GOODBYE 6th Amendment!

[JakeStarkey]

BIG WORDS THAT SOUND SMART. Its the same thing. We are told that we shouldnt be afraid of Korea because the "cant get to us." We are told to be afraid of the guys we droned because they "can."

Your analysis is neither smart nor right.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So you think the Consitution should protect a sniper shooting down on an innocent crowd from a SWAT team?

You're right it's not left or right, as I said I would expect even a Republcian president to take the same measure to protect Americans.

Were any of the people killed by drones in a tower shooting at people?

Since the answer to that question is self evident, why do you keep using it to defend something else? An equivalent situation is that the police have located a guy they think is responsible for selling the murder weapon to a known killer driving down the freeway and they decide to shoot his vehicle from the police helicopter because they don't have a car in the area. Unless you can find me some sort of citation that makes that type of response legal, you do not have a point.

 

[BlindBoo]

So you think the Consitution should protect a sniper shooting down on an innocent crowd from a SWAT team?

You're right it's not left or right, as I said I would expect even a Republcian president to take the same measure to protect Americans.

Do you even understand the difference between an immediate need to protect innocent lives, and the deliberative process of deciding where, how, and who will be targeted by the government?

Anyone who is actively plotting to kill U.S. citizens, and neither the United States, nor our partners are in a position to capture him before he carries out a plot, he should be considered a legitimate target. End of story.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The real problem with using drone strikes on American citizens was carefully avoided in the President's speech. The issue is not, "This guy was using his American citizenship as a shield." The real issue is where does it stop?

That's always the 'real issue' when you can't actually defend your stance. Hey - suppose we make murder illegal? We could do that, but then where does it stop? Before you know it, breathing would be illegal!

If you oppose the use of deadly force to defend America from its enemies, you should say so up front instead of dancing around the issue.

Your PRESIDENT just said that your Constitution only applies most of the time. What about the sixth amendment? Laws only apply when they are convienent, and when they arent any more, no big deal. CHANGE.

The 6th amendment only applies to criminal prosecutions. Have you ever actually read it? Eliminating military targets is not a criminal prosecution.

Wow, that was incredibly stupid, even for you.

These were not military targets. The simplest proof of that is that the military had exactly nothing to do with any of their deaths. The next proof of that is that Obama himself is insisting that they had due process, even though he is declining to explain exactly how it worked for them.
Go bury your head in the sand and pretend to be on a board where no one has the basic education to see through your idiotic ramblings.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Don't worry, folks. As soon as the next big terror attack happens, all these people with their fauxBama rage will get right in the head again. They'll be screaming for Patriot Act II: This Time We REALLY Mean Business.

Meter maids waterboarding double parkers. No habeas corpus for Democrats. Carpet bombing Pakistani nursery schools.

Then another Democrat will be elected and they'll be all, like, "Hey, this guy hates the Constitution!"

It's a clown show. Retards on rampage.

Which explains why I didn't complain about the police tactics used after the Boston Marathon bombing.

Wait...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Whoever wrote "Do you even understand the difference between an immediate need to protect innocent lives, and the deliberative process of deciding where, how, and who will be targeted by the government?" clearly does not understand the problem.

Whoever just said this understand nothing about anything.

 

[OriginalShroom]

I have a difficult time with anyone, especially the President, saying that the Constitution only applies when they want it to.

That doesn't come from a President. That comes from a King or Dictator.

 

[JakeStarkey]

These were not military targets. The simplest proof of that is that the military had exactly nothing to do with any of their deaths. The next proof of that is that Obama himself is insisting that they had due process, even though he is declining to explain exactly how it worked for them. Go bury your head in the sand and pretend to be on a board where no one has the basic education to see through your idiotic ramblings.

You are very stupid if you believe your rambling.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

I have a better solution to these constitutional issues and the war on radicial Islam:

Stop occupying and terrorizing Muslim countries for corporate imperialisic objectives.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I thought I made that pretty clear. Immediate means 'right this very second'.

Using the example given, if a sniper is killing people from a bell tower, that IS an immediate need.

Using your example, that is a deliberative process. People gather and discuss whether or not to use a drone, how to use it, and who will be the target. To come to the decision to target an American, (whether or not he is abroad or on our soil) is a deliberative process. That means that the government is limited in its actions and must meet certain steps prior to just killing an American.

I am not saying that they can't in a time of war, but I AM saying that they have to follow the rules, and those rules are set forth by the Constitution.

The President is, as usual, dead wrong.

Exactly.

If, for example, we have a drone over someplace, and the operator sees an attack in progress, he should be able to use whatever weapons he has available to stop the attack. If, on the other hand, we send a drone to search out a particular target, and then use deadly force to take that target out, even if all that person is doing is sleeping, then we are wrong.

 

[Murhy]

BIG WORDS THAT SOUND SMART. Its the same thing. We are told that we shouldnt be afraid of Korea because the "cant get to us." We are told to be afraid of the guys we droned because they "can."

Your analysis is neither smart nor right.

Using the word "intelligent" would have been better, you are jus so misguided...

 

[JakeStarkey]

We have libertarians here adopting the liberal namby pamby politics of obstruction. Amazing.

 

[JakeStarkey]

BIG WORDS THAT SOUND SMART. Its the same thing. We are told that we shouldnt be afraid of Korea because the "cant get to us." We are told to be afraid of the guys we droned because they "can."

Your analysis is neither smart nor right.

Using the word "intelligent" would have been better, you are jus so misguided...

That you don't or won't understand the Constitution is your problem, no one else's.

Fact: the president is justified in using drones.

Fact: you are wrong in that you disagree.

 

[Murhy]

These were not military targets. The simplest proof of that is that the military had exactly nothing to do with any of their deaths. The next proof of that is that Obama himself is insisting that they had due process, even though he is declining to explain exactly how it worked for them. Go bury your head in the sand and pretend to be on a board where no one has the basic education to see through your idiotic ramblings.

You are very stupid if you believe your rambling.

Saying that someone is "very stupid" because they see something that you don't is the cheapest form of debate. Well done.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What is about a congressional authorization for use of force do you not understand. Enemy combatants can be engaged, who ever or where ever they are, under that authorization, I see no constitutional conflict. By your standards the American captured on the battle field in Afghanistan would have had his rights violated had he been killed instead of being captured. It's time to let some common sense prevail here.

First, the mere fact that a law exists does not make something constitutional.

Second, the fact that you do not see a conflict does not mean the conflict does not exist.

By my standards, anyone actively shooting on a battlefield is an open target. My standards also recognize that the mere presence on a battlefield does not make one a target, which is why Obama's interpretation of the law that allows him to target people simply because the entire world is a battlefield is ridiculous.

 

[MikeK]

That is not the issue, at least not in part. Flying drones over Sovereign Airspace without consent, targeting for assassination, causing collateral damage, is. You would be okay with China or Russia, Mexico, or Syria flying drones here?

Violating sovereign airspace and targeting for assassination (when justifiable) are negotiable offenses. But collateral killing is the big issue. That is the thing which will transform ordinary, peaceful individuals into suicidally vindictive terrorists intent on striking at our civilian population.

What is most troubling about that is there is no question Obama and the entire command hierarchy is well aware of it. They are consciously fomenting tomorrow's terrorist attacks. What the Bush dynasty started and Obama is dutifully continuing is the transformation of the U.S. into the most despised nation in the world. Because fear is the precursor of hatred what they have done is resurrect the mutual loathing that fueled the Biblical Crusades and is assuring a future of endless reciprocal butchery.

These drones are toys for the big boys in Washington. What they are doing with them amounts to a grand video game with Dr. Strangelove overtones the inevitable outcome of which will be a parnoid police state with Homeland Security as Big Brother and an endless progression of terrorist bombings and beheadings.

 

[Murhy]

Your analysis is neither smart nor right.

Using the word "intelligent" would have been better, you are jus so misguided...

That you don't or won't understand the Constitution is your problem, no one else's.

Fact: the president is justified in using drones.

Fact: you are wrong in that you disagree.

Very well said. Labeling something as "fact" surely makes that thing a fact.

 

[JakeStarkey]

These were not military targets. The simplest proof of that is that the military had exactly nothing to do with any of their deaths. The next proof of that is that Obama himself is insisting that they had due process, even though he is declining to explain exactly how it worked for them. Go bury your head in the sand and pretend to be on a board where no one has the basic education to see through your idiotic ramblings.

You are very stupid if you believe your rambling.

Saying that someone is "very stupid" because they see something that you don't is the cheapest form of debate. Well done.

Not when it is a clear and definitive description of what one has been doing, ignoring the reality that the president is within his rights as cic and constitutionally empowered to do what he is doing.

To say he is not when no facts or evidence support that conclusion is very stupid.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

On this issue, the president is clearly within the frame work of the Constitution and in his role of commander in chief. If you are in Yemen or Pakistan and broadcasting on behalf of the enemy and beyond the effective range of capture by American forces, you are then ipso facto drone feed.

Then you should have no problem citing international laws and court cases to back your position up.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"But all the same, we crossed the line."

No one has crossed any line with the use of drones. None. Not even a little bit.

This is an issue of technology, not constitutionality

Funny, Obama disagrees with you, which is why he wants to change the rules and pretend this makes it better.