Obama Administration Claims Right to Kill Americans Suspected of Terrorism

Today in a congressional hearing, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair acknowledged that the U.S. may, with executive approval, deliberately target and kill U.S. citizens who are suspected of being involved in terrorism. I discussed this story in the segment on MSNBC Countdown below.

In the hearing, Blair stated “[w]e take direct actions against terrorists in the intelligence community. If we think that direct action will involve killing an American, we get specific permission to do that.”

The story raises serious legal questions. It is one thing to kill an American in the course of a terrorist act or to prevent an imminent attack. It is quite another thing to kill someone suspected of terrorism without a trial. That would amount to the assassination of a citizen.

Once again, the Obama Administration appears to be following Bush policies. In late 2002, Kamal Derwish (aka Ahmed Hijazi), a U.S. citizen, was killed in an attack by a Hellfire missile fired by a Predator in Yemen. The U.S. knew it was killing a U.S. citizen because it was monitoring his phone at the time. We were targeting Al Qaeda figures. One of the men was Abu Ali al-Harithi, suspected of masterminding the 2000 attack on the USS Cole in Yemen. After the attack, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions wrote a letter to the United States stating the attack “constitute[s] a clear case of extrajudicial killing.”

Notably, Derwish was a key possible witness for the defense in the controversial Lackawanna case. He was reportedly the individual who recruited the Lackawanna defendants to travel to Afghanistan and knew facts concerning their travels, timing, motivation, and the material support to al Qaeda.

Such use of unilateral authority put the United States on shaky legal ground. The Annex to Hague Convention Number IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, has a provision that reads: “In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden … to kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army … .” The provision is admittedly a bit vague when put into specific situations on a battlefield. However, the U.S. Army has interpreted this provision “as prohibiting assassination, proscription, or outlawry of an enemy, or putting a price upon an enemy’s head, as well as offering a reward for an enemy “dead or alive.'” While the military believes it can target individual soldiers, the line between an assassination and legitimate killing has become more blurred with new technology like predators. What is not blurred are the rights of U.S. citizens.

As reaffirmed in cases like Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), American citizens have the same protections regardless of whether they are without or outside of the country. In that case, two American women who murdered their husbands on American military bases abroad were given the same protections under the Fifth Amendment regardless of the fact that they were located and committed the crimes abroad.

If a president can kill U.S. citizens abroad, why not within the United States? What is the limiting principle beyond the practicalities?

268 thoughts on “Obama Administration Claims Right to Kill Americans Suspected of Terrorism

  1. This will go along very well with other great ideas, like indefinite detention, etc.

    It also strikes me as funny (read: appallingly hypocritical) that Republicans are in favor of such lawlessness even though it was their deity, Saint Ron, who outlawed such behavior.

    And so it goes.

  2. I forgot to mention: One must never forget that the people who will select these targets for assassination — after a “thorough review,” of course — are the same geniuses who nabbed and tortured the hundreds of worst-of-the-worst terrorists who were later found to be innocent.

    Of course, it’s still not anything a perfunctory apology can’t fix/undo/mitigate.

  3. From my non-legal mind I see terrorism as war fought without a significant military budget.

    If a U.S. citizen engages in terrorism for an enemy like al queda, they should minimally be treated the same as a Confederate soldier/enemy was in our Civil War, out to terrorize the Union, and kill.

    I remain somewhat conflicted, and open minded on this subject however.

  4. Good God! I didn’t see the committee hearing, but there has to be some “context” here that’s not being reported. Although I can’t imagine what it must be to justify such a statement of policy.

  5. Yep. And when they kill an American citizen, or any other citizen, based upon phoney information, they will be like the Saturday night Live character, “Gillie”, who when confronted will say “sowwy” and there will be no accountability.

    Big Brother is no longer only a republican, but also a democrat.

  6. Which begs the question; Can Al Queda find enough American citizens to establish a shield which would prevent them from being attacked?

  7. Prof. we are on so many slippery slopes how are you keeping track where we are headed? Any markers that say we are about to cross the point of no return? Or will we know the error of our ways only when we go the edge? Yikes! Somebody put on the brakes!

  8. This is old news. What they do is if they suspect that it is an American terrorist they wait until they are with a known terrorist before making the strike. That way the American is a casualty of that action and not a direct action there of.

  9. This begs the question: what exactly is the administrations definition of “terrorist”? Is it supposedly someone working with Al Quada and similar groups, or is it (as stated in the MIAC report)people who back third party political candidates or have paraphernalia related to the Constitution?

    I thought Bush and company was bad, but this is even beyond John Yoo claiming that the president has the right to call for the torture of children in front of their parents. This is Tyranny (with a capitol T) in it’s worst and most absolute of forms.

    Is anyone still seriously backing this administration? I see nothing but stormy seas ahead for our beleaguered country.

  10. And I keep asking the same question. When is someone going to take a good, hard look at what is going on domestically?

  11. It’s so much worse than many imagine it to be. I’m begging for hearings, an investigation, some sort of review board. Something. Anything. When the full truth is exposed, most will be appalled. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

  12. The first question that I have is how many citizens have been killed that we don’t know about with this continuation of a horrific Bush policy? Secondly, what Constitutional authority allows any President the ability to assissinate a citizen without due process? If you use the worn out Executive war powers, then there is absolutely no limit to what any President could do. If the executive authority is that wide, then Prof. Turley’s question about limits is easy to answer. There would be no limits. I don’t think it would matter where the citizen was located…within or without the country. Wouldn’t this allow any President to kill political opponents by merely claiming some illusory tie to terrorism and the person could be killed by the CIA without any recourse and probably without any knowledge of what happened. This is a preposterous policy and a deadly one for the Democracy. This policy is governmental terrorism at its worst. Obama must take a stand against this alleged power.

  13. When I read articles like this, I am glad that I am in my 6th decade of life and on the trail to senescence while the purpose in and of my life is approaching moribundity.

    If I were a young man—like my son is—I would be concerned, angry, and extremely disillusioned. I have lived a life completely free of any problems with the law and once stated that I respected the law so much that I would never ever become involved in civil disobedience—and I never have. However, if I were in my 20s—instead of my 60s—I doubt that I would have been the model citizen that I have always striven to be at all times, in all places, and at all costs.

    I was provided the opportunities, I became a well-educated man, and I have had a very good life; however, hardly anything I read or hear about nowadays makes any sense or serves a good purpose. I thought that perhaps I was just experiencing that aged cynicism stage, although too many others much younger than I am are agreeing with me—unfortunately so—while other evidence includes similar sentiments involving articles and comments I read within this blawg and elsewhere.

  14. FF LEO–

    “However, if I were in my 20s—instead of my 60s—I doubt that I would have been the model citizen that I have always striven to be at all times, in all places, and at all costs.”

    Though we may be on different sides of the political spectrum–my life pretty much mirrors yours. At this stage in my life, I believe that those who are/have been involved in marches, protests, civil disobedience as ways to speak out against societal wrongs and unconscionable government programs and practices and to fight for the repeal of unjust laws–those are the real model citizens.

  15. to see this in the proper perspective, you only have to change the players’ nationalities.
    how about if the french, or german, or the iranian government said out loud that they had the authority to kill anyone anywhere, american citizens and american soil included?
    surely the american military-industrial-counterterrorism-complex is the supreme terrorist.

  16. Professor Turley.

    I would be very interested to hear your opinion on the typical case of American justice that just convicted Aafia Siddiqui after a trial in which the evidence would in my opinion anyway is very week. Cage prisoners has good coverage, I suggest reading the articles on all 12 days.

    http://www.cageprisoners.com/articles.php?id=30932.

    Scott Horton of Harpers magazine has an excellent article discussing Aafia Siddiqui’s mysterious disappearance in 2003 and her possible wherabouts until her reappearance under very strange circumstances in Kabul in 2008:-

    http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/11/0082719.

    In addition there is this post at Canary Papers:-
    http://canarypapers.wordpress.com/2010/01/20/the-new-american-justice-aafia-siddiquis-trial-by-water/.

  17. Welcome to Thunderdome!

    And I wonder how long before a murder of an American abroad is met with the defense, “His own government killed him. Not me.”

    Coming soon to a tabloid near you.

  18. What should be the procedure when a U.S. citizen is with Al Queda? Is association at your own risk not understood?

    We have places right here in the good ole U.S. of A. where a citizen can, and has been in the past, shot on sight for breaching the perimeter.

    I wish we had the ability to take out the Al Queda members while sparing the life of the treaonous citizen giving them aid, but we don’t. I’m not going to lose any sleep over this. I can tell every U.S. Citizen how to avoid it. Just don’t hang out will Al Queda.

  19. The beauty of the concept of terrorism is that it can be extended until all dissent to government policies is “terrorism”. It is only a matter of time before disagreement with US policy towards the Palestinians is treated as support of Al Queada.

    Eventually the president will be able to order the assassination of the professor because he supports Al Queada by criticizing the president’s right to have alleged supporters assassinated.

  20. It’s more Orwellian reversals. The biggest actors of terrorism are nation states. Terror is a tactic. But now it’s turned on it’s head and people are to believe that individuals in sandals, t-shirts, IED’s and box cutters are doing all the damage because the hate our freedom. Riiight.

    What is a terrorist? Ask Britian who declared the country of Iceland a terrorist country because it refused to payoff it’s banksters bad debts in the IceSave scam. Isn’t that convenient. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1849090,00.html

  21. Ok, 30%er, I mean bdaman.

    I am sure you are not quite awake. You need more coffee and the magicactus to jump start your morning.

  22. We all know that these U.S. Citizens were only with Al Queda because they were delivering them their order of Girl Scout cookies.

  23. It’s important to remember that the federal government has been illegally assassinating people since at least the early ’50’s. It reached a peak in Operation Phoenix during the Viet Nam war (in which merely being politically supportive of the Viet Minh was enough to put you on a list of targets), and a nadir in the 90’s, but it’s pretty much been SOP for the unimaginative thugs who think they’re protecting us. Obama merely demonstrates, once again, that he’s just another politician, happy to ignore the Constitution whenever it suits his needs.

  24. This has nothing to do with any particular President, although Obama deserves no diminution of opprobrium. This has been going on in the US for al least more than a century. There exists a Washington establishment of foreign policy “realists” (in their own eyes)that believes extraordinary measures should be taken to deal with America’s enemies. It doesn’t matter what party is in power, or who the President is, this group remains at the heart of foreign policy making and truthfully I doubt at this point whether any President has the power to deal with them.

    Eisenhower, the old soldier, warned us to beware of the Military Industrial Complex and I suspect it was because he learned how powerless he was in certain matters. General Smedley-Butler sounded the alarm in the early 30’s, when various members of the political elite came to him to back a coup to unseat FDR. The members of this “permanent government” will destroy anyone who they perceive as a threat to their supremacy, including a President.

    Carlyle is correct we are living in a Police State, but it is one of a different design. By controlling the media and the message the elite can allow people to get away with a lot more then they can in say China or Russia. This produce the “patina” of freedom. The 60’s taught me that we could hold all the protests we want, but when someone becomes a real threat they are eliminated. JFK, MLK and RFK proved it. It’s not even important that a majority of Americans didn’t believe in the assassination fairy tales, as long as the message is controlled and those who disagree are portrayed as fools, no threat to this establishment exists.

  25. “This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.”
    ~Plato

  26. Duh wrote: “I can tell every U.S. Citizen how to avoid it. Just don’t hang out will Al Queda.”

    How wrong you are.

  27. anon nurse: (to Duh) “How wrong you are.”

    —How right you are. The police state just keeps rolling on right over the Constitution and the citizenry.

    “Police want backdoor to Web users’ private data”

    “Anyone with an e-mail account likely knows that police can peek inside it if they have a paper search warrant.

    But cybercrime investigators are frustrated by the speed of traditional methods of faxing, mailing, or e-mailing companies these documents. They’re pushing for the creation of a national Web interface linking police computers with those of Internet and e-mail providers so requests can be sent and received electronically.

    CNET has reviewed a survey scheduled to be released at a federal task force meeting on Thursday, which says that law enforcement agencies are virtually unanimous in calling for such an interface to be created. Eighty-nine percent of police surveyed, it says, want to be able to “exchange legal process requests and responses to legal process” through an encrypted, police-only “nationwide computer network.” (See one excerpt and another.)

    The survey, according to two people with knowledge of the situation, is part of a broader push from law enforcement agencies to alter the ground rules of online investigations.”

    http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10446503-38.html

  28. lottakatz:

    why do humans always use technology for venal purposes and seek to expand their control of other human beings?

    there must be some sort of mindset that makes them believe they are doing it for some noble purpose. in actuality they are small minded and dull. people who seek power over other people are the lowest level of humanity. they are the cave dwellers of our culture who have not evolved enough to understand the concept of the individual as the basis for society.

  29. More on the Aafia Siddiqui trial at Counterpunch, Specifically the Governments denial that she was in US custody for five years and the testimony of an FBI agent that she told him that she was in hiding for 5 years. Evidence on the prisoner list of Bagram is a State secret so that avenue of disproving the governments asserions is closed off.

    If as many believe Aafia Siddiqui was held in Bagram prison this constitutes a whopping case of perjury.

    http://www.counterpunch.org/mariner02052010.html.

  30. They are also doing J. Edgar Hoover type spying on Americans who do not believe the official 9/11 conspiracy theory.

    The guy in charge of “privacy” wrote in a Harvard Law School periodical that such groups should be infiltrated like J. Edgar Hoover did.

    Put these two stories together, take it to a logical conclusion, and in the most extreme case they would infiltrate groups because of their opinions and kill some of them?

    http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2010/02/empire-strikes-back.html

  31. Duh wrote: “I can tell every U.S. Citizen how to avoid it. Just don’t hang out will Al Queda.”

    Anon nurse responded “How wrong you are.”

    Then lottakatz agrees with Anon nurse with something about emails.

    This thread is about U.S. Citizens, who are in the company of Al Queda, losing their lives when the military takes out an Al Queda target. Anon nurse took the easiest, most simplistic, schoolyard approach possible.

    If I am wrong, tell me how I am wrong. Tell me how U.S. Citizens are losing their lives during a military attack on Al Queda, without being with Al Queda.

    I firmly believe that giving aid to the enemy must be considered an affirmative act of expatriation. One who aids the enemy becomes themself, the enemy. They voluntarily relinquished any protections afforded them by the United States when they did so.

  32. Duh:

    good point. You can certainly kill them on the battle field during combat because you cannot distinguish between American enemies and foreign enemies. But can you specifically target them under the current laws of our land?

    There were many Germans who left the Untied States in the late 30’s to join Hitler’s Germany. However I think it was because they did not feel Ameica was there true home. I believe American Muslims who leave to become Jihadis have a similar feeling of disaffection.

    This is a bad thing, it could be used against you. Maybe someone reading this blog from the Department of Homeland Security (American Gestapo) doesn’t like what you wrote and sends their black shirts to your house in the middle of the night? Your ashes get sent to your wife and they bill her for your execution. Don’t think it can happen here? That is what 90 million Germans thought as well.

    The Department of Homeland Security is a big step in that direction. Look around you, Duh, we are loosing our freedoms a light speed now. We have been slowly loosing them since just before WWI but the pace has accelerated. If we don’t have a sea change you will die in a totalitarian society assuming you are 50 and will live another 30 years. In fact it is probably closer than that.

  33. Byron,

    I don’t disagree. We have lost many of our freedoms. That’s not germaine to this discussion, unless you think traitors should be free to leave the country, provide aid and comfort to the enemy, and act as a shield that would prevent the military from attacking that enemy.

    I think the problem here lies with “war” against something other than another country. It’s not easy to conceptualize war against a non-state-sanctioned entity. In most of the instances we can imagine, the country in which they reside would be hunting them down, and I doubt that more than a handful would be complaining about the Afghan government taking out a U.S. Citizen that was working with Al Queda.

    You brought up WWI. Do you think our military gave a rat’s ass about U.S. Citizens that went to help Hitler? I’ll bet the people of the U.S. were happy to see a traitor lose his life while consorting with the enemy.

    What was the difference when the Union Army killed the soldiers of the Confederate Army? Where are the boo-hoos for those U.S. Citizens that declared war against the U.S.?

    The enemy is the enemy. Sometimes the good of the many must outweigh the good of the few, or the one. This rings especially true when the one has voluntarily left his country, and is giving aid to those who wish to kill inocent civilians here at home.

    When we have the ability to capture the traitor, without significant risk to those involved; then do so. Sometimes we are not afforded that luxury. We’re not talking about average “Joe Citizen” that just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

  34. Duh:

    I said killing American citizens fighting for the enemy is fine by me. I just don’t think we should say “Juan Moduh” is at this address take him out. If you are taking out the enemy and Juan Moduh is there too bad for Juan. But there should be no preferential targeting of Juan Moduh American citizen.

    If an American citizen is fighting for the Taliban then kill him but do it on the battlefield. You cannot target them specifically. That kind of law would be used against US citizens on American soil that may just not agree with state policy at that time and have no intention of bearing arms against the US.

    The individual is the cornerstone of our society and every effort must be made to protect him/her. If we don’t what good are our laws? What you suggest puts the state above the individual. Not a good idea, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot all thought the state reigned supreme.

    The Patriot Act was passed out of fear, it is a bad law and will come back and bite us at some point. I was personally appalled that many conservatives were for it’s passage. The Department of Homeland Security is the American Gestapo. It doesn’t have teeth yet but it will in the future. It should be done away with, the sooner the better. It amazes me to no end that we as Americans even tolerate this threat to our liberty.

    So Duh are you a butcher or a champion of individual rights? I don’t think there is any other way to look at this.

  35. Byron,

    Once the U.S. Citizen leaves this country and joins the enemy in a foreign country, that former citizen becomes the enemy. They are one in the same. I’m talking about a military action in a foreign country.

    “You cannot target them specifically.”

    I disagree. They forfeit the protections normally afforded U.S. Citizens when the became one with the enemy. If you (Byron) left the U.S. and became one of Bin Laden’s generals, you volunteered to become a target of the U.S. Military.

    “That kind of law would be used against US citizens on American soil that may just not agree with state policy at that time and have no intention of bearing arms against the US.”

    I disagree. That would be a violation of the PSA, and a violation of due process. If our government started taking out U.S. Citizens on U.S. soil just because they voiced an opinion that was against the government, I would join the ranks of those who would put an end to that government.

    “So Duh are you a butcher or a champion of individual rights?”

    That’s a ridiculous question. You took a discussion about the U.S. Military killing a traitor in a foreign country, and turned it into an attempt to insinuate that it would be something that I would condone on U.S. soil. I would not support such an act.

  36. Byron,

    Just so you don’t get confused. I consider unlawful combatants to be among the lowest scum on the face of the earth. I would afford them no rights. That may not be the only deterrent available, but I think it is very effective.

  37. Duh:

    if I am one of Bin Ladens generals then I am a military target. You don’t need a law that targets me specifically.

    You cannot have some weenie dick in Washington stroke his name to a piece of paper targeting Byron American citizen for assassination. But you can take me out as part of a military offensive designed to cut off the command and control structure of the Taliban of which I am a part.

    The minute you target me specifically you can target any American anywhere for treason or seditious acts or what ever the government can make up.

    Duh, by targeting me, a US citizen, you are condoning my assassination on US soil for whatever reason you may devise. I know you wouldn’t but the government is not you.

  38. Byron,

    Your playing with words. We agree that you, even as a U.S. Citizen, can be a target in the battlefield. We agree that the U.S. Government, or the U.S. Military, cannot just designate you as a target to be taken out at the earliest convinience wherever you may be.

    If you stick to the topic of the thread (that is, killing a U.S. Citizen who is in the company of, and is giving aid to, the enemy) I think we agree.

    I don’t think JT agrees with us, and neither do most of the regulars. If you read the article, JT makes it seem like the U.S. Military is taking them out wherever they may be, and regardless of who they are with. Then he points out that the attack was intended to take out Al Queda. I think anyone in the company of and working with Al Queda is Al Queda. I think you agree. The Professor considers this to be an extrajudicial killing. I think the right of due process was forfeited when they gave allegiance to the enemy.

  39. Duh:

    “Today in a congressional hearing, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair acknowledged that the U.S. may, with executive approval, deliberately target and kill U.S. citizens who are suspected of being involved in terrorism.”

    You cannot do that. Period, end of story. There is nothing to argue, there is no parsing of words or changing the subject. If you think that it is OK for the president to sign his name to an order sanctioning the killing of an individual American citizen because he is a terrorist then I don’t know what to say.

    Cant you see the larger picture that statement above encompasses? That could be done on US soil to you or to me just because we belonged to the Capitalist Crusaders and the current administration thought we were a “threat” to “democracy”. I know you mean well but you need to think this thing through. For Christ sake, you have to go to a judge to get a wiretap.

    Military action is one thing but executive order is quite another. Who do you suppose issued the orders for individuals in Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia or Communist China to be “disposed” of?

  40. Byron, key word may. This is gonna be done whether you, I or duh or anyone else likes it or not. It’s simple, as I pointed out in my first post, this is old news. If an American is a target, they wait for that American to surround themselves with other known terrorist before they strike. That way the American was not a direct target of the action, he is a bonus. Welcome to the bonus round.

  41. That could be done on US soil to you or to me just because we belonged to the Capitalist Crusaders and the current administration thought we were a “threat” to “democracy”.

    Already been done.

  42. Byron,

    Read this associated article.
    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/license-kill-intelligence-chief-us-american-terrorist/story?id=9740491&page=1

    JT usually provides a link to an article. This time he did not. Maybe he was busy preparing to the snow storm.

    After reading the article, you will be able to understand, in context, what was being said. That is, if the intelligence indicates that a U.S. Citizen is among the terrorists targeted, they obtain specific executive permission to go ahead with the strike. I have no problem with that.

  43. Duh did bdaman,

    Never let the right hand know what the left hand is doing. Sometime it is bet to cooperate with people especially yourself.

    I think it is funny when people are walking down the street apparently talking to themselves. Sometimes they even yell. Used to the police would pick them up for observation for some period of time. Now they take em to a cellphone store so they can get a better blue tooth.

  44. Duh:

    after reading that article I know I am right. This goes beyond targeting American terrorists. There is a larger issue at work here. A law like that could be used against American civilians on American soil.

    Why do you think it is OK? Do you think the executive is going to be noble and righteous and follow constitutional principles? That is too much power to place in the hands of one man or even a select few. Look what happened with our economy under the control of the Federal Reserve and a couple of individuals-it went to shit.

  45. AY,

    I remember the “good ole days” when you could reasonably assume that the person talking to themself, waiting for an answer, and then appearing to respond was a sure sign of a mental problem. Today, that has become the norm.

    Maybe they (including you and I) just think we are using bluetooth technology. :)

  46. How easy the words like “enemy combatant,””Al Queada” and terrorist are bandied about. Usually uou see it coming from either members of the foreign policy/terrorism club, or from ordinary peopleso frightened by a chimera that they will unthinkingly give up their rights. By US admission a goodly percentage of the people in Guantanamo were turned in for bounty by tribal leaders and others coveting the monbey and their goods.

    It amuses me in a rather macbre way that a whole group of people that rail against government power and incompetence, are so willing to accept it when it comes to the military and the police. It is a proven fact that innocent people have been executed and yet death penalty advocates consider it a necessity and even legislte to limit people’s rights of appeal.
    Byron, a conservative with a distrust of government realizes that our laws exist to prevent mistakes and other injustices from happening.

    In the heat of a combat situation if I was a soldier I’d blow away anyone I saw as a threat and condone those who would do so in legitimate fear of their lives. However, the chilling aspect of this is that it bespeaks the targetting and assasination of individuals based on some bureaucrat’s (yes soldiers are bureaucrats also)assessmnent. To unleash this right is to let the genie out of a bottle it would never willingly return to.

    As an analogy see the career of J.E. Hoover who investigated illegally anyone he wanted to, stayed in power by his blackmail and taking “enemies” off the playing field. What is so smarmy about the man is because of his horse racing addiction he hung out with many members of organized crime, while claiming publicly it didn’t exist.

    If we are going to give people (bureaucrats) the right to target those they designat as “enemy combatants,” then the costitution will fast go by the wayside. This is neither a right nor left wing issue. It is an issue of how much you will support the constitution despite the propagandas a fear that has been sold to you.

  47. Byron,

    Let me break this down.

    The U.S. Military is targeting an Al Queda. They have reliable information that would indicate that a U.S. citizen is among the targeted group. Do you think they should be able to still fire on that target, or do you think the U.S. Citizen should serve as a shield and prevent firing upon the target? For what reason is the U.S. citizen among those targeted?

  48. My mothers side of the family is German and she had stated that her uncle whom had served in WWI as a Capital fighting for America was interned during WWII on American soil.

    I was not able until about 2 years ago to find out if this was actually true. Apparently in 07 Russ Feingold from WI introduced a bill to have an investigation done. It was slammed by the GOP.

    GOP Slams Effort To Study WWII Internment Camps in U.S.

    As Washington buzzed over the derailed immigration bill last week, wrangling over the so-called Wartime Treatment Study Act reflected an equally deep-seated, if less public, partisan divide. Republican critics of the bill, including Sessions, argue that it is based on flawed findings, and say they fear that it could lead to the paying of reparations. Its backers say the critics are simply loath to investigate possible government wrongdoing given the ongoing war in Iraq.

    …the Department of Justice rounded up more than 30,000 “enemy aliens” — including 11,000 Germans, 3,200 Italians and scores of other Europeans, including some who resided in Latin America and were turned over to the American government….

    Link: http://www.forward.com/articles/10953/

  49. Duh:

    if you have an American citizen hanging out with a group of known Taliban/Al Qaeda fighters and he is killed as part of a military operation targeting Taliban/Al Qaeda operatives, then tough shit for him. But if you target him specifically by executive fiat then tough shit for our Constitution and the corner stone of our society -the individual.

    What about this don’t you understand? It seems pretty cut and dry to me. Military operation targeting Taliban OK, Executive order for the murder of an American citizen not OK. I don’t care that the American citizen is a venal criminal jihadi pork hating prick, you cannot have him killed by an executive order.

    But on the other hand if there are a bunch of American citizens hanging with Osama and they die because Osama got whacked then too bad so sad, you should pick better friends to hang with.

  50. Duh:

    “The U.S. Military is targeting an Al Queda. They have reliable information that would indicate that a U.S. citizen is among the targeted group. Do you think they should be able to still fire on that target, or do you think the U.S. Citizen should serve as a shield and prevent firing upon the target? For what reason is the U.S. citizen among those targeted?”

    you arent even the ball park with that statement.

  51. But on the other hand if there are a bunch of American citizens hanging with Osama and they die because Osama got whacked then too bad so sad, you should pick better friends to hang with.

    and there you have it. IN COMING, BOOM

  52. AY,

    I think your mothers story is accurate. I think many Germans were treated poorly during WWII. I do think the protections afforded them by the Constitution were violated.

    Here’s some pretty good information.
    http://www.foitimes.com/gasummary.htm

    Nov. 19, 1999 Congressman Matt Salmon [a Republican] placed a statement on Proclamation 2526 in the Extension of Remarks section of the Congressional Record. In this statement, Congressman Salmon urged the members of the House “…to pursue a full historical accounting of the experiences of all Americans [German, Italian, as well as Japanese] who suffered discrimination during the Second World War as expeditiously as possible.”

    In 2001 Russ Feingold and Charles Grassley cosponsored a Bill. Why didn’t you mention that Charles Grassley (R-IA) cosponsored the Bill?

  53. Bdaman:

    I dont think they should happen here or there, I dont think they should happen anywhere.

    I dont like them with a hat, I dont like them with a coat, I dont like them Bdaman.

    I dont like executive orders with a coke, I dont like them with a float, I dont like executive orders Bdaman.

  54. The article Ay linked to does not mention Grassley as far as I can see. I scanned quickly. The title may have something to do with it.

    GOP Slams Effort To Study WWII Internment Camps in U.S.

  55. Byron,

    We agree. The article is talking about getting executive permission when an American is identified as being among those included in the target. Not that he is the specific target.

    I would go one step further. If a U.S. Citizen joins Al Queda, I no longer consider him to be a U.S. Citizen. Getting executive permission becomes a mere formality. The only reason I could see to get executive permission would be in case we have managed to get a U.S. Citizen to infiltrate the organization. We wouldn’t want to take out “our” inside guy.

  56. As Charlie once sang, no one knows what goes on behind closed doors.

    I’m just pointing out if they wanted to come after you, trump up some charges and let the games begin.

  57. bdaman,

    I would agree. That is possible, but if proven, I think the majority of Americans would have a big problem with that. I know I would.

  58. Duh:

    “Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair acknowledged that the U.S. may, with executive approval, deliberately target and kill U.S. citizens who are suspected of being involved in terrorism.”

    Duh said – “We agree. The article is talking about getting executive permission when an American is identified as being among those included in the target. Not that he is the specific target.”

    No that is not what Dennis Blair is saying. And no I do not agree with what you are saying. Dennis Blair is saying that with an executive order you can assassinate an American citizen suspected of being involved in terrorism. There is nothing about being included in the target in that statement. It is open ended, being a “suspected” terrorist could mean anything.

    If this is what they are teaching you at “conservative school” you better go ask for a refund.

    Side note to Buddah: I think I understand why PNAC isn’t such a good thing. Duh has swallowed the Neo-Con kool aid.

    Duh, you need to quickly purge yourself of neo-con political thought. Quite frankly it is almost as bad as Marx and Chairman Mao.

    Quickly read John Locke, John Stuart Mill, Jefferson and Madison. Re-read the DOI at least 12 times and the constitution 6 times. Throw in a little Von Mises and some Thomas Sowell and cough up that intellectual fur ball that is causing your “muddled” thinking. :)

    Remember – Individual good, Collective bad.

  59. bdaman,

    I’m with ya on Ruby Ridge. However, that action was not officially sanctioned, and nobody was the express target of an assasination attempt. Ruby Ridge was a terrible injustice. Ruby Ridge took place because the government could care less about its citizens. The government was worried about protecting itself.

    “When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”
    Thomas Jefferson

  60. Byron,

    You quoted this “Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair acknowledged that the U.S. may, with executive approval, deliberately target and kill U.S. citizens who are suspected of being involved in terrorism.”

    Do me a favor and find the origin of that quote. Who was the reporter, and why did you chose to quote a reporters interpretation instead of what Blair said?

  61. Duh:

    it was at the top of this thread.

    and then from the lead to the article you posted:

    ” “We take direct actions against terrorists in the intelligence community; if … we think that direct action will involve killing an American, we get specific permission to do that,” Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair told the House Intelligence Committee.”

    I don’t know Duh, seems pretty cut and dry to me.

    Go read Jefferson and Locke and call me in the morning. :)

  62. Again. Why did you chose to quote a reporters interpretation instead of what Blair actually said?

    Who’s drinking the Kool Aid?

    Here’s a quote from the original story;

    “Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair acknowledged Wednesday that government agencies may kill U.S. citizens abroad who are involved in terrorist activities if they are “taking action that threatens Americans.”

  63. Ben Wizner, staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project, stated:

    “It is alarming to hear that the Obama administration is asserting that the president can authorize the assassination of Americans abroad, even if they are far from any battlefield and may have never taken up arms against the U.S., but have only been deemed to constitute an unspecified ‘threat.’ This is the most recent consequence of a troublingly overbroad interpretation of Congress’s 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force. This sweeping interpretation envisions a war that knows no borders or definable time limits and targets an enemy that the government has refused to define in public. This policy is particularly troubling since it targets U.S. citizens, who retain their constitutional right to due process even when abroad.”

    (source: http://www.aclu.org/national-security/intelligence-official-acknowledges-policy-allowing-targeted-killings-americans)

    And as Professor Turley said, “If a president can kill U.S. citizens abroad, why not within the United States? What is the limiting principle beyond the practicalities?”

  64. You’re right. It was in quotes at the top of this thread, but was not attributed to anyone. You can’t even tell me who JT was quoting, but you are more than happy to accept their interpretation. Have another cup of Kool Aid.

    “[I]f … we think that direct action will involve killing an American, we get specific permission to do that,”

    He’s talking about an American in “the battlefield”, and is even more likely talking about an American that is in the company of Al Queda.

    That doesn’t stop you from reading into it anything you want. Don’t be upset when I don’t read the same thing into it.

  65. Duh:

    you posted the article for Christ sake, I just took the part with the quotes. Why don’t you show me the transcripts from the original meeting and have them notarized as well.

    so how do they do it? Do they have to go see the president to get an executive order singed?

    Anyway we were talking about requiring an executive order to have an American citizen killed. If an American citizen, Chumley Patterson, runs up to Sargent Fury, in the Green Zone, and points a gun at him and yells God is Great, Sargent Fury can blow his ass away. The Sarge does not need an executive order to do it. I think most reasonable people would call it self defense.

    If the president of the US is told that Chumley is a terrorist and signs a sanction for his death, that is plain wrong on a number of different levels. You seem to think that Chumley can be whacked by the US if someone says he is a terrorist and the president signs the order. I say no.

  66. anon nurse,

    It looks like Mr. Wizner wants to wait until the terrorists arrive on American soil before he will consider them to be a threat. People that think like that have the luxury of not being responsible for preventing such attacks, but they’ll be the first to complain that not enough was done when it happens.

  67. Byron,

    You and I are interpreting the article in two different ways. I see it as needing executive authority if an American citizen is likely to be killed in an attack on an Al Queda operation. You see it as needing executive authority to designate that person as a target. My interpretation is like them saying screw-it, he’s a U.S. Citizen, but he is with our intended target, and asking for permission to proceed. Your interpretation is that he is the intended target.

    I don’t think the government is specifically targeting U.S. Citizens, I think they are getting permission to consider them an acceptable casualty.

    Personally (not the interpretation of the governments view), I think anyone who leaves this country to give aid to Al Queda should lose their citizenship. The same as they would lose their citizenship for “taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state” as prescribed in Section 349 of the Immigration and Naturalization Act.

  68. Duh,

    The battlefield is anywhere the rules of engagement can be effectively handled without sacrifice of innocent human lives. I think that our government through its propaganda program has effectively moved attacks in order to engage in an acts of war we would not ordinary have been involved with.

    To wit, battleships escorting goods via Merchant Marine ships (today Blackwater/Xe) with some distinctions, to England and other country’s prior to our involvement. Merchant Marine ships pursuant to the treaty’s at the time could not be armed. Hence the need for escorts. I had an Uncle that did running and was a commander on a Merchant Marine vessel.

    That was why when Germany prior to Hitler’s rise was raising troops and building war machinery. We knew and snuck a number of well educated scientist out of Germany. We almost got into a skirmish with Russia because of the underhandedness of the whole situation.

    They were secreted in New Mexico and around the US. They were all over the US but but more than 100 were brought here. A book I am getting ready to read is about this.

    Presently, I am reading a book about the Civil War and Roosevelts travels down the River of Doubt. So far both are pretty good.

  69. correction about. The Civil War is one book and the other is about Roosevelt’s post election defeat and his travels down the River of Doubt. by Candice Millard

  70. Duh:

    You cannot have an American citizen killed because the president thinks he is a terrorist, it is wrong on so many different levels.

    It doesnt matter if there is even a battlefield, it doesnt matter if it is on the moon or on Saturn or Mars. You cannot kill an American who is suspected of being a terrorist by executive order and specifically target them. That is against everything it means to be an American.

  71. Duh,

    What about country’s that recognize dual citizenship? Such as Switzerland if you were born there.

  72. AY said “The battlefield is anywhere the rules of engagement can be effectively handled without sacrifice of innocent human lives. I think that our government through its propaganda program has effectively moved attacks in order to engage in an acts of war we would not ordinary have been involved with.”

    I think all of that change with Al Queda. We have never before been exposed to a viable non-state-sanctioned threat. We know the threat is real. We have seen that they are not just talk, and that they do have the ability to carry out their threats. Trying to stop them before another attack is the mission. Trying to accomplish that mission under rules normally applicable to was against a country is an impossible task.

    The battlefield must be wherever Al Queda is. They are not limited to a defined region. As such, we cannot limit ourselves to a defined region.

    Should we pull out of Aghanistan? Should we let them increase their numbers and their capabilities and just hope we can catch them during the last steps of their attack? I don’t think we can cut it that close.

    How would you approach the threat of Al Queda?

    As far as your research and the books you are reading: Have you searched Google Books? The URL is books.google.com You can chose only books that are available in “full view” or those that are “public domain”. If you have Adobe Acrobat, you can even download them and perform OCR on them to make them searchable by word on you PC. It’s a pretty cool site. Lots of historic books are available there.

  73. Byron,

    If a U.S. Citizen is over in Yemen having lunch with Bin Laden, I think he’s a little more than a suspected terrorist.

    Take a look at Section 349 of the INA. http://www.americanlaw.com/ina349.html

    If Al Queda was a country instead of a terrorist organization, that citizen would have already lost their citizenship. I’ll guarantee you that any U.S. Citizen who is giving aid to Al Queda has sworn allegiance to the same. The intent of Section 349 is pretty clear. If you swear allegiance to someplace other than the U.S., you lose your citizenship.

  74. Duh:

    “You see it as needing executive authority to designate that person as a target.”

    no that is not what I am saying at all. I am saying that you cannot give an executive order to kill an American citizen who is suspected of being a terrorist. It will lead to Americans being killed in America because they are suspected of being terrorists.

    And who determines the nature of a terrorist? Just recently the Department of Homeland Security was calling for police to watch out for people that had conservative bumper stickers on their cars.

    You can take out all the bad guys you want in a military operation, if they happen to be American citizens too bad for them.

    If they are in a sleeper cell in the US I think the lawyers on this blog will agree that you need to use local police and the FBI to take them out. If they are a large invasion force then you bring in the military.

    The problem with terrorism is that we are just a few good attacks away from a police state. People would be shitting themselves and giving up all manner of power to the federal government for the sake of security and viola you have a police state. It isn’t going to take much either, 10 Al Qaeda operatives with explosive vests and an AK-47 with 200 rounds and it’s a police state.

    So that is why I don’t want any American citizen being assassinated by executive order. You and I could be next on the executives list.

  75. AY,

    You can be born in Switzerland and become a naturalized U.S. Citizen, and resulting in dual citizenship, but you can’t be born in the U.S., or even a naturalized citizen of the U.S., and then swear allegiance to another country and still retain your U.S. Citizenship.

  76. “It will lead to Americans being killed in America because they are suspected of being terrorists.”

    Byron, You’re jumping to conclusions. The President does not have the authority to use military force inside the United States.

  77. Duh:

    “I think all of that change with Al Qaeda. We have never before been exposed to a viable non-state-sanctioned threat.”

    again you are incorrect, these people are sanctioned by Iran and Saudi Arabia. Unfortunately Bush didn’t have the balls or the intelligence to figure that out. If he had taken the leadership of those 2 countries out in 2001 we would not even be worried about executive orders. And Islam would be a religion of peace because all the crazies would be dead or in jail and those poor people could get on with their lives instead of living in abject terror.

    If you take out the head the body dies, simple biology.

  78. Duh:

    “If a U.S. Citizen is over in Yemen having lunch with Bin Laden, I think he’s a little more than a suspected terrorist.”

    so kill Bin Laden, what is stopping you? If his lunch partner is killed so what? He should have known Bin Laden was a high priority target as the head of Al Qaeda. I also have mentioned that more than once before.

  79. Duh:

    “It will lead to Americans being killed in America because they are suspected of being terrorists.” Byron

    Duh said:
    “Byron, You’re jumping to conclusions. The President does not have the authority to use military force inside the United States.”

    I don’t know how to explain it to you. So I am going to give up. Maybe Buddha or Mike Spindell or Mike Appleton or Mespo can explain it to you. They have a better understanding of the Constitution than I do.

  80. ““If a U.S. Citizen is over in Yemen having lunch with Bin Laden, I think he’s a little more than a suspected terrorist.”

    Byron said “so kill Bin Laden, what is stopping you? If his lunch partner is killed so what? He should have known Bin Laden was a high priority target as the head of Al Qaeda. I also have mentioned that more than once before.”

    Nice job Byron. You completely missed the point. I guess I made the mistake of putting candy in front of you. The point was that if an American citizen is giving aid to Al Queda, they should no longer be considered an American Citizen.

    Can you think of a reason for an American citizen to be hanging with Al Queda?

  81. Bryon,

    They President does not have the right to use military force as war measure. They Constitution prohibits standing Army’s. Presumably this came from the quartering act for the British soldiers.

    These army’s may be used for peace keeping measures only. They may only defend from a present attack. Not offensively.

    I think that this line is becoming more and more blurred.

  82. Byron,

    Getting somebody to assist you isn’t going to help. The President has the authority to take military action abroad. He cannot do the same in the U.S. Your “but he might” argument would result in an act that is definately 100% without a doubt unconstitutional. Have you ever heard of Posse Comitatus? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

    You keep using the word “suspected”. Someone that is being observed giving aid to the enemy is not just “suspected” of being involved in terrorist activities.

  83. AY said “I think that this line is becoming more and more blurred.”

    You’re right. It has become blurred. In the past, countries attacked each other. In the past, the purpose of waging war was to make what that country had, yours. In turn, the attacked country would age ware against the attacker.

    All countries, and all persons have the right to self-defense. Technology and high-speed travel have created a world in which waiting for the enemy to approach your borders is too late. With the permission of the countries in which these terrorists reside, we have gone to the terrorist in order to provide the ability to defend ourselves from attack. It would be nice if those countries could stop them for us, but they can’t. If the countries were just unwilling, we would declare war against that country. That’s why it gets blurry.

  84. “They Constitution prohibits standing Army’s.”

    I think I figured out the communication problem. We must have different Constitutions. :)

    In my Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Congress has the power to “raise and support armies”. It doesn’t say whether the men will be sitting or standing.

  85. AY said “I think that this line is becoming more and more blurred.”

    911 Changed everything. It is what it is and what it is, is, that the United States will, can and does target American citizens they deem are terrorist. One shot, one kill snipers creed.

  86. Duh:

    ok so he is a confirmed American terrorist who has killed American service men in battle. I still don’t think you can sign an executive order to assassinate him. Kill him in battle certainly.

    What did they do to John Walker Lindh? they threw his raggedy ass in jail after they tried and convicted him.

    and yes I know about Posse Comitatus. I made allusion to it above about police and FBI having to be the ones dealing with an internal terrorist cell.

    The president cannot sign an executive order for the murder/assassination of an American citizen without due process. As I said before a judge has to sign a warrant for a wiretap.

    An executive order to kill someone is a dictatorship pure and simple. If that is what conservatives today are being taught is OK then I am no longer a conservative. What you are talking about is not the rule of law but the rule of man. We have had enough of that in this country. Democrats and republicans both have wiped their asses with the Constitution and subverted it’s purpose to increase the power of the state. It was meant to protect the individual.

    The individual is the basic unit of a society, when the individual is no longer sacrosanct you no longer have a free society. Maybe you have been reading to much Hegel- the individual gets his worth from being part of society. Or maybe Marx-“And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois, abolition of individuality and freedom! And rightly so. The abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at.”

    So I think it safe to say that you are for the abolition of the individual seeing as how you are willing to kill one by executive order. Going from there it isn’t hard to make the leap that you think society is supreme and the individual is nothing but for society. From there it is but a simple matter to show that your type of conservatism is nothing more than Marxism in disguise. You may not even know it to be such.

    So Duh are you a Marxist? You sure sound like one. Even Hehr Hitler would be on your side. Hey Joe (Dr. Goebbels) here is an executive order for the assassination of that fellow Goldstein, see that it gets done and bill his widow for the bullet.

  87. Byron,

    Congratulations! It sure didn’t take you long to invoke Godwin’s Law. :>) Oops. That was your second time tonight.

    You don’t do well at debate. You rely too much on wild unsupported accusations that permit you to develop a theory about that which you cannot conceive.

    Let me ask you a few questions:

    Who is the Commander-in-Chief of our military?
    Does the POTUS require permission from Congress to order shots fired in defense of this country?
    On whose order can Nuclear Weapons be launched?

    Sound like a military dictator? It should, because with some limitations, the POTUS does dictate the military.

    You use words like “battlefield” without being able to define the current battlefield. You seem to think that we have to wait for them to be firing at us before we can defend ourselves.

    Tell me; do you think that American, who is giving aid to the enemy, the same enemy that is taking steps to kill us, and will gladly kill members of our Armed Forces, has not given his allegiance to the enemy? Do you really consider him to be “a citizen” of the United States?

    Maybe you need to lookup “citizenship”. Maybe then you will understand the duties of a citizen towards his country, and then maybe you’ll understand why I don’t consider the traitors working for Al Queda to be citizens of the United States. Do you not understand that in time of war, a citizen has a duty to defend their country if called upon? And what do these traitors do?

    I think you would sacrifice members of our military to protect a traitor. That’s what it sounds like. Isn’t it your claim that the POTUS cannot authorize the attack to go forward, because doing so would be to assassinate a U.S. Citizen?

  88. “and yes I know about Posse Comitatus. I made allusion to it above about police and FBI having to be the ones dealing with an internal terrorist cell.”

    Is the POTUS commander-in-chief of the FBI? Your statement alludes to that being your belief?

    Bringing up Lindh tells me you don’t understand the discussion. If the President was to order Lindh to be killed after he had been captured, I’d have a problem with that. However, if Lindh was identified to be one of twelve people riding in a truckload of Al Queda members, and the President, after being informed that Lindh was in the truck, signed off authorizing the attack anyway; I wouldn’t have a problem with that.

    You talk about individuals is nonsensical rhetoric. Individuals are citizens. They are traitors looking to take the lives of innocent Americans. To place them in the same category is outrageous.

  89. An executive order to kill someone is a dictatorship pure and simple. If that is what conservatives today are being taught is OK then I am no longer a conservative.

    I don’t think Obama is a consrvative, I do think he aspires to be a dictator. He can’t blame Bush on this one.

    What did they do to John Walker Lindh? they threw his raggedy ass in jail after they tried and convicted him. Bush’s Watch

    The president can sign an executive order for the murder/assassination of an American citizen without due process.
    Obama’s watch

    So Obama are you a Marxist? You sure sound like one. Even Hehr Hitler would be on your side. Hey Joe (Dr. Goebbels) here is an executive order for the assassination of that fellow Goldstein, see that it gets done and bill his widow for the bullet.

  90. And lets not forget who’s running around telling the country KSM will be tried, convicted and executed. Sounds like someone who believes in due process, doesn’t it?

  91. “We have never before been exposed to a viable non-state-sanctioned threat.”

    1. Shay’s Rebellion
    2. The Whiskey Rebellion
    3. The Civil War
    4. Tim McVey
    5. German American Bund
    6. Industrialists plot to kill Roosevelt and take over country.
    7. Loncoln’s Assasination
    8. McKinley’s Assasination
    9. Attempted assasination of Roosevelt killing Anton Cernak
    10.Puerto Rican Independence Party’s invasion of Congress
    11.JFK’s Assasination
    12.RFK’s Assasination
    13.Chicago Democratic Convention
    14.Kent State.
    15.Palmer Raids
    16.J.E.Hoover’s tenure in the FBI
    17.Pancho Villa attacks
    18.HUAC and the Communist Party.

    Knowing a little history sometimes prevents people from making blank statements that simply aren’t true

  92. “The President does not have the authority to use military force inside the United States.”

    New Orlean and The National Guard under the command of DHS.

  93. “The point was that if an American citizen is giving aid to Al Queda, they should no longer be considered an American Citizen.”

    Under whose authority or what legal process, currently in effect would allow that?

  94. “911 Changed everything.”

    The only way that is true is in the minds of the idiot TV broadcasters, their pundits and the Bush Crime Family. Same Constitution, Same Bill of Rights and same legal protections in place. Only in the minds of scared rabbits and crooked politicians did anything change.

  95. Mike,

    You’re right. I should have clarified my point. I was talking about foreign entities attacking the U.S.

    The National Guard was deployed to New Orleans as a police action when the infrastructure was not able to perform their roll. They were not deployed as a strike force.

    I said ““The point was that if an American citizen is giving aid to Al Queda, they should no longer be considered an American Citizen.”

    Mike Spindell said “Under whose authority or what legal process, currently in effect would allow that?”

    That’s my opinion as to how they should be treated. I supported the idea by referencing Section 349 of the INA. While no law currently exists, I don’t see anything that would prevent the POTUS from making the same determination in relation to U.S. Citizens abroad that are giving aid to Al Queda.

    I didn’t make the 9/11 changed everything statement.

  96. Duh:

    I cannot actually believe a conservative would say what you are saying. It is beyond my comprehension. Please tell me that you are not a Goldwater conservative but believe guys like Bill Krystal, Fred Barnes, and the PNAC crowd.

    I dont care if you are a Neo-Con but please not a real conservative. If you are I am quitting the republican party. How many people think like you do? Do you know what you are saying? The full implications? Do you know? Can you not take your assertion to it’s logical conclusion?

    What you are proposing leads to Hitler’s Germany or Stalin’s Russia or Mao’s China. You are talking dictatorship. You are willing to give up all your freedoms, discard the Constitution and throw Liberty under the bus so you can kill a terrorist by executive order so you can feel safe.

    You wrong on so many levels, I shouldn’t even have to explain this to you.

  97. “You are willing to give up all your freedoms, discard the Constitution and throw Liberty under the bus so you can kill a terrorist by executive order so you can feel safe.”

    Byron,

    Try to answer these questions:

    What freedoms have I given up by permitting a traitor, in the company of and exhibiting allegiance to the enemy to be viewed as the enemy?

    Where in the Constitution does it prevent the use of force as a means of self-defense?

    You are claiming that I want to “discard the Constitution”. Are you referring to “Due Process”? Would that be substantive or procedural due process?

    Do you think traitors who voluntarily leave this country to join the enemy should be afforded the same protections of a citizen who defends this country?

    How many members of our armed forces are you willing to sacrifice to protect these traitors?

    Finally, what liberty am I giving up by saying that it is ok to kill a traitor who is in the company of the enemy?

    Can you answer those question? I would like to see if you’re just spweing rhetoric, or if you really have thought about what you’re saying.

  98. answer my question first not the other way around. You think its perfectly permissible to shoot at someone just because you think that the person that they are with pose a threat. How credible is that threat, the same as what the war mongering Cheney and Bush utilized to take on Iraq?

    What is the standard that you utilize before shooting somebody? Just because they are with people in diapers on the head? Would having a clean shaven face make a difference? Duh, do you know?

    Fixated Neurotic.

  99. Fixated,

    Do you think a U.S. Citizen who leaves their country and is found in the company of Al Queda is not a threat? I think they are, and unless you can come up with some reason honorable reason to justify their association, I think it’s a pretty reliable means of determining that they are a threat.

    Remember, I’m talking only about those who have left this country and joined up with Al Queda. Those that have been deemed acceptable targets are only those with known members of Al Queda.

  100. Duh:

    I have explained myself and answered all of your questions in the above posts.

    “Do you think traitors who voluntarily leave this country to join the enemy should be afforded the same protections of a citizen who defends this country?”

    Are they still citizens or not?

    “How many members of our armed forces are you willing to sacrifice to protect these traitors?”

    What I am saying is not incompatible with protecting our troops. If Chumley Patterson jumps up and says God is great and he is holding an AK-47 or a detonator, blow his ass away. If Chumley’s name is on an executive order that says he is to be assassinated that is wrong.

    You want to put too much power in the hands of one man. With the type of power you are proposing no one would be safe.

  101. Duh:

    you don’t need an executive order to blow some American’s ass away if he is hanging with Al Qaeda. It would be a military action and he got caught in it. Fair game as far as I am concerned, he should have chosen better “friends”.

    What about this don’t you understand? You have some blind spot about it. what is it?

  102. How do you know that they did not get lost? Bad directions. Have you ever gotten lost while driving? Just because you are a male does not mean you can’t stop and ask directions? So if you stop and ask for directions, does that mean that you are consorting with the enemy? That somehow or another you now pose a credible threat because you are lost?

    Why did they go over to that place would be the first question I would ask an American before shooting them? Because after you shoot them it seems a little disingenuous to ask them don’t you agree?

  103. Byron,

    I understand what duh is saying. You can kiss you ass good bye and your camel toe if your are caught with the enemy GI Joes.

  104. Duh:

    “Congratulations! It sure didn’t take you long to invoke Godwin’s Law. :>) Oops. That was your second time tonight.”

    I don’t invoke it lightly, in this case it is correct. What you are proposing is tyranny, if you want to diminish what you are saying by telling me I am invoking “Godwin’s Law” then be my guest.

    How about I just say that what you are proposing is antithetical to our founding documents and if widely implemented would lead to a police state. Forget the Nazi analogy.

  105. Fixated,

    “How do you know that they did not get lost? Bad directions. Have you ever gotten lost while driving?”

    Ah. The dog ate my homework excuse. Do you really think the “I got lost and ended up with Al Queda” excuse holds any water? It might in your mind, but I don’t find it to be a plausable scenario. Besides that, one would think that the military must have performed enough surveillance to not only make the determination, but to request permission from the POTUS to go ahead with the strike anyway.

    Can you tell me about one person who got lost and ended up with Al Queda? Just one?

    I trust the U.S. Military to asess the association and the threat. If you don’t, you could always join and lend them a helping hand.

  106. Duh:

    actually there are 3 young Americans in an Iranian prison because they got lost while traveling in Kurdistan. So Fixated isn’t too far off base. Although statistically the chances are very low.

  107. So with a properly informed military was Tillman suspected of cooperating with the enemy? Or was he shot because he no longer believed in the cause and was to appear on a Television show that expressed his views.

    If the military can’t figure out when it proper to shoot one of its own by friendly fire and get shot by unfriendly fire, how can you expect them to get it right the next time around.

    Wait, you don’t get no next time if you are dead. I would ask Pat but he is dead. Explain the incongruous or was he just inconvenient?

  108. What if the guy from Blackwater is new. How will he be able to tell which ones to shoot or not to shoot?

  109. Byron,

    Nice way to rely on the Constitution, but avoid the questions when asked for the specific reference.

    Are they still citizens or not?

    Technically, Yes, but that’s only because the laws have not recognized giving allegiance to foreign non-state actors. If we were actually at war with Afghanistan, and they were found to be giving aid to Afghanistan, they would have been expatriated under Section 349 of the INA. I’m willing to follow the spirit of the law. The intent to expatriot those who join the enemy is well settled. In time of war, many countries don’t just expatriate them so that they may punish them more severely if they can capture them and bring them back home. That’s how spies are treated.

    Every traitor you protect is one more that will kill members of our armed forces, and innocent civilians if given the chance.

  110. Duh,

    Can you answer this? How will the new kid be able to tell which one is consorting with the enemy? The ones lost, the ones on an information journey, the ones that are on a pilgrimage, the ones that rode the camel because the ass was too slow? Come on tell me.

  111. “Every traitor you protect is one more that will kill members of our armed forces, and innocent civilians if given the chance.”

    How much fera and loathing can one absorb without agreeing to a Dictatorship. So many people have been given the death sentence for crimes they didn’t commit and yet the prosecutors were adamant as to their guilt. Lt. Calley blew away a town of
    Vietnamese rebels only to discover they weren’t and then as FN
    said there was Pat Tillman. I wouldn’t put that much trust in any man/woman.

  112. Byron said “you don’t need an executive order to blow some American’s ass away if he is hanging with Al Qaeda.”

    Yes you do. That’s exactly what this article is about. Watch the video. Listen to Blair’s words.

    Byron said “What I am saying is not incompatible with protecting our troops. If Chumley Patterson jumps up and says God is great and he is holding an AK-47 or a detonator, blow his ass away. If Chumley’s name is on an executive order that says he is to be assassinated that is wrong.”

    What about somewhere in between. What if Chumley has left the U.S. and joined up with Al Queda? What if the military surveillance supports that Chumley is giving aid to the enemy?

    If the military is going to strike an Al Queda target, and Chumley is among them, should they;
    1) Abort the attack because on of those in the vehicle is an American that joined forces with Al Queda?
    2) Inform the POTUS that Chumley is one of those in the vehicle and get permission to go ahead with the strike?

    It’s your call Byron.

  113. Duh,

    You are being foolish. You cannot expatriate an American citizen. They do that to themselves just because they work there. The difference being an expatriate usually works and makes lots of money and if a person moved over seas to do a job of manual labor they would be considered immigrants.

    You are just shooting American citizens on foreign soil. Admit it.

  114. How do you Spell God, I do not know, d-u-h? You are playing duh when you first make that decision to kill an American national on foreign soil.

  115. Fixed,

    I am not familiar with the details of Pat Tillman’s death o discuss it. If he was purposely killed because he was going to speak out against the war, I would have a big problem with that.

    As to the Blackwater guy. He is not a member of the U.S. Military. He would not be the one performing the strike.

    Stay on topic. Please.

  116. Am I missing something here. Fixated Neurotic jumps in the thread and with his first post says answer my question first?

    Who is using a new nom de plume?

    Fixated Neurotic
    1, February 7, 2010 at 2:46 pm
    answer my question first not the other way around.

  117. “Section 401(d) not only makes acceptance of “any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state” the basis of expatriation; it also makes “performing the duties” of any such office, post, or employment a ground for expatriation.”
    U.S. Supreme Court, Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717 (1952)

    While Al Queda is an entity at war with the U.S., but is not itself a foreign state, the intent of the laws making that automatically lose their citizenship are clear.

  118. Duh:

    Personally if Chumley is in the car and he is not the one being targeted too bad for Chumley. Wrong place. wrong time for him.

    If this is a military mission, personally I dont think you need the executive’s permission to proceed. Johnson did that kind of shit in Viet Nam and it worked out “real well” for our troops. Although we should have never been there to begin with. But that is another argument.

  119. I see Duh is here. Bdaman can’t be that far away. Where is Amon re, I have not seen him post yet.

    Looks like duh has gotten into an actual good fight. Good job.

    However, I don’t see how you can justify killing American citizens on foreign soil just because they are talking with a native. But then again the Sct has stated that the 4th Amendment has no applicability outside if he US. But don’t you think that they should at least get a military hearing to say the least. Reminds me of a story I read about the civil war here in the US where Quantrill Raiders. He made those decisions with the pull of a gun. Killed 200 in retaliation for one of his men getting shot.

  120. AY sure is funny you haven’t posted in this thread ALL DAY. I make a reference about a new nom de plume (I Like That) and bam here’s AY

    Last post of Fixated 3:32 first post AY 3:41

  121. Mike Spindell said “I wouldn’t put that much trust in any man/woman.”

    I believe you Mike. Fortunately the Framers of our Constitution saw fit to make one person the Commander-in-Chief. One person, elected by a majority of the electors, is charged with the duty of protecting the citizens of this country.

    “President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.” -Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution.

    That provision vests full control of the military forces of the United States in the President. The power of the President is at its zenith under the Constitution when the President is directing military operations of the armed forces, because the power of Commander in Chief is assigned solely to the President. If you think he is acting unconstitutionally, call your Congressman and ask that he be impeached.

  122. Oh no, I was out shopping. Trying to figure out is I should fry the wings and then bake em of just bake em.

    I have a great hot sauce for them. The Scoville unit ought to be somewhere between 150,000 to 200,000. Jalapenos just don’t do it for me any more. The habaneros chili is a good start and then it is mixed in a blue cheese dip. It is not for the amateurs.

  123. Byron said “Personally if Chumley is in the car and he is not the one being targeted too bad for Chumley. Wrong place. wrong time for him.”

    Byron, that is what I understand Blair to be addressing. But instead of the Military saying too bad for Chumley, they are asking the Commander-in-Chief for final authority to say too bad for Chumley.

  124. What is Fixated? Are you implying I am switch hitting. Impossible for now. The reason that my ELF did not show up is the mouse trail dropped a letter in the email name and I did not realize it. SO there.

  125. Well the first couple just showed up for our S B Party.

    I leave you with this

    Who dat say they can assassinate a U.S. citizen, Who dat, who dat

    Obama say he can assassinate dat who.

  126. Duh,

    Thats like asking your mistress if she minds if you have another girlfriend. Some do and some don’t.

  127. AY said “However, I don’t see how you can justify killing American citizens on foreign soil just because they are talking with a native.”

    I don’t either, and that’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about people who have left the U.S. and have joined forces with Al Queda. I may be wrong, but I don’t think Al Queda has many “U.S. Friendly” visitors. :>)

    “But then again the Sct has stated that the 4th Amendment has no applicability outside if he US.”

    I was not aware of that. It would support my position. Can you provide a link?

    “But don’t you think that they should at least get a military hearing to say the least.”

    I’m not talking about if captured, they should be executed on site. I’m talking about recognition that they are/were a U.S. Citizen, but are considered an acceptable member of a targeted strike.

  128. Duh,

    It is the case of another person that the US used and abused so long as he was beneficial to US. It is the case of Manuel Noriega vs the United States of America.

    is a former general and the military dictator of Panama from 1983 to 1989.

    The 1989 invasion of Panama by the United States removed him from power; he was captured, detained as a prisoner of war, and flown to the U.S. Noriega was tried on eight counts of drug trafficking, racketeering, and money laundering in April 1992. Noriega’s US prison sentence ended in September 2007; pending the outcome of extradition requests by both Panama and France, he remains in prison as of 2010.

    Still there huh???????

    Although the relationship did not become contractual until 1967, Noriega worked with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) from the late 1950s until 1989, and was on the CIA payroll until February 5, 1988, when the US Drug Enforcement Administration indicted him on federal drug charges……

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

    The court holds that it does not apply to foreign nationals….To be honest I think that W’s Daddy was getting nervous about the ties with the man…

    http://www.jstor.org/pss/2202926

  129. AY,

    The Noriega case is indeed strange. Refresh my memory. Did he direct attacks against a territory or personnel of the United States? Under what law can we still be holding him? I would see it differently if we were currently at war with Panama.

    Maybe I need to find out more about Noriega’s actions.

  130. The guy that was President of Panama. Was employed by the CIA and when he no longer was useful to US he was brought to the US to be tried for drug trade. Never mind that a US Ambassadors wife was using the US Military to send those same white packages home on a weekly basis. She was not tried as a drug smuggler….

  131. AY, It sounds like corruption at the highest level. I think the U.S. Courts would have lacked personal jurisdiction over Noriega.

    I’ve been reading about extratorial jurisdiction under the commerce clause. I have a problem with the U.S. Laws being imposed on a citizen who travels overseas and performs an act that would be illegal here, and then being tried here for the act upon their return.

    Could you imagine if one of the states tried that? What if the drinking age in one state was 21, and the border state was 19 (as it was in MO and IL respectively when I was of that age). Could you imagine them prosecuting me for purchasing and consuming a beer in IL, and MO prosecuting me for it?

    We live in strange times.

  132. Duh,

    That has already been tried in Michigan. The drinking age is 18 or 19 and when they come back to the US specifically MI as they have a Zero Tolerance Policy.

  133. AY, I’m not talking about a DUI. I’m only talking about performing an act outside of the territorial jurisdiction, and being charged with performing that act outside of the territorial act by their home state/country.

    Are you talking about a zero tolerance policy for those underage drinkers who are caught driving drunk? Or are they actually being charged with violating a Michigan law while in Canada? (I’m assuming you’re talking about them returning from Canada)

  134. I am talking about legally drinking and then coming back to the US and being arrested for doing what is legal in the other country. It happens in any border state. The interesting cases that I have read were from WA state, MI, NM. One case I am familiar with is it is legal to smoke weed in Canada. Specifically Windsor. Occupants of a vehicle were stopped for an alleged traffic violation. The car was searched and nothing was found in the car. The Officer, trying to cover his ass arrested the driver for impaired. After the person was taken to jail the BAC read .000 3 times. The officer then obtained a search warrant for blood and a blood draw was taken at the hospital. It showed .000 for alcohol, but tested positive for THC. The driver was then arrested for DUI, Driving Under the Influence of Drugs. A trace amount mind you.

    It was appealed on the grounds that what is legal in one country you cannot be subsequently tried for a crime that is not a crime in which you committed that crime.

    The result was that case was dismissed. Now it is common practice for the cops to test for drugs if they can’t get a legitimate read on the BAC. I shit you not.

  135. AY,
    I think it is indeed actually legal to smoke weed here, however, it is illegal to be in posession. However, if one has smoked and then gotten behind the wheel and is caught & blood tested + for THC one would be charged with DUI.

  136. Canadian Eh,

    The question is in my mind how is how high (no pun intended) must for the THC be before they can charge? Or in the alternative how low must the THC be before they consider it to be just a trace element?

    I am not scientist, but they say it should be out of your system after 28/30 days. I have seen some people charged with a Probation violation for testing positive for s spike after 60 days. My thought after doing criminal matters and trials more than 20 years is that in some people it will spike.

    It spikes because it is stored in the fat. If a person is marginally fat/obese/big/plump/chunky etc, my thought is that the fat will secret it and burn put it back into the body as it is stored in fat cells. If you no longer have the muchies you start losing weight and it is slowly released and therefore it will spike for that reason.

    So the question is what is the lowest that the THC be and still be charged with a DUI?

  137. Very good question AY, the answer is, I have no idea! I may know someone who does though. The agency that I work for is Mental Health & Addictions, hence I tend to know little and refer a lot when it comes to the addictions end. The addictions program actually runs a program for court ordered DUI offenders and I do believe the program is for any DUI offence ( alcohol or drugs ). I’ll ask the AC assocoiated with our team tomorrow and get back to you if she knows the answer.

  138. AY,

    I doubt the framers intended the commerce clause to extend jurisdiction in many of the ways it is currenlty being used. I’m talking about the federal level. I can understand the commerce clause being used “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes” but I think it should be considered an ubuse of power for my government to arrest me for buying a bag of pot and consuming it in the foreign country where their laws would permit it.

    States doing it too is even worse.

    The problem with most of it, is that those arrested usually don’t have the funds appeal. We have so many unconstitutional laws on the books, but they never get a chance to be ruled unconstitutional because of the cost of doing so.

    We actually have a child pornography law in Missouri that states “or appears to be a minor under 18 years of age”. Who gets to make that call? I think it is clearly unconstitutionally ambiguous, making it a violation of due process.

  139. Canadian Eh.,

    Is that an unconditional conditional invitation? If so don’t you want more info? Hmm, Turley Dating on line, Turley Mating Season, ya just never know whats gonna happen on SuperBowl Sunday…..

    I am getting a kick out of this..

  140. Duh,

    All to often you are correct. Too damn much “Officer/Prosecutors” Discretion and then when the Judge uses that same discretion the Judge gets blasted….

    I think Bush using the FBI to bust Jefferson a couple of years ago was a clear abuse of Discretion. But he was about as dirty as you can be but in Louisiana, what exactly is a dirty politician?

  141. ROFL, that’s very funny AY. Although I’m pretty sure that there would be some opposition to my making such unconditional offers! However, I’m also sure others would get a kick out of it, I know I am.

  142. Canadian Eh,

    Ya just never know what can happen in a persons life. Hmm, so what kind of opposition would one face? I don’t mind a challenge but physically, I am not the scrapper I once was. So it would have to be a verbal joust. And in that event, local colloquialism would either have to be explained or prohibited.

    Are you ready?

    Wait, you didn’t say if you were the one being oppositional. Let me rethink this.

  143. Crikey! Look at that, kids! It’s the mating dance of the wild AY. Keep your arms and legs in the boat! That thing will come along and hump your leg right off! That’s a common behavior among the creatures found in Texas. It can make a visit to the Hill Country more fun than a finger in a guana’s cloaca!

    I kid. I kid. :D

    The Hill Country is lovely.

  144. And AY is a nice person, Canadian.

    Despite being a Texan and all.

    You might want to take him up on his offer. He is a smooth talker.

  145. Fair enough Buddha. In the hill country I have a home court advantage.

    But Mr. Bojangles Lives…..

    This is played at the Texas Connection which I think was the old opera house….

  146. You’ll have to pardon me. There is nothing more desperate and irresponsible than a man the depths of a NyQuil binge.

  147. A very nice offer it was, but alas by heart belongs to someone else. Ay is certainly welcome to dinner anytime he’s in the area. I’m sure that he and the holder of my heart would get along very well!

  148. ROFL… I hadn’t read your offer to joust for my affections AY. I am indeed flattered, and am sure that it would be an event to watch indeed. I should forewarn though, the one who holds my heart is a champion verbal jouster!

  149. Psst, Canadian Eh,

    Does he know that one other that is less noble is pinning for your attention as well?

    However, he is from the pinny woods of North Louisiana, me think it is something in the water as it is near Mississippi.

  150. Canadian Eh,

    I would never tell. I can keep a secret, confidence…..

    Buddha,

    Yeah its called Sulpher. It smells like rotten eggs.

    Duh,

    Sweet…..

  151. Canadian,

    Your dad sings Doris Day songs? He must have some range.

    Oh! You meant Mr. Bojangles!

    Never mind.

    It’s NyQuil on the rocks. For when you’re feeling sick but sociable. (I stole that joke from the late Mitch Hedberg.) That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.

  152. AY,

    Actually where I’m at the water isn’t so bad, but I know of the sulfurous water of which you speak and it is indeed foul.

  153. BIL…
    I did indeed mean Mr. Bojangles. I tend to think it’s a good idea to get lots of rest and not overdo when feeling sick even when sociable….don’t you?
    AY….thank-you :)

  154. Buddha,

    Are you claiming that Canadian men are high pitched? I’ll have you know that before Hockey was allowed to be played in the states there was a deal with the franchise owners that the only players that Detroit could have were either Parolee’s or Rejects from the Marines. There you have the inside story. So I would mess with some Canadian Eh.

  155. The song Mr. Bojangles has a lot of meaning to me. Unfortunately, the neocons have taken over South Austin and destroyed what Austin was built on.

    It was first recorded at the 1st Precinct Hill in Austin. It was not to far from the Armadillo World Headquarters. Just around the corner.

  156. Might I suggest that Southern men are like all men. Some are honorable gentlemen and some are scurrilous scoundrels. I have no ulterior motive for making this disclaimer other than I wanted to type “scurrilous scoundrels”.

    A phrase very appropriate for this thread.

  157. AY,

    It’s a joke about being polite, son! Is there a hole in your glove? The fast one’s go right over your head! (Read in the voice of Foghorn Leghorn)

    Woo hoo!

    I need to get a cold more often.

  158. Was I being too subtle? I confess to not being unaltered. It may have been a joke for my consumption only. I make those sometime. Just usually not out loud.

  159. With that being said, I will leave the jousters to their work because mine comes very early in the morning. Have fun & play nice! gnDH

  160. Enjoy and isn’t it nice that we can play well with others Buddha?

    Canadian Eh, Sleep well hope to see you sometime soon. Good evening. Enjoy the cold it supposed to maybe snow here Monday night. The first crop of lettuce has been covered for the possible frost.

    Buddha, Thanks.

    Duh, where did you go?

  161. Alas! What whispers in mine ear? Tis’ the nymph of the green bottle. I only get sillier and sleepier from here so before I start making jokes only aliens can understand, I bid you all a good evening as well.

  162. I’m here AY. I decided to catch the new show “Undercover Boss”.
    I don’t think it will last, but it’s nice to see some CEOs get their hands dirty, and live life on the other side for a while. Tonight it was the CEO of Waste Management.

  163. “Fortunately the Framers of our Constitution saw fit to make one person the Commander-in-Chief.”

    I wasn’t talking about the President but about the person on the ground making the decision that someone should be shot, or giving the President the information on who should be shot. While of course the President bears ultimate responsibility for the decision given that our past President bush was an ignorant fool and his VP an arrogant fool, their reliance on such information did much harm.

  164. Missouri Gov. Jeremiah Nixon, a Democrat, is being joined on the Obama’s special advisory panel by the governor of Puerto Rico, Luis Fortuno, and Arizona Gov. Janice Brewer, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano’s replacement when she moved to Washington.

    They are among Obama’s nominations for the 10 positions on Obama’s new “Council of Governors” that he will use for advice on “military activities in the United States.”

    The original announcement said the new council is to include governors and administration officials to review “such matters as involving the National Guard of the various states; homeland defense, civil support; synchronization and integration of state and federal military activities in the United States; and other matters of mutual interest pertaining to National Guard, homeland defense, and civil support activities.”

    However, there was no definition of the group’s authority. Can the council recommend “military activities” and can the governors, who already are in command of their own state guard units, mandate activities outside of their areas of jurisdiction?

    A new announcement from the White House lists Nixon as one of the nominees.

    “He is responsible for operating Missouri’s innovative fusion center, the Missouri Information Analysis Center,” the announcement confirmed.

    It was in 2009 when the MIAC issued a report that not only linked conservative groups to domestic terrorism and warned law enforcement to watch for vehicles with bumper stickers promoting Paul and Baldwin, it also warned police to watch out for individuals with “radical” ideologies based on Christian views, such as opposing illegal immigration, abortion and federal taxes.

    Ultimately, Chief James Keathley of the Missouri State Patrol said the release of the report caused him to review the procedures through which the report was released.

    “My review of the procedures used by the MIAC in the three years since its inception indicates that the mechanism in place for oversight of reports needs improvement,” he said at the time. “Until two weeks ago, the process for release of reports from the MIAC to law enforcement officers around the state required no review by leaders of the Missouri State Highway Patrol or the Department of Public Safety.”

    He said the report warning about those who hold Christian views was “created by a MIAC employee, reviewed by the MIAC director, and sent immediately to law enforcement agencies across Missouri. The militia report was never reviewed by me or by the Director of Public Safety, John Britt, at any point prior to its issuance. Had that report been reviewed by either my office or by leaders of the Department of Public Safety, it would never have been released to law enforcement agencies.”

    Keathley said the report simply “does not meet” the needed standard for “intelligence.” So he ordered its distribution to be halted.

    Most notable was the report’s focus on the impact of returning war veterans.

    “Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to right-wing extremists,” it said. “DHS/I&A is concerned that right-wing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize veterans in order to boost their violent capacities.”

    Now Gov. Nixon will advise Obama on those military and National Guard actions inside the U.S.

    “I am pleased that these governors of exceptional experience have agreed to join the Council of Governors,” Obama said in the newest White House announcement. “This bipartisan team strengthens the partnership between our state governments and the federal government when it comes to ensuring our national preparedness and homeland defense.”

    “I look forward to working with them in the years ahead,” Obama said of the council, which was created Jan. 11 by his executive order.

    The nominees are:

    Gov. James H. Douglas of Vermont, a Republican who is chairman of the National Governors Association. He established his state’s Homeland Security Advisory Council to review its security policies.

    Gov. Chris Gregoire of Washington, a Democrat who is on the National Governors Association executive committee as well as its special committee on Homeland Security.

    Gov. Janice Brewer of Arizona, a Republican who took office when Napolitano was named Homeland Security secretary. She served on the governor’s Military Task Force dealing with base closures.

    Gov. Luis Fortuna of Puerto Rico, a Republican who is on the National Governors Association Economic Development and Commerce Committee.

    Gov. Brad Henry of Oklahoma, a Democrat on the Education, Early Childhood and Workforce committee for the governors association

    Gov. Robert McDonnell of Virginia, a Republican elected last year. He is on the governors’ Health and Human Services committee.

    Gov. Jeremiah Nixon of Missouri, a Democrat on the governors’ Health and Human Services Committee who operates his state’s fusion center, the Missouri Information Analysis Center.

    Gov. Martin O’Malley of Maryland, a Democrat who serves on the governors’ committee on Education, Early Childhood and Workforce as well as its committee on Homeland Security.

    Gov. Beverly Eaves Perdue of North Carolina, a Democrat who is a lead governor for the National Guard. She’s on the governors’ Economic Development and Commerce committee as well as the committee on Homeland Security and Public Safety.

    Gov. Michael Rounds of South Dakota, a Republican who previously headed the Western Governors Association.

  165. AY,
    I uncovered the answer to your original question asked yesterday. Apparently if one is planning to smoke weed & then drive in Ontario one would be charged even if they chose not to inhale. According to my very well educated on the matter source, police can charge a DUI even if they simply suspect use of illegal substances. Also the question of whether or not it is legal to smoke weed at all here is a rather grey area in the law.
    Hope that helped!

  166. ECookie,

    I have no problem with women flirting with me. Just take a number and stand in line. I await to serve all. lol

  167. Duh,

    There might be some truth to that. However, not everyone was blessed to be born in Texas. Some get here as quick as they can though..

    A side note if God were not a Longhorn do you really think that the Sun would be Burnt Orange?

  168. Swartmore mom,

    I have not a problem in the world with that. My ego needs to be flattered every once in a while.

  169. Canadian Eh,

    Does that really mean that alls the person has to do is think about smoking weed and they are guilty?

    Possession? Sounds like the way Porn used to be viewed now you can see it free on Tube8. You did not hear that here.

    But porn used to be illegal to possess. Then the Sct stated that so long as you viewed it in your house it was not against the law. Now how you got it into your house is another story. I guess that the Post Office at the time must have been complicit.

  170. I think people should be able to grow whatever they want, and consume whatever they want – on their own property, unless it presents a danger to others. That’s the way it used to be. That’s the way it should be again.

    Really good case on this is Mugler v Kansas.

    The state and federal governments should be able to control commerce (sales) and prevent dangers in which there is a public interest, but I don’t think they should be involved in anything I do on my own property, unless it presents a threat to others or minors.

  171. Take for instance Hemp fabric, rope etc was the mainstay for the Navy. Then somebody invented Nylon and then Hemp became illegal. I understand that Hemp is actually better in saltwater than nylon and drys quicker. It is all natural. Now its illegal to possess hemp.

  172. Both Washington and Jefferson grew hemp. Ben Franklin owned a mill that made hemp paper. Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence on hemp paper.

    1784 August 20. (James Madison to Jefferson). “The price of hemp however has been reduced as much by the peace as that of Tobacco has been raised, being sold I am told as low as 20/. per Ct. beyond the mountains.”

    I have no doubt that many of the founders knew of the effects of smoking hemp. Although, it was probably as powerful as it is today.

    I think the legalization of marijuana would save a lot of mariages. People that are stoned just don’t have the motivation to fight with or cheat on their spouses. :)

  173. Hmmmm…I think we need to closer look at who was flirting with whom.
    AY,
    I think it’s ok to think about it, so long as none of the cops in the area have ESP!

  174. However a really good nun could become Habit forming. Ever heard of a brothel that housed nuns? It was a nunnery.

  175. When I was in Canada on a fishing trip, an ambulance came up behind us. It said AMBULANCEA. My father immediately said it was French. I said no it’s Canadian. He looked at me puzzled (as usual :>) -until I said I think it’s supposed to be pronounced “Ambulance Eh”. :)

  176. Canadian Eh,

    I know. The first time I went I thought I stepped into the land of the McKenzie brothers. Everybody I met was pretty nice.

  177. To the people seeing this, I would like to convey my sadness and absolute horror at direction the U.S. has taken. Murder based on being a suspect? WTH? And democrats that support this. What are you going to say when it’s you under the gun as I’m sure there’s not going to be a descriminating factor based on political belief? The fact that there are going to be death squads prowling the United States now makes us no better than Nazi
    Germany, Iraq, or any of the other dictator based countries that we’ve been in wars freeing from oppression. Wake up people, Obama’s gone totally insane with the power he wields and needs to be replaced. When are we going to realize the “change” he’s imposing isn’t worth our freedom and now our very lives. You’ll realize this true believers when your staring down the barrel of the assasins gun while your family watches helplessly but who knows? They might be joining you too knowing this president.

  178. And Canadian Eh

    I have to admit that after visiting your nation I was actually very impressed with how nice the Canadian people are. After visiting Ottawa, Ontarion I actually cannt wait to visit my very close friends there again.

  179. I cannot believe this. If this is continued where will it end? Anytime the government unlawfully kills someone it can be said that the victim was a suspected terrorist, or that the individuals they associated with at that time were terrorist? Come on Obama administration is can’t be your solution to the problem.

Comments are closed.