Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Leaked: Obama's Rules For Assassinating American Citizens

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the how-much-different-were-the-previous-tenants'-rules? dept.

The Military 800

cathyreisenwitz writes "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." Spencer Ackerman at Wired says the leaked rules "[trump] traditional Constitutional protections American citizens enjoy from being killed by their government without due process" by redefining the concept of "imminence."

cancel ×

800 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Oh, the surprise. (5, Insightful)

gestalt_n_pepper (991155) | about a year and a half ago | (#42797243)

Governments involved in clandestine assassinations. Who would have thought? And of course, it only happens in other countries, to Al Qaeda and the like. Surely. Oh, and if you believe this, I have a bridge or two I can sell you....

Re:Oh, the surprise. (5, Insightful)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#42797297)

Yeah, but it's no longer 'clandestine'. We can do it out in the open in broad daylight, and nobody will raise a finger to stop it.

Your best bet is to (2, Insightful)

mozumder (178398) | about a year and a half ago | (#42797541)

obey the government, and work within the system to gain power. Don't bother trying to overthrow the Matrix.

The US Government, like all governments, has the exact same power structure as any other government, and that is: the strong get to rule over the weak.

You freedom-loving libertarians need to understand this concept. It really is a flaw among you libertarians to think that you somehow live in a "free" country. No, you do NOT live in a free country. You never have. Try breaking a law, and see how much freedom you have.

You're better off accepting that you have no power, rather than thinking you have any sort of power under a democracy. The key is, if you accepted how powerless you were, you would form different methods of gaining power, instead of through silly methods such as through the 2nd amendment, which was designed to help government control you...

Nobody at this point actually thinks their pathetic handgun is going to protect them against tyranny by a government armed with SWAT teams, drones, and nuclear missiles, do they? And their power was actually demonstrated via a civil war where Gen. Sherman burnt down half the south to clear out the rebellious traitors..

It really is shameful that Americans are taught that they have any sort of power, and it's sad seeing them come to the conclusion that they actually don't. The "freedom"-loving libertarian's ego is apparently the hardest thing to destroy, but it must be destroyed for them to actually gain real freedom and power.

Again, we have to make sure people understand that American do NOT have freedom, and that any attempt to make it look that way is the powerful attempting to control the weak by giving the weak an illusion of power.

Re:Your best bet is to (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42797807)

You know what I'm liking it the way you're thinking about it.

Cheers!

Re:Oh, the surprise. (4, Insightful)

Remus Shepherd (32833) | about a year and a half ago | (#42797483)

Governments involved in clandestine assassinations against their own citizens is a fairly rare and outrageous event in a democracy, I assure you.

I'd think it would be easier to issue a presidential edict saying that anyone who swears allegiance to Al Qaeda also renounces their American citizenship. Then you can kill them as foreign enemies without compunction. I don't know why they'd go to all this trouble to justify killing Americans, unless they wanted the ability to do it on a larger scale.

Re:Oh, the surprise. (2, Interesting)

DJ Jones (997846) | about a year and a half ago | (#42797599)

I'm not supporting Obama's policy but I don't think this is as evil as everyone is making it out to be. Our country is theoretically "at war" with Al Quada as an organization (whether that makes any sense is a whole other tangent). During World War II, plenty of German-American citizens living in the US flue back to Germany and fought against American forces. We didn't need due process to kill them on the battlefield. Whether you're an American citizen or not, if you're on foreign territory and pose a threat to our armed forces, there's not a large legal barrier to killing you.

Re:Oh, the surprise. (-1)

anagama (611277) | about a year and a half ago | (#42797711)

This memo is saying that you do NOT have to be in a foreign country nor on a battlefield and that imminent does not mean that you are engaging in attack preparations. So just about every part of your basis is lacking.

Serriously, give a word like "imminent" to lawyers and they'll argue we're on the doorstep of cold fusion.

Re:Oh, the surprise. (3, Insightful)

crakbone (860662) | about a year and a half ago | (#42797803)

There is a difference in actively moving in an armed group and aggressive tactics toward a front line and never committing a crime and being guilty for what you feel is right. In Germany you had people actively picking up arms against the US. In the drone strikes you had people actively driving or riding in a car. And while I hold no affinity for Al Qaeda I feel its treasonous for government official to kill a US citizen without a proper trial.

Re:Oh, the surprise. (1, Informative)

watice (1347709) | about a year and a half ago | (#42797581)

huh? The assassinations DID happen in other countries, to Al Qaeda & the like. RTFA? Hell, the memo title should be a huge clue! "Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen who is a Senior Operational Leader of Al Qa’ida or An Associated Force"

Enemies can be citizens or non-citizens (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42797771)

Precisely! I'm no fan of Obama, but it's a travesty that of all the enemy combatants at Gitmo, the Yemeni who happened to be an US citizen only by accident of birth, but who clearly had/has no loyalty to the US, should be treated more favorably than captives who are citizens of Saudi Arabia/Egypt/Pakistan/Emirates/Kuwait/Qatar/Afghanistan/Libya et al. If somebody has evil intentions towards the US, such as mass murder, then whether or not he's a US citizen should be immaterial. If it's legit to assassinate a non-US citizen because he is an enemy combatant, then it should be equally legit to assassinate a US citizen for the same reason.

It's different to argue whether it's legitimate to assassinate anybody - I do think that it is, particularly for enemies. But if one agrees that it is, then it's either hypocrisy or jingoism to argue that US citizens should be treated any differently from foreign citizens in terms of anti-terrorist operations. For those who argue that it is not, and that terrorism is a mere law enforcement issue, any country that adapts that posture is sealing its own disintegration.

Re:Enemies can be citizens or non-citizens (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42797861)

Bullshit. The 5th Amendment protects US citizens, PERIOD. You really have no fucking clue, do you?

clear and present danger (5, Insightful)

stoolpigeon (454276) | about a year and a half ago | (#42797257)

I'd like to think that this is going to change or this leak will help but I've pretty much given up on that.

Most people don't care and even if they did, they couldn't do anything. AND if they got to a position to do something I think they would become an imminent threat.

Re:clear and present danger (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42797319)

People do care. Remember the Torture Memos of Yoo? That really got people upset about lawyers. Other than Yoo. And no one in the administration. Really, anyone who would challenge our ability to torture. Well, anyway, people got upset about something. I'm sure they'll get upset about this too once Fox News cranks up the faux rage.

Re:clear and present danger (3, Insightful)

stoolpigeon (454276) | about a year and a half ago | (#42797443)

I think some people care - but most don't.

Most reactions are along the line of what you refer to at the end, partisan chest beating in an attempt to win political points - not real concern about the underlying issue.

Re:clear and present danger (5, Interesting)

NewWorldDan (899800) | about a year and a half ago | (#42797533)

I care. It's why, among so many other reasons, I voted for Johnson. Obama and Bush have both committed impeachable offenses that absolutely dwarf Clinton's perjury. Throw in the stupidity of the Reagan/Bush years, and you've got to go back to Carter to find an honest president. And he was incompetent. It's a tough job to do with integrity and principle. And honestly, I would never ever want to be president.

Re:clear and present danger (5, Insightful)

anagama (611277) | about a year and a half ago | (#42797569)

People do care. Remember the Torture Memos of Yoo? That really got people upset about lawyers. Other than Yoo. And no one in the administration. Really, anyone who would challenge our ability to torture. Well, anyway, people got upset about something.

The ENTIRETY of the Obama presidency has been a demonstration by Democrats that they didn't disagree with GWB's policies, they merely hated the man and used his policies as a foil. Obama's entire first term was marked by the egregious continuation of every civil rights violation GWB envisioned, but amplified, and Democrats said nothing, unless it was to label a person asking serious questions as "racist."

If the past four years is any indication, Obama has nothing to fear from "progressives" -- and I say that term with absolute disgust, because "progressive" is just code for Democrat right wing neocon bastard pretending to be a peacenik. Which in my world is worse than Republican right wing neocon bastard not pretending.

Re:clear and present danger (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42797701)

Oh, the libs are getting all mad again. That damn Bush and his puppeteer Cheney are going to kill someone.... Oh, wait a minute ... This is our Dear Leader doing this. Obama is killing American citizens??!! Just because they have joined the benevolent brotherhood of al Qaeda?!?! They joined to show their political support of progressive change in America, of course, and for this they are now targets. Damn that Bush and Cheney!! ... Oh, wait, it's still Obama doing this.

Libs are so confused. They still blame Bush for the economy, over four years after he left office. But this policy, assassinating American citizens, is owned by Obama, wholly and clearly.

And you think it only matters whether Fox news chest-thumps about it or not.

Re:clear and present danger (2)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | about a year and a half ago | (#42797849)

I think it's worse than that... they actually think that these killings are the proper way to deal with terrorists.Quite frankly, at this point, the American public deserves the authoritarian government, because they're actually clamoring for it. The Fox News crowd is just disappointed that the wrong guy is being authoritarian, and the anti-war crowd is so tiny to be pretty much irrelevant.

Impeachment for treason (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42797269)

Seriously, what more is it going to take?

Well, who would be the replacement? (5, Insightful)

popo (107611) | about a year and a half ago | (#42797323)

Which party exactly is the party of limited government and civil liberties? It sure isn't the Democrats or the Republicans, and it sure isn't the Libertarians either as they are now thoroughly politicized.

There's one-party rule in the United States, and it comes in two subtly different flavors. No matter who you vote for, you're ultimately voting for the Banks, the Healthcare industry, the Military Industrial Complex and a few unions thrown in to make it all look fair.

 

Re:Well, who would be the replacement? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42797481)

You're a conspiracy nut. And sadly, you're completely right.

Re:Well, who would be the replacement? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42797625)

I think it's more accurate to say that you're voting for the status quo.

As with most things Philip K. Dick has summed it up in a "better the devil you know" short story - Stability [hurleyhouse.com] . If you're perfectly comfortable why would you want anything to change?

Re:Well, who would be the replacement? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42797639)

How is a Libertarian vote a vote

for the Banks, the Healthcare industry, the Military Industrial Complex and a few unions thrown in to make it all look fair

?

Please explain. Thanks

Re:Well, who would be the replacement? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42797785)

The Green party doesn't accept campaign contributions from corporate sponsors.
That being said, how is voting for the Greens "ultimately voting for the Banks, the Healthcare industry, the Military Industrial Complex and a few unions thrown in"?

Re:Impeachment for treason (2)

Captain Splendid (673276) | about a year and a half ago | (#42797345)

Why would the GOP ever impeach him for this when they're quite happy to have this power if and when they retake the Oval Office?

They HAD that power when they were in office. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42797551)

It's not that they want it when they get hold of it, it's that this is merely the same thing that they got, only written down as if it were lawfully allowed this time.

Re:Impeachment for treason (1)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | about a year and a half ago | (#42797403)

Like when Bush said he could declare Americans, Enemy Combatants, and unilaterally take them out.

Re:Impeachment for treason (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42797583)

No he didn't that would mean the enemy combatant would have to be treated under the Geneva Convention, which would jeapordize the purpose of Guantanomo.

Bush and Obama just want to label us as non-enemy combatant threatening our precious freedom.

Re:Impeachment for treason (0)

vlm (69642) | about a year and a half ago | (#42797621)

I've been watching obama and he's basically a pretty decent pre-teabilly moderate to slightly left republican. They were all purged from public eye when the teabillies took over the leadership posts in the GOP and ran the party into the ground at full speed. So the democrats aren't going to impeach him because he's a DINO democrat in name only, and the moderate republicans (what few are left) see him as pretty much one of them WRT all policy decisions. The teabillies hate him, but although they've taken over the leadership, there's only about 20% of them. So overall he ain't getting impeached if 80% more or less like him. If 'bama kissed up to Israel a bit and thumped a bible he'd pretty much be a teabilly. Come on, the dude shoots skeet, he's a lapdog of wall street, loves warfare, hasn't done shit for social programs except make it illegal not to buy privatized profitable health insurance, he's not exactly Jerry Brown or Roosevelt or Marx reincarnated, he's a deeply in the closet republican. We could do a heck of a lot worse, given that the D's could have nominated a farmyard pig (again) and won against the teabillies last couple times around.

Misleading headline (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42797787)

Maybe it would be helpful to get an actual memo from Obama's administration? I am not saying it doesn't exist, but the headline here is rather misleading if this is a white paper from the DoJ to senators. It doesn't show any connection to Obama in this case.

DIY Slashdot poll (0)

davidwr (791652) | about a year and a half ago | (#42797271)

The US government should authorize the killing of US citizens when:
1. Reply with your idea
2. Reply with your idea
3. Reply with your idea
4. Reply with your idea
5. Reply with your idea
6. Reply with your idea
7. Reply with your idea
8. Reply with your COWBOYNEAL or YOUINSENSITIVECLOD option

Re:DIY Slashdot poll (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42797355)

1. That US citizen has been convicted of murder in a fair trial, has been proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and was found guilty by a jury of his/her peers.

Re:DIY Slashdot poll (1)

Marxdot (2699183) | about a year and a half ago | (#42797553)

On the condition that pigs grow wings and fly, then.

The death penalty is the same degree of tyranny as willy-nilly assassination.

Re:DIY Slashdot poll (1)

Hentes (2461350) | about a year and a half ago | (#42797671)

The problem is, what do you do when a suspect flees to another country and refuses to come back and appear in court, like most assassinated people did? Shooting an escaping fugitive is legal in many countries.

Re:DIY Slashdot poll (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42797395)

1. They propose impromptu polls on technology blogs.

Re:DIY Slashdot poll (3, Funny)

oodaloop (1229816) | about a year and a half ago | (#42797445)

1. When someone makes a comment supporting MicroSoft.
2. When someone makes a comment bashing Apple.
3. When someone responds to their own post.
4. When someone screws up tags>br.
5. When someone suggests Cowboy Neal as an option in Slashdot polls.

Re:DIY Slashdot poll (3, Funny)

gestalt_n_pepper (991155) | about a year and a half ago | (#42797535)

When they take two parking spaces so that their expensive car doesn't get a scratch. Double parking too.
When they refuse to tip the waitress AND leave a smug, self righteous remark.
When they commit a violent crime with a weapon
When they have committed up to 9 violent crimes without a weapon
When they engage in malfeasance with investor funds in any bank or financial institution
When they engage in bribery of ANY public official (federal, state and local) anywhere at any time (Both the public official and the bribee). Campaign funds should explicitly be considered bribes.

That'll do for a start.

Re:DIY Slashdot poll (1)

phil_aychio (2438214) | about a year and a half ago | (#42797837)

When they have committed up to 9 violent crimes without a weapon

Kill 10 and you're off the hook?

It is nice to know this is Obama (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42797281)

So no one in the MSM will care.

Re:It is nice to know this is Obama (1)

abies (607076) | about a year and a half ago | (#42797633)

Do you really think that republicans will try to attack Obama for putting something they really want in place? In few years, they will be pulling the trigger, so no point in breaking the joystick now, just to spoil other kid's fun.

In any case, it is interesting to see that rather than be concerned about "We can kill random people in the world without the trial" - people are very much concerned about "We can kill Americans, who we strongly suspect of terrorism, without the trial". I can assure you, they won't misuse this capability (because of political backlash) anywhere near the way signature strikes etc are misused now. Before American will die, they will check for 300% if he is terrorist. For foreigners, 80% is ok. Unless these foreigners have beards and are in desert, then even 20% is good enough.

Want to be safe - shave, rather than try to impeach the president.

Re:It is nice to know this is Obama (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42797833)

Want to be safe - become a dairy cow instead of a sheep.

Sky isn't MSM? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42797647)

WTF?

1st post (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42797285)

First po [Twack] Agggghhh!

[Thump]

Nice job running (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42797387)

I see you managed to evade destruction for at least 3 minutes.

Impeachment (5, Insightful)

C0R1D4N (970153) | about a year and a half ago | (#42797287)

This calls for Impeachment and trial of everyone involved. It will not happen of course, because murder is not as big a deal as getting a blowjob from an intern.

Re:Impeachment (4, Insightful)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about a year and a half ago | (#42797341)

Impeachment might be seen as a serious option if it hadn't been brought up about a 100 times by partisans since 2008. "Wolf" has been cried too many times.

Re:Impeachment (4, Insightful)

scubamage (727538) | about a year and a half ago | (#42797585)

Sadly this is true. This would be a golden moment for the right side of the house to start flipping out. However, they've cried wolf too many times whining about socialism and birth certificates.

Re:Impeachment (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | about a year and a half ago | (#42797761)

It was also brought up during the Bush years. And in my view it was completely justified in both that case and this case.

Re:Impeachment (4, Insightful)

DerekLyons (302214) | about a year and a half ago | (#42797769)

Impeachment might be seen as a serious option if it hadn't been brought up about a 100 times by partisans since 2008. "Wolf" has been cried too many times.

Since 2008? You've either been living in a cave or are wearing a seriously impervious set of bias blinders. It's been a favorite weapon of partisans since *at least* opening years (and the multiple scandals thereof) of the first Clinton Administration, and has only gotten worse since then. During the 2000-2008 Bush Administration, it was practically the only plank in the position of opposing partisans.

Re:Impeachment (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42797817)

It's been a favorite weapon of partisans since the Johnson administration.

And I ain't talking about LBJ.

Everything that was old is new again.

Re:Impeachment (1)

Alarash (746254) | about a year and a half ago | (#42797839)

And if I learned anything from Star Trek, is that the point is not to lie, but not say the same lie twice [memory-alpha.org] .

Re:Impeachment (0)

Arthur B. (806360) | about a year and a half ago | (#42797669)

Republicans understand that destroying due process and giving all power to the executive branch is a higher cause than party rivalries. It's so moving to see bipartisan agreement on this.

Re:Impeachment (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42797733)

The Clinton impeachment had nothing to do with "getting a blowjob from an intern". Clinton was impeached because he committed perjury, lying under oath.

Any other American citizen that lied under oath would face imprisonment, why is he a special case? Why do you feel the need to trivialize it and make it seem like it was about something else, namely his infidelity?

If there is no oversight.... (5, Insightful)

TheCarp (96830) | about a year and a half ago | (#42797309)

Then they have declared they can do whatever they want. If the standard is they just "determine" who is a member of al queda and whether there is some vague emminant danger, the big question is, who, either before or after the fact, has standing to question these determinations?

If there is nobody who can bring this to court, and no way to have oversight, then this is nothing more than a declaration that Due Process is optional in their eyes and they can suspend it whenever they determine they have the need.... because assasination is de facto denial of due process.

These standards should be considered criminally negligent.

Re:If there is no oversight.... (5, Informative)

Loadmaster (720754) | about a year and a half ago | (#42797473)

Good question. You should have brought it up when the legislation was passed in September 2001. Here's the applicable language from the Authorization to Use Military Forced (AUMF):

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

You see the "he determines?" The Obama administration didn't make that up, because it's currently valid law. And it will be valid law until it is defeated in court or repealed. Section (b) says the AUMF complies with the War Powers Act which is complete BS, and the AUMF in total is an over delegation of congressional power a la Chadha.

But I don't make the rules.

Re:If there is no oversight.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42797607)

It's a stretch to say that this language allows such use against U.S. Citizens. Can we please get off the blame bush band wagon now and actually address the issue at hand?

Re:If there is no oversight.... (2)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | about a year and a half ago | (#42797681)

Beat me to it. But yes, the rage over drone killings is nothing but rage against the wrong person wielding the power granted by Congress in the aftermath of 9/11.

Re:If there is no oversight.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42797857)

I don't know about that. I voted for the guy in charge and I don't agree with this either. But yea- I wouldn't say the other guys is any better.

Re:If there is no oversight.... (1)

mc6809e (214243) | about a year and a half ago | (#42797707)

You see the "he determines?" The Obama administration didn't make that up, because it's currently valid law. And it will be valid law until it is defeated in court or repealed.

So a single conservative supreme court justice is all that potentially stands in the way of continuing this practice?

Re:If there is no oversight.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42797867)

You would think that the AUMF violates the idea of separation of powers when applied to US citizens, lack of due process and all.

I'm not a USian so what do I know...

Welcome to the war (1)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | about a year and a half ago | (#42797641)

This type of logic was a guaranteed end-game once we declared War on Terror. After all, in a war, no one asks courts whether the military can take out some high-level commanders, who the troops can shoot, or even what to do with anyone taken from a battle field. Seriously, this should not be a surprise.

The only thing that can change this if we ramp down our rhetoric, and turn the War on Terror into a basic police action against criminals. Then we can go to courts to ask for oversight, request due process for any type of action against any target, and complain that drones really are creepy tools to use.

So you have a choice: start writing to your congress critters and complain about the War on Terror. Tell your friends what the logical consequence of this kind of war is. Lobby right and left to have terrorism be treated as a criminal event, and to have the FBI go after it - not the CIA. Or, you can put up with things like drone-killings done without over sight. Your choice. Will you actually do something about this issue, or will you just complain on the Internet that the War on Terror isn't quite turning out to be as clean as you hoped?

Bush Sucks (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42797327)

Umm, why are you posting this here. Don't you know that the Dear Leader is revered on this board and is above question. Bush Sucks!!!

Re:Bush Sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42797359)

I am not sure how this is attributable to just one party.

Obama does suck on this issue... and it is a continuation of Bush policies.

Both "sides" suck here, without a doubt.

And, if Bush was still there doing this a certain portion of the people bitching would be cheering him on.

Re:Bush Sucks (3, Interesting)

mc6809e (214243) | about a year and a half ago | (#42797519)

I am not sure how this is attributable to just one party.

Obama does suck on this issue... and it is a continuation of Bush policies.

The Bush policy was extraordinary rendition and a stay at Guantanamo until guilt or innocence could be determined -- and that was for non-citizens!

And they said (1)

gnu-sucks (561404) | about a year and a half ago | (#42797349)

And they said we don't need to bear arms.

Re:And they said (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42797505)

Yeah, your shotgun and handgun are really going to protect you if the US government wants to kill you. You're fucking delusional.

Re:And they said (4, Insightful)

HaZardman27 (1521119) | about a year and a half ago | (#42797737)

And you're just a waste of oxygen if the best response you can come up with is "It's unlikely that you and your guns can stop tyranny, so you shouldn't have your guns."

Best URL ever. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42797369)

http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/04/someone-just-leaked-obamas-rules-for-ass

The United States and Israel (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42797381)

They can attack who they want, when they want, where they want, and waddya gonna do about it? A big fat nothing! Fuck all you all!

mmm didn't see my name (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42797383)

Mmmmm...didn't see my name. Everything's O.K.

how things should be (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42797385)

The US should not be involved in the assassination of anybody.

How many pages is the Al Qadea assassination rules do you suppose ?

BushSucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42797391)

I'm so glad I voted for Obama. I'm seeing excellent results thus far in GW Bush's 4th term.

Step one: Prioritize Targets (5, Funny)

PPH (736903) | about a year and a half ago | (#42797393)

1. The person who leaked this memo.
.
.
.

the police... (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42797397)

...can already kill people.
They have guns. Some have pepper spray or tasers alongside, but they all have guns.
Guns aren't there as visual deterrent (they're loaded). Guns aren't for putting down rabid dogs or server as a warning sound.
They're designed for the specific purpose to kill, and the police are trained to use them as the last option. The police are public servants funded by the govt (via taxpayers).

Anyways, I digress. The president having the authority to kill American citizens sounds like a huge groundbreaking breach of civil rights, but it isn't. There's just more formalities to go through (as some other poster said, "Clear and Present Danger").

Blah blah blah. De gubmint iz out to git us!! Wear tinfoil hat! Arm yourselves!
Fuck you, paranoid fucks.

Re:the police... (2)

Chibi Merrow (226057) | about a year and a half ago | (#42797589)

...can already kill people.

And thankfully this power is not systematically abused with no fear of reprisal or any chance of the abusers being held to account for their actions...

Right?

who cares (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42797405)

no surprise and who cares. i pay my taxes and obey all the important laws. if they shoot me, ill have money arranged for a lawsuit.

Re:who cares (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42797719)

I'm sure your next of kin will think kindly of you and plant flowers at your grave if they actually get anything.

I see nothing wrong in the memo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42797435)

If you are for due process, you are racist.

Homo sapiens chosennis (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42797447)

> Obama's Rules For Assassinating American Citizens

In which ways are american citizens different fron non-american citizens, american non-citizens and non-american non-citizens and other specimens of the genus homo sapiens sapiens?

Re:Homo sapiens chosennis (2)

Spectre (1685) | about a year and a half ago | (#42797605)

The difference is, "American Citizens" are protected by the US Constitution, a document the POTUS has sworn to uphold.
Depriving a US citizen of their life without due process of law is a direct violation of that oath.
Yes, it should be an offense worthy of impeachment ... at the very least, people should care.

Re:Homo sapiens chosennis (1)

vlm (69642) | about a year and a half ago | (#42797799)

non-american citizens

Illegals. Look into the drive in window at Mcdonalds next time, thats all they hire around here. They're citizens, just not of here, citizens of mexico, d.r., etc.

american non-citizens

Couple thousand per year renounce citizenship. Practical reason is to make the IRS leave them the F alone. Stated reason is they married a foreigner who isn't moving, or moved to Israel, or they just plain ole want to immigrate. I'm kinda thinking of becoming a Canadian, I almost have enough money to just buy in, and I've got the .edu paperwork and job experience to get in, but I donno if they'll let me in, what with my blood type being O and canadians blood type having to be maple syrup. They've got a better everything, where everything is defined as everything but military and ... that's pretty much it. However I just can't bring myself to eat poutine with every meal.

non-american non-citizens

Come on man, how hard is it to figure that out.

Notice the URL? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42797449)

Anyone else notice the URL on the first link?

http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/04/someone-just-leaked-obamas-rules-for-ass

Not surprising (3)

JayTech (935793) | about a year and a half ago | (#42797451)

This doesn't surprise me considering how far removed the US government is from understanding her primary function - to protect her own citizens. What's to stop them from declaring a leader of a political movement as dangerous, having “recently” been involved in “activities” posing a threat of a violent attack - for example, declaring that the government has no right to interfere with private enterprises, or even supporting 2nd amendment rights?

Our Dear Leader (0)

bartolomae (1779576) | about a year and a half ago | (#42797457)

NOW can we call for impeachment?

Re:Our Dear Leader (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42797659)

Go right ahead, the same you do ten times per day. You've cried wolf too many times, you waddling, flag-draped buffoon. The government deserves impeachment, but it will not happen because those who routinely called for it -- right from day 1 of the presidency -- discredit the very notion by being utter fuckwits.

incorrect leftist BS (3, Interesting)

peter303 (12292) | about a year and a half ago | (#42797461)

US citizens relinquished citizenship [cornell.edu] and due process if they joined an enemy army of the US, whether it was the Redcoats, Germans, or Al Cada.

Its important to set clear boundaries. Joining the US Communist party or neo-nazis should not have had the same consquences because it never declared war on the US.
Plus I am concerned about growing use of domestic drone technology like for the in the Alabama kidnapping this week. Only a short step to arm them.

Re:incorrect leftist BS (5, Informative)

Loadmaster (720754) | about a year and a half ago | (#42797717)

Well, sub-section 3 says "entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state" which Al Qaeda is not a foreign state. This is the same reason we keep detainees in Quantanamo instead of prisoners of war or prisoners. The Bush administration claimed they weren't enemy combatants because they didn't fight for a foreign state (standardized uniform and all that). Number 7 is more applicable, because it allows citizenship to be stripped for "bearing arms against the United States." However, section (b) states that the burden to prove loss of citizenship is on the party claiming the loss not on the supposed, um, loser. That's basic due process. Essentially if the government said he was no longer a citizen they have to prove it first.

Come on we put up with gate rape by TSA, (5, Insightful)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about a year and a half ago | (#42797485)

This is the country that sings "Land of the free and home of the brave". Talk about second amendment and the right/duty of the citizens to guard against tyranny. Then we go to our airports to be gate raped by TSA agents. The lunacy of the procedure is beyond comprehension. There was a picture of a returning war veteran removing his belt and boots to place on the conveyor belt, while a friendly smiling helpful TSA agent was holding his service rifle for him. The stupidity of the situation seemed to escaped both of them.

Re:Come on we put up with gate rape by TSA, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42797841)

Could've been why the TSA agent was smiling, y'know. If I were the TSA agent or the soldier, I'd find it funny that I had to be screened for weapons while carrying a service rifle around. Easiest thing to do in that instance? Comply and laugh it up with the other guy, then just go on with life.

"it isn't real, you are a flake" (4, Insightful)

Spectre (1685) | about a year and a half ago | (#42797511)

My experience has been that whenever this comes up in conversation with actual adults who, while not brilliant, are not stupid either ... they get this dismissive look on their face. It is obvious they are thinking "oh, you are one of those conspiracy nuts, there is no way this could be real".

Most people don't believe this has actually happened.

Re:"it isn't real, you are a flake" (2, Interesting)

medv4380 (1604309) | about a year and a half ago | (#42797789)

No, some of them that look isn't "there is no way this could be real". It's more like "are you really so nieve to believe this isn't how all countries run. Even Democracies". Are you honestly trying to convince people that "The South" had all the rights of US Citizens during the Civil War? Because that's the only logical conclusion of your argument. If you are in a state of Rebellion against the Government ether by Joining Al-qaeda, or the Confederacy you shouldn't be too surprised if the Government, Military, CIA, or any other enforcement arm decides to shoot you rather than arrest you. Or do you not believe Article One Section Nine even exits?

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

seriously (1, Insightful)

negativeduck (2510256) | about a year and a half ago | (#42797547)

Can anyone recommend a good forum for technical and interesting stories regarding the advancement of knowledge in this day and age. And not political rhetoric that's just slanted either left or right.

I want to cry when this is the type of stuff at the top of my once beloved slashdot.

Re:seriously (1)

Rude Turnip (49495) | about a year and a half ago | (#42797815)

Reddit. And you get the added benefit of pictures of cats, dogs, ducks, sloths, rabbits, and a few other animals giving you helpful advice.

RTFDocument (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42797577)

"Here the DoJ concludes only that where the following three conditions are met, a US

operational leader of al-Qa'ida or an associated force would be lawful: (1) an informed;

high level official of the US government has determined that the targeted individual poses an

imminent threat of violent attack against the United States; (2) capture is infeasible, and

the United States continues to monitor whether capture becomes feasible; and (3) the

operation would be conducted in a manner consistent of the applicable law of war principles.

This conclusion is reached with recognition of the extraordinary seriousness of a lethal

operation by the United States against a US citizen, and also of the extraordinary

seriousness of the threat posed by senior operational al-Qa'ida members and the loss of life

that would result were their operations successful."

Redefining words to get around laws (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42797675)

All governments redefine words and phrases to change the original intent of laws and violate the people's freedom.

If you didn't know that, it's time to read Animal Farm by George Orwell. It will open your eyes, but probably depress you at the same time.

Justified in the case of Muslims (-1, Offtopic)

Chrisq (894406) | about a year and a half ago | (#42797765)

Some American citizens are Muslims. Think about it

Trump eh? (1)

DarkOx (621550) | about a year and a half ago | (#42797767)

"[trump] traditional Constitutional protections American citizens enjoy from being killed by their government without due process"

Except the Constitution is supposed to be the supreme law of the land. Nobody is supposed to trump it, not the executive, not congress, nobody. If congress should start impeachment proceedings against Eric Holder today.

Will America accept their own bullshit? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42797805)

The American government has strayed so far from its own guiding principles as to be rapidly becoming everything they're fighting against.

All of this claimed moral superiority of the last century or so is mostly lost, and you're fast becoming tyrants and asshats.

I give it a few decades at most before modern society collapses and we're either living in the cyberpunk dystopian future, or the Mad Max dystopian future.

When America starts killing her own citizens, complaining about other countries doing the same thing is a joke.

You're working on being worse than the cold-war era Soviets ever were. The Constitution has become "whatever the president wants it to mean".

The fall of the empire is nigh.

Read the document for yourself. Dodge the outrage. (1)

eepok (545733) | about a year and a half ago | (#42797819)

From page 6 of the whitepaper:

"In the circumstances here, the interests on both sides would be weighty... An individual's interest in avoiding erroneous deprivation of his life is "uniquely compelling."...No private interest is more substantial. As the Hamdi plurality observed, in the "circumstances of war," ''the risk of erroneous deprivation of a citizen's liberty in the absence of sufficient process .. . is very real," id. at 530 (plurality opinion), and, of course, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of a citizen's life is even more significant.

"But, ''the realities of combat" render certain uses of force necessary and appropriate," including force against U.S. citizens who have joined enemy forces...

"In view of these interests and practical considerations, the United States would be able to use lethal force against a U.S. citizen, who is located outside the United States and is an operational leader continually planning attacks against U.S. persons and interests, in
circumstances: (1) where an informed, high-level official of the US Gov't has determined the target individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States; (2) where a capture operation would be infeasible-and where those conducting the operation continue to monitor whether capture becomes feasible; and (3) where such an operation would be conducted consistent with applicable law of war principles."

Also, try to remember the SOURCE of the commentary. Reason.com is one of those very partisan places (though not as bad as the Free Republic) that produces and distributes highly questionable material with the intent of "stirring up the base".

NBC News - whistleblowers (1)

darjen (879890) | about a year and a half ago | (#42797859)

I wonder if Obama will find the people at NBC who are responsible for this leak and give them the same inhumane torture as other recent whistleblowers have gotten?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?