Who is up for a little extra-judicial capital punishment?

[taft2012]

President Bush told us in an address to a joint session of Congress in September 2001 that this would be a different kind of war, that it was not against any particular country, which would take us to many different countries over the course of many years. Some victories we would hear about, some we wouldn't.

Did he lie to us? Or is it all playing out exactly as it was presented to us, which had all of our elected officials on their feet applauding?

Any objections, Constitutional or otherwise, should have been voiced at that point.

It doesn't matter who in this movement is dead, the fact is that it's still a movement working against us. I want the front line of this battle as far away from American civilians as possible.

How much blood is it going to take? I don't know, how much are they willing to shed? Can you answer that? When they cease attacking our troops, that would be a sign of good will.

How many of those who attacked Benghazi do you reckon were teenagers on 9/11? Is that relevant?

That "they may attack us one day" is irrelevant. They *ARE* attacking us, and show no sign of letting up. And the Commander-in-Chief has every right, and indeed, the DUTY, to use the means he has available to protect his troops in the field and the American people.

Feck 'em.... launch every friggin' drone we can put in the air.

And fly 'em over this country too and spot them marijuana fields.

[fj1200]

It must have been statements like these throughout the thread that gave me a different impression:

Thank you for finding all those quotes that demonstrate the overstatement that you made.

... less than one... zero. Which would mean 100% assurance.

...and from you, yourself:

I see the problem now, if you can't recognize tongue-in-cheek...

Please try to keep up with what's going on in your own thread, before dressing down (and failing in doing so) others.

I know what's going on in "my" thread; There are those apparent constitutionalists who drop their allegiance when it comes to smokin' a few baddies and then there's the rest of us.

That "they may attack us one day" is irrelevant. They *ARE* attacking us, and show no sign of letting up. And the Commander-in-Chief has every right, and indeed, the DUTY, to use the means he has available to protect his troops in the field and the American people.

Duty?

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Please don't address Gabby as such, that's not cool. At the very least, take it to the thread where it emanated from. Even then, that's a rather harsh label for someone you don't know, based on half of a sentence she wrote rather jokingly.

^^^^^^ Have to agree with this..
Gabby is just a blowhard that likes to spew forth liberal/leftist propaganda while mixing in a few lame insults to those she knows are are superior to her! Such insecure jealousy should be laughed at and shown for its silliness IMHO.
And bear in mind that I am very far indeed from being a fan of hers.. -Tyr

[fj1200]

Court orders U.S. to release memo on drones, al-Awlaki killing

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A federal appeals court ordered the U.S. Department of Justice to turn over key portions of a memorandum justifying the government's targeted killing of people linked to terrorism, including Americans.In a case pitting executive power against the public's right to know what its government does, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court ruling preserving the secrecy of the legal rationale for the killings, such as the death of U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki in a 2011 drone strike in Yemen.
Ruling for the New York Times, a unanimous three-judge panel said the government waived its right to secrecy by making repeated public statements justifying targeted killings.
These included a Justice Department "white paper," as well as speeches or statements by officials like Attorney General Eric Holder and former Obama administration counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, endorsing the practice.

[jimnyc]

Court orders U.S. to release memo on drones, al-Awlaki killing

This should be interesting. I still stand by my original stance - that the elder Awlaki sealed his own fate by becoming a terrorist and planning attacks abroad. It would appear that his son dying was a different animal, by being along for the ride with other known terrorists in his Dad's clique.

But I do agree with them coming clean on justification. IMO, it should be easy concerning killing a known terrorist, planning attacks against our troops and other interests while in a foreign land. IMO, he should be treated like every other terrorist out there. But my opinion is one thing, and them justifying the specifics is another.