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.
The Obama administration's targeted drone strikes against American citizens were constitutional in part because the president said so, Department of Justice lawyers argued in a court filing this week.
"The Attorney General’s statement last month that the use of remotely piloted aircraft and the targeting of Anwar Al-Aulaqi were subject to 'exceptionally rigorous interagency legal review' and determined to be lawful--along with the President’s statement that those actions were legal-- only support the conclusion that those actions were lawful, and certainly were not clearly established to be unconstitutional in 2011," the government said in a Wednesday court filing signed by Paul E. Werner, a trial lawyer in the Justice Department's Civil Division.
Plenty of ignorance to go around and then some. Why they make excuses and allow this crap to happen, is beyond understanding.
It is more then ignorance, it is atrocious. And if the other guy pulled this same crap, they can all go you know, they would be screaming bloddy murder, and we all know it.
The 2001 AUMF directs the president to use military force "as necessary and proper" against Al-Qaida targets. If a US citizen is a member of that group, and in an area where law enforcement can't touch him but the military can, he gets blasted. This is hardly controversial - presidents have routinely used the military to kill or intimidate US citizens. Washington did it, Lincoln did it, both George Bush's did it.
Originally Posted by rebeldor Seriously, how can anyone still support this creep?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHurricaneKid
Ignorance.
Pretty much!
We've been saying (Libertarians) that this President could be caught holding the smoking gun over a dead body, and his obamabots would defend him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hadoken
He's right.
The 2001 AUMF directs the president to use military force "as necessary and proper" against Al-Qaida targets. If a US citizen is a member of that group, and in an area where law enforcement can't touch him but the military can, he gets blasted. This is hardly controversial - presidents have routinely used the military to kill or intimidate US citizens. Washington did it, Lincoln did it, both George Bush's did it.
The 2001 AUMF directs the president to use military force "as necessary and proper" against Al-Qaida targets. If a US citizen is a member of that group, and in an area where law enforcement can't touch him but the military can, he gets blasted. This is hardly controversial - presidents have routinely used the military to kill or intimidate US citizens. Washington did it, Lincoln did it, both George Bush's did it.
So what you're saying is that Obama is just as big a tyrant as Lincoln and Dubya.
ya'll hang on a minute, I gotta call in my free cheese order on my new obama phone
(thats your answer)
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.
