1. Come and join our community by registering for free here and start discussing politics! HOP - the political discussion forum

Democrats Deliver Internal Assassination to America

Discussion in 'U.S. Politics' started by Johnny Tremain, Mar 7, 2013.

  1. Johnny Tremain Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Jun 14, 2012
    Message Count:
    2,224
    Likes Received:
    187
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Tierra del Fuego
    The democrat party and their dictator have now delivered warrant-less, blatant, without trial or recourse, political assassination as a viable way to destroy their opposition.

    Murder, Inc. has returned--and FROM CHICAGO!

    Drones are about to start silencing dissent.
    They'll just blow your ass right off the couch or bed into the clouds.

    But--no waterboarding--please.

    This--is why the Founding Fathers wanted a WELL-ARMED MILITIA.
    Johnny Tremain, Mar 7, 2013
    #1

  2. Cruella Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 20, 2012
    Message Count:
    3,298
    Likes Received:
    521
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Link?
    Cruella, Mar 7, 2013
    #2

  3. Johnny Tremain Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Jun 14, 2012
    Message Count:
    2,224
    Likes Received:
    187
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Tierra del Fuego
    Eric Holder
    Johnny Tremain, Mar 7, 2013
    #3

  4. Cruella Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 20, 2012
    Message Count:
    3,298
    Likes Received:
    521
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ted Cruz; “You keep saying appropriate. My question isn’t about propriety. My question is about whether something is constitutional or not.?”
    Cruella, Mar 7, 2013
    #4

  5. Gipper Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Nov 17, 2009
    Message Count:
    5,837
    Likes Received:
    327
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Winter Wonderland
    At least some Ds and libs are not hypocrites....I know...I know...there are very few of them....

    Even Huffington Post slammed Democrats for being missing in action. And one of the top constitutional law experts in the country – liberal Jonathan Turley – writes:
    What was most striking about this principled stand is the virtual total absence of Democrats in speaking out against Obama. Just this week, Attorney General Eric Holder admitted that this policy could include killing citizens on U.S. soil with drones. Yet, the Democrats worked to stop not the kill list policy but Paul’s filibuster. Obama apologists have attacked Rand for some of his other positions to avoid dealing with the fact that Obama is claiming the powers of an Imperial President. I do not agree with Paul on many things, but I commend him for this stand and condemn those who remained silent, again, in the face of this authoritarian policy of Obama.
    ***
    The lack of opposition to Obama’s kill list policy is a national disgrace. It shows the triumph of a cult of personality within the Democratic ranks where both members and voters have chosen Obama over long-standing values of civil liberties that once defined their party.
    Gipper, Mar 7, 2013
    #5

  6. pocketfullofshells Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Message Count:
    10,864
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
    Or you could be literate and actually read what what was said and not piss your pants. The fact that they have said that there could be a Legal justification in a very extreme circumstance..while also saying that they have zero interest in useing that power...and you hear...Drones are all over looking to kill you. Guess what, no one gives 2 shits about you...there is no drone ever going to target you....
    pocketfullofshells, Mar 7, 2013
    #6

  7. Cruella Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 20, 2012
    Message Count:
    3,298
    Likes Received:
    521
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Or you could remember another Democrat President, Janet Reno and Ruby Ridge. Too bad they didn't have drones then.
    Cruella, Mar 7, 2013
    #7

  8. BigRob Super Moderator

    Member Since:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Message Count:
    6,954
    Likes Received:
    204
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    USA
    I am sure my thoughts on this are not going to be in the mainstream -- but here they are anyway.

    The President is the Commander in Chief, and that comes with a lot of power. Additionally, after 9/11, the Executive Branch was granted by Congress a lot of power in conducting the war on terror with the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force, which gives the President authority to use all necessary force to destroy Al Qaeda and its affiliates.

    I was a firm believer at the time, and remain a firm believer, that this includes the power to kill enemy combatants wherever they might be located -- and regardless of their nationality. If you grant that the President has the power to use drone strikes to target Al Qaeda and its affiliates, then it stands to reason that such ability also includes US citizens who have taken up arms against their government and supported these terror organizations.

    If you accept that the President has the power to kill terrorists, who are also American citizens, on a foreign battlefield, then why would that power stop at the border of the United States? I think Holder stated the position poorly, but I think his position is correct. In theory, the President does have the power to kill an American citizen inside the United States via a drone strike -- if that person is acting in support of Al Qaeda or their affiliates. Now, the liklihood of this actually occuring is close to zero -- as I would argue that the collateral damage from such a strike in a populated area would be completely unacceptable and violate the rights of those who were the collateral damage. That said, I can see a scenario where this would not be the case -- in which I would have no problem with a drone strike killing an American citizen who is working with these terror groups.

    So, Senator Paul's filibuster made for great political theatre, but not much else. He framed the argument as a group of noncombatants might suddenly be blown up in a drone strike while sitting in a cafe -- but that is a straw man argument. The government can only target enemy combatants -- who might also happen to be citizens. Now, we can get into a debate of transparency about how those affiliations are defined -- but to the question of does the President possess this power -- the answer is a clear yes -- and rightfully so in my opinion.
    BigRob, Mar 7, 2013
    #8
    cashmcall likes this.

  9. BigRob Super Moderator

    Member Since:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Message Count:
    6,954
    Likes Received:
    204
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    USA
    White House gave an update:

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/white...ul-the-answer-is-no/article/2523555#loopbegin

    Might not the addition of "combat situation" to the language -- as that is really the whole issue at hand, and it just reinforces the point that the President can kill an enemy combatant on US soil if they are a US citizen -- and certainly can if there is an imminent danger to the United States.

    Since Senator Paul was quickly satisfied with such an answer -- it reinforces two thoughts about him in my mind:
    1) He is unable to make that distinction in the language -- which frankly is terrifying.
    2) It was all for political show.

    I'll bet on #2.
    BigRob, Mar 7, 2013
    #9

  10. Johnny Tremain Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Jun 14, 2012
    Message Count:
    2,224
    Likes Received:
    187
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Tierra del Fuego

    What goes around--comes around.
    Johnny Tremain, Mar 8, 2013
    #10

  11. cashmcall Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Jan 23, 2012
    Message Count:
    1,077
    Likes Received:
    249
    Trophy Points:
    63
    First let me say Iagree with the political theatre part and i know the price of failure in capturing American-born persons of interest is high. if they escape, they become harder to find, and can continue to plot attacks against America. I’m for the drone program. I’m for killing high-level al-Qaeda targets, but if they’re American citizens, and they’re not posing an imminent threat at the time, it should be incumbent upon us to capture, detain, and place them on trial...
    Our Constitution was meant to constrain government, and to ensure that certain rights can never be suspended by a usurpatory government. A president assuming the power of judge, jury, and executioner is an awesome power, and one that doesn’t have any congressional oversight as of late...
    Sen. Rand Paul asked on the Senate floor, what are the limits of presidential power? Furthermore, Sen. Paul said that we know little about some of the people on these kill lists. Concerning the president’s authority to use drone strikes on American citizens within the United States, the answer should be definitely no...
    What’s more disturbing is the fact that liberal Democrats seem content with this campaign. After all, we had a conservative Republican lead this filibuster effort. If this was George Bush, articles of impeachment would’ve been brought up. However, while some in the media don’t seem to be willingly to admit their failure in reporting Obama’s hypocrisy, I’m more than prepared to say that I now believe I was wrong in my support of killing American citizens abroad without due process...
    The War on Terror has pushed us into new areas of warfare and legal theory, but we cannot forget the principles we’re fighting for in our conflict with al-qaeda. What good is our Bill of Rights if we decide to shred it for a quick kill on one of our fellow citizens? Even the most despicable American deserves the right of due process under the law. Our Bill of Rights was never meant to be applied to citizens on a case by case basis.
    cashmcall, Mar 8, 2013
    #11

  12. Gipper Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Nov 17, 2009
    Message Count:
    5,837
    Likes Received:
    327
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Winter Wonderland
    If Bush did this, you and your kind would go nuts.
    Gipper, Mar 8, 2013
    #12

  13. Johnny Tremain Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Jun 14, 2012
    Message Count:
    2,224
    Likes Received:
    187
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Tierra del Fuego

    I believe this to be--HATE SPEECH.
    Moderators should contact the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice.
    Charges should be filed.

    Ponder for a moment--if the left in America was ever called--on their usage of hate speech.
    Johnny Tremain, Mar 8, 2013
    #13

  14. dogtowner Super Moderator

    Member Since:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Message Count:
    11,386
    Likes Received:
    654
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Sec 9 Row J Seat 1 @ VCU home games
    it was reported on drudge a day or two ago as part of holders testimony before congress related to domestic drones.

    it came out that drones could be armed. holder said it was legal to kill with drones sans trial or other judicial review. just bo's say so.

    so if its ok for drones it must be ok for the 2700 tanks dhs just bought. or any of the ak's and billions of bullets too.
    dogtowner, Mar 8, 2013
    #14

  15. Cruella Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 20, 2012
    Message Count:
    3,298
    Likes Received:
    521
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You can add a couple dozen more things to that list. But when you look at them collectively, you cannot help but ask....what the hell is going on?
    Cruella, Mar 8, 2013
    #15
    dogtowner likes this.

  16. BigRob Super Moderator

    Member Since:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Message Count:
    6,954
    Likes Received:
    204
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    USA
    Why? It might be they have been under the radar for years, and we get lucky. Why would we throw away that chance?

    The President did not just unilaterally assume that power. Congress gave it to him -- and rightfully so in my opinion. Its a tough issue, but I think such a power is needed.

    Congress can take away this authority if they so choose.

    This is the issue of transparency in what criteria are used to identify someone as a threat...and this is a much harder issue. There does need to be some guidelines in place, but the public realistically doesn't need to know about them. I'd be more than happy with a simple briefing to the Gang of 8 -- something which might already be taking place.

    We just come down on different sides of this issue -- your position is a credible, valid position.
    BigRob, Mar 8, 2013
    #16

  17. cashmcall Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Jan 23, 2012
    Message Count:
    1,077
    Likes Received:
    249
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I agree with everything you said...This is the part that bothers me.. "Our Bill of Rights was never meant to be applied to citizens on a case by case basis".
    cashmcall, Mar 8, 2013
    #17

  18. pocketfullofshells Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Message Count:
    10,864
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again

    you do know that its always been legal to kill without trial right? On Sept 11 when the Fighters where scrambled to intercept the 747's...did you think it was read Miranda Rights and hold court in the air? Also did you read the follow up memo that said if someone not in the act of committing a terrorist act...you could not use a drone?you should try actually reading the whole thing...not the tid bits Fox Noise tells you.Just like all the idiots crying how they where using drones for look for your cop killer friend.

    If your about to blow up a building...they can shoot you with a gun...or a drone...or what ever they need. If your sitting planning something and normal law enforcement would be able to actually arrest you...then you can not legal use a drone...or shoot them.
    pocketfullofshells, Mar 9, 2013
    #18

  19. dogtowner Super Moderator

    Member Since:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Message Count:
    11,386
    Likes Received:
    654
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Sec 9 Row J Seat 1 @ VCU home games

    planes would be warned drone targets would not.
    who decides if the person on the receiving end the drone strike is being. terrorist ?
    who could believe holder when he ssys they have no intention of doing something he took the time to research ?
    dogtowner, Mar 10, 2013
    #19

  20. pocketfullofshells Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Message Count:
    10,864
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
    OK you go warn people before you drone strike...Maybe you can also walk accross the battlefeild and say hey would you like to surrender before we shoot? DO you live in the real world? I mean realy...Its a fucking war...I don't know how you do get that...

    And so if there is no radio contact with the hijacked plane...you let it hit...Good to know.

    If a cop is standing in the street and your driving at him trying to hit him...does he have to yell in your window that you could be arrested or do you shoot?

    Honestly when did the right become a party of fucking hippies crying about the poor terrorist who got killed. Maybe you should offer to give them a hug and ask them if they would like to talk about there feelings as well before we kill the pricks.
    pocketfullofshells, Mar 26, 2013
    #20

Share This Page