Federal Judge Questions Obama's License to Kill While Upholding His Right to Keep Its Legal Rationale a Secret

Yesterday a federal judge upheld the Obama administration's refusal to disclose the detailed legal reasoning underlying its policy of using unmanned aircraft to kill people identified as members or allies of Al Qaeda. Two New York Times reporters and the American Civil Liberties Union asked for documents addressing that question, including a memo prepared by the Office of Legal Counsel, under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). While U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon determined that withholding the material did not violate FOIA, she expressed frustration that "I can find no way around the thicket of laws and precedents that effectively allow the Executive Branch of our Government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws, while keeping the reasons for their conclusion a secret." In her ruling, McMahon, a Clinton appointee, elaborates on the "legitimate reasons" why "some Americans question the power of the Executive to make a unilateral and unreviewable decision to kill an American citizen who is not actively engaged in armed combat operations against this country."

The Fifth Amendment, for instance, says no person shall be "deprived of life...without due process of law." Last March, in a speech at Northwestern University, Attorney General Eric Holder asserted that President Obama's kill orders comply with the Due Process Clause, saying it does not necessarily demand judicial review. "The Constitution's guarantee of due process is ironclad, and it is essential," he said, "but, as a recent court decision makes clear, it does not require judicial approval before the President may use force abroad against a senior operational leader of a foreign terrorist organization with which the United States is at war—even if that individual happens to be a U.S. citizen." McMahon notes that Holder "did not identify which recent court decisions so held" or "explain exactly what process was given to the victims of targeted killings at locations far trom 'hot' battlefields." Those are among the details that the Obama administration continues to conceal.

In an interview with CNN last September, Obama likewise claimed that the procedures for identifying people subject to summary execution by drone, though occurring entirely within the executive branch, nevertheless are "extensive" enough to comply with "our traditions of rule of law and due process." As McMahon points out, these references to due process are puzzling, because the government's justification for targeted killings rests on the premise that they are legitimate acts of war. Yet "the concept of due process of law," McMahon writes, "has never been understood to apply to combatants on the battlefield actively engaged in armed combat against the United States." By saying that due process applies to, say, the 2011 killing of Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen, the administration implicitly concedes that such an operation is fundamentally different from shooting an enemy soldier during a battle.

Furthermore, McMahon writes, "if the War on Terror is indeed a war declared by Congress pursuant to its constitutional power, and if Al-Awlaki [a U.S. citizen] was a combatant in that war, then he was a traitor." The Constitution says "no person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.'' The Treason Clause, McMahon notes, "appears in the Article of the Constitution concerning the Judiciary, not in Article which defines the powers of the Executive Branch," which "suggests that the Founders contemplated that traitors would be dealt with by the courts of law, not by unilateral action of the Executive." She quotes Justice Antonin Scalia's dissenting opinion in the 2004 case Hamdi v. Rumsfeld"Where the Government accuses a citizen of waging war against it, our constitutional tradition has been to prosecute him in federal court for treason or some other crime."

The license to kill claimed by Obama raises statutory as well as constitutional questions, McMahon says. A federal law enacted in 1994, for example, "makes it a crime for a 'national of the United States' to 'kill[] or attempt[] to kill a national of the United States while such national is outside the United States but within the jurisdiction of another country.'" She adds that "the statute contains no exemption for the President." The administration's argument that Obama nevertheless should get a pass, McMahon says, "boils down to a syllogism: assassinations are unlawful killings; the killings at issue here are not unlawful, therefore they cannot possibly be assassinations."

McMahon says the government's refusal to discuss these issues, aside from blanket assurances that the president is acting legally and judiciously when he marks people for death, impedes "intelligent discussion and assessment of a tactic that (like torture before it) remains hotly debated." If the administration were more forthcoming, she says, it would "help the public understand the scope of the ill-defined yet vast and seemingly ever-growing exercise in which we have been engaged for well over a decade, at great cost in lives, treasure, and (at least in the minds of some) personal liberty." It is pretty clear that McMahon counts herself among those "some."

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Hyperion||

    The license to kill claimed by Obama raises statutory as well as constitutional questions, McMahon says

    Bitch better sleep with her eyes open, there could be a special drone with her name on it.

  • david_brown||

    what Roy responded I didnt know that someone can get paid $8857 in four weeks on the computer. did you read this web page. http://ace60.com

  • A Serious Man||

    The administration's argument that Obama nevertheless should get a pass, McMahon says, "boils down to a syllogism: assassinations are unlawful killings; the killings at issue here are not unlawful, therefore they cannot possibly be assassinations."

    Wow, that is some impressive mental gymnastics right there. It's doubleplusgood.

  • ||

    Assassinations have jack shit to do with "law". They are political murder. Now, isn't murder against the law? Just askin'.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Murders outside US jurisdiction aren't.

  • ||

    They aren't? Virtually every country has laws against murder. Why isn't it murder? I'm really looking forward to your explanation.

  • A Serious Man||

    I think he means that only the Pakistanis, the Afghanis, and whatever other country the Big O has killed people in can actually indict him for murder, not the US government.

    It beautifully and deliberately misses the point of how terrible this all is.

  • ||

    That's Tulpy-Poo's special skill. And by skill I mean retardation.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I'm responding to Episiarch's question. You know the one he was "just askin" but still got pissy about when he didn't like the answer.

    It beautifully and deliberately misses the point of how terrible this all is.

    The fact that this is terrible does not mean we should never say anything that might hint at a flaw in an argument against it. That's the way to become an echo chamber, which H&R becomes more and more each day, it seems.

  • ||

    There's Tulpa, doing God's work in some of the most echo-chamber-y libertarian blogs in America.

  • Paul.||

    I would argue that if we were at total war with a foreign nation, and we dropped a bomb on the leader of that country, or had him taken out by a sniper up to and including one mile of the target, that would be fair game.

    But of course we're not at total war with any of these nations.

    I think the justification from the l33ts is that we're at total war with terrorism therefore, assassinating terrorists-- people the administration declares terrorists-- is perfectly valid.

    So yeah, it's all fucked up.

  • Hyperion||

    Tulpa is right, if it's just dirty brown fureners and their children, it ain't murder, it's just showin them mongrels who the boss is.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Hey butthead, I've been arguing against the drone program ever since it's been around. My opinion on it doesn't change the fact that murder outside US jurisdiction is not against US law except in very special circumstances.

    You could fly to Somalia, eat 10 babies for breakfast, and fly back and you haven't broken any laws.

  • Hyperion||

    I have this feeling, asshole, that I would have broken some laws if went to Somalia and ate babies.

    Oh wait, only Libertarians live there and there isn't any laws. Almost forgot.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    You blatantly, falsely accuse me of racism and I'm the asshole.

    Typical. My popularity level around here means no one will call you on it, but that's weak sauce.

  • Hyperion||

    You blatantly, falsely accuse me of racism and I'm the asshole.

    I didn't accuse you of being a racist, dumbass. I was referring to Obamas murderous drone bullshit, and you need to be saying silly shit like murdering people is not against the law. It's against some law, US, or not, and immoral as Hell.

    And I guarantee you, that me, or anyone else here is not immune from getting called out for being an asshole. Suck it up, this is a tough place, it you can't take it, go away. Nobody here picks on you just because you are Tulpa, it's because of the non-libertarian views that you are always going on with. You did know this is a libertarian, blog, eh?

  • nicole||

    This is so silly though. Try any country other than Somalia, where I truly don't know the official status of any of their warlords at this point. I fly to Amsterdam and eat 10 babies for breakfast, then fly back before anyone knows. Have I "not broken any laws"? Or have I just not broken any US laws? Epi did say, above, "against the law," not "against US law."

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    It's ambiguous, but I interpreted it as meaning US laws since the laws of other countries have no bearing on this.

  • nicole||

    since the laws of other countries have no bearing on this.

    No bearing on which part? On this particular ruling? No. But it's not like he couldn't be indicted in absentia; it's happened before (and recently).

  • ||

    Serious question: Assume the US has an extradition treaty with another country, and someone commits a crime in that country, then returns to the US. When the US hands that person over to the other country to be tried, isn't the US government implicitly accepting that country's law? I'm not saying that because it's illegal there it's illegal here, but the end result is the same no matter which country doles out the punishment.

  • ||

    This is like Bizarro world, a woman introducing reason and logic into the conversation...

    Oh, wait, is that why there aren't any women libertarians?

  • Hyperion||

    This is like Bizarro world, a woman introducing reason and logic into the conversation...

    Oh, fuck, dude. You new here?

    Be careful, I was the vicim of a Misogyny witch hunt yesterday just for saying that women voted for Obama.

    My crime was that I forgot to say SOME or MOST women, not ALL women voted for Obama.

    I am still hiding in corners and thought about changing my posting name just to escape from the witch burners.

  • ||

    Just started commenting recently, but lurking for quite some time. It's late, I wish I weren't still at work, and I was just trying to stir up some shit. I thought sarcasm was the language most often spoken here.

  • Hyperion||

    I was just trying to stir up some shit. I thought sarcasm was the language most often spoken here

    It is, in fact that is exactly what I was doing. It can get testy around here at times though, although most of the time, everyone is pretty cool.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    It's late, I wish I weren't still at work, and I was just trying to stir up some shit.

    The best way to do that is drop the "C-word" into a post and then watch all the dumbfucks that self identify as one.

  • nicole||

    Hyperion, truly, we care about collectivism, not witch-burning. Best not to fall into the traps of people we despise, no matter how psychologically easy. I am frequently guilty of it myself WRT women.

  • Hyperion||

    Hyperion, truly, we care about collectivism, not witch-burning

    Not sure why you would think I don't care about that, Nicole.

    I can't even think of any one group of people that I don't like for any reason. Well... except for Sea Chicken fans, I hatez all of them!, and I ain't apologizin!

  • nicole||

    Well, I think you do, based on subsequent discussion, but I also think it's worth trying to say what we mean just to make sure. That particular form of collectivism does crop up around here from time to time.

  • Hyperion||

    That particular form of collectivism does crop up around here from time to time

    Sea Chicken Hatin? I thought it was only me... I have comrades!

  • nicole||

    Oh, wait, is that why there aren't any women libertarians?

    I do my best to provide novel and interesting (or at least marginally amusing) reasons for this on a near-daily basis. Today's reason can be found here, and background here. I particularly like today's.

  • Hyperion||

    That's exactly what I am talking about, Nicole. But I am sure that Tulpa was talking only about US law. It's just the morality of it that pisses me off.

  • ||

    Did you not read the article? Killing a US citizen in another country is against the law.

    A federal law enacted in 1994, for example, "makes it a crime for a 'national of the United States' to 'kill[] or attempt[] to kill a national of the United States while such national is outside the United States but within the jurisdiction of another country.'"

  • Paul.||

    Murders outside US jurisdiction aren't.

    There is a 2nd Lt. William Calley who would disagree with that.

    Or maybe he'd agree with it, depending on the level of his contrition.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    A very specific and small subset of murders is against the law. Not murder in general, which was the obvious interpretation of Epi's question.

    If I said driving is against the law in the US, this would be incorrect even though driving 90mph on public highways is against the law in the US.

  • ||

    And you go for full stupid. Nice. Thanks for delivering, it's always good for a laugh.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I have to apologize; you were actually attempting to make an argument above, but my criticism forced you back into glib insulting behavior.

  • nicole||

    Tulpa, on a slightly serious note, I find the LAOL thing too close to LOL. I think L&OL; would work better. Less likely to be assumed some variant on a dumb internet acronym. I keep wanting to pronounce yours like it's a word.

    I'm sure these workshop notes were very helpful to you.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I thought about doing that but I like the double irony the way it is. Socrates was into double irony too so that seems a good thing to emulate.

  • nicole||

    In that case, carry on!

  • Hugh Akston||

    Remember Epi, his is the superior intellect.

  • ||

    He offered the blog ORDER!!!

  • ||

    if it's murder, it is BY DEFINITION illegal.

    I am trying not to get all pedantic and shit like you are being accused of, but if a killing is a murder, it is against the law

    your statement should read "a very specific and small subset of HOMICIDES" is against the law

    those homicides that are against the law, we call murder, or in some cases - manslaughter.

    but those that are not illegal are not murder, by definition.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    if it's murder, it is BY DEFINITION illegal.

    In the US. And that could change at any moment. Nothing's stopping North Dakota from legalizing murder.

  • BlogimiDei||

    Except maybe that peskey 1st Amendment thingy making some kind of guarantee to life...

  • VG Zaytsev||

    A very specific and small subset of murders is against the law. Not murder in general...

    Is not executive order 12333 still in force? You know the one that outlaws assassination. If so, does that not make an assassination carried out or ordered by an American anywhere a violation of US law?

  • Sevo||

    Tulpa (LAOL-PA)| 1.3.13 @ 6:43PM |#
    "Murders outside US jurisdiction aren't."

    Looks like the US claims a wide jurisdiction:
    "A federal law enacted in 1994, for example, "makes it a crime for a 'national of the United States' to 'kill[] or attempt[] to kill a national of the United States while such national is outside the United States but within the jurisdiction of another country.'"

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    If you wanted to get really legalistic, you could question which US national it's talking about in the second part. Obama wasn't outside the US, so maybe it doesn't apply.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    Statute says nothing about where the perpetrator is, only the victim.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    makes it a crime for a 'national of the United States' to 'kill[] or attempt[] to kill

  • ||

    Tulpa (LAOL-PA)| 1.3.13 @ 7:49PM |#|–|filternamelinkcustom

    makes it a crime for a 'national of the United States' to 'kill[] or attempt[] to kill

    And how does this make my comment below invalid?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Which one? I wasn't responding to any of your comments.

  • ||

    You say intellectual honesty enforcement, I say irrelevant, pedantic, nitpicking.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Whatever. Even dunphy is against me. I'm going to go eat some butter cookies until you all improve your behavior.

  • Hyperion||

    I'm going to go eat some butter cookies

    See what I am saying. Butter cookies... what does THAT tell us all about Tulpa. Should be all that anyone needs to know.

  • Some Chick from OH||

    I've got it! Obama's Super Double Secret legal rationale is that he's NOT a national of the United States!

  • SweatingGin||

    To international waters! Quickly!

    I wonder if the folks at mcmurdo station know that.

  • IceTrey||

    Sure it is. If I shoot someone across the Canadian border it's still murder.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Not completely true. Murders committed by the troops, even during war, are within UCMJ jurisdiction, which I would call part of "US" jurisdiction.

    & of course I assume murder is against the law in those countries were the President is conducting those acts.

    Of course we didn't sign on to the international courts & even if we had and some country tried to arrest POTUS, we would surely stop it.

    So in the end, when your country is indeed an Empire - then those citizens must be the ones punishing illegal acts.

    'Cause no one else really can...

  • Hugh Akston||

    Well, when the President does it, that means that it is not illegal.

  • ||

    Thanks, Tricky Dick.

    "Let's storm the place...without my prior knowledge."

  • Hugh Akston||

    Computers may be twice as fast as they were in 1973, but your average voter is as drunk and stupid as ever. The only thing that's changed is me; I've become bitter, and let's face it, crazy over the years. And once I'm swept into office, I'll sell our children's organs to zoos for meat, and I'll go into people's houses at night and wreck up the place.

  • ||

    All hail Robot Nixon!

  • A Serious Man||

  • Hyperion||

    Computers may be twice as fast as they were in 1973

    Twice?

  • Generic Stranger||

  • JWatts||

    "I'll sell our children's organs to zoos for meat"

    I think you'll lock up the PETA vote.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    It's not a syllogism, it's a circular argument.

  • ||

    It's both. It's syllogistic in form, but contains a fallacious structure, leading to the circular reasoning.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Well yes. But the circularity is the problem.

  • ||

    Having a conversation with Tulpa is like having a conversation with my ex-wife: the substance of the conversation is irrelevant so you get nit-picked to death until you give up.

    I think the judge was implying that the syllogism was faulty in her quote. That's why she has a problem with their argument. Your response was that it wasn't a syllogism, when it obviously was. You complain about your reputation around here, but it's your own doing. You argue like a woman!

    Shit! I did it again. Sorry female libertarians... all 6 of you.

  • Hyperion||

    Just make sure you use the magic word, MOST, as in MOST wimins, not all wimins.

    Tulpas problem is that he's not a real Libertarian, and he can't hide that from us, it just comes out, he can't help it. He's some type of NeoCon/SoCon hybrid critter like most Republicans.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    All these years of arguing against foreign intervention and dronings and the war on drugs didn't fool you, no sir.

  • Hyperion||

    All these years of arguing against foreign intervention and dronings and the war on drugs didn't fool you, no sir.

    That's not good enough to pass the test. And until you do, you shall continue to be cast out with the rest of the lepers and sheep herders.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Your loss, especially when I come back with my assault banana.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I was criticizing the judge, not you. There's nothing wrong with boiling down to a syllogism.

    What some call "nitpicking" others call intellectual honesty enforcement.

  • ||

    Tulpa, you are perfectly suited to being a mathematician. You're really really concerned if the decimal point is off a place. And that is as it should be.

    But your joy of nitpicking details doesn't transfer well to things like this. Whether it's technically legal for Obama to murderdrone kids in Pakistan is not nearly as interesting to the rest of us as is the idea that doing so is straight up bullshit.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Well thanks, I guess.

    I just don't see the fun in talking about something everybody agrees on (since Cyto isn't around).

  • Mensan||

    In Obamanation, question begging = rock solid argument.

  • Candle||

    someone else probably already noticed the Richard Nixon similarity.

    So it would seem that the federal judge disagrees with deprivation of life without due process, but will fight to the death (by drone) to defend the President's right to do so. suck up.

  • Candle||

    Operator Error on embedding the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljovLb3KYPk

  • Contrarian P||

    So in other words, I find this deeply suspicious, but the administration doesn't have to talk about it?

  • A Serious Man||

    See Hyperion's first comment.

  • tarran||

    But these men who claim and exercise this absolute and irresponsible dominion over us, dare not be consistent, and claim either to be our masters, or to own us as property. They say they are only our servants, agents, attorneys, and representatives. But this declaration involves an absurdity, a contradiction. No man can be my servant, agent, attorney, or representative, and be, at the same time, uncontrollable by me, and irresponsible to me for his acts. It is of no importance that I appointed him, and put all power in his hands. If I made him uncontrollable by me, and irresponsible to me, he is no longer my servant, agent, attorney, or representative. If I gave him absolute, irresponsible power over my property, I gave him the property. If I gave him absolute, irresponsible power over myself, I made him my master, and gave myself to him as a slave. And it is of no importance whether I called him master or servant, agent or owner. The only question is, what power did I put into his hands? Was it an absolute and irresponsible one? or a limited and responsible one?

    Lysander Spooner, No Treason, The Constitution of No Authority

  • ||

    "A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years."

  • Paul.||

    What if we choose the same master?

  • ||

    Paul, if you think that by threatening me you can get me to be your slave...well, that's where you're right. But--and I am only saying this because I care--there are a lot of decaffeinated brands on the market today that are just as tasty as the real thing.

  • ||

    This? This is ice. This is what happens to water when it gets too cold. This? This is Kent Epi. This is what happens to people when they get too sexually frustrated.

  • ||

    Oh, Francisco, that is so unfair! And we were going to make you King of the Winter Carnival.

  • ||

    Really?

  • Paul.||

    This is what happens to people when they get too sexually frustrated.

    Present!

  • A Serious Man||

    Social contract? I didn't sign shit!

  • Diogenes of Sinope||

    Contracts require a meeting of the minds. All terms are contained within its four corners. Common knowledge, right? Yet, nobody will even show me a copy of the damned thing.

  • JWatts||

    It's a 'Social' contract.

    The kind written by socialists. And they are smart enough to know that the average person (read you) is too stupid to make the correct decision on your own. So they are going to assist you in making the correct decision by ignoring your unenlightened opinions.

  • An0nB0t||

    I'll just leave this here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejvyDn1TPr8

  • Paul.||

    So the Obama administration has a license to kill... but do they have a license to ill?

  • Hugh Akston||

    perhaps you can find a quantum of solace from the fact that Obama hasn't decided to murder anyone on US soil..yet.

  • ||

    Hugh's just being a Chicken Little about the Skyfall.

  • A Serious Man||

    But we can't afford to let the terrorists die another day or they could terrorize the living daylights out of us since it's not like they live and let die.

  • ||

    Serious, this is for your eyes only, but Hugh dipped his goldfinger in an octopussy and then he let loose a huge thunderball. That's what smells; I think he should go see Dr. No because you only live twice.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    We call that a "moonraker"

  • ||

    I'm apparently way out of my league here and I bow to your superior punistry... yeah. it's a word.

  • Hugh Akston||

    But the box said it came from Russia with love.

  • ||

    The world is not enough for you, is it, Hugh. Maybe you should have put it in the goldeneye instead.

  • ||

    But if he did, it may seem like the skyfall all around us.

  • Paul.||

    Obama's to do list:

    1. Pass Gun control.
    2. Review Kill list.

    And y'all think this shit ain't related.

  • Hyperion||

    Some may accuse me of being a conspiracy theorists, and in fact I have been called that, among other things. But I choose my conspiracies carefully.

    Anyway, I have this gut feeling that NDAA, Gun Control, DHS, and lots of other things going on today, have a lot do do with each other. And most of it is not related to foreign policy.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    Have you checked out the recent requisitions of handgun ammo by DHS and various alphabet soup agencies? 1.6 billion (said like Carl Sagan) rounds. Yes. With a 'b'.

  • Generic Stranger||

    Eh; once you work out the math on it, those purchases come to something like 50-100 rounds per agent per year over the course of the contract (as all of that ammunition is to be spread out over the course of several years, rather than delivered all at once).

    Pretty much all of that will be used up in training.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    1.6 billion, divided by 100 rounds per agent per year, over 5 years, leaves us with 3,200,000 federal agents. To call that "math" is somewhat charitable. How many feds outside the military carry guns as part of their job? It ain't 3.2 million, that's for sure. When you start from that number, you end up with somewhere between 10,000 and 100,000 rounds per agent. That's quite a bit of "training."

  • Rothbeard||

    Slowly now, so the whole class can keep up:

    1,600,000,000/100 = 1,600,000
    1,600,000/5 = 320,000

  • nicole||

    Hugh, I have got to say, excellent job working in "quantum of solace" there. (Though, because I must be at least a little pedantic, you probably should have said "in the fact," but that's okay, I'm just ruining my own aesthetic enjoyment now.)

  • Hugh Akston||

    I'm just ruining my own aesthetic enjoyment now

    Is that what the kids are calling it these days?

  • Paul.||

    *shakes cane*

  • nicole||

    Look, it's all I have!

  • Hugh Akston||

    But you're right, of course. It should be find/in or take/from.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    perhaps you can find a quantum of solace from the fact that Obama hasn't decided to murder anyone on US soil..yet.

    As far as we know. You do know that he claims that he's not required to tell us if/when he does, don't you?

  • IceTrey||

    Black half yes, white half no.

  • Hyperion||

    Don't worry folks, this administration will never use these weapons on anyone inside of the good ol USA.

    So, I mean unless you are an enemy combatant, or an expat who forgot to, like file your US tax return, your are safe.

  • ||

    All dogs bark. And all dogs have four legs. All cats have four legs. Therefore, Obama can murderdrone Americans.

  • Hyperion||

    Don't be silly.

    Obama can murderdrone Americans because they might be terrorists, and who better to make the call than the smartest and coolest dood to ever hold the office of the prez.

    He's like SuperFly, Captain America, and 007 all rolled into one.

  • ||

    So you're saying Obama is a Precog?

  • Hyperion||

    Of course. They just bring this big old board with pictures of suspected terrorists into the oval office, and while donning his Super-O outfit, he throws a couple darts over his shoulder, and whoever it hits, gets dead! See how cool that is!

  • Rothbeard||

    It's A process, why shouldn't it be DUE process? In fact, if there are at least 12 bureaucrats in the room it sounds like a few jury trials I've heard of.

  • ||

    You only think I ruled wrong! That's what's so funny! I used bullshit rationalization when your back was turned! Ha ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - the most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia (oh wait)" - but only slightly less well-known is this: "Never go against a Federal judge when constitutionality is on the line"! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha...

  • ||

    And to think, all that time it was your cup that was poisoned!

  • ||

    They were both poisoned. I spent the last few years building up an immunity to the Constitution.

  • Hugh Akston||

    That's when you just kick both glasses into the giant's eye.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    Best. Snark. Ever.

  • Jerry on the road||

    I guess they keep the legal rational that allows the IRS to hunt down people across the globe a secret as well.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    Here's what teh Internets has been missing: A Riker quote generator

  • nicole||

    "Ensign Babyface! You enjoyed that."

  • Killazontherun||

    That's a pretty good random quote generator. It could put most of us out of business.

    Earl Grey tea, watercress sandwiches... and Bularian canapés? Are you up for promotion? The game's not big enough unless it scares you a little. Smooth as an android's bottom, eh, Data? A surprise party? Mr. Worf, I hate surprise parties. I would *never* do that to you.

  • Generic Stranger||

    Mr. Crusher, ready a collision course with the Borg ship. Not if I weaken first. And blowing into maximum warp speed, you appeared for an instant to be in two places at once. Congratulations - you just destroyed the Enterprise. You enjoyed that. I am your worst nightmare!

    Lulz.

  • ||

    I was thinking about the movie "In Bruges" the other day and it made me sad relating it to our foreign policy. Even remorseless gangsters get that killing innocent kids (even accidentally and in the course of meeting other goals) is about as unforgivable as it gets.

  • ||

    I love when people confess to their own crimes on facebook

    http://www.komonews.com/news/l.....05732.html

    (note: you can't charge and they didn't for the drunk driving part based merely on admission - no corpus delicti, but when the damaged vehicle he claims he hit and run was inspected, the damage was tie-able to the hit and run and he was charged with that)

    I investigated a pretty nasty aggravated assault the other day that will likely be much more solvable due to some facebook bragging by some of the perps about beating the shit out of the victims.

    facebook: making crime solving easier

  • Hugh Akston||

    If only there were facebook apps for shooting dogs and beating up mentally handicapped homeless people, we wouldn't need cops at all!

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    That's it, I'm unfriending you.

  • Hyperion||

    facebook: making crime solving easier stupid people even stupider

    FIFY

    I feel bad for you if you have to go there as part of your job. I hate that pit of human sewage.

  • ||

    it's an investigative tool. and it's certainly a lot "cleaner" than many of the actual pits of human sewage I go to.

    some people live like animals. I take that back. animals , on the whole don't wallow in their own filth. like some people

  • General Butt Naked||

    I was just visiting a buddy of mine over christmas and he told me about some people that rented a home off of his mother-in-law.

    After they moved out, the MIL told my buddy that he could either clean it and maintain it as a rental property or move in as a home. He decided to live there.

    He went there to check it out and do some cleaning before moving in and found the most disgusting mess that I've ever heard of. There were many animals living in the house and piles of feces littered the home. Trash was everywhere, and the carpets were stained with piss and diarrhea. He ended up having to rip out all of the carpets and redo the wood floors.

    The people who lived there previously moved across the street and would wave at him in his hazmat suit during the process. They were not in the least bit ashamed or embarrassed by the condition of the home.

    He did a good job though and the house has really nice wood trim and floors, with nary the smell of shit.

  • ||

    "I can find no way around the thicket of laws and precedents that effectively allow the Executive Branch of our Government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws, while keeping the reasons for their conclusion a secret."

    Or she could just declare the actions unconstitutional, on the basis that they appear "on their face incompatible with our Constitution". But that would take guts.

  • Hyperion||

    Or she could just declare the actions unconstitutional, on the basis that they appear "on their face incompatible with our Constitution". But that would take guts

    What would be the point?

    It would just go to the SCOTUS and they would declare killing anyone with drones AND keeping it secret, is constitutional because it is allowable as a penaltax.

  • AlmightyJB||

    This whole thread is ridiculous. If it's not a republican president doing it than nobody gives a shit. Obama can do whatever the fuck he wants. Why. Because fuck you, that's why.

  • JWatts||

    You forgot this part:

    It's really Bush's fault and you are a racist for thinking otherwise.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    A 1 point safety?
    CFL RULES BIATCHES

  • Archduke Pantsfan||


    VG Zaytsev| 1.3.13 @ 11:05PM |#

    It's late, I wish I weren't still at work, and I was just trying to stir up some shit.

    The best way to do that is drop the "C-word" into a post and then watch all the dumbfucks that self identify as one.

    Canada?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I've never seen people here go berserk when they think you've called them a Canadian.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    EnviroNUT: I Was Completely Wrong To Oppose GMOs

  • General Butt Naked||

    I never understood the lefty hate for GMOs, outside of the population culling effects of inefficient agriculture. We all know the hate the extreme left has of living human populations.

    Seems like it would have been more of a pet cause of Jesus fearin' socons.

  • SIV||

    Christ-Fags like miracles that feed people. It's in the Bible.

    Which relates to my unpopular argument that the socons are natural allies of a workable libertarian society. They revere ancient texts, particularly in literal interpretation, so they are natural constitutional conservatives which gets us to a relative minarchy at the federal level.Second, they really, really like to help the poor and unfortunate so long as they can prattle-on about their Sky-Daddy while they offer the necessary social services the state has largely crowded them out of. God bless Christians. Everyone should be one except me. They're all about the voluntary unless you are some cosmotarian who whines about non-state coercion that isn't conducted at the point of a gun.

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    "I never understood the lefty hate for GMOs"

    Simple. They have an hysterical hatred and fear of any form of science that seeks to alter or control nature in any way.

    To the average Leftist, science is only acceptable when it either leads to new tax-and-control regulations or otherwise seeks to anthropomorphize the planet or animals.

  • John Galt||

    Clinton appointees, the gift that just keeps giving.

  • waaminn||

    Dude raises some very valid questions I think!

    www.GotmyAnon.tk

  • دردشة العراق||

    thank you

  • zouwencui||

    ShenZhen Gblue technology Co.,Ltd is a top manufacturer of bluetooth headset in China,Specialized in Manufacturing,R&D,Selling over 10 years,main products including bluetooth headsets,bluetooth speakers,wireless mouse..etc.

    Bluetooth headsets,Bluetooth speakers,Bluetooth headset,Bluetooth speaker,http://www.gbluetech.com

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement