American Citizens Split On DOJ Memo Authorizing Government To Kill Them

[JCM800]

WASHINGTON—Following the release of a secret Department of Justice memo this week that outlines the administration’s legal justification for killing U.S. citizens, a new Pew Research Center poll has revealed that a majority of Americans are torn over whether they support the government’s right to kill them anywhere at any time without due process.

“On the one hand, I get it—it’s important for the government to be able to murder me and any of my friends or family members whenever they please for reputed national security reasons. But on the other hand, it would kind of be nice to stay alive and have, maybe, a trial, actual evidence—stuff like that,” said visibly conflicted 39-year-old Nashua, NH resident Rebecca Sawyer, who, like millions of other Americans, is split over whether secret federal agents should be allowed to target and assassinate her anywhere on U.S. soil. “I wouldn’t mind if federal officials blew up other citizens and claimed it was in the name of my safety. But it’s just that when it comes to me, I guess I’d rather not be slaughtered by my own elected officials on charges that never have to be validated by any accountable authority. This is tough.” While most Americans expressed conflicted feelings regarding the memo, the poll also found that 28 percent of citizens were unequivocally in favor of being obliterated at any point, for any reason, in a massive airstrike

http://www.theonion.com/articles/ame...zing-go,31207/

[CuteOldGuy]

Maybe the people just don't understand. From the article "Assassin in Chief":

Also, conspicuously missing from the Justice Department's constitutional analysis is any recognition that the Founders already balanced the life, liberty, and property interests of an American citizen suspected of "levying war against [the United States], or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort," and provided them the specific procedural protections in Article III of the Constitution. When a U.S. citizen is suspected of treason, the constitutional remedy is not to invent new crimes subject to the summary execution at the pleasure of the president and his attorneys. In Federalist No. 43, James Madison proclaimed that the Treason Clause would protect citizens "from new-fangled and artificial treasons ... by inserting a constitutional definition of the crime, fixing the proof necessary for conviction of it[.]" To that end, the Constitution does not permit the Obama lawyers to invent an elastically defined offense of "an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States," in substitution for the constitutionally concrete definition of "levying war against [the United States], or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

Moreover, Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution requires trial in "open court" -- not in some secret "war room" in an undisclosed location. That same section of Article III requires proof by "the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession" -- not by a unilateral "determin[ation] that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of an attack against the United States." Finally, as is true of "all crimes," Article III, Section 2 requires "trial ... by jury" on a charge of treason, not trial by some unidentified "high-level official of the U.S. government[,]" no matter how well-"informed" he may be. In short, the Constitution provides that an American citizen must be tried and punished according to the judicial process provided for the crime of treason, not according to some newfangled and artificial executive "process" fashioned by nameless collection of lawyers.


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/...#ixzz2KTfH5Kh7

[JD Barleycorn]

The Onion makes a joke but a joke with barbs. More indicative of the American voter than the legality of drone use.

[i'va biggen]

Liberals aren't afraid because the government rely on them.Conservatives worry. Hence 50=50

[JD Barleycorn]

So you're saying that liberals obey their masters because their masters reward their slaves to vote for them. What happens when they are no longer needed because there are no more elections? Seems kind of wasteful to keep them around at that point. Of course some special wards will be kept to do the dirty work of their masters. Is that what you're saying Eva?

[Jackie S]

As the Pesident will do with his biggest block of Voters, the Blacks.

What would be a good bet is that after the next four years, look back and see if Black Americans in general improved their lot.

I would bet no.

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

So you're saying that liberals obey their masters because their masters reward their slaves to vote for them. What happens when they are no longer needed because there are no more elections? Seems kind of wasteful to keep them around at that point. Of course some special wards will be kept to do the dirty work of their masters. Is that what you're saying Eva?

If you read it cypher it out for your self I'm done tutoring you.

[JD Barleycorn]

I just cleaned up your babble. You're welcome.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I just cleaned up your babble. You're welcome.

so lets see ... Iva biggen said it in three short sentences and you cleaned it up with verbosity.

Makes perfect sense.

what did you say you did for a living again?

[i'va biggen]

+! 10

[JD Barleycorn]

So you both admit that I got it right. Thank you for your support.

Of course Eva has still not answered the question on the other thread. Not enough words?

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

So you both admit that I got it right. Thank you for your support.

Of course Eva has still not answered the question on the other thread. Not enough words?

Sure you were right you were agreeing with me..It was answered you were unable to understand. I am not tutoring you anymore.

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

So you're saying that liberals obey their masters because their masters reward their slaves to vote for them. What happens when they are no longer needed because there are no more elections? Seems kind of wasteful to keep them around at that point. Of course some special wards will be kept to do the dirty work of their masters. Is that what you're saying Eva?

What happens when the useful idiots are no longer useful?

[JD Barleycorn]

Like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Hitler before them, they start to purge their followers.