The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21

Thread: The Secret Memo that Explains it ALL.......

  1. #11
    Senior Member LokiMeister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Stoughton, WI
    Posts
    613

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by road kill View Post
    YES.

    An American citizen gets certain rights.
    If non USA combatants captured on the battle field deserve trials, then I beleive US citzens do.
    I certainly do NOT trust politicians to decide who gets killed.
    In this case there is no doubt it was for political gain.

    Would you want Bush or Obama deciding who should be killed?
    In secret??

    Who sets the boundaries?

    Slippery slope if ever there was one.

    In my humble opinion.


    RK
    The Constitution does not allow assassination of US citizens or anybody for that matter. We have not declared war on Yemen.
    Kevin Entwistle

    WGD (Worlds Greatest Dog) Cinci Redstocking "Loki", born: Jan. 22, 1999, RIP November 13, 2011
    "Lars" Chilian with the Rainmaker, born: Feb. 2, 2010


    "That which you manifest is before you" (The Art of Racing in the Rain)

    "Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases." Thomas Jefferson

  2. #12
    Senior Member road kill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Berlin, WI
    Posts
    10,778

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LokiMeister View Post
    The Constitution does not allow assassination of US citizens or anybody for that matter. We have not declared war on Yemen.
    She ask if I was against it, I answered yes.
    That means I am against kill lists of US citizens, or any civilian for that matter.

    What's the issue?


    RK
    Stan b & Elvis

  3. #13
    Senior Member LokiMeister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Stoughton, WI
    Posts
    613

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Terri View Post
    So are you for or against a "Kill List" for Americans?


    Terri
    Quote Originally Posted by road kill
    She ask if I was against it, I answered yes.
    That means I am against kill lists of US citizens, or any civilian for that matter.

    What's the issue?


    RK
    She asked you if you are for or against, not if you were against it.
    Kevin Entwistle

    WGD (Worlds Greatest Dog) Cinci Redstocking "Loki", born: Jan. 22, 1999, RIP November 13, 2011
    "Lars" Chilian with the Rainmaker, born: Feb. 2, 2010


    "That which you manifest is before you" (The Art of Racing in the Rain)

    "Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases." Thomas Jefferson

  4. #14
    Senior Member cotts135's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Watertown NY
    Posts
    697

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by road kill View Post
    There is always more!!

    Here is some MORE!!!!;

    Secret panel can put Americans on "kill list'
    By Mark Hosenball

    WASHINGTON | Wed Oct 5, 2011 7:59pm EDT

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - American militants like Anwar al-Awlaki are placed on a kill or capture list by a secretive panel of senior government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions, according to officials.

    There is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel, which is a subset of the White House's National Security Council, several current and former officials said. Neither is there any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate.

    The panel was behind the decision to add Awlaki, a U.S.-born militant preacher with alleged al Qaeda connections, to the target list. He was killed by a CIA drone strike in Yemen late last month.

    The role of the president in ordering or ratifying a decision to target a citizen is fuzzy. White House spokesman Tommy Vietor declined to discuss anything about the process.

    Current and former officials said that to the best of their knowledge, Awlaki, who the White House said was a key figure in al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, al Qaeda's Yemen-based affiliate, had been the only American put on a government list targeting people for capture or death due to their alleged involvement with militants.

    The White House is portraying the killing of Awlaki as a demonstration of President Barack Obama's toughness toward militants who threaten the United States. But the process that led to Awlaki's killing has drawn fierce criticism from both the political left and right.

    In an ironic turn, Obama, who ran for president denouncing predecessor George W. Bush's expansive use of executive power in his "war on terrorism," is being attacked in some quarters for using similar tactics. They include secret legal justifications and undisclosed intelligence assessments.

    Liberals criticized the drone attack on an American citizen as extra-judicial murder.

    Conservatives criticized Obama for refusing to release a Justice Department legal opinion that reportedly justified killing Awlaki. They accuse Obama of hypocrisy, noting his administration insisted on publishing Bush-era administration legal memos justifying the use of interrogation techniques many equate with torture, but refused to make public its rationale for killing a citizen without due process.

    Some details about how the administration went about targeting Awlaki emerged on Tuesday when the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Dutch Ruppersberger, was asked by reporters about the killing.

    The process involves "going through the National Security Council, then it eventually goes to the president, but the National Security Council does the investigation, they have lawyers, they review, they look at the situation, you have input from the military, and also, we make sure that we follow international law," Ruppersberger said.

    LAWYERS CONSULTED

    Other officials said the role of the president in the process was murkier than what Ruppersberger described.

    They said targeting recommendations are drawn up by a committee of mid-level National Security Council and agency officials. Their recommendations are then sent to the panel of NSC "principals," meaning Cabinet secretaries and intelligence unit chiefs, for approval. The panel of principals could have different memberships when considering different operational issues, they said.

    The officials insisted on anonymity to discuss sensitive information.

    They confirmed that lawyers, including those in the Justice Department, were consulted before Awlaki's name was added to the target list.

    Two principal legal theories were advanced, an official said: first, that the actions were permitted by Congress when it authorized the use of military forces against militants in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001; and they are permitted under international law if a country is defending itself.

    Several officials said that when Awlaki became the first American put on the target list, Obama was not required personally to approve the targeting of a person. But one official said Obama would be notified of the principals' decision. If he objected, the decision would be nullified, the official said.

    A former official said one of the reasons for making senior officials principally responsible for nominating Americans for the target list was to "protect" the president.

    Officials confirmed that a second American, Samir Khan, was killed in the drone attack that killed Awlaki. Khan had served as editor of Inspire, a glossy English-language magazine used by AQAP as a propaganda and recruitment vehicle.

    But rather than being specifically targeted by drone operators, Khan was in the wrong place at the wrong time, officials said. Ruppersberger appeared to confirm that, saying Khan's death was "collateral," meaning he was not an intentional target of the drone strike.

    When the name of a foreign, rather than American, militant is added to targeting lists, the decision is made within the intelligence community and normally does not require approval by high-level NSC officials.

    'FROM INSPIRATIONAL TO OPERATIONAL'

    Officials said Awlaki, whose fierce sermons were widely circulated on English-language militant websites, was targeted because Washington accumulated information his role in AQAP had gone "from inspirational to operational." That meant that instead of just propagandizing in favor of al Qaeda objectives, Awlaki allegedly began to participate directly in plots against American targets.

    "Let me underscore, Awlaki is no mere messenger but someone integrally involved in lethal terrorist activities," Daniel Benjamin, top counterterrorism official at the State Department, warned last spring.

    The Obama administration has not made public an accounting of the classified evidence that Awlaki was operationally involved in planning terrorist attacks.

    But officials acknowledged that some of the intelligence purporting to show Awlaki's hands-on role in plotting attacks was patchy.

    For instance, one plot in which authorities have said Awlaki was involved Nigerian-born Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, accused of trying to blow up a Detroit-bound U.S. airliner on Christmas Day 2009 with a bomb hidden in his underpants.

    There is no doubt Abdulmutallab was an admirer or follower of Awlaki, since he admitted that to U.S. investigators. When he appeared in a Detroit courtroom earlier this week for the start of his trial on bomb-plot charges, he proclaimed, "Anwar is alive."

    But at the time the White House was considering putting Awlaki on the U.S. target list, intelligence connecting Awlaki specifically to Abdulmutallab and his alleged bomb plot was partial. Officials said at the time the United States had voice intercepts involving a phone known to have been used by Awlaki and someone who they believed, but were not positive, was Abdulmutallab.

    Awlaki was also implicated in a case in which a British Airways employee was imprisoned for plotting to blow up a U.S.-bound plane. E-mails retrieved by authorities from the employee's computer showed what an investigator described as " operational contact" between Britain and Yemen.

    Authorities believe the contacts were mainly between the U.K.-based suspect and his brother. But there was a strong suspicion Awlaki was at the brother's side when the messages were dispatched. British media reported that in one message, the person on the Yemeni end supposedly said, "Our highest priority is the US ... With the people you have, is it possible to get a package or a person with a package on board a flight heading to the US?"

    U.S. officials contrast intelligence suggesting Awlaki's involvement in specific plots with the activities of Adam Gadahn, an American citizen who became a principal English-language propagandist for the core al Qaeda network formerly led by Osama bin Laden.

    While Gadahn appeared in angry videos calling for attacks on the United States, officials said he had not been specifically targeted for capture or killing by U.S. forces because he was regarded as a loudmouth not directly involved in plotting attacks.
    ________________________________________________

    RK
    Hey RK where is all the outrage on the Democratic side. If I remember right when Bush authorized warrantless wiretapping didn't they all have their undies in a bunch? Now this? None of them have any principles or values. Sad..............................
    R

  5. #15
    Senior Member road kill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Berlin, WI
    Posts
    10,778

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LokiMeister View Post
    She asked you if you are for or against, not if you were against it.

    Well, I am cixelsyd and can't read.

    But you get the point.


    RK
    Stan b & Elvis

  6. #16
    Senior Member Terri's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    626

    Default

    I asked my question to anyone who wanted to answer. Some seemed to be upset with Ron Paul for being against a kill list for Americans. I know I do not miss the guy we took out, but I do see the slippery slope. I read on another forum that illegals have more rights in this country than Americans.


    Terri
    Last edited by Terri; 10-11-2011 at 08:33 PM.

  7. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,123

    Default

    He may have been an American citizen, but if what they said about him was true, he was also a threat to American bent upon doing America and other Americans harm. So, the question becomes how to eliminate that threat? If he could have been taken alive, then I think that is what should have been done. If not . . . .

  8. #18
    Senior Member subroc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Dover, New Hampshire
    Posts
    2,112

    Default

    As a general rule, I am against kill lists.

    That said, I believe there are times when such actions as a secret panel placing subversive and seditious United States citizens on kill lists are needed and is acceptable. As distasteful as it appears, I believe the president needs that authority and has a responsibility to carry it out.

    BTW, this is regardless of who occupies the white house or what party they are from.


    BTW2, I like the idea of knowing why government officials believed there was a need to act the way it did. I don't need to know who was on the panels.
    Last edited by subroc; 10-11-2011 at 06:56 PM.
    subroc

    Article [I.]
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
    Article [II.]
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

  9. #19
    Member DODGERFAN175's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Kern Co, CA
    Posts
    54

    Default

    I see it as an act of war, we are at war with these terrorists no matter what country they decide to hide in.
    "I Always Tell The Truth Even When I Lie"

    "Most people respect the badge, everybody respects the gun."

  10. #20
    Senior Member cotts135's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Watertown NY
    Posts
    697

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by subroc View Post
    As a general rule, I am against kill lists.

    That said, I believe there are times when such actions as a secret panel placing subversive and seditious United States citizens on kill lists are needed and is acceptable. As distasteful as it appears, I believe the president needs that authority and has a responsibility to carry it out.

    BTW, this is regardless of who occupies the white house or what party they are from.


    BTW2, I like the idea of knowing why government officials believed there was a need to act the way it did. I don't need to know who was on the panels.

    When would you be for kill lists?
    Is it alright with you, that their is some government committee with no laws that govern its operation. has no oversight, that meet in secret, and has the power to decide if you should live or die?Is that your idea of due process ?
    If that is ok with you then what wouldn't you support?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/op...hepubliceditor

    From the above referenced article

    "How can the U.S. government have rules that spell out when it can use lethal force, even against a U.S. citizen, and not let the rest of the citizens know what those rules are?”
    Last edited by cotts135; 10-12-2011 at 06:11 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •