Ah shit

[Prince Glittersnatch III]

So, the invading occupyers imposed ORDER on the invaded country....




...which led to the escalation of______________.

FREEDOM

[The Good Reverend Roger]

So, the invading occupyers imposed ORDER on the invaded country....




...which led to the escalation of______________.

FREEDOM™

Fixed.

[Telarus]

ah shit

[Telarus]

This seems like an appropriate thread for this:

http://www.loweringthebar.net/2011/12/for-christmas-your-government-will-explain.html

For Christmas, Your Government Will Explain Why It's Legal to Kill You
----------------------------------------------
Ha! Just kidding! It won't tell you that. That's classified!

Plaintiffs The New York Times Company, Charlie Savage, and Scott Shane (jointly, "NYT"), by their undersigned attorney, allege for their Complaint:

1.  This is an action under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") ... seeking the production of agency records improperly withheld by Defendant United States Department of Justice ("DOJ") in response to requests properly made by Plaintiffs.

***

4.  Given the questions surrounding the legality of the practice [of "targeted killing"] under both U.S. and international law, notable legal scholars, human rights activists, and current and former government officials [i.e., Democrats and Republicans] have called for the government to disclose its legal analysis justifying the use of targeted lethal force, especially as it applies to American citizens.

***

11.  Both before and after the death of [Anwar] al-Awlaki [who was blown up in Yemen], NYT duly filed FOIA requests seeking memoranda that detail the legal analysis behind [blowing people up]. To date, DOJ has refused to release any such memoranda or any segregable portions, claiming them to be properly classified and privileged and in respect to certain memoranda has declined to say whether they in fact exist.

***

35.  On September 30, 2011, the Washington Post described a [DOJ] "secret memorandum authorizing the legal targeting" of al-Awlaki, an American citizen accused of coordinating the Al-Qaeda operations in the Arabian peninsula. The article said that officials refused to disclose the exact legal analysis" such as "how they considered any Fifth Amendment right to due process." It also quoted a "former senior intelligence official" as saying the C.I.A. "would not have killed an American without such a written opinion."

***

44.  On October 7, 2011, Mr. Savage submitted a FOIA request [to] DOJ OLC seeking a copy of "all Office of Legal Counsel memorandums analyzing the circumstances under which it would be lawful for United States armed forces or intelligence community assets to target for killing a United States citizen who is deemed to be a terrorist."

45.  By letter dated October 27, 2011, (DOJ) denied Mr. Savage's request.

Summary:

• The government dropped a bomb on a U.S. citizen,
• who, though a total dick and probably a criminal, may have been engaged only in propaganda,
• which, though despicable, is generally protected by the First Amendment;
• it did so without a trial or even an indictment (that we know of),
• based at least in part on evidence it says it has but won't show anyone,
• and on a legal argument it has apparently made but won't show anyone,
• and the very existence of which it will not confirm or deny;
• although don't worry, because the C.I.A. would never kill an American without having somebody do a memo first;
• and this is the "most transparent administration ever";
• currently run by a Nobel Peace Prize winner.

Merry Christmas!
----------------------------------------------

[Triple Zero]

First, they came for the total dicks that may have been engaged only in propaganda,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't--umm wait a minute.

Then they came for me
and there was no one who knew because it was classified.

[Pæs]

What about the part where they coincidentally dust off his son for good measure.

[Prince Glittersnatch III]

What about the part where they coincidentally dust off his son for good measure.

It still pisses me off when people say he was a terrorist "leader". Just like the editor of Stars and Stripes is an American military leader.

[Cramulus]

Summary:

• The government dropped a bomb on a U.S. citizen,
• who, though a total dick and probably a criminal, may have been engaged only in propaganda,
• which, though despicable, is generally protected by the First Amendment;
• it did so without a trial or even an indictment (that we know of),
• based at least in part on evidence it says it has but won't show anyone,
• and on a legal argument it has apparently made but won't show anyone,
• and the very existence of which it will not confirm or deny;
• although don't worry, because the C.I.A. would never kill an American without having somebody do a memo first;
• and this is the "most transparent administration ever";
• currently run by a Nobel Peace Prize winner.

I can understand why enemy combatants don't get to ride the American justice system rollercoaster.

I can understand why the government would see propagandists as enemy combatants in this murky 5th generation war.

And if you're riding that train of logic, what's the difference between this cat and legitimate political dissent?

If he were spreading propaganda on American soil, would he have gotten a trial? If yes - on what charges? If no - what's the difference between him and any other protester? Is it in the message, or the network he belonged to?

I'd really like to hear what the apologists for these laws have to say about that.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I'd really like to hear what the apologists for these laws have to say about that.

Well, you won't hear it here.  The type of people who believe in this kind of shit will only post at places that give their beliefs constant positive reinforcement.

[Cain]

Cram, they've said "but al-Walaki was working with Al-Qaeda!  He's a traitor!  Fuck him!"*


*based on personal observation

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Cram, they've said "but al-Walaki was working with Al-Qaeda!  He's a traitor!  Fuck him!"*


*based on personal observation

Yep, hear it all the time.

And there's no sense asking them if he shoulda maybe got a trial or something.

Apparently, trials aren't for traitors.

[Cramulus]

that dialog IS taking place somewhere though, right? Haven't there been press conferences, etc? I'd just want to hear the white house's response to these things. anybody have an idea?

[Cain]

Wel, you see Roger, its because the US intelligence services say they have proof he is a spy.  And, as we know, US intelligence is rarely ever wrong on such vital issues, and so is well tasked with being judge, jury and executioner.

Cram, the White House will not comment officially, because the drone program is secret and so are the targets.  Unofficially, there is a lot of backslapping about how they're using this to deter others from propagandizing for Al-Qaeda.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Wel, you see Roger, its because the US intelligence services say they have proof he is a spy.  And, as we know, US intelligence is rarely ever wrong on such vital issues, and so is well tasked with being judge, jury and executioner.

Cram, the White House will not comment officially, because the drone program is secret and so are the targets.  Unofficially, there is a lot of backslapping about how they're using this to deter others from propagandizing for Al-Qaeda.

What I LOVE about the last few decades, is they can say "We can't tell you about X or Y, because of NATIONAL SECURITY concerns."  When you ask, "How could X or Y possibly relate to national security concerns?", they say, "We can't tell you that either, for NATIONAL SECURITY REASONS".

At which point, everyone stops asking questions and accepts it.  Well, not everyone, but everyone whose business card has the word "Journalist" or "anchorman" or "editor" on it.

[Cain]

I'd like to reply to your post, but I cannot because of NATIONAL SECURITY anxieties.