Drones, ISIS, and U.S. Citizens

[OohPooPahDoo]

So we have these U.S. citizens fighting for ISIS:

Welcome to Forbes

I'm just curious, if an ISIS unit that has u.s. citizens in it attacks the U.S. embassy - the President's got to have a trial before he kills those u.s. citizens, right? He can't just unleash a drone attack on them without justice, that would be unconstitutional. Doesn't matter how many Marins or U.S. ambassadors die - we have to protect these U.S. citizens right to trial.

Is that how that works?

 

[dilloduck]

Ask Holder. He does whatever he wants.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Ask Holder. He does whatever he wants.

Ah! So we'll wait until AFTER Obama acts before you decide if its right or wrong, correct?

I'm guessing if he uses them - he's wrong. But if he doesn't use them - he's wrong.

 

[dilloduck]

Ask Holder. He does whatever he wants.

Ah! So we'll wait until AFTER Obama acts before you decide if its right or wrong, correct?

I'm guessing if he uses them - he's wrong. But if he doesn't use them - he's wrong.

What we think doesn't matter---he does what he wants

 

[tinydancer]

In one case Obama would be protecting the US Embassy and their staff during an attack.

In the other cases with the death of US citizens the drone attack was an assassination.

 

[tinydancer]

I find it so odd that Obama had no problem whatsoever using air support with NATO to help take out Gaddafi. Yet he won't move to protect the citizens of Iraq from the terrorist Army ISIS.

 

[kaz]

So we have these U.S. citizens fighting for ISIS:

Welcome to Forbes

I'm just curious, if an ISIS unit that has u.s. citizens in it attacks the U.S. embassy - the President's got to have a trial before he kills those u.s. citizens, right? He can't just unleash a drone attack on them without justice, that would be unconstitutional. Doesn't matter how many Marins or U.S. ambassadors die - we have to protect these U.S. citizens right to trial.

Is that how that works?

How it works for you is that if a Democrat is in office, they don't need a trial. If a Republican is in office, they do.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

In one case Obama would be protecting the US Embassy and their staff during an attack.

In the other cases with the death of US citizens the drone attack was an assassination.

Ahh. So sometimes - it IS ok to execute U.S. citizens without a trial. See I didn't get that. I thought it was unconstitutional.

You're confortable with the President getting to decide what qualifies as an acceptable execution of a U.S. citizen, or is that a decision for you to make after the fact?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I find it so odd that Obama had no problem whatsoever using air support with NATO to help take out Gaddafi. Yet he won't move to protect the citizens of Iraq from the terrorist Army ISIS.

Doesn't Iraq have a thriving democracy? I thought that's why we went there, wan't it? Even though we have a republican form of government here and abhor democracy - we send over 4000 u.s. soldiers to their deaths for iraq's democracy.

 

[kaz]

In one case Obama would be protecting the US Embassy and their staff during an attack.

In the other cases with the death of US citizens the drone attack was an assassination.

Ahh. So sometimes - it IS ok to execute U.S. citizens without a trial. See I didn't get that. I thought it was unconstitutional.

You're confortable with the President getting to decide what qualifies as an acceptable execution of a U.S. citizen, or is that a decision for you to make after the fact?

So you seriously don't know the difference between:

1) Cops go to a robbery in progress and shoot a bank robber who is shooting at them without getting a warrant.

2) The bank robber gets away and based on a tip, they go to his house and arrest him without a warrant.

You don't see the difference between those, that's what you're telling us.

 

[Freewill]

So we have these U.S. citizens fighting for ISIS:

Welcome to Forbes

I'm just curious, if an ISIS unit that has u.s. citizens in it attacks the U.S. embassy - the President's got to have a trial before he kills those u.s. citizens, right? He can't just unleash a drone attack on them without justice, that would be unconstitutional. Doesn't matter how many Marins or U.S. ambassadors die - we have to protect these U.S. citizens right to trial.

Is that how that works?

No, he does not. Any more so then if a bank robber comes out with a gun, no trial.

 

[JakeStarkey]

When US citizens willingly, knowingly, and voluntarily put themselves beyond the operation of due process and wage war against the US, drone far is not assassination but rather an appropriate act of war.

If right wing or left wing or libertarian militias ever rise up, their members would be justified targets of drone fire.

 

[Freewill]

In one case Obama would be protecting the US Embassy and their staff during an attack.

In the other cases with the death of US citizens the drone attack was an assassination.

Ahh. So sometimes - it IS ok to execute U.S. citizens without a trial. See I didn't get that. I thought it was unconstitutional.

You're confortable with the President getting to decide what qualifies as an acceptable execution of a U.S. citizen, or is that a decision for you to make after the fact?

When liberals like you try and be cute it is just hilarious. NO one is allowed to execute people without a trial but we are allowed to defend ourselves.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The bank robber gets away and based on a tip, they go to his house and arrest him without a warrant.

That is the stupidest analogy of the year and it is only June.

If a bank robber gets away and removes himself from due process by going to a location where normal police action cannot reach him, drone fire is appropriate.

 

[Freewill]

When US citizens willingly, knowingly, and voluntarily put themselves beyond the operation of due process and wage war against the US, drone far is not assassination but rather an appropriate act of war.

If right wing or left wing or libertarian militias ever rise up, their members would be justified targets of drone fire.

Thinking that someone with your democrat mind set might have their fingers on a drone scares the hell out of me.

 

[JakeStarkey]

NO one is allowed to execute people without a trial but we are allowed to defend ourselves. Not against lawful action. And drone fire is lawful.

 

[Freewill]

The bank robber gets away and based on a tip, they go to his house and arrest him without a warrant.

That is the stupidest analogy of the year and it is only June.

If a bank robber gets away and removes himself from due process by going to a location where normal police action cannot reach him, drone fire is appropriate.

Why? He is not an immediate threat when did the Constitution get rewritten?

 

[Freewill]

NO one is allowed to execute people without a trial but we are allowed to defend ourselves. Not against lawful action. And drone fire is lawful.

Just because you put the word drone in front doesn't make it legal. WTF is wrong with you?

 

[Kosh]

No the far left does not believe in due process unless it is politically convenient for them to.

 

[BlindBoo]

So we have these U.S. citizens fighting for ISIS:

Welcome to Forbes

I'm just curious, if an ISIS unit that has u.s. citizens in it attacks the U.S. embassy - the President's got to have a trial before he kills those u.s. citizens, right? He can't just unleash a drone attack on them without justice, that would be unconstitutional. Doesn't matter how many Marins or U.S. ambassadors die - we have to protect these U.S. citizens right to trial.

Is that how that works?

Nope. I couldn't find the story on Forbes. IMO, if they have joined the opposition as are attacking our embassy? **** um, Treat them as an hostile enemy. Blast them with whatever is at hand. Furthermore, if they are part of the command structure of ISIS then the should be targets for a drone strike.