Democrats Deliver Internal Assassination to America

J

Johnny Tremain

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2012
Messages
2,307
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.
 
Werbung:
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.​
 
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 said:
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....
Click to expand...

Or you could remember another Democrat President, Janet Reno and Ruby Ridge. Too bad they didn't have drones then.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Gipper said:
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.​
Click to expand...


What goes around--comes around.
 
BigRob said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
pocketfullofshells said:
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....
Click to expand...

If Bush did this, you and your kind would go nuts.
 
pocketfullofshells said:
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....
Click to expand...


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.
 
Cruella said:
Link?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Werbung:
dogtowner said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Back
Top