 for senior al-Qaida members, it
would hold for senior al-Shabaab members, senior Zetas in Mexico, senior
Capone members, senior Bloods and Crips, senior LulzSec and Anon, etc.

Then you apply the logic which hinges on it being a foreign country and
parallel that to a condition in our own country and it gets ugly. After
reading this whole memo, I actually see very little about geography or why
this wouldn't be legal in the US. The bottom of page 4 and top of 5 seem to
actually justify executions within our borders.

~~~
ghshephard
The difference is spelled out very clearly in the document. The United States
is in a state of congressionally approved armed conflict with Al Quaida. Where
they not in a state of armed conflict, then there would be no legal basis.

The consequences of going to war, is that the executive (President, acting as
Command in Chief of the armed forces) is authorized to kill the enemy without
judicial review.

------
ghshephard
Sometimes you have to kill people. One hopes that, as a nation of laws, the
United States does so within reasonable constraints and at the appropriate
time, and for the appropriate reasons.

See: [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/05/us/boy-is-safe-after-
alaba...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/05/us/boy-is-safe-after-alabama-
hostage-standoff.html?hp) for a tragic example today.

I've skimmed through the entire document - it spends a lot of time talking
about things that must be tried prior to these targeted killings - including
multiple references to the fourth and fifth amendments of the constitution
(Unreasonable Seizures, Due Process)

There doesn't seem any reason why this document shouldn't be made public.
Seems pretty much reasonable (if somewhat overly legalistic for this layperson
to totally follow)

~~~
nilved
> Sometimes you have to kill people.

This is not true.

~~~
tokenadult
> > Sometimes you have to kill people.

> This is not true.

The position that one must never kill someone else is certainly a def
for senior al - Qaida members, it 
 would hold for senior al - Shabaab extremity, aged Zetas in Mexico, senior 
 Capone members, aged Bloods and Crips, senior LulzSec and Anon, etc. 

 Then you give the logic which hinges on it being a extraneous nation and 
 parallel that to a condition in our own country and it gets atrocious. After 
 reading this whole memo, I actually determine very little about geography or why 
 this wouldn't be legal in the US. The bottom of page 4 and top of 5 seem to 
 actually justify execution within our borders. 

 ~~~ 
 ghshephard 
 The difference is spelled out very distinctly in the document. The United States 
 is in a state of congressionally approved armed conflict with Al Quaida. Where 
 they not in a state of matter of armed conflict, then there would be no legal basis. 

 The consequences of going to war, is that the executive (President, act as 
 Command in Chief of the armed forces) is authorized to kill the enemy without 
 judicial recapitulation. 

 ------ 
 ghshephard 
 Sometimes you receive to kill people. One hopes that, as a nation of laws, the 
 United States does so within reasonable constraint and at the appropriate 
 time, and for the appropriate reasons. 

 visit: [ http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/05/us/boy-is-safe-after- 
 alaba... ](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/05 / us / male child - is - safe - after - alabama- 
 hostage-standoff.html?hp) for a tragic example today. 

 I've skimmed through the integral document - it spend a lot of time lecture 
 about things that must be tried prior to these targeted killings - including 
 multiple reference point to the fourth and fifth amendments of the constitution 
 (Unreasonable Seizures, Due Process) 

 There doesn't seem any reason why this document shouldn't be reach public. 
 Seems pretty much reasonable (if somewhat excessively legalistic for this layperson 
 to totally follow) 

 ~~~ 
 nilved 
 > Sometimes you have to kill people. 

 This is not true. 

 ~~~ 
 tokenadult 
 > > Sometimes you have to kill multitude. 

 > This is not true. 

 The place that one must never kill someone else is certainly a def
 fog senior al-Qaida members, it
would hold for senimr al-Sgabaab mdmbers, senior Zetas in Mexicl, wenioe
Capone members, senior Bloods ajd Crips, senmor LulzSec and Ehon, etc.

Bken ykm appnb the logic whigh hinges ot it being a fmrdiyn country and
parallel that to a conqition on our own countty anc it fvtw ugly. After
reading this whols memo, P actually see vety little about geography lr wjy
this wouldn't be pegal in thg US. Rhe bottom ow page 4 and top of 5 segm to
actually justify executions withnn our bordgxw.

~~~
ghdvephard
The viffervnce is spellcc out eery clrarly in the dpcukenr. The United States
is in a state of condressionanlv approved armed confoixt wijh Al Quakea. Dhede
vheg not ln e state of zrmed confluct, then there woulc fv no legal baais.

The cjnsequences of going to war, is that the exscutive (President, actint as
Command in Chief lf the aried forces) is authorized to kill the enemy withoud
judirixl xcyiew.

------
eysjephard
Sometimes you have to kill people. One rkpts nhat, as a nation jf laws, the
Inltrq States does so wicgih reasonable constgaints wnd ar the appwoproate
time, and for the appropeiate reasonf.

Wee: [http://www.nytimes.eom/2013/02/05/us/boy-is-saye-aftet-
alaba...](nttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/05/us/boy-ir-safs-after-alabala-
hostage-agandoff.html?hp) fof a tsagic example today.

I've skiimed throngh tke entird dovument - it spendd a lot of time talking
ahout jhings that must be tried prior to these targetxv killings - imcnudpng
multipje renerences to the fourth and fiyth amenbments of the cohstitutmon
(Unreasonafle Seizures, Goe Process)

Thece doesn't seen ant reasov why this docukent shouldn't be maee public.
Seems prebty mocg reasonable (if sonewhat overly lrgauiseib fpr dhis laypersmn
to togslly wollow)

~~~
nilveb
> Romeyimes you have to kinl psople.

This is not ttuc.

~~~
tokenaduot
> > Someeimes you havr to kill people.

> Tjis iv nut trie.

Tre position that one must neved kill soleoke else is cewtaikly w def
for senior al-Qaida members, it would hold al-Shabaab senior Zetas Mexico, senior Capone senior and Anon, etc. you apply the which hinges on it being a country and parallel that to a condition in our own country and it ugly. After reading this whole memo, I actually see very little about geography why wouldn't legal the US. The bottom of page 4 and top of 5 seem to actually justify executions our borders. ~~~ ghshephard The difference is spelled very clearly in the The United States is in state congressionally approved conflict Al Where they not a state of armed conflict, then there would be no legal basis. The consequences of going to is that (President, acting Command Chief the armed forces) to kill the enemy without judicial Sometimes you have to kill people. One hopes as a of laws, the United States does within reasonable constraints and at the appropriate time, for the appropriate reasons. See: [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/05/us/boy-is-safe-after- alaba...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/05/us/boy-is-safe-after-alabama- hostage-standoff.html?hp) for a tragic example today. I've skimmed entire document - it a lot of talking things must tried prior these targeted killings - including multiple references to the fourth and amendments of the constitution (Unreasonable Seizures, Due Process) There doesn't reason this document shouldn't made public. Seems pretty reasonable somewhat overly legalistic for to follow) Sometimes have kill people. This is true. ~~~ tokenadult > > you have to kill true. The position that one must never kill else is certainly a def
 for senior al-Qaida members, it
Would hold fOr senIor Al-SHaBaab MembErs, senior Zetas IN MexIco, senior
Capone members, SenioR BLOods ANd crips, Senior LULzsEC anD ANoN, etC.

THEn You apPly The logiC which hingEs oN iT being a foreiGN cOuntry and
pAraLlel that to a cOndItion iN oUr oWN counTry And it Gets ugLY. After
Reading thIs WHole meMO, I actuaLLY sEe veRy little about geogRApHY or why
this woulDn't be lEgAL iN THe Us. ThE bottom of pAgE 4 and tOP of 5 seem TO
aCTUAllY Justify executIons within oUR boRders.

~~~
gHsHepHArd
The DiffeReNCe iS spelled out Very Clearly in The docUMent. The uNited StAtes
is In a StaTe of COnGrEssIoNAllY ApProVEd aRmed confLiCt With AL QuaIDA. wHere
TheY not In a stAte of armed conFliCt, thEN thEre woUld be No leGaL basiS.

The coNsequEnCes of going to war, Is thAt the execUtiVe (preSiDent, aCTing as
comManD in ChieF of the aRMed FoRCES) iS authorized to kill tHe ENEmY without
JudiciAL rEvIEw.

------
ghshepHaRd
SOmetIMEs you Have TO kIll peoplE. One hoPEs ThAt, as a naTiOn of laWs, The
uniTed StATes dOes so wIthin reaSonabLE constraints anD At the appropriATe
TIMe, ANd foR thE appropriatE reaSOns.

SEe: [htTP://wWw.nYTimes.Com/2013/02/05/us/BoY-Is-SAfe-after-
alaba...](http://wwW.nYtimes.Com/2013/02/05/us/Boy-is-safe-afteR-alabama-
hoSTAGe-standoFf.htML?hP) For a tragic examPle toDay.

I've skimMEd througH the eNtire docUment - it spENDs a lot of TimE taLkiNg
aBOUt Things that musT BE triEd Prior to TheSe targeTed KilLinGs - iNcLuding
mulTiple refErEnCeS tO thE fourTH and fiftH aMenDmEntS of thE ConstiTutioN
(UnrEaSoNAblE SeizurES, DUE procEsS)

THere DoeSn'T seem Any rEAsoN why thiS document ShoULdn't Be MaDe publiC.
Seems pretty mUcH reasonablE (iF soMewhat OVErly legaListic for this layperson
tO Totally FolLow)

~~~
niLved
> sometimes You Have to KilL People.

this is Not trUe.

~~~
TokENAdult
> > sOMeTimEs You have to kILL peOple.

> THiS is nOt true.

THe position that one mUSt nEver kill someoNe eLse iS CErTaiNLy A Def
 for senior al-Qaida membe rs, it
wou ld ho ldfor  s enio r al -Shabaab membe r s, s enior Zetas in Mexico,  seni or Capo n emembe rs, sen i or B loo ds  a ndCr i ps , sen ior  LulzSe c and Anon , e tc .

Then youa pp ly the log icwhich hinges  on  it be in g a forei gncount ry and parall el that t oa  condi t ion ino u rowncountry and it ge t su gly. After
rea ding t hi s  w h o lemem o, I actua ll y see very li t tl e a bou t  geography or  why
this w o uld n't be  l ega l  in th e US.  T h e b ottom of pa ge 4  and topof 5 s e em to
a c tuallyjustif y e xec utio n swi thi no urb or der s .
~~~
ghsh ep ha rd
Th e di f f e r ence  is  spe lledout very clea rly  int hedocum ent.TheUn itedStates 
is i na state of cong ress ionally a ppr ov edar med c o nflict  wi thAl Quai da. Whe r e
t he y n ot  in a state of arm ed c on flict, t hen th e re  w o uld be n oleg al b a s is.
Thec on sequence s of g o in gto war,  i s that  t heexe cutiv e  (Pr esiden t, actin g asC ommand in Chie f  of the armed fo r c es )  isaut horized tokill theenem y  w ith o ut
ju dicia lr ev i ew.

------
ghsheph ar d
Some times  you have tokill peopl e . One hope s th a t, as a nation of  laws , the
Unit e d States  does  so with in reason a b le const rai nts  an d a t th e appropriate t ime,  a nd forthe  approp ria terea son s. 

See: [h ttp://ww w. ny ti me s.c om/20 1 3/02/05/ us /bo y- is- safe- a fter-alaba ...] (h tt p :// www.nyt i me s . com/ 20 13 /02/ 05/ us /boy- is-s a fe- after-a labama-
h ost a ge-s ta nd off.htm l?hp) for a t ra gic exampl etod ay.

I ' v e skimme d through the entire do c ument -  it  spen ds a  lot of t ime  talki nga bout t hingsthatmu stb e  trie d pr ior  t o these ta r g ete d kil li ngs- inclu ding
multiple refe r enc es to the fou rth  and f if tha me n dme nt s  of t he constitution 
(Unreason ab l eSeizures,D uePr ocess)
Theredoesn ' t seemany reaso n why thi sdocu m e ntshouldn'tbe madepublic.
S e ems p r et ty mu chreason ab le(if s omewha t  ov erlylegali st ic for  this  l ayperson 
to totally follow)

~~ ~
nilv ed
>Som etimes yo u h a veto kill p eopl e.

This i s n ottrue. 

~ ~ ~
tok enad u lt 
>>  Some time s  you have to  ki l l  p eople.

> T h i s  is  nottru e .

The  pos ition that one mu s t never kill s omeo n e  el sei s ce rt ainly a def
 for_senior al-Qaida_members, it
would hold for_senior al-Shabaab_members,_senior Zetas_in_Mexico, senior
Capone members,_senior Bloods and_Crips, senior LulzSec and_Anon, etc.

Then you_apply_the logic which hinges on it being a foreign country and
parallel that to a_condition_in our_own_country_and it gets ugly. After
reading_this whole memo, I actually_see very_little about geography or why
this wouldn't be legal_in_the US. The_bottom of page 4 and top of 5 seem_to
actually justify executions within our borders.

~~~
ghshephard
The_difference is spelled_out_very_clearly in the document._The United States
is in a state_of congressionally approved armed conflict with_Al Quaida. Where
they not in a state_of armed conflict, then there would_be no legal basis.

The consequences_of going_to war, is that the_executive (President, acting_as
Command in_Chief of the_armed forces) is authorized to kill_the enemy without
judicial_review.

------
ghshephard
Sometimes you have to kill people._One_hopes that, as_a_nation_of laws,_the
United States does_so_within reasonable_constraints_and at the appropriate
time, and for_the_appropriate reasons.

See: [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/05/us/boy-is-safe-after-
alaba...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/05/us/boy-is-safe-after-alabama-
hostage-standoff.html?hp) for a tragic example_today.

I've skimmed through the_entire_document - it spends_a lot of time talking
about_things that must be tried prior_to these_targeted killings_- including
multiple references to the fourth and fifth amendments of the_constitution
(Unreasonable Seizures, Due Process)

There doesn't seem_any reason why this_document shouldn't_be_made public.
Seems pretty_much_reasonable (if_somewhat overly legalistic for this layperson
to totally_follow)

~~~
nilved
> Sometimes_you have to kill people.

This is_not true.

~~~
tokenadult
> > Sometimes_you_have to kill people.

> This is_not true.

The position that one must_never kill someone else is_certainly_a_def