Dems Reject Resolution Stating President Cannot Kill Americans At Home W/O Due Proces

[NYcarbineer]

I'm amused by all the boot-licking liberals on here making excuses for executing Americans without due process. What a bunch of ******* sheep. Hitler would be proud.

Can you name one example of killing an American without due process that you can confirm the administration desires to do?

 

[S.J.]

I'm amused by all the boot-licking liberals on here making excuses for executing Americans without due process. What a bunch of ******* sheep. Hitler would be proud.

Can you name one example of killing an American without due process that you can confirm the administration desires to do?

Why would he ask for the authorization to do it, if he doesn't intend to?

 

[YoungRepublican]

Hell I thought this was the one thing the President was getting right. Honestly, I dont feel endager of a drone flying through my window and cementing my name on ol' peter's list, but you know who should worry about that? Any American citizen who thinks Al-queda has some good ideas. I'd go as far as to say I feel safer that POTUS and the fine gents over there at the airforce are doing their best to ensure any and that means ANY terrorist gets the due process of a missle comin through their door with a few tons of force.

And what happens when you get labeled a terrorist for opposing the President on other matters?

Well as long as im not broadcasting it via a cave asking for others to take militant action in order to stop those policies I think ill be able to sleep soundly at night lol.

 

[edthecynic]

Hell I thought this was the one thing the President was getting right. Honestly, I dont feel endager of a drone flying through my window and cementing my name on ol' peter's list, but you know who should worry about that? Any American citizen who thinks Al-queda has some good ideas. I'd go as far as to say I feel safer that POTUS and the fine gents over there at the airforce are doing their best to ensure any and that means ANY terrorist gets the due process of a missle comin through their door with a few tons of force.

And what happens when you get labeled a terrorist for opposing the President on other matters?

That's a good point, you always have to consider how a Republican president will abuse the authority!!! You can't assume the president will always be Democratic.

 

[Oldguy]

Really? It's premature to affirm that the POTUS has no right to order the execution of an American citizen on American soil without their right to Due Process?

Is it a bill to make it illegal for the President to execute Americans w/o dp, or a bill to make it illegal for him to kill them?

Because last time I checked, folks who take up arms against the U.S. have these two rights:

1) Right to surrender and be treated as a POW according to our laws and those international laws our nation has agreed to follow.
2) Right to be killed by the U.S. military or any citizen taking up arms in defense of the nation.

Am I missing something? Since when does the President not have the right - in fact - the DUTY - to use deadly force against those who take up arms against the U.S. - whether they are citizens or not?

Did George Washington have to try and convict every single rebel he killed when he put down the Whisky Rebellion?

What about that Republican President Lincoln? Did he try and convict the hundreds of thousands of Confederate soldiers he had massacred?



You do realize that if we pass a law making it illegal for the President to kill someone without due process without exception - it would actually make it illegal for the President to defend his own life with deadly force - unless he obtained a conviction first?

The question revolves around who gets to make the decision that a citizen should be killed, under what circumstance, measured against what standard and whether or not the accused can speak in his own defense. These are serious Constitutional questions which shouldn't simply be swept under the rug in the name of "security" or because you trust this President not to do wrong (how about the next one?) or because it hasn't been done....yet.
Beginning with the Patriot Act, that's the same kind of logic which incrementally got us to where we are now.

Congress should quit screwing around and get to the bottom of this. Resolutions showing the "sense of Congress" are a waste of time. How about a law which specifically forbids it? Would that be too difficult for Rand Paul? Or, is it that introducing such legislation might draw the excesses committed by the Bush administration into the light as well? After all, the supposed power to kill American citizens without recourse and without legal due process is based upon the very same arguments presented back then in regards to warrantless wiretapping, extraordinary rendition and indefinite detention.

 

[candycorn]

I can just hear Paul and Cruz now.

"Will you unequivocally state that killing a child eating a lollipop in a canoe with a drone is unconstitutional?"

"Will you tell us if blowing up a circus big top with a drone without due process is unconstitutional?"

"There's a speeder traveling down I-95. Is it constitutional to blow him up with a drone, sir?"

"I demand a resolution be passed immediately banning the use of drones to spy through my bathroom window or I will not shut up!"

His fawning fans will just swoon! Look at that Rand Paul asking the tough questions!

The GOP is pretty much a party that Dr. Seuss could be proud of...

I will not use Drones on a boat
I will not use Drones in a moat
I don't like Drones to kill someone eating ham
I don't like Drones said Sam, I am.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Same liberals that cried like babies if Bush tracked terrorists library books are now turning a blind eye if OBAMA KILLS AMERICANS ON AMERICAN SOIL if he claims they are terrorists.

Anyone else see the hypocrisy?

Maybe that's why none of them have the balls to answer back on my thread. http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...t-support-obama-drones-killing-americans.html

Typical liberal lying hypocrisy.

 

[teapartysamurai]

I can just hear Paul and Cruz now.

"Will you unequivocally state that killing a child eating a lollipop in a canoe with a drone is unconstitutional?"

"Will you tell us if blowing up a circus big top with a drone without due process is unconstitutional?"

"There's a speeder traveling down I-95. Is it constitutional to blow him up with a drone, sir?"

"I demand a resolution be passed immediately banning the use of drones to spy through my bathroom window or I will not shut up!"

His fawning fans will just swoon! Look at that Rand Paul asking the tough questions!

The GOP is pretty much a party that Dr. Seuss could be proud of...

I will not use Drones on a boat
I will not use Drones in a moat
I don't like Drones to kill someone eating ham
I don't like Drones said Sam, I am.

Tell me. Did you condemn the Patriot Act when Bush was the Prezie of the Stezie?

Then you are just another lying lib hypocrite.

 

[editec]

The next time so called "liberal" or regressive tells you how much they value civil rights remind them how completely full of shit they are.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) Wednesday evening offered to end his filibuster on the nomination of John Brennan to be the director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

About seven hours into his talking filibuster, Paul asked unanimous consent that the Senate hold an up-or-down vote on Brennan on Thursday. But he also wanted a vote on a resolution that would have expressed the sense of the Senate that use of drones to target American citizens clearly violates the rights of U.S. citizens. The resolution also asks President Obama to give Congress a report on the drone program.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) objected the Paul’s offer.

“I’m disappointed that the Democrats chose not to vote on this,” Paul said. “This is a nonbinding resolution.”

Durbin said he’s chairing a hearing soon on drones and that the resolution should be considered after that hearing.

“I invite my colleagues to join us if he wants to testify,” Durbin said. “But I believe it’s premature to schedule a vote on this issue now.”

Dems reject Paul's offer to end filibuster - The Hill's Floor Action

Really? It's premature to affirm that the POTUS has no right to order the execution of an American citizen on American soil without their right to Due Process?

This is who is running your country folks. Open your ******* eyes.

Do you NOT understand that regardless of whom is chosen for Director of the CIA, the NDAA will still be the law of the land?

Apparently you haven't yet been able to connect those dots.

 

[chikenwing]

Rand Paul is asking for an exception to be made just for him.

It isn't like the President has been drone bombing the shit out of America for the past four years and we need this emergency non-binding feel good piece of demagoguery passed immediately or else the Constitution might burst into flames.

It can wait.

That is all Durbin said. It can wait.

So, once again, another lie is manufactured. The Democrats did not reject the resolution. They told Paul to wait until the appropriate time AFTER A HEARING ON DRONES. Gosh! You mean we should wait until we are better informed about drones and their possible uses? How preposterous, sir!

What a whiny little dipshit this guy has turned out to be.

LOL

Rand Paul is asking for an exception to be made just for him.

No the exception is for the American people.

Defending Durbin then the demonetization and slandering Paul shows a real lack of objectivity,pull yur skirt down your bias is showing.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Still waiting for libs to explain why they were so against the Patriot Act, but are okay with Obama killing AMERICANS ON AMERICAN SOIL??????

 

[teapartysamurai]

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Yes, you're missing something. It's not the president's right to kill anyone he pleases without due process.

No one's saying it is.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Still waiting for libs to explain why they were so against the Patriot Act, but are okay with Obama killing AMERICANS ON AMERICAN SOIL??????

The President who killed the most Americans on American soil was a Republican.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The question revolves around who gets to make the decision that a citizen should be killed, under what circumstance, measured against what standard and whether or not the accused can speak in his own defense.

1 - Those at war against the United States are not "accused". They are combatants and subject to elimination and/or imprisonment according to the laws of war. Ask all the folks that Lincoln had killed in the South whether they got to speak in their own defense before they were massacred.

2- Those attempting to kill the President are also not 'accused' nor do they have the right to speak in their own defense while they are engaged in an attempt to kill the President. Anyone in the act of trying to commit murder has no right to speak in their defense before deadly force is used to stop them.


Would you idiots pass laws stating street level police have no authority under any circumstance to take a life without due process?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Hell I thought this was the one thing the President was getting right. Honestly, I dont feel endager of a drone flying through my window and cementing my name on ol' peter's list, but you know who should worry about that? Any American citizen who thinks Al-queda has some good ideas. I'd go as far as to say I feel safer that POTUS and the fine gents over there at the airforce are doing their best to ensure any and that means ANY terrorist gets the due process of a missle comin through their door with a few tons of force.

And what happens when you get labeled a terrorist for opposing the President on other matters?

You cannot remove all authorizations of power simply because there's a chance they could be abused.

You couldn't have something as fundamental as a police force or a criminal justice system if you applied that reasoning to it.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Hell I thought this was the one thing the President was getting right. Honestly, I dont feel endager of a drone flying through my window and cementing my name on ol' peter's list, but you know who should worry about that? Any American citizen who thinks Al-queda has some good ideas. I'd go as far as to say I feel safer that POTUS and the fine gents over there at the airforce are doing their best to ensure any and that means ANY terrorist gets the due process of a missle comin through their door with a few tons of force.

And what happens when you get labeled a terrorist for opposing the President on other matters?

You cannot remove all authorizations of power simply because there's a chance they could be abused.

But Obama is from Kenya.

 

[g5000]

Time for a USMB flashback: Can it be true? Obama orders Miranda Rights for Foreign enemies!!!

My oh my, how angry the Right was about this. Remember?

I think these this post sums up their attitude at the time:

How exactly do you interrogate someone that you gave "the right to remain silent" to. What a bone headed idea this was...stupid ass democrats.

The Right has obviously erased all this from their minds. Because today they are screaming that Obama is not going to Mirandize and try bad guys. He is just going to shoot them on sight.

They have completely manufactured this bullshit out of thin air.




Serious question: Just how far do you have to push a pencil into your brains to change course like that and forget the past objections you had to providing due process to terrorists?

I honestly want to know.

 

[g5000]

Still waiting for libs to explain why they were so against the Patriot Act, but are okay with Obama killing AMERICANS ON AMERICAN SOIL??????

When has he done this?

Evidence, please.

Thanks.

 

[g5000]

And now, a Fox News flashback:

One day after the very first detainee from Guantanamo Bay was transferred to New York City to stand trial, we are now learning some shocking news thanks to The Weekly Standard.

According to Congressman Mike Rogers — who serves on the House Intelligence Committee — the Obama administration is now requiring FBI agents to read Miranda rights to captured terrorists.

The italics were Fox News' emphasis.

That BASTARD OBAMA is reading MIRANDA RIGHTS TO TERRORISTS!!!!!

SHOCKING NEWS!

That ****** read them their RIGHTS? And brought them to TRIAL? Are you ******* KIDDING ME?!?!


Yeah, I can see how you guys think Obama is going to start strafing America any day now.

Truly deranged. Mad that Obama is Mirandizing and trying terrorists as criminals one moment, manufacturing fear he is going to start whacking people without due process the next.

I swear, you people have the memory retention of a goldfish. This is right out of the hate rally scene in Orwell's 1984.


Obama Derangement Syndrome in full bloom.