Presidential Assassinations of U.S. Citizens

[Quantum Windbag]

Just think about this for a minute. Barack Obama, like George Bush before him, has claimed the authority to order American citizens murdered based solely on the unverified, uncharged, unchecked claim that they are associated with Terrorism and pose "a continuing and imminent threat to U.S. persons and interests." They're entitled to no charges, no trial, no ability to contest the accusations. Amazingly, the Bush administration's policy of merely imprisoning foreign nationals (along with a couple of American citizens) without charges -- based solely on the President's claim that they were Terrorists -- produced intense controversy for years. That, one will recall, was a grave assault on the Constitution. Shouldn't Obama's policy of ordering American citizens assassinated without any due process or checks of any kind -- not imprisoned, but killed -- produce at least as much controversy?

Yemen - Salon.com

Don't forget he is first prez to openly claim power to assassinate American citizens without trial.

Not that I am defending this, but the 3 words I put in bold. How do you know? How do you know the Facts are not checked, and verified? Exactly How many times has it been used to date??? Why do you assume that everyone in our Intelligence, and Defense community is a bunch of Lying assholes that can not be trusted at all? After all it is the word of those people that the Government would be using to carry out this power they claim to have.

Again not supporting the idea, just think your wording exposes you for someone who thinks anything to do with the CIA, NSA, or US Military must mean lies, deceit, and murder.

Who were they checked by? The way the government is supposed to work is no one branch can do anything without another branch giving the OK. The legislature writes a law, the executive enforces it, the judicial makes sure the executive follows the law as written, and the legislature makes sure the judicial branch does not become a law unto itself. What happened here is the executive branch decided it had the power to kill US citizens without actually pointing to a law that proves they are right, and then executed him without making a case to the judicial branch. Instead of playing rock, paper, scissors Obama decided to play solitaire, and then wrote the rules so he could not loose.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Has Obama had Limbaugh killed yet?

I rest my case.

How is the yet supposed to make me feel better?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

asslands, if you knew what the intel community knew - I think you would have shot the guy yourself given the chance.

I might have. That does not change the fact that the government should be trusted to make that judgement without consulting the people who they serve.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Just think about this for a minute. Barack Obama, like George Bush before him, has claimed the authority to order American citizens murdered based solely on the unverified, uncharged, unchecked claim that they are associated with Terrorism and pose "a continuing and imminent threat to U.S. persons and interests." They're entitled to no charges, no trial, no ability to contest the accusations. Amazingly, the Bush administration's policy of merely imprisoning foreign nationals (along with a couple of American citizens) without charges -- based solely on the President's claim that they were Terrorists -- produced intense controversy for years. That, one will recall, was a grave assault on the Constitution. Shouldn't Obama's policy of ordering American citizens assassinated without any due process or checks of any kind -- not imprisoned, but killed -- produce at least as much controversy?

Yemen - Salon.com

Don't forget he is first prez to openly claim power to assassinate American citizens without trial.

1. Did "Anwar al Awlaki," a member of Al Qaeda, receive all the legal rights afforded to an American citizen - NO

2. Does keeping "al Awlaki" alive, an individual who had openly pledged to "fight jihad for the rest of my life," also endanger the lives of other innocent Americans whom the President has sworn to protect - YES

3. Would any of the 43 other America presidents have handled the "al Awlaki" assassination differently? - NO (If "grasslands" diagrees, let him making care to make a convincing case.)

4. Would any of the current Republican/Tea Party presidential candidates handled the "al Awlaki" assassination differently? - THAT WOULD MAKE AN INTERESTING QUESTIONING, BUT I THINK THE ANSWER WOULD BE AN OVERWHELMING "NO!"

You should take a real close look at Ron Paul's record.