Obama authorizes assasination of U.S. citizen

[WinterBorn]

He doesn't so much I agree with, but I applaud him for this decision....
very Bushesque.....

So you approve of this decision? Do you think the man's citizenship should be stripped first, or should he just be assasinated?

 

[DamnYankee]

Obviously not.

But since you refuse to engage in a debate, lets review what you have said.



1) "Amazing, this president attempts to do one thing right."

2) "Yes. It would prevent a lot of wars. Just think if we had removed Saddam, or Hitler. Or if we could remove Ahmajinedad."

3) "We didn't put Hitler or Ahmajinedadin power."

4) "You're the one giving a non-factual reply."

5) "We have the right to remove a "clear and present danger".

6) "Desh has no clue what The Southern Man thinks."

7) "The Southern Man was crystal clear."

8) "My position is clear."


1) Is on topic but vague.

2) Is irrelevant since the topic is about assasinating a US citizen.

3) Still irrelevant.

4) Doesn't clarify anything.

5) Better, but still not much detail. What constitutes a "clear & present danger"? Who determines whether it is a clear & present danger? ect ect

6) Avoiding the discussion rather than participating.

7) More avoidance.

8) Still more avoidance.




So let me ask you again, do you advocate the president authorizing the assasination of a US citizen? You say it was this president attempting to do one right thing, but it seems a horrible precedent to set.

You are really obsessed with me, aren't you?

How ironic.

 

[WinterBorn]

How ironic.

Hardly ironic.

I am trying to engage you in a debate or discussion on a political topic. YOu were posting repeatedly calling my sarcasm lies, and then claiming a "zing" based on spelling.

My post is an example of the main reason this site is here. Your post is just more evidence of obsession.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

He doesn't so much I agree with, but I applaud him for this decision....
very Bushesque.....

idiot prole conservatives such as yourself will be the death of this nation

 

[Canceled2]

Now that the shock value has mostly worn off, I'm not sure I oppose it. Like WM, I'm concerned about assassinating a US citizen, which is why this whole episode is shocking. But consider how many unpopular wars we could avoid if the CIA was allowed to conduct more assassinations around the world?

I'm sure that as long as the CIA has been in operation it has been conducting assassinations around the world...no?

As a side: If assassination against US citizens is "unconstitutional" how was it law enforcement agencies used to post rewards for suspected felons "wanted dead or alive"? When did that stop?

 

[Damocles]

What's the process for stripping someone of their citizenship? Is it similar to a criminal proceeding? I ask because it seems to me that stripping him of his citizenship to then issue a death warrant against him just puts some legalistic window-dressing on the fact that the president authorized the assassination of an American citizen.

Due process isn't something that should be disposed of out of inconvenience.

I would assume, like a "Treason" trial, you could try him in absentia.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Amazing, this president attempts to do one thing right.

There is no way in hell you're an american. not with this fucked up philosophy.

 

[DamnYankee]

There is no way in hell you're an american. not with this fucked up philosophy.

Yet you can't argue against it.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Yet you can't argue against it.

argue against the president of the US, authorizing the CIA to assassinate American Citizens? anybody who supports or defends that policy is unamerican, period. There is no logical or sane reason one should have to argue against it, it's plain and simple dictatorialism.

 

[DamnYankee]

argue against the president of the US, authorizing the CIA to assassinate American Citizens? anybody who supports or defends that policy is unamerican, period. There is no logical or sane reason one should have to argue against it, it's plain and simple dictatorialism.

Yet you can't argue against it.

 

[Onceler]

Yet you can't argue against it.

He did; it's a dictatorial policy. It is not at all in keeping with either his constitutional authority or the values that define the country.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Yet you can't argue against it.

I don't need to. anyone that supports or defends the policy of assassinating an american citizen is not a freedom loving american. If that's you, too bad. the shoe fits and all. I repeat, there is absolutely no need to argue against such a ludicrous and unconstitutional policy.

 

[DamnYankee]

He did; it's a dictatorial policy. It is not at all in keeping with either his constitutional authority or the values that define the country.

He just admitted that "he didn't need to". The President has broad war making powers under the Constitution, and that obviously includes removing clear and present dangers to ourselves and our allies in the most efficient means necessary.

If we had assassinated Hitler in 1939 then 20 million people would not have died. Saddam before GW1, 4 million.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

He just admitted that "he didn't need to". The President has broad war making powers under the Constitution, and that obviously includes removing clear and present dangers to ourselves and our allies in the most efficient means necessary.

If we had assassinated Hitler in 1939 then 20 million people would not have died. Saddam before GW1, 4 million.

I'm talking about an American citizen, on american soil. Are you?

 

[DamnYankee]

I'm talking about an American citizen, on american soil. Are you?

No.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

No.

then lets be very clear.

I have no problem with the authorization of a US government agent assassinating a foreign leader of a nation or freelance army who presents a threat to the US. I DO have a problem with the authorization of a US government agent to assassinate an american citizen on american soil.

are you and I in agreement?

 

[Bonestorm]

then lets be very clear.

I have no problem with the authorization of a US government agent assassinating a foreign leader of a nation or freelance army who presents a threat to the US. I DO have a problem with the authorization of a US government agent to assassinate an american citizen on american soil.

are you and I in agreement?

What about a US citizen on foreign soil? That's the issue here. I don't see what difference it makes where the US citizen is located.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

What about a US citizen on foreign soil? That's the issue here. I don't see what difference it makes where the US citizen is located.

if it's not a battlefield area, like say walking the streets of downtown london or on safari in the australian outback, absolutely not.

 

[DamnYankee]

then lets be very clear.

I have no problem with the authorization of a US government agent assassinating a foreign leader of a nation or freelance army who presents a threat to the US. I DO have a problem with the authorization of a US government agent to assassinate an american citizen on american soil.

are you and I in agreement?

Yes. But in this case the target is a Citizen who has denounced his citizenship or else acted in such a way that it is a slam-dunk case for revocation. Once that process is completed and he is on foreign soil then he should be targeted. I think (although I may be wrong) that the guy deserves the right to be notified of his citizenship being revoked in advance of his assassination.

If he's on American soil then he can be shot as a spy or else arrested as an international criminal.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Yes. But in this case the target is a Citizen who has denounced his citizenship or else acted in such a way that it is a slam-dunk case for revocation. Once that process is completed and he is on foreign soil then he should be targeted. I think (although I may be wrong) that the guy deserves the right to be notified of his citizenship being revoked in advance of his assassination.

If he's on American soil then he can be shot as a spy or else arrested as an international criminal.

only in the most extreme cases should due process be ignored. for instance, a guy sends a video denouncing his citizenship and marks his intent to go to war with the US, but all he's doing is walking the streets of pakistan......is he really a threat? no.