to other Americans. Those are the factors involved."
Rep. Peter Hoekstra, Michigan Republican and ranking member of the House intelligence committee, asked Mr. Blair about the policy of targeting American citizens at a hearing. It was the first time there was public discussion about one of the most sensitive U.S. counterterrorism policies.
More:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/gl...ald/index.html
Hmm.. I wonder who created that policy...
But I digress. This administration is certainly guilty of following that path.
Another couple questions: Are we going to feign outrage now? Isn't this what we were told is needed to keep America secure?
Who's feigning outrage?
Yeah, just more politely. No reason to not state it's wrong though.
Some of us stated it was wrong back in 2006 when it was enacted... This is really old news. Where were you then?
Actually, this is the first time I've heard of this particular policy.
Once an American citizen is declared a enemy combatant, everything is fair game. There's supposed to be a higher standard for American citizens, but it's still pretty arbitrary.Actually, this is the first time I've heard of this particular policy.
Obviously, a lot of this stuff was swept under the "Protect America" rug, and that's probably why you missed it.
What's the big deal?
CIA doesn't obey any laws anyway.
They get away with murder.
In the same place I am today. What's the point of this? Focus on what is said, not on who says it, if you allow an advise.
I think it's obvious that a White House official admitting it so blatantly and candidly is news.
Btw, I liked Pete Hoekstra questions. He raises a very important question.
Oh , I remember the bill now. What I hadn't put together was the logical extension of the policy...ie enemy combatant is now a legit target.
I'm curious about something here. It seems that the assassination/killing of American citizen's who are engaged in acts of war against the USA is wrong. And if I'm not mistaken Al-Qaeda's goal is the destruction of the USA and most likely all first world countires and the establishment of a world ruled by Islamic fundamentalism. Would it stand to reason that these American citizens are commitiing treason? Or maybe I have misunderstood. I understand that this country is based on the rule of law and it would be preferable that an American citizen, under normal cir stances, be captured and then tried in a court of law. But it seems that normal cir stances don't prevail and other means are neccessary. I don't see the distinction between a non American Al-Qaeda member and an American Al-Qaeda one. Both are engaged in war agianst the USA and thereby military targets.
In the opinion of others is this a slippery slope leading to ... what?
Just trying to understand other points of view.
Merely commenting on the rather old news contained in the article. I thought that's why you posted it?
I posted it because I found Blair's testimony, which happened yesterday, rather extraordinary. The same reason Greenwald and others are writing about it, I suppose. .
Forgive our callousness, mogrovejo, once the USA became objectively pro-torture, a lot of other niceties went out the window, or soon will.
There were never any niceties. Only myths about America The Beautiful, Blessed by God, First and Holiest Among Nations.
That's one way to save us the hassle of trying the case in court. Just kill the guy.
Don't habeas and privacy count?There were never any niceties. Only myths about America The Beautiful, Blessed by God, First and Holiest Among Nations.
Why do you hate this country so much? Those CIA guys - they're doing what they're doing to keep your whiny little ass alive.
Get a clue.
That the terrorists are targeting boutons is wishful thinking, perhaps.
Thank you, Aggie.
Why do you hate this country so much? Those CIA guys - they're doing what they're doing to keep your whiny little ass alive.
Get a clue.
I think this argument made by Greenwald (link provided in the OP) is well constructed:
That minimal safeguard would be essential, IMO. The question Congressman Hoekstra raises may seem far-fetched, but that's exactly the kind of occurrence that justifies the existence of a check&balances system. Paraphrasing Madison, if men were angel things would be much simpler.Would be perverse in the extreme, but wouldn't it be preferable to at least require the President to demonstrate to a court that probable cause exists to warrant the assassination of an American citizen before the President should be allowed to order it? That would basically mean that courts would issue "assassination warrants" or "murder warrants" -- a repugnant idea given that they're tantamount to imposing the death sentence without a trial -- but isn't that minimal safeguard preferable to allowing the President unchecked authority to do it on his own, the very power he has now claimed for himself?
There's nothing wrong with the extrajudicial assassination of American citizens, so long as the state claims they were terrerestssss.
Well put
so what's the problem?f we have to take someone down..then we take them down
We are pro-torture? When did this happen?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
