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

[fj1200]

Take a Rare Look at How Obama Decides to Send Drones to Kill Americans

Put simply, the government believes that a lethal drone attack against an American citizen is justified if the targets are a) "senior operational leaders" of al-Qaeda or b) "an associated force."
...
But what does "an associated force" mean? It seems like the guy who sells the terrorists bomb supplies would probably qualify, but what about the unknowing neighbor or the hired hand? Can we just kill them too in good conscience? Quite unfortunately, the government isn't exactly sure. The memo suggests that anyone who "present[s] an 'imminent' threat of violent attack against the United States" qualifies for assassination "a lawful killing in self defense," but that "does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future." In other words, an "informed, high-level" official can order the killing of any American citizen that was "recently" involved in threatening "activities." As Isikoff points out, the memo fails to define both of those terms.

"This is a chilling document," said Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union. "Basically, it argues that the government has the right to carry out the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen. … It recognizes some limits on the authority it sets out, but the limits are elastic and vaguely defined, and it's easy to see how they could be manipulated."

[fj1200]

^Actually 'capital punishment' wouldn't be the correct term as there has been no conviction.

[revelarts]

Take a Rare Look at How Obama Decides to Send Drones to Kill Americans

Yep, and He's already killed over 100 childre... i mean collateral damage... who were not a threat.

ANYBODY can be a freaking "threat"?
i . .I.. I don't even know where to start to say how bad this is anymore.

I think i can safely say that George Washington and all of the founders would not approve of the president ASSUMING this kind of authority.
the power is NOT found anywhere in the constitution.


And the threat is welp...arrg ar don't get me started.

[revelarts]

^Actually 'capital punishment' wouldn't be the correct term as there has been no conviction.

that's right.
it's called murder or assassination.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Take a Rare Look at How Obama Decides to Send Drones to Kill Americans

When the authority to execute an American citizen is deliberately made to be this broad and given to solely one person(the president) we must rightly determine that it is both Unconstitutional and absolutely dictatorial!
That would mean illegal and therefore =murder IMHO..
TOLD YOU PEOPLE THIS GUY IS SO DAMN SMUG BECAUSE HE ALREADY HAS DICTATORIAL POWERS!!! -Tyr

[Little-Acorn]

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


(patiently)

It's called "war".

Amazing how often liberals conveniently forget this, and forget the difference.

You don't put the enemy on trial. You kill him.

Keep in mind that these American citizens are making war against the United States. It was their idea. They declared themselves to be the enemy, and actively collaborated with other enemies. Such acts have consequences.

Would you feel better if they were killed by a rifleman from 200 yards away instead of a drone overhead?

Why?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

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


(patiently)

It's called "war".

Amazing how often liberals conveniently forget this, and forget the difference.

You don't put the enemy on trial. You kill him.

Keep in mind that these American citizens are making war against the United States. It was their idea. They declared themselves to be the enemy, and actively collaborated with other enemies. Such acts have consequences.

^^^ I agree with that. However my post deals with the authority granted and the fact that it does not limit such action to war only or even to location. -Tyr

Would you feel better if they were killed by a rifleman from 200 yards away instead of a drone overhead?

As you know I am about as far as one can get from being a liberal but this authority resting solely in the President's hands is Unconstitutional because he has authority to use it on more than just the battlefield. Its too broad and appears to set no good guidelines or limitations necessary to prevent ABUSE!!--Tyr

Why?

Why... TOO BROAD, TOO DICTATORIAL AND SUCH AUTHORITY AS WRITTEN SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN
TO ANY ONE MAN IMHO. DEFINITELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL IMHO... --Tyr

[Voted4Reagan]

^Actually 'capital punishment' wouldn't be the correct term as there has been no conviction.

So Obama is allowing the TARGETED ASSASSINATION of American Citizens...

And you support him because.......?

[gabosaurus]

In the years following 9-11, the Bush administration had hundreds of American citizens arrested without a warrant and held with access to counsel. Some were never heard from again.
Somehow, this was acceptable, and those who opposed the practice were accused of being "terrorist sympathizers."

[Robert A Whit]

Yep, and He's already killed over 100 childre... i mean collateral damage... who were not a threat.

ANYBODY can be a freaking "threat"?
i . .I.. I don't even know where to start to say how bad this is anymore.

I think i can safely say that George Washington and all of the founders would not approve of the president ASSUMING this kind of authority.
the power is NOT found anywhere in the constitution.


And the threat is welp...arrg ar don't get me started.

You are not supposed to call him president.

You are supposed to call him dictator. Stop wising off by saying president.

Thank you.

[jimnyc]

In the years following 9-11, the Bush administration had hundreds of American citizens arrested without a warrant and held with access to counsel. Some were never heard from again.
Somehow, this was acceptable, and those who opposed the practice were accused of being "terrorist sympathizers."

Who specifically?

[Robert A Whit]

In the years following 9-11, the Bush administration had hundreds of American citizens arrested without a warrant and held with access to counsel. Some were never heard from again.
Somehow, this was acceptable, and those who opposed the practice were accused of being "terrorist sympathizers."

Your task that you will instantly refuse to do, for the day, is to provide the following.
1. A name that matches your claim. Please not from the Inquirer if you don't mind.
2. Proof that it was the Bush administration that had said citizen arrested with no warrant.

BTW, is it possible that it was the Congress that crafted some law, however imperfect, that Bush signed in order to focus in on terrorists?

3. Name one that was not heard from again.

[gabosaurus]

Go look it up. There is loads of information out there.

American presidents have routinely assumed more power than they were given. J. Edgar Hoover is known to have done the dirty work of American leaders.
There are some who believe that John F. Kennedy was assassinated by those who felt he was using his power for evil.

We won't even go into Roosevelt allowing Pearl Harbor to be attacked in order to draw the U.S. into World War II.

[jimnyc]

Go look it up. There is loads of information out there.

American presidents have routinely assumed more power than they were given. J. Edgar Hoover is known to have done the dirty work of American leaders.
There are some who believe that John F. Kennedy was assassinated by those who felt he was using his power for evil.

We won't even go into Roosevelt allowing Pearl Harbor to be attacked in order to draw the U.S. into World War II.

I did, nothing. Besides, YOU stated it happened, the least you can do is provide proof. I am doubting your story, prove me wrong, if you can.

[Robert A Whit]

Go look it up. There is loads of information out there.

American presidents have routinely assumed more power than they were given. J. Edgar Hoover is known to have done the dirty work of American leaders.
There are some who believe that John F. Kennedy was assassinated by those who felt he was using his power for evil.

We won't even go into Roosevelt allowing Pearl Harbor to be attacked in order to draw the U.S. into World War II.

Gabby rule number 1.

Gabby makes a wild claim.

WE then are all to rush all over hell and back to prove she is telling the truth.

Any of you want to help her that way?

Gabby rule number 2.

Only for left wingers is everything you find on the internet the absolute truth.