Posted on 06/25/2014 5:53:03 AM PDT by Enlightened1
On Monday, the White House memo used to justify drone attacks on U.S. citizens was released, and it appears to confirm the worst suspicions of its libertarian critics. The Obama administration had sought to keep the memo secret, and now we know why: Because there are no checks and balances; there are no classified courts. Indeed, the memo reveals that the president of the United States ordered the targeting killing of U.S. citizens overseas — in violation of their constitutional right to due process — sans any type of oversight outside of the executive.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
What happened to the TEA party radical’s hard drive? We recycled it. We like to be green by recycling evidence. Otherwise it just piles up and gathers dust. Icky!
Trust us. We’re helping keep America secure and safe.
(/sarcasm)
How about if we just send the FBI all of the world to investigate terror attacks like we did with Kobar Towers? Clinton was vilified here for doing it....and rightly so.
NSA already knows
“There is a group in Waco, Texas making and hoarding guns. We have to send in tanks with CS gas and armed hueys to save the children”.
Eric Holder was the number 2 guy under Janet Reno.
They have their key people in place.
Tin foil that.
I have to agree with you. If an American defected to Germany during WW2 and engaged in combat against American Troops would it be OK to kill him in a military strike?
Just because liberals are hypocrites doesn’t mean it’s Ok for conservatives to act the same way.
I thought you were gonna say, “If an American defected to Germany during WW2 and engaged in combat against American Troops would it be OK to let 5 of Hitler’s top generals go free in order to get him back?”
We know what Obama does with Americans who ARE fighting against us. This is about people who are NOT engaged in actual combat with us - people who are labeled (by nobody but the Obama regime acting with no checks and balances) as “belligerent”, according to the NDAA.
I’m funny that way...
To specifically answer your question about geography, yes it does make a difference. The nations where these guys take refuge have at best duplicitous and corrupt officials. You’re never going to get them to cool operate in handing them over. Pakistan proved that with bin Laden. Why risk high-value operators apprehending them when we have other options? These individuals have sought refuge with hostiles and openly renounced this nation’s constitution and laws. They forfeit the protection it affords, IMO.
Just one more example of Obama breaking the law, there have been dozens now, on many different issues. So what are we going to do about it?
The Presbyterians want to steal obama’s image? How rude!
there is a war on terrorism going on, whether the Hero of Benghazi admits it or not. If US citizens are traitors and serve on the side attacking us, killing them is not murder, it is a duty. Isn’t a war on terror a just war?
This problem goes all the way back to Thomas Jefferson.
Back then, the US Navy was involved in a knock down drag out with the Barbary pirates, who would seize ships and hold crews hostage for ransom.
At the time, the penalty for piracy was, and still should be, hanging. And while the British navy would hang the pirates on their own ships, then set the ships to slowly and irretrievably sink, the US Navy was hampered by US federal judges, who wanted to horn in.
These judges actually demanded that when the US Navy captured pirates, that they stop what they were doing in Africa, and spend several months transporting the pirates back to the US, while feeding and caring for them, just so that the federal judges could try them and hang them.
Egotistical jerks.
In any event, the US Navy suddenly discovered that every pirate they captured just *happened* to be in British jurisdictional waters, so they were obligated to turn them over to the British for disposition.
So what about the current mess? Right now, if someone with American citizenship leaves the US to fight the US military in another country, every one of our military personnel are authorized to kill them without further adieu.
If they are unfortunate enough to capture them instead, you guessed it, they are supposed to be transported back to the US for trial by egotistical jerks of federal judges.
Once the light dawns among US military personnel that dead enemies are much less hassle, well, too bad for these enemies.
So after this, why get excited about the US POTUS offing a few of the traitors themselves? Especially if the traitor has knowledge and skills useful to the enemy.
Instead of swapping five dangerous terrorists and likely a bunch of money for the recent deserter, why not give him a Hellfire missile as a going away present? It would likely save a lot of innocent lives in the process. And as for the five dangerous terrorists... why not feed them to the Cuban sharks?
Word on the street is that they are so taken with his likeness that theyve sold their souls to him.... in exchange for permission to use it in the new logo,...and I believe it...
Well, certainly some of history’s most prominent leaders would agree with you - Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot and such.
It’s comforting to know that the-ends-justify-the-means reasoning is alive and well here on FR amongst all these rule-of-law, checks-and-balances neanderthals.
/sarc
Military officers often do not actually participate in the actual battle but plan and coordinate on the sideline. They are still military targets. If Americans are participating in anyway militarily on the side of the Islamists than they are valid targets IMHO.
Killing terrorists is maybe the only thing barry is doing right and I suspect he is doing so with great reluctance.
So Bergdahl should have been hit with a drone? Is that what you’re saying? No court-martial, nothing, just a drone hit?
“These individuals have sought refuge with hostiles nd openly renounced this nation’s constitution and laws. They forfeit the protection it affords, IMO.”
For a minute I thought you were talking about Obama. But then I remembered - he’s not even an American (unless he can produce his naturalization papers).
So if Obama can produce his naturalization papers, will he be eligible for the US military to hit him with a drone, since he’s openly renounced this nation’s Constitution and laws, and all his buddies are hostile to this nation (think The New Party, Bill Ayers, the terrorists he yukked it up with and LA Times hid the video, the Muslim Brotherhood, etc)? No trial, no evidence, just a drone hit out of the blue?
Maybe the military could teach Obama that those who live by the sword die by the sword. If Obama is now a US citizen I believe he should get due process. But if he thinks a US citizen should get a drone hit for the reasons that you cite - without any due process to make sure that he has a chance to defend himself and dispel any wrong conclusions by some non-accountable person - then Barack Hussein Obama should be the first person on that list and he should be taught that what goes around comes around.
Would you agree?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.