License to Kill? Intelligence Chief Says U.S. Can Take Out American Terrorists

CaféAuLait

This Space for Rent
Oct 29, 2008
7,777
1,971
245
Pacific Northwest
ABC news: License to Kill? Intelligence Chief Says U.S. Can Take Out American Terrorists


"The director of national intelligence affirmed rather bluntly today that the U.S. intelligence community has authority to target American citizens for assassination if they present a direct terrorist threat to the United States."

License to Kill? Intelligence Chief Says U.S. Can Take Out American Terrorists - ABC News

Well I guess since they are not being water boarded and or interrogated too much and it is a quick, easy death it is okay, right? The ACLU or Eric Holder's law firm will not have to worry about their rights being violated. I mean American terrorists must be guilty-- how can they be innocent until proven guilty. At least the underwear bomber has his rights read to him...and KSM we are trying him in court—no bullet in his head, He was only a small threat. /sarcasm
 
If an American is overseas in a terrorist training camp, or associating with terrorists, he's fair game.

If the FBI sends snipers to Ruby Ridge to shoot a mother holding an infant, thats an illegal "death squad".

I have no problem with the NSA monitoring overseas calls when one end is in the US and the other at a terrorist camp. Ft Hood might have been prevented if the NSA was left alone.
 
I did not see where he said it was only for overseas but I agree with your statement if that is the case. I am just tired of hearing about rights and it seems they are not applied the same with the scenario above if carried out in the states.
 
CaféAuLait;1973033 said:
I did not see where he said it was only for overseas but I agree with your statement if that is the case. I am just tired of hearing about rights and it seems they are not applied the same with the scenario above if carried out in the states.

I'm assuming the hit would be overseas since they used the key descriptor "terrorist". If they were in the US they'd be called anarchists.
 
Jeezus H Christ, as paranoid as you are K , you are the left wing poster child for the left wing against concealed carry, who the fuck would know when you's try and pull a McVeigh
 
CaféAuLait;1973033 said:
I did not see where he said it was only for overseas but I agree with your statement if that is the case. I am just tired of hearing about rights and it seems they are not applied the same with the scenario above if carried out in the states.

I'm assuming the hit would be overseas since they used the key descriptor "terrorist". If they were in the US they'd be called anarchists.

Well either way, what I don't get it seems it is okay to kill someone to save people from terrorism but for the love of God-- do not water board them!!
 
CaféAuLait;1975103 said:
CaféAuLait;1973033 said:
I did not see where he said it was only for overseas but I agree with your statement if that is the case. I am just tired of hearing about rights and it seems they are not applied the same with the scenario above if carried out in the states.

I'm assuming the hit would be overseas since they used the key descriptor "terrorist". If they were in the US they'd be called anarchists.

Well either way, what I don't get it seems it is okay to kill someone to save people from terrorism but for the love of God-- do not water board them!!

I love the irony.
Kill them but do not make them think they may drown.
 
CaféAuLait;1975103 said:
I'm assuming the hit would be overseas since they used the key descriptor "terrorist". If they were in the US they'd be called anarchists.

Well either way, what I don't get it seems it is okay to kill someone to save people from terrorism but for the love of God-- do not water board them!!

I love the irony.
Kill them but do not make them think they may drown.

It makes no sense.
 

Forum List

Back
Top