I posted about this a month ago in another thread:
Anyone catch this gem?
snagged the below from Reddit...
In fairness, let's look at what the Obama Administration memo leaked today does, in fact, say.
Essentially, it says that the President can kill an American citizen if that person:
OK. That's easy.
2) Is a senior, operational member of al Qaeda or its "associated groups"
Not easy. What is an "associated group"? For that matter, what is al-Qaeda? The phrase "al-Qaeda" is a term that has become too ubiquitous - a synonym, almost, for "Terrorist", and even more difficult to define. People seem to imagine al-Qaeda as this monolithic group that has a defined hierarchy, has a President, VP of Terrorist Planning, holds annual shareholder meetings and organizes potluck terrorist "meet and greets", etc. Kind of like a "terrorist corporation".In reality, "al-Qaeda" is in fact very loosely structured, and almost refers more to a concept than an actual organization. An information network, perhaps. Think Anonymous, but for people who want to militantly spread Islam in the world, rather than hack computer systems. There's no membership list, you don't get initiated into the group, and you're not under anybody's direct command. Basically, if you're the rare Muslim who has a burning desire to blow something up somewhere in the world, the "al-Qaeda network" is where you might go to get knowledge and, possibly, financing.
So that said, when the U.S. government says that it will only target "al-Qaeda", it's being knowingly opaque and vague and is playing on this false notion that al-Qaeda is a strict organization. What are the criteria they're using to determine if somebody is a member of an organization that has no formal membership? If there's video of you shaking hands with Osama bin Laden, are you "al Qaeda"? You see the problem.
3) Is an imminent threat to the U.S.
What the hell does this mean? Define imminent. Let's say I'm planning a murder. Let's follow the steps:1) I decide in my mind that I'm going to kill X, and tell Informant Y
2) I plan how I'm going to do it: show up at X's house with a gun and kill them in their sleep.
3) I get in the car and go buy a gun and ammo.
4) I get back in the car and start driving to X's house.
5) I get to X's house and am sitting in my car in front of his house, waiting for him to go to sleep.
6) I see the lights go out, get out of my car and start walking up to X's house.
7) I open X's door, start walking up his stairs, and enter his room
8) With X still asleep, I put the gun to X's head
Now, let's pretend that Informant Y (aptly named) goes to the police and tells them of my plot. At which of those steps above would it be legal for the police to shoot me without trying to arrest me and bring me to court to face charges? The answer is that the police have the power to neutralize "imminent" threats of deadly violence with deadly force.
So at which point is X in "imminent" harm of danger? If the police catch up to me on my way to the gun shop, should they be allowed to kill me on sight? What about when I pull up to X's house? Clearly they can kill me if they burst into X's bedroom as I put my gun to his head.
According to the U.S., they can kill an American citizen BEFORE #1 above. What do I mean by that? Well, allow me to quote the memo itself, verbatim:
The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future.
In other words, the U.S. definition for "imminent" doesn't even need to have evidence that a plot to cause harm even exists!!! Folks, that doesn't just expand the meaning of the word "imminent", it renders it completely meaningless. That's straight out Orwellian in its obliteration of objective words with objective meanings.Finally:
4) And for which there is no practical way to capture
For starters, let's remember that the U.S. government went into Osama bin-Laden's compound hoping to capture him alive (so they claimed). They did NOT just drop a drone missile on him. This, the most wanted man in the history of the United States, mind you.That said, anybody can see how up in the air and subjective this "factor" is. What does "practical" mean? Who makes that determination? Practical in terms of cost? Risk of harm to U.S. operatives? Risk of harm to foreign military members? Remember, we don't always have to be the ones going in to get these guys. If they're abroad, then the government of the country that they're in can help us, or do it outright.
tl;dr The U.S. claims that it will only have the power to kill citizens who are 1) outside the U.S.; 2) are al-Qaeda (or affiliates); 3) are imminent threats to the U.S.; and 4) cannot be captured in a practical way. Those "factors" are far too subjective and vague.
And the gun grabbers think we're paranoid about the powers the government gives itself.
another gem:
There IS NO process to prove your innocence if you're the target of an executive assassination. Neither you nor anybody you know would ever know that you're on the list! Contrast that with the Supreme Court's ruling in Hamdi which stated that detainees have the right to challenge their classification of "enemy combatants" in a tribunal of competent jurisdiction.
In other words, the government has to give you a process to prove your innocence if they are going to detain you indefinitely. However, they DON'T give you a process to prove your innocence if they're going to kill you!!
Seriously, can anyone imagine the reaction if George Bush had said this? The liberal media would SWAMPED with endless doomsday scenarios about how fascism and Big Brother are here. Obama is slowly ushering Big Brother in and instead of outrafe, everyone is covering for him. I am not ok with this drone strike scenario at all.
