Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well you going to get slammed for saying that this is a "conservative" value, but I think that's more or less correct. . Although Obama is a Democrat, and he does have a "few" liberal planks....this is right in line with standard mainstream, so called conservative/authoritarian ideology. Big tough guys using the military to "solve problems". Although libertarians would rightly argue imo that they are the true conservatives, and they oppose this as well.
When questioned by a Clinton staff member about this issue of abuse, didn't Clinton reply, "You don't get it, now it's OUR turn!"
I admit, I don't know where to put the question mark in this sentence.
A missle can be fired from a drone to a car traveling on a road where maybe, could be someone in the vehicle that maybe, might be involved sometime in the future in an act of terrorism, but if that same person was captured alive, brought to a building and waterboarded, it would be considered 'torture'. I think the person in the vehicle, not charged with any crime would rather be 'waterboarded' than have their guts spread all over a highway.
It was also done in Nov 2002 by drone over Yemen. The difference is, Condoleeza Rice said there was no Constitutional issues in the killing of that American. Hey, lets get into a phony uproar because this time it's the Obama Admin. I suppose since it's Obama the Right jumps on the band wagon the Left started quite a while ago.
You will note that I said earlier that the case with the son of Anwar al-Aulaqi was different. That he wasn't the target. Same goes for situation in 2002.
If we are trailing say an A.Q. head from Pakistan and he gets into a car full of people and when we blow that car up and it just happened to have an American citizen in it, that is not the problem. Nobody is asking anyone to stop the car and get the I.D. of every passenger.
The problem is singling out an American citizen for assassination. There is a major difference.
So shall we forget about capital punishment that has murdered innocent American's?
ANYONE whether American or foreign who is plotting or involved with terror attacks on the USA must be dealt with and even killed to protect our Country.
Amazing how we are now getting the 'bleeding hearts" on here when it's Obama stopping attacks on our people. Being a American does NOT give anyone any more rights to kill other American's in terror attacks than any foreigner............ They want to attack America then they better be prepared to be attacked....... simple.
Once again we have someone unwilling to actually address what the problem is here. Nobody, absolutely nobody has argued or will ever argue that anyone is saying anyone has a right to attack America.
A missle can be fired from a drone to a car traveling on a road where maybe, could be someone in the vehicle that maybe, might be involved sometime in the future in an act of terrorism, but if that same person was captured alive, brought to a building and waterboarded, it would be considered 'torture'. I think the person in the vehicle, not charged with any crime would rather be 'waterboarded' than have their guts spread all over a highway.
Practically speaking the domestic use of drones for targeting "terrorist" is a rather far fetched idea. Unlike using drones to thwart terrorist is Pakistan, Yemen or say Somalia, the capture of the "terrorist" on domestic or friendly soil is easily accomplished by simply pulling the vehicle over by local, state or federal law enforcement. A far more beneficial option that killing them. As a result I find the argument to be exceedingly disingenuous by some critics, and exceedingly hyper vigilant by others, although in the case of the ACLU quite in line with their long standing tradition. But standing in the middle, I find the concern highly dubious, because as the memo points the justification for targeting of "alleged" terrorist like Awalkiis to kill those deemed enemy combatants where all other avenues of capture are impractical.
You will note that I said earlier that the case with the son of Anwar al-Aulaqi was different. That he wasn't the target. Same goes for situation in 2002.
If we are trailing say an A.Q. head from Pakistan and he gets into a car full of people and when we blow that car up and it just happened to have an American citizen in it, that is not the problem. Nobody is asking anyone to stop the car and get the I.D. of every passenger.
The problem is singling out an American citizen for assassination. There is a major difference.
You're right, there should be Congressional oversight .... oh wait, there is.
You're right, there should be Congressional oversight .... oh wait, there is.
Congress can not give the O.K. to remove a persons Constitutional rights. I addressed this yesterday.
So if a president decides to start throwing people in prison because he doesn't like what they are saying and Congress gives their blessing, you are O.K. with that? (I know many are as we just went through this and the courts said "no")
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
