3 ms·

It’s concealed under state secretes law. >Keep conflating legal terminology. Ok, man. I see. Take some time to read the legal opinion and memo I linked, and y

It’s concealed under state secretes law. >Keep conflating legal terminology. Ok, man. I see. Take some time to read the legal opinion and memo I linked, and you would see justification under the law is possible. It’s very informative.

ncmncm 4y ago
Except, it is not. Somebody could use the arguments presented to advocate changing the law to permit wasting whoever the hell the President designates, but the law has not, in fact, been so changed.
- trevorboaconstr 4y ago
  No. They outline what’s possible under the law as it is.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    They pretend to that. But the fact is, nothing in the Constitution authorizes the President to waste anybody he wants, nor is the Congress authorized to extend such a privilege to the President. It would take a constitutional amendment to extend such a privilege, and that has not happened. So, every argument that it is already legal is necessarily specious, from the outset, and succeeds only because the people responsible for prosecuting abuses are refusing to do their assigned job. This is how lawful government is subverted everywhere it happens. And, it does happen everywhere it is not stopped.
    - trevorboaconstr 4y ago
      Please start on page 67 and read from there: https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/second-circuit-foia-ruling-awlaki-olc-memo/65ac10d47e3cc031/full.pdf https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/second-circuit-foia-r...
      - yucky 4y ago
        You didn't answer his question, and your source doesn't either. Where is Due Process? The memo written by the killers tries to claim Due Process isn't relevant because of a ruling on a case on a battlefield, in the heat of an actual battle. Except this wasn't a battle, nor on a battlefield. So, the memo is once again just the guilty party trying to exonerate themselves. You know that none of this is new, you're not shedding light on anything. You're just trying to carry water for the same people who hold prisoners in Guantanamo indefinitely. There is not a Constitutional basis for it, and everybody understands that. Just call it what it is, you're not fooling anybody and they're clearly not going to face justice for it so it doesn't matter. But everybody knows what was done. You just sound like the guy explaining how OJ didn't kill anybody because the jury said so. lol k
      - ncmncm 4y ago
        Your page 67 could have relevance in an attempt at a defense against charges of murder brought against the conspirators in the wasting. It has exactly zero relevance in whether a crime has occurred. Which manifestly has. The only thing blocking indictment is that the perps control the DoJ.
  - yucky 4y ago
    No they don't. It was written to be used against those directly responsible for 9/11, and then expanded and used against anybody they felt like, any where in the world that they wanted to including in the US. It's unconstitutional.

ncmncm 4y ago

Except, it is not. Somebody could use the arguments presented to advocate changing the law to permit wasting whoever the hell the President designates, but the law has not, in fact, been so changed.

trevorboaconstr 4y ago
No. They outline what’s possible under the law as it is.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  They pretend to that. But the fact is, nothing in the Constitution authorizes the President to waste anybody he wants, nor is the Congress authorized to extend such a privilege to the President. It would take a constitutional amendment to extend such a privilege, and that has not happened. So, every argument that it is already legal is necessarily specious, from the outset, and succeeds only because the people responsible for prosecuting abuses are refusing to do their assigned job. This is how lawful government is subverted everywhere it happens. And, it does happen everywhere it is not stopped.
  - trevorboaconstr 4y ago
    Please start on page 67 and read from there: https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/second-circuit-foia-ruling-awlaki-olc-memo/65ac10d47e3cc031/full.pdf https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/second-circuit-foia-r...
    - yucky 4y ago
      You didn't answer his question, and your source doesn't either. Where is Due Process? The memo written by the killers tries to claim Due Process isn't relevant because of a ruling on a case on a battlefield, in the heat of an actual battle. Except this wasn't a battle, nor on a battlefield. So, the memo is once again just the guilty party trying to exonerate themselves. You know that none of this is new, you're not shedding light on anything. You're just trying to carry water for the same people who hold prisoners in Guantanamo indefinitely. There is not a Constitutional basis for it, and everybody understands that. Just call it what it is, you're not fooling anybody and they're clearly not going to face justice for it so it doesn't matter. But everybody knows what was done. You just sound like the guy explaining how OJ didn't kill anybody because the jury said so. lol k
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      Your page 67 could have relevance in an attempt at a defense against charges of murder brought against the conspirators in the wasting. It has exactly zero relevance in whether a crime has occurred. Which manifestly has. The only thing blocking indictment is that the perps control the DoJ.
- yucky 4y ago
  No they don't. It was written to be used against those directly responsible for 9/11, and then expanded and used against anybody they felt like, any where in the world that they wanted to including in the US. It's unconstitutional.