Obama admin: Drones can target Americans abroad based on one official’s opinion

posted at 8:41 am on February 5, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

The killing of al-Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki generated a surprising amount of controversy.  The US had used drones to kill scores of AQ leaders and followers in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Yemen before Awlaki and afterward.  However, Awlaki was a US citizen, and the targeting of an American citizen by the government was considered a new step — and not necessarily a good one.  The demand for a controlling procedure began to grow, amplified ironically by Barack Obama himself when the New York Times reported that he tried to rush rules into place for drone use in case Mitt Romney won the election, only to lose interest when it became clear he would win.

Unfortunately, that didn’t stop people from demanding to know how exactly the Obama administration protected the rights of Americans and ensured that a drone strike on a US citizen was undeniably justified.  A leak from the Department of Justice makes it clear that it’s not clear at all:

The secrecy surrounding such strikes is fast emerging as a central issue in this week’s hearing of White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, a key architect of the drone campaign, to be CIA director.  Brennan was the first administration official to publicly acknowledge drone strikes in a speech last year, calling them “consistent with the inherent right of self-defense.” In a separate talk at the Northwestern University Law School in March, Attorney General Eric Holder specifically endorsed the constitutionality of targeted killings of Americans, saying they could be justified if government officials determine the target poses  “an imminent threat of violent attack.”

But the 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.

“The condition that an operational  leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future,” the memo states.

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.”

As in Holder’s speech, the confidential memo lays out a three-part test that would make targeted killings of American lawful:  In addition to the suspect being an imminent threat, capture of the target must be “infeasible, and the strike must be conducted according to “law of war principles.” But the memo elaborates on some of these factors in ways that go beyond what the attorney general said publicly. For example, it states that U.S. officials may consider whether an attempted capture of a suspect  would pose an “undue risk” to U.S. personnel involved in such an operation. If so, U.S. officials could determine that the capture operation of the targeted American would not be feasible, making it lawful for the U.S. government to order a killing instead, the memo concludes.

The undated memo is entitled “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.”  It was provided to members of the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary committees in June by administration officials on the condition that it be kept confidential and  not discussed publicly.

So  let’s just recap.  The US can target a US citizen if they believe a threat to be “imminent” even when no threat of attack is immediately present.  The target must have recently been involved in activities, with no real definition of “activities” or “recently.”  And rather than prove that the US citizen plans to continue these “activities,” it’s up to the citizen to prove to a single US official that no one knows that he’s renounced and/or abandoned such “activities” — activities that the government won’t define, to an official the government won’t name.

Awlaki was an easy case.  He publicly and explicitly encouraged terrorist acts, recruited new members to carry them out, and was connected to plots that actually went into action.  But this memo goes way beyond the Awlaki instance and basically gives the government carte blanche to target Americans in whatever it considers to be the battlefield for almost any kind of “threat” it imagines.

Surely we can do better than this to find a hard line between the case of Awlaki and no line at all. And surely Congress can press John Brennan about this point during his confirmation hearing to the post of CIA Director.

Update: It looks like the Senate may be getting serious about this issue, too:

Eleven senators sent a letter to President Obama on Monday demanding access to secret legal memos outlining the administration’s case for the targeted killing of U.S. citizens in counterterrorism operations overseas.

The letter from eight Democrats and three Republicans contained the most forceful warning to date that lawmakers were considering blocking Obama’s nominees to run the CIA and Pentagon unless the memos are turned over.

The message comes three days before White House counterterrorism adviser John O. Brennan will face a confirmation hearing to become CIA director before the Senate intelligence committee. Former senator Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) is awaiting a vote in the Senate Armed Services Committee following his hearing last week to become secretary of defense.

Cooperation with the request “will help avoid an unnecessary confrontation that could affect the Senate’s consideration of nominees for national security positions,”the letter said.

Three members of the intelligence panel signed the letter: Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Mark Udall (D-Colo.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine).


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

“I am the LAW!” (Judge Dredd quote.)

michaelo on February 5, 2013 at 8:45 AM

I personally have no problem with an American citizen getting popped outside the country if he’s a member of AQ. He is with an organization waging war on the United States, and that makes him guilty of treason according to the Constitution. I say, “Bombs away!” on his azz.

Liam on February 5, 2013 at 8:46 AM

Hold on. This is not really related to the topic, but am I the only one who was surprised by the election results?

he [Barky] tried to rush rules into place for drone use in case Mitt Romney won the election, only to lose interest when it became clear he would win.

It only started to become clear to me as I stood in line at my polling place. Up until election day, I was buzzing with excitement.

/naivete(?)

freedomfirst on February 5, 2013 at 8:47 AM

drone strikes is like shootin’ skeet….. we do it all the time.
/

ted c on February 5, 2013 at 8:48 AM

Under Obama meh
Under gop 24/7 outrage
-lsm

Unstinkingbelievable

Will they actually ask the tough questions….yeah i know

cmsinaz on February 5, 2013 at 8:48 AM

What about Americans at home? Incrementalism is a proven tactic.

ROCnPhilly on February 5, 2013 at 8:49 AM

So let’s just recap. The US can target a US citizen if they believe a threat to be “imminent” even when no threat of attack is immediately present. The target must have recently been involved in activities, with no real definition of “activities” or “recently.”

And now we know why various departments have been buying up billions of rounds of ammo…

Gatsu on February 5, 2013 at 8:49 AM

no worries…

Ron Paul says Obama will die by the sword

Slade73 on February 5, 2013 at 8:51 AM

So let’s just recap. The US can target a US citizen if they believe a threat to be “imminent” even when no threat of attack is immediately present. The target must have recently been involved in activities, with no real definition of “activities” or “recently.” And rather than prove that the US citizen plans to continue these “activities,” it’s up to the citizen to prove to a single US official that no one knows that he’s renounced and/or abandoned such “activities” — activities that the government won’t define, to an official the government won’t name.

And morons like Piers Morgan wonder why we’re so adamant about our 2nd Amendment rights not being infringed upon in any way? Let’s not forget that this is the same regime that issued a report nearly 4 years ago claiming returning war veterans and pro-life activists were potential terrorists. Now that same government claims it can assassinate American citizens it deems a threat? Nah, nothing to worry about here.

Doughboy on February 5, 2013 at 8:51 AM

The demand for a controlling procedure began to grow, amplified ironically by Barack Obama himself when the New York Times reported that he tried to rush rules into place for drone use in case Mitt Romney won the election, only to lose interest when it became clear he would win.

I wouldn’t have minded a bombing raid that targeted Tokyo Rose (the one who was an American.) But at least have a policy out there in the open.

rbj on February 5, 2013 at 8:52 AM

I personally have no problem with an American citizen getting popped outside the country if he’s a member of AQ. He is with an organization waging war on the United States, and that makes him guilty of treason according to the Constitution. I say, “Bombs away!” on his azz.

Liam on February 5, 2013 at 8:46 AM

Once you surrender the definition, what’s to keep them from abusing it?

blatantblue on February 5, 2013 at 8:54 AM

Once you surrender the definition, what’s to keep them from abusing it?

blatantblue on February 5, 2013 at 8:54 AM

Of course Obama&Co will abuse the definitions. I wouldn’t put it past them to call us traitors and later give American members of AQ a pass.

Liam on February 5, 2013 at 8:57 AM

Freedom
He knew then it didn’t look good…so ok for him but no no no for the next guy

Wow

cmsinaz on February 5, 2013 at 8:58 AM

You have the right to remain dead.

forest on February 5, 2013 at 8:59 AM

Liberals on Obama’s drone policy: crickets.

Liberals on waterboarding: hair-on-fire criticism.

BuckeyeSam on February 5, 2013 at 9:00 AM

Exactamundo buckeye

cmsinaz on February 5, 2013 at 9:00 AM

If a drone can do it, how about a gun with a silencer? Poison?

The real issue here is assassination, not necessarily the method.

Wethal on February 5, 2013 at 9:00 AM

Just imagine if Boooooooosh was Preezy. The NYT, WaPo, MSNBC, CNN and others would be screaming blo*dy mur*er, kil*ing our own citizens, their rights, gnashing of teeth, accusations that the GOP were warmongers and Booooosh should be tried for war crimes. Now that Os in charge, meh.

tommy71 on February 5, 2013 at 9:02 AM

I personally have no problem with an American citizen getting popped outside the country if he’s a member of AQ. He is with an organization waging war on the United States, and that makes him guilty of treason according to the Constitution. I say, “Bombs away!” on his azz.

Liam on February 5, 2013 at 8:46 AM

If an American citizen is guilty of treason, fine. Capture them, give them due process, and if a jury convicts them, THEN you put them to death. Once you grant the government the right to target and assassinate any American it considers a threat, we have tyranny. That’s a line that can never be crossed.

Doughboy on February 5, 2013 at 9:03 AM

it’s up to the citizen to prove to a single US official that no one knows that he’s renounced and/or abandoned such “activities” — activities that the government won’t define, to an official the government won’t name.

meet Tomás de Torquemada, Obama’s new czar of loyalty…

trubble on February 5, 2013 at 9:03 AM

Tommy via newsbusters….morning joe crew agrees with you

Can’t send linky at this time

cmsinaz on February 5, 2013 at 9:04 AM

I personally have no problem with an American citizen getting popped outside the country if he’s a member of AQ. He is with an organization waging war on the United States, and that makes him guilty of treason according to the Constitution. I say, “Bombs away!” on his azz.

Liam on February 5, 2013 at 8:46 AM

Agreed.

Shouldn’t the government have to PROVE that though? We presume innocence here, not guilt. That doesn’t stop when you buy a plane ticket. No citizen shall be deprived of life without due process.

Please point out of the due process involved. One guy says ‘smoke him,’ so that makes it okay?

Washington Nearsider on February 5, 2013 at 9:04 AM

So let’s just recap. The US can target a US citizen if they believe a threat to be “imminent” even when no threat of attack is immediately present. The target must have recently been involved in activities, with no real definition of “activities” or “recently.” And rather than prove that the US citizen plans to continue these “activities,” it’s up to the citizen to prove to a single US official that no one knows that he’s renounced and/or abandoned such “activities” — activities that the government won’t define, to an official the government won’t name.

Say, since Obama’s definitely a threat to the US, could he be a target of this policy?

BuckeyeSam on February 5, 2013 at 9:05 AM

Wow America got their liberties back from that fascist Bush!

Thank Gaia for democrat president Obama!

tom daschle concerned on February 5, 2013 at 9:05 AM

That dude obviously doesn’t care about his citizenship, why should we? This guy is a member of AQ and deserves what came to him. I don’t care who is president, I support the drone program period.
I think this we shouldn’t become hypocrites like the left because a President we don’t like is doing it.

I hate it when issues concerning the CIA becomes political. Whether the left likes it or not, AQ is still out there metastasizing and we need to get our acts together.

celticdefender on February 5, 2013 at 9:05 AM

Obama…International War Criminal in Chief

trs on February 5, 2013 at 9:07 AM

But this memo goes way beyond the Awlaki instance and basically gives the government carte blanche to target Americans in whatever it considers to be the battlefield for almost any kind of “threat” it imagines.

Rand Paul better ask Brennan if he considers the Tea Party to be a threat.

blammm on February 5, 2013 at 9:09 AM

This is great, we can now save the country. The next Republican President can now declare all democrats as traitors and wipe them all out.

Flange on February 5, 2013 at 9:10 AM

If an American citizen is guilty of treason, fine. Capture them, give them due process, and if a jury convicts them, THEN you put them to death. Once you grant the government the right to target and assassinate any American it considers a threat, we have tyranny. That’s a line that can never be crossed.

Doughboy on February 5, 2013 at 9:03 AM

capture, trial, etc arent always an option in a war zone under combat conditions. or if the target is in another country working w/ the enemy to plot against the US. however, there should be very concrete laws against this type of action being used anywhere the US has jurisdiction or in allied countries.

chasdal on February 5, 2013 at 9:10 AM

No due process for actual American citizeans…….ok

Khalid sheikh Mohammed on the other hand……..WTF

All Hail the Messiah!

dmann on February 5, 2013 at 9:12 AM

however, there should be very concrete laws against this type of action being used anywhere the US has jurisdiction or in allied countries.

chasdal on February 5, 2013 at 9:10 AM

The government has to get a FISA warrant to listen to a citizen’s domestic phone calls and read emails. Surely there should be more than that involved when the government discusses KILLING that same citizen, wherever they are.

Washington Nearsider on February 5, 2013 at 9:13 AM

Agreed.

Shouldn’t the government have to PROVE that though? We presume innocence here, not guilt. That doesn’t stop when you buy a plane ticket. No citizen shall be deprived of life without due process.

Please point out of the due process involved. One guy says ‘smoke him,’ so that makes it okay?

Washington Nearsider on February 5, 2013 at 9:04 AM

They have to be certain the American is a member of AQ, giving aid and comfort to the enemy as the Constitution states. If he’s simply a medical doctor with a humanitarian group that operates worldwide or just regionally, he’s not a traitor. But if the person is a bona fide member of AQ and the intel is confirmed, the due process is met in my view. He’s outside the country, operating with a foreign paramilitary force at war with the United States.

Of course, it’s legal to be stripped of citizenship for joining the military of a foreign power, so any such Americans should be stripped and then bombed.

Liam on February 5, 2013 at 9:13 AM

Just imagine if Boooooooosh was Preezy. The NYT, WaPo, MSNBC, CNN and others would be screaming blo*dy mur*er, kil*ing our own citizens, their rights, gnashing of teeth, accusations that the GOP were warmongers and Booooosh should be tried for war crimes. Now that Os in charge, meh.

tommy71 on February 5, 2013 at 9:02 AM

Every lib on Morning Joe said pretty much the same thing today. Effing amazing.

CTSherman on February 5, 2013 at 9:14 AM

Of course, it’s legal to be stripped of citizenship for joining the military of a foreign power, so any such Americans should be stripped and then bombed.

Liam on February 5, 2013 at 9:13 AM

Agreed.

There’s a process for that though – and a record of the fact that it happened. That process needs to be followed.

Washington Nearsider on February 5, 2013 at 9:14 AM

celticdefender on February 5, 2013 at 9:05 AM

And what happens to you if YOU get put on that list? What about those that are put there erroneously? This isn’t about killing the enemy, it’s about due process for Americans. How do you know that the guy was AQ, because the person who killed him said so? After Benghazi, and even back to Waco, do you really trust the government to make the right call?

Flange on February 5, 2013 at 9:15 AM

capture, trial, etc arent always an option in a war zone under combat conditions. or if the target is in another country working w/ the enemy to plot against the US. however, there should be very concrete laws against this type of action being used anywhere the US has jurisdiction or in allied countries.

chasdal on February 5, 2013 at 9:10 AM

I realize that, but this administration has made a habit out of prioritizing drone strikes over attempting to capture terror suspects alive. That’s almost certainly due to Obama not wanting to deal with the headache of what to do with these folks once they’re captured since he’s opposed to Gitmo or enhanced interrogation.

But that’s no excuse. If you have an American citizen suspected of terrorism, our government needs to do everything in its power to capture that person alive before resorting to more extreme measures. And if it does come to that, I’d prefer Congress be included in the loop. I don’t like that the President or one of his cronies in the administration has the authority to order the assassination of Americans, regardless of what they’re suspected of.

Doughboy on February 5, 2013 at 9:15 AM

This is the kind of stuff that makes folks a little paranoid…Drones in the US…

workingclass artist on February 5, 2013 at 9:16 AM

The secrecy surrounding such strikes is fast emerging as a central issue in this week’s hearing of White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, a key architect of the drone campaign, to be CIA director. Brennan was the first administration official to publicly acknowledge drone strikes in a speech last year, calling them “consistent with the inherent right of self-defense.” In a separate talk at the Northwestern University Law School in March, Attorney General Eric Holder specifically endorsed the constitutionality of targeted killings of Americans, saying they could be justified if government officials determine the target poses “an imminent threat of violent attack.”

Note that this is from two members of an administration which does not believe that you, or I, have an “inherent right of self-defense”. (“The Second Amendment is about hunting, you know.”)

Considering Brennan and Holder’s “prior experience”, this administration could easily use its already-existing “ten definitions” of who might be a potential terrorist threat as a casus belli for actions taken against those they define as enemies here in the U.S., without any sort of due process. And I’m not just talking about arresting people and holding them incommunicado without access to a lawyer.

Nascent dictatorships are easy to spot. They’re the ones that create justifications for attacking their foreign enemies that are then turned against their domestic opponents.

And at some point, against anyone who doesn’t obey the order to “shut up and sing”.

clear ether

eon

eon on February 5, 2013 at 9:16 AM

There’s a process for that though – and a record of the fact that it happened. That process needs to be followed.

Washington Nearsider on February 5, 2013 at 9:14 AM

I can agree with that 100%, just to keep things tidy. The paper trail would go a long way to shut the mouths of bleeding-heart liberals.

Liam on February 5, 2013 at 9:18 AM

A “high level official” can make this decision? Define that, please.

O_o

Considering the disregard Bark has for the duties of his office this doesn’t make me feel any better. The prime reason for this decision, as always, is for Dog Eater to blame someone else if things go poorly while simultaneously saying to the American people, “See, I’m tough on terrorists.”

Bishop on February 5, 2013 at 9:18 AM

“I am the LAW!” (Judge Dredd quote.)

michaelo on February 5, 2013 at 8:45 AM

“I don’t believe the Judge!”

Kiss, Kiss;

Dante

Del Dolemonte on February 5, 2013 at 9:19 AM

My teen years were the 60′s.The rally cries around the Zig Zag get togethers was always about government Fascisms and how the people needed to come together and revolt.Now that my generation is in charge they are doing what they were so loudly against.The drone strikes need to be redirected.

docflash on February 5, 2013 at 9:20 AM

So let’s just recap. The US can target a US citizen if they believe a threat to be “imminent” even when no threat of attack is immediately present. The target must have recently been involved in activities, with no real definition of “activities” or “recently.” And rather than prove that the US citizen plans to continue these “activities,” it’s up to the citizen to prove to a single US official that no one knows that he’s renounced and/or abandoned such “activities” — activities that the government won’t define, to an official the government won’t name.

Their “policy” might as well say they have the right to target and kill Americans if, after consulting their magic 8-ball and their daily horoscope, they feel that it is just and right.

No doubt our esteemed “constitutional law expert” president would approve.

What a joke this administration is — what a sick, sad, dangerous joke.

AZCoyote on February 5, 2013 at 9:22 AM

The government has to get a FISA warrant to listen to a citizen’s domestic phone calls and read emails. Surely there should be more than that involved when the government discusses KILLING that same citizen, wherever they are.

Washington Nearsider on February 5, 2013 at 9:13 AM

I thought those rules were “relaxed” recently.

As much as I believe turd-balls like Adam Gadahn deserve a Hellfire straight up their chute, this decision is a bit spooky.

Bishop on February 5, 2013 at 9:22 AM

@cms and CT I never watch morning joe. But thanks for the confirmation.

tommy71 on February 5, 2013 at 9:22 AM

“I am the LAW!” (Judge Dredd quote.)

michaelo on February 5, 2013 at 8:45 AM

.
FROST: Would you say that there are certain situations – and the Huston Plan was one of them – where the president can decide that it’s in the best interests of the nation, and do something illegal?

Richard Nixon: Well, when the president does it, that means it is not illegal.

FROST: By definition.

Richard Nixon: Exactly, exactly. If the president, for example, approves something because of the national security, or in this case because of a threat to internal peace and order of significant magnitude, then the president’s decision in that instance is one that enables those who carry it out, to carry it out without violating a law. Otherwise they’re in an impossible position.
.
Øbama is the equal of Nixon yet, because the media must support him, the media never makes the connection for the low-information, entitlement-sucking voter.
.
L.i.B.

ExpressoBold on February 5, 2013 at 9:25 AM

Some key lawmakers did not sign, including Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the chairman of the intelligence committee, who has indicated that she will support Brennan.

Better guns for me and none for thee.

blammm on February 5, 2013 at 9:27 AM

The cool thing is, with the NDAA they can now 1. kidnap you, 2. fly you to Yemen, and 3. dronestrike yer ass!

Soon they’ll cut out the first two, once they realize they’re just formalities.

“Honey, do you hear that?”

Akzed on February 5, 2013 at 9:27 AM

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.”

In Stalin’s USSR and Saddam’s Iraq only Stalin and Saddam could approve the assassination of Soviet and Iraqi citizens abroad.

Apparently the approval bar is lower in Comrade Chairman Obama’s freedom loving human rights respecting America.

Is there any buck that stops at his desk? Or is responsibility for anything and everything that might go wrong shifted to someone else in his admin? Just as he shifts blame for all of the nation’s problems on someone else.

Of course, Dear Leader is exclusively personally responsible for everything that goes well. His unprecedented wisdom, knowledge, and intelligence has no bounds.

farsighted on February 5, 2013 at 9:30 AM

So if a Tea Party leader, or perhaps a grassroots 2nd Amendment activist (confiscation resistor) is caught out in the open on a vacation to Mexico or Spain, or maybe out shooting in the desert in Idaho, do these rules get tweeked to allow for the summary execution of that person? It seems that the rules for executing a US citizen for thought crimes against the state are far more lenient than the rules for urinating on dead enemy terrorists in a war zone.

Spartacus on February 5, 2013 at 9:30 AM

Let’s not forget that this is the same regime that issued a report nearly 4 years ago claiming returning war veterans and pro-life activists were potential terrorists. Now that same government claims it can assassinate American citizens it deems a threat? Nah, nothing to worry about here. Doughboy on February 5, 2013 at 8:51 AM

Nah…

Akzed on February 5, 2013 at 9:30 AM

I started a WH petition to have the Feds start wearing RedCoats, so we can more clearly refer to them as what they have become in OUR country.

Spartacus on February 5, 2013 at 9:32 AM

Nah…

Akzed on February 5, 2013 at 9:30 AM

You people are paranoid.

What, so I have a few scary black rifles and I don’t like politicians much, and that means they’re going to order a drone str

Bishop on February 5, 2013 at 9:33 AM

where are all the retread hippies screaming about bush’s war?

i mean, all barry has lost with this and his usurpation of sundry unconstitutional powers are the radical vegan anarchists.

mittens on February 5, 2013 at 9:33 AM

Theres also a very slippery slope. For a while now, the Presidency has been taking on more and more powers. I’ve been watching it for a while. It never stops. They always want more and more. What if they starting incorporating this domestically too. Why bother to take the time, effort and money to capture, due process, trial yada yada. A drone can just end it quick. May happen within our lifetime. So anyone in Gubmint who sees another as an enemy, a drone is dispatched. Just think about it.

tommy71 on February 5, 2013 at 9:35 AM

And now we know why various departments have been buying up billions of rounds of ammo… Gatsu on February 5, 2013 at 8:49 AM

Hollow points, banned by treaty from international use.

You know, because the NOAA never knows when it might have to use lethal force.

Ever wonder why there’s been no budget for four years?

JULIUS You don’t actually think they spent $20,000 on a hammer, $30,000 on a toilet seat, do you?

Akzed on February 5, 2013 at 9:36 AM

@cms and CT I never watch morning joe. But thanks for the confirmation.

tommy71 on February 5, 2013 at 9:22 AM

It was the first time watching in over a year. Nice to see what the left is thinking once in a while. I’ll watch again in the summer of 2014.

For those that think this is all fine and good, what about taking out al-Awlaki’s 16 year old son, Abdulrahman?

CTSherman on February 5, 2013 at 9:36 AM

Bishop, we hardly knew ye…

Akzed on February 5, 2013 at 9:37 AM

The U.S. Department of Education (ED) intends to purchase twenty-seven (27) REMINGTON BRAND MODEL 870 POLICE 12/14P MOD GRWC XS4 KXCS SF. RAMAC #24587 GAUGE: 12 BARREL: 14? – PARKERIZED CHOKE: MODIFIED SIGHTS: GHOST RING REAR WILSON COMBAT; FRONT – XS CONTOUR BEAD SIGHT STOCK: KNOXX REDUCE RECOIL ADJUSTABLE STOCK FORE-END: SPEEDFEED SPORT-SOLID – 14? LOP are designated as the only shotguns authorized for ED based on compatibility with ED existing shotgun inventory, certified armor and combat training and protocol, maintenance, and parts.

The DOE has people who are combat trained and armed with 12ga shotguns, but if you pick up your kid while there is a legal gun in your glovebox you could get sent to the Big House for 10 years.

Why does the DOE need tactical shotguns.

Bishop on February 5, 2013 at 9:39 AM

We’ll kill Americans when…we feel like it.

That’s a very reassuring policy indeed.

Of course if Boooosh was doing this Barky would be screaming like a little girl in chorus with every Dem and everyone in the media.

CorporatePiggy on February 5, 2013 at 9:41 AM

Please point out of the due process involved. One guy says ‘smoke him,’ so that makes it okay? Washington Nearsider on February 5, 2013 at 9:04 AM

Well, Eric the Tan is on record declaring that due process is not necessarily the same as judicial process.

Akzed on February 5, 2013 at 9:42 AM

So if this “Policy” is so straight up…why doesn’t Preezy FDR Abe Obama go on the national TeeVee, Have a Fireside Chat & splain it to the American People?

workingclass artist on February 5, 2013 at 9:43 AM

workingclass artist on February 5, 2013 at 9:43 AM

“Let me be crystal clear: I can now personally cap you on a whim.”

Akzed on February 5, 2013 at 9:46 AM

Why does the DOE need tactical shotguns.

Bishop on February 5, 2013 at 9:39 AM

Good Question.

“Twice in the past week, Miami residents have been treated to the nighttime sound of Blackhawk helicopters thundering between downtown Miami skyscrapers.

Federal authorities say that Special Operations military units in cooperation with the Department of Homeland Security and Miami-Dade County law enforcement officers conducted two ‘military’ drills special operations drills this week. The statement said that, ‘the drills were a part of a joint emergency preparedness exercise.’

The statement added that the remaining purposes of the drills are ‘classified’…

Miami’s Channel Ten reporter Christina Vasquez reported from downtown Miami that the helicopter noise echoing off the buildings was deafening…”

http://www.powerlinenewsnetwork.com/?p=18411

workingclass artist on February 5, 2013 at 9:47 AM

I hate it when issues concerning the CIA becomes political. Whether the left likes it or not, AQ is still out there metastasizing and we need to get our acts together. celticdefender on February 5, 2013 at 9:05 AM

First, work on your verb noun number agreement.

Second, where did you learn all about Al Qaeda?

Akzed on February 5, 2013 at 9:49 AM

workingclass artist on February 5, 2013 at 9:43 AM

“Let me be crystal clear: I can now personally cap you on a whim.”

Akzed on February 5, 2013 at 9:46 AM

Optical Camoflage…It’s what’s for Breakfast!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKPVQal851U

workingclass artist on February 5, 2013 at 9:49 AM

workingclass artist on February 5, 2013 at 9:47 AM

And Galveston, Houston, Harrisburg…

Akzed on February 5, 2013 at 9:50 AM

Gee wiz, my arguments from times past is explicitly fully and totally confirmed. All you haters got egg on your faces it seems.

The requirement for a drone strike to kill an American is basically whatever Obama or his administration wants it to be at what ever time they want it to be that. Any Republican outspoken enough in a foreign nation is totally a target that is legitimate to our government it seems. Since they are starting to use drones in America, it seems you can likely be targeted here…

astonerii on February 5, 2013 at 9:51 AM

workingclass artist on February 5, 2013 at 9:47 AM

And Galveston, Houston, Harrisburg…

Akzed on February 5, 2013 at 9:50 AM

Probably more places as well.

Ohio hasn’t been confirmed.

Weird and scared a lot of people.

workingclass artist on February 5, 2013 at 9:52 AM

workingclass artist on February 5, 2013 at 9:49 AM

I know. But more to the point

Akzed on February 5, 2013 at 9:53 AM

As much as I believe turd-balls like Adam Gadahn deserve a Hellfire straight up their chute, this decision is a bit spooky.

Bishop on February 5, 2013 at 9:22 AM

A bit spooky like the sun is a bit warm.

Didn’t Obama say his one failing was not explaining things to the American people well enough? Step up, buddy. Rectify your one mistake.

Explain this.

Washington Nearsider on February 5, 2013 at 9:54 AM

Women feel safe about this, no worries. (Since dear leader is in charge)
-lib talking heads on msdnc just now…they are actually proud to say it..this is dear leader and not W so all is well

Bizarro world

Oh the outrage we would be hearing from tingles and the rest of them

cmsinaz on February 5, 2013 at 9:58 AM

Now and then, the gubmint keeps mumbling bout those radical right wing terrorists and ko*ks. Capture and trial? FEMA camps? Rather tedious, ain’t it? No, lets cut spending. Assemble the drones.

tommy71 on February 5, 2013 at 10:00 AM

Of course if Boooosh was doing this Barky would be screaming like a little girl in chorus with every Dem and everyone in the media.

CorporatePiggy on February 5, 2013 at 9:41 AM

Which is why this will likely be a Troll-Free thread, unless the Leftists can come up with some imaginary reason why this is somehow “different”. Good luck with that!

Del Dolemonte on February 5, 2013 at 10:03 AM

Del Dolemonte on February 5, 2013 at 10:03 AM

My folks are honest enough to own the fact that they approve of things that Obama does simply because Obama does them. The fact that they disapproved of them when someone else was doing them is irrelevant.

Honest liberals?

Washington Nearsider on February 5, 2013 at 10:06 AM

What’s more urgent, whacking some American in Yemen, where there are nine other Americans total, or whacking Americans here where there are millions of them potentially in his sights? It’s an argument from strength: if an American needs whacking in Yemen to protect Americans, well, there are even more Americans that need protecting right here.

Akzed on February 5, 2013 at 10:07 AM

workingclass artist on February 5, 2013 at 9:49 AM

I know. But more to the point…

Akzed on February 5, 2013 at 9:53 AM

Kindly Fall Neatly Into Pit… – Fascism for Dummies aka Obama Manual for a New America

workingclass artist on February 5, 2013 at 10:09 AM

Apparently, “We are all Terrorists, Now!”

rgranger on February 5, 2013 at 10:19 AM

So when will Barry start targeting conservative leadership?

GarandFan on February 5, 2013 at 10:25 AM

My folks are honest enough to own the fact that they approve of things that Obama does simply because Obama does them. The fact that they disapproved of them when someone else was doing them is irrelevant.

Honest liberals?

Washington Nearsider on February 5, 2013 at 10:06 AM

Sounds more like arrogant smugness to me than honesty.

Liam on February 5, 2013 at 10:26 AM

Tuesdays troll free thread. Good thing Bush Cheney Co. didn’t do this I guess. Then the thread would be full of the little cowards.

Bmore on February 5, 2013 at 10:27 AM

On a lighter note…Peirs Morgan came to Texas to chat about guns…

“A Katy gun store and shooting range provided the setting for Monday’s episode of CNN’s “Piers Morgan Tonight,” which featured Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, State Sen. Dan Patrick and rocker and National Rifle Association board member Ted Nugent

The verbal sparring in Texas, which was described as “Gun Country,” explored the question: Does anyone in America really need an AR-15 assault rifle?

The episode opened with Morgan wearing protective gear at Tactical Firearms as he tested several weapons, including an AR-15 and a gun that can unload 900 rounds per minute. The talk show host spoke with business owner Jeremy Alcede, who explained why the sales of firearms have surged as President Obama and congressional leaders consider tightening gun regulations.

“They want it because they are law-abiding citizens and they know it is legal to purchase now,” Alcede said…

Abbott said Texans need access to firearms to protect themselves against home intruders and violent gangs. He added that thousands of ranchers along the border need guns to guard against drug cartels.

“They deserve under the Second Amendment to meet force with force,” the attorney general said.

Abbott and Patrick, both Republicans, do not support universal background checks, which the attorney general said “are not working.”

Abbott added that tougher enforcement should focus on “ensuring that criminals and those who have mental issues do not get their hands on guns.

Though 100,000 people die annually from gunshot wounds in the United States, Nugent pointed out that the figure includes 18,000 suicides and “bad guys shot by cops and intruders shot by home-owners.”

“Leave us the hell alone,” Nugent said, referring to law-abiding gun owners. “The government doesn’t need to know who has what … That’s a bureaucracy gone mad…”

Morgan said his guests’ opposition to more gun control, as proposed by the president, U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and others, was a “disturbing reaction to the murder of 20 young children.” But his guests pushed back on what they interpreted as hyperbole and ignorance about firearms as well as American culture.

State Sen. Dan Patrick defended the AR-15 as a “personal defense weapon” and said that he owns one.

“It is a weapon you can fire multiple times to defend yourself,” he said. “You don’t know how many bullets you’re going to need to defend your life and family.”

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Talk-show-hosts-visits-Katy-to-talk-gun-control-4250756.php

Morgan, Cuomo & Feinstein have been good for the Gun Shop business…Just sayin’

workingclass artist on February 5, 2013 at 10:28 AM

Eleven senators sent a letter to President Obama on Monday demanding access to secret legal memos outlining the administration’s case for the targeted killing of U.S. citizens in counterterrorism operations overseas.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

BobMbx on February 5, 2013 at 10:38 AM

We all remember the eloquent words of Col. Kirby:

“Out here, due process is a bullet”

BobMbx on February 5, 2013 at 10:43 AM

“consistent with the inherent right of self-defense.”

Hey John, you d*ckhead, what about MY inherent right to self defense? Barry Zero and rapidly dropping doesn’t seem to recognize that.

Mr. Grump on February 5, 2013 at 10:47 AM

Maybe it’s time we had one of those “national conversations” Dems are always wanting to have about stuff they want to force down our throats.

Here’s my conversation-starter: this pretty well proves that what consaervatives were saying all along was true – the opposition to the Bush administration’s attempts to combat terror on civil liberties grounds was so much hogwash – it was politically motivated and orchestrated, becuase it disappeared the instant a Democrat moved into the White House.

Prove me wrong, media sychophants.

drunyan8315 on February 5, 2013 at 10:47 AM

My folks are honest enough to own the fact that they approve of things that Obama does simply because Obama does them. The fact that they disapproved of them when someone else was doing them is irrelevant.

Honest liberals?

Washington Nearsider on February 5, 2013 at 10:06 AM

Sounds more like arrogant smugness to me than honesty.

Liam on February 5, 2013 at 10:26 AM

Yeah, you’re probably right.

Washington Nearsider on February 5, 2013 at 10:47 AM

So…let me get this str8… some people are less human based upon the coincidence of where they were born…. Yep that sounds about right.

roflmmfao

donabernathy on February 5, 2013 at 10:48 AM

So if I can get one official to target Kent18 the unwashed pedophiliac, he can get a Hellfire in his ugly face? Sweet.

In all seriousness, this is BAD.

MelonCollie on February 5, 2013 at 10:52 AM

The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out… without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.

H. L. Mencken

roflmmfao

donabernathy on February 5, 2013 at 10:57 AM

Yet another Bush gift that keeps on giving.

Mr. Arrogant on February 5, 2013 at 10:58 AM

I personally have no problem with an American citizen getting popped outside the country if he’s a member of AQ. He is with an organization waging war on the United States, and that makes him guilty of treason according to the Constitution. I say, “Bombs away!” on his azz.

Liam on February 5, 2013 at 8:46 AM

Who needs due process? Innocent until proven guilty? Hogwash! If your superiors secretly determine that they want to eliminate you, they should have the right. Nevermind that the admin behind this policy fights to have convicted murderers who are not citizens of the US spared the death sentence that was given to them through due process by a jury of 12. Your superiors know better. “The American people don’t care about process.” BHO “Due process does not necessarily include a trial.” E Holder

njolsson on February 5, 2013 at 11:04 AM

…and the targeting of an American citizen by the government was considered a new step — and not necessarily a good one.

Rot!

We killed quite a few Americans overseas during the Cold War.

Since long before obama…or Bush, for that matter.

But, back then, we could keep a secret…rather than flagellate ourselves on the front page of the Times.

Solaratov on February 5, 2013 at 11:17 AM

The US has NO more moral authority.

The irony is that the leftists killed it and are silent on topic.

Were it not so tragic it w/b amusing.

Schadenfreude on February 5, 2013 at 11:26 AM

Leftists are Never truly liberal, nor progressive, Never.

Schadenfreude on February 5, 2013 at 11:27 AM

Jeeze. Where are those vaunted champions of liberty and freedom now? Silently applauding the fact that the US government can commit murder and violate due process just so long as the “right person” has his finger on the trigger.

That’s what I detest most about today’s liberals=>progressives. Fracking hypocrites condone this positively evil arrogation of power unto the Executive branch because a person of color who happens to be a democrat is behind it. They make me sick with their sociopathic abilities to turn a blind eye to a wrong just because their guy is committing it.

totherightofthem on February 5, 2013 at 11:28 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3