Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Those are my standards? Seriously?
We are talking about the government deliberately deciding to kill people that are American citizens who are not on a battlefield, not taking out the leader of the enemies forces in the middle of a war. If Obama has evidence that these people are actually engaged in active warfare then he should present it to someone. If, on the other hand, all he has is evidence that they were planning a criminal act, which is how he thinks the government should treat terrorism, then he should arrest them, and bring them to trial.
He cannot have it both ways. Neither can you.
Not on the battlefield, really! Tell the soldier in England or the folks in Boston where the defined battlefield is. I'm very sure they would be interested in your opinion.
To be fair...the point isn't whether or not they are on the battlefield...the point is and correct me if I'm wrong...the battlefield is now declared to be here...and at what point are drones going to be blowing up houses in the US...to take out threats...we obviously aren't there yet...but this has set a dangerous standard.
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.
I have a difficult time believing that was ever said! Oh that's right, it wasn't.
Did Obama say the Constitution only applies part of the time?
This is the same man who has said that he has the right and the authority to proclaim anyone, anywhere, even an American Citizen a Danger and issue secret "Kill on sight" orders without review by anyone, including the Judicial branch.
It is funny that the only places where you agree with Obama are the ones where you are wrong. Unless you can show me a trail of bodies on a battlefield somewhere those people were not engaged in a war with anyone, they were merely saying things Obama did not like.
If, on the other hand, Obama has actual evidence, and can prove that he actually tried to arrest them and that they resisted with deadly force, then you have a point.
Holly crap, using your standards we had no right to kill Hitler unless he was holding a gun shooting at Americans. The asshole in Yemen was recruiting, planning attacks and providing material support to terrorist, just like Hitler did for his generals. He was directly linked to the Ft Hood shooter and others including the underwear bomber. Either you are ignorant of his activities or you are blinded by partisanship, either way you got this one wrong.
The US made those claims and have never backed them up in anyway with facts or evidence. Perhaps now you can tell us what horrible crimes his 16 year old son was planning when they murdered him the same way?
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.
The question is if American citizenship protected a man who became at senior al Queda operative in Yeman who was actively plotting to kill Americans. It didn't, it shouldn't, and I don't believe it ever will. Like the President said " his citizenship should no more serve as a shield than a sniper shooting down on an innocent crowd should be protected from a SWAT team."
You are blithely allowing the President Carte Blanche on naming anyone he chooses as an enemy and ordering his or her death. Obama nor this Government ever provided any evidence their claims were true. No charges were ever filed no Court in absentia nothing, Just our Government proclaiming it is true and murdering an American citizen and his 16 year old son.
I honestly haven't formed a firm opinion on this one. Given how much Obama has twisted and manipulated and distorted the Constitution and the intended powers of government, my first impulse of course is to question his motives and tactics and distrust him on this issue too.
But in honesty, it seems reasonable that an American citizen who takes up arms against his fellow citizens on behalf of a foreign power of any type should have no constitutional protection of any kind. And absolutely should be subject to being targeted as an enemy of the state.
But should we give any individual or a few individuals power to make the decision that an American citizen has forfeited his/her constitutional protection? Is an enemy of the state? Would this not open the door to so designate anybody an enemy of the state and thus eligible to be targeted for elimination without due process?
I don't want to give anybody such power, much less a government that is already out of control.
So I'm still thinking this one through. And hope to God we get it right.
The real issue is where does it stop?
I honestly haven't formed a firm opinion on this one. Given how much Obama has twisted and manipulated and distorted the Constitution and the intended powers of government, my first impulse of course is to question his motives and tactics and distrust him on this issue too.
But in honesty, it seems reasonable that an American citizen who takes up arms against his fellow citizens on behalf of a foreign power of any type should have no constitutional protection of any kind. And absolutely should be subject to being targeted as an enemy of the state.
But should we give any individual or a few individuals power to make the decision that an American citizen has forfeited his/her constitutional protection? Is an enemy of the state? Would this not open the door to so designate anybody an enemy of the state and thus eligible to be targeted for elimination without due process?
I don't want to give anybody such power, much less a government that is already out of control.
So I'm still thinking this one through. And hope to God we get it right.
You Sir, are so reasonable that it makes me want to cry. It's refreshing. The masses want to argue about whether this was right or wrong without even acknowledging the gravity behind the door that has been opened. Virtual high five to you.
...the point is and correct me if I'm wrong...the battlefield is now declared to be here...and at what point are drones going to be blowing up houses in the US...to take out threats...we obviously aren't there yet...but this has set a dangerous standard.
I honestly haven't formed a firm opinion on this one. Given how much Obama has twisted and manipulated and distorted the Constitution and the intended powers of government, my first impulse of course is to question his motives and tactics and distrust him on this issue too.
But in honesty, it seems reasonable that an American citizen who takes up arms against his fellow citizens on behalf of a foreign power of any type should have no constitutional protection of any kind. And absolutely should be subject to being targeted as an enemy of the state.
But should we give any individual or a few individuals power to make the decision that an American citizen has forfeited his/her constitutional protection? Is an enemy of the state? Would this not open the door to so designate anybody an enemy of the state and thus eligible to be targeted for elimination without due process?
I don't want to give anybody such power, much less a government that is already out of control.
So I'm still thinking this one through. And hope to God we get it right.
I honestly haven't formed a firm opinion on this one. Given how much Obama has twisted and manipulated and distorted the Constitution and the intended powers of government, my first impulse of course is to question his motives and tactics and distrust him on this issue too.
But in honesty, it seems reasonable that an American citizen who takes up arms against his fellow citizens on behalf of a foreign power of any type should have no constitutional protection of any kind. And absolutely should be subject to being targeted as an enemy of the state.
But should we give any individual or a few individuals power to make the decision that an American citizen has forfeited his/her constitutional protection? Is an enemy of the state? Would this not open the door to so designate anybody an enemy of the state and thus eligible to be targeted for elimination without due process?
I don't want to give anybody such power, much less a government that is already out of control.
So I'm still thinking this one through. And hope to God we get it right.
You Sir, are so reasonable that it makes me want to cry. It's refreshing. The masses want to argue about whether this was right or wrong without even acknowledging the gravity behind the door that has been opened. Virtual high five to you.
Thanks. Believe it or not there are quite a few 'reasonable' folks around, even a few at USMB. Sadly, most don't have any ability to argue a principle outside of partisan prejudices, and the nation is the poorer for that.
However, I must correct you on one small point.
I am woman. Hear me roar.
Jake,...the point is and correct me if I'm wrong...the battlefield is now declared to be here...and at what point are drones going to be blowing up houses in the US...to take out threats...we obviously aren't there yet...but this has set a dangerous standard.
I don't think so. If you and I robbed a bank and barricaded ourselves into an almost impregnable position, which would cost LEO grievously to assault, then bring a drone, bring a gunship, whatever it takes, once the neighborhood has been cleared.
This is an issue of technology not constitutionality.
Drones are merely tools.
Holly crap, using your standards we had no right to kill Hitler unless he was holding a gun shooting at Americans. The asshole in Yemen was recruiting, planning attacks and providing material support to terrorist, just like Hitler did for his generals. He was directly linked to the Ft Hood shooter and others including the underwear bomber. Either you are ignorant of his activities or you are blinded by partisanship, either way you got this one wrong.
Those are my standards? Seriously?
We are talking about the government deliberately deciding to kill people that are American citizens who are not on a battlefield, not taking out the leader of the enemies forces in the middle of a war. If Obama has evidence that these people are actually engaged in active warfare then he should present it to someone. If, on the other hand, all he has is evidence that they were planning a criminal act, which is how he thinks the government should treat terrorism, then he should arrest them, and bring them to trial.
He cannot have it both ways. Neither can you.
Not on the battlefield, really! Tell the soldier in England or the folks in Boston where the defined battlefield is. I'm very sure they would be interested in your opinion.
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.
The question is if American citizenship protected a man who became at senior al Queda operative in Yeman who was actively plotting to kill Americans. It didn't, it shouldn't, and I don't believe it ever will. Like the President said " his citizenship should no more serve as a shield than a sniper shooting down on an innocent crowd should be protected from a SWAT team."
Holly crap, using your standards we had no right to kill Hitler unless he was holding a gun shooting at Americans. The asshole in Yemen was recruiting, planning attacks and providing material support to terrorist, just like Hitler did for his generals. He was directly linked to the Ft Hood shooter and others including the underwear bomber. Either you are ignorant of his activities or you are blinded by partisanship, either way you got this one wrong.
The US made those claims and have never backed them up in anyway with facts or evidence. Perhaps now you can tell us what horrible crimes his 16 year old son was planning when they murdered him the same way?
I'm less informed as to the kid, from what I understand he was not the primary target in that strike. He may have been hanging with the wrong people. Personally I blame the dad for taking him to that God forsaken place to begin with.
EDIT: The evidence on the dad is still all over the internet, all you have to do is look.
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.
The question is if American citizenship protected a man who became at senior al Queda operative in Yeman who was actively plotting to kill Americans. It didn't, it shouldn't, and I don't believe it ever will. Like the President said " his citizenship should no more serve as a shield than a sniper shooting down on an innocent crowd should be protected from a SWAT team."
It is nice that you live in a world where Obama saying something makes it unequivocally true, but I don't live in that universe. In this universe the government has to prove things in court, which is why we have courts, and the government, in the first place. So, once again, if you know something that I don't, show me the money. If not, just admit you like this because it makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside, and expect to be complaining when warm and fuzzy means that the government has the power to kill you.
I honestly haven't formed a firm opinion on this one. Given how much Obama has twisted and manipulated and distorted the Constitution and the intended powers of government, my first impulse of course is to question his motives and tactics and distrust him on this issue too.
But in honesty, it seems reasonable that an American citizen who takes up arms against his fellow citizens on behalf of a foreign power of any type should have no constitutional protection of any kind. And absolutely should be subject to being targeted as an enemy of the state.
But should we give any individual or a few individuals power to make the decision that an American citizen has forfeited his/her constitutional protection? Is an enemy of the state? Would this not open the door to so designate anybody an enemy of the state and thus eligible to be targeted for elimination without due process?
I don't want to give anybody such power, much less a government that is already out of control.
So I'm still thinking this one through. And hope to God we get it right.
...the point is and correct me if I'm wrong...the battlefield is now declared to be here...and at what point are drones going to be blowing up houses in the US...to take out threats...we obviously aren't there yet...but this has set a dangerous standard.
I don't think so. If you and I robbed a bank and barricaded ourselves into an almost impregnable position, which would cost LEO grievously to assault, then bring a drone, bring a gunship, whatever it takes, once the neighborhood has been cleared.
This is an issue of technology not constitutionality.
Drones are merely tools.
I honestly haven't formed a firm opinion on this one. Given how much Obama has twisted and manipulated and distorted the Constitution and the intended powers of government, my first impulse of course is to question his motives and tactics and distrust him on this issue too.
But in honesty, it seems reasonable that an American citizen who takes up arms against his fellow citizens on behalf of a foreign power of any type should have no constitutional protection of any kind. And absolutely should be subject to being targeted as an enemy of the state.
But should we give any individual or a few individuals power to make the decision that an American citizen has forfeited his/her constitutional protection? Is an enemy of the state? Would this not open the door to so designate anybody an enemy of the state and thus eligible to be targeted for elimination without due process?
I don't want to give anybody such power, much less a government that is already out of control.
So I'm still thinking this one through. And hope to God we get it right.
My problem is that Obama seems to think he is justified in ordering anyone's execution. He is giving himself the power to be judge, jury, and executioner, despite all his high falutin words how wonderful the Constitution and the American justice system is. That type of power should ever be in the hands of one man, or even one branch of government. Let Congress pass a law giving the government the power to try people like this, have a jury trial, present the evidence, and then give them a chance to defend themselves. After a conviction, and the appeals, he can surrender to serve his sentence, and be eligible for a new trial if he has evidence that was not available to his attorney.
After all, this is supposed to be a nation built on the rule of law.
