So you have no issue with warrantless wiretapping or the government going through your emails, texts, etc?
You said "Where are the Rs in the drone attacks?? The only ones I read actually support the president." Well, Bob Corker is a republican and among other republicans attacking Obamas use of drone strikes. It is a matter of fact that Congress authorized the use of military force against al Qaeda. What rules have been broken? I knew you didn't know them. Cry me a river. How can you continue to defend scumbags like Anwar Al Awwaki? The guy planned and carried out bombing operations against the US? He relinquished his citizenship the day he took up arms with Al Qaeda. collateral damage is inherent in wartime. Do you have any idea how specifically targeted these missile strikes are? They are designed to reduce or eliminate collateral damage. The alternatives are air strike with very big and less accurate bombs that flatten everything. When ever possible they take the perps out in vehicles when they are not near civilians. It is a matter of fact that Congress authorized the use of military force against al Qaeda. The rules of engagement are there. There is no lack of control. These strikes have been remarkably successful and collateral damage very low. Americans not at war against American have never been targeted. Not once. Over and over I say things that you don't want to hear or address. it's a debate, Hoss. If it's too hot for you, then get out of the kitchen.
Its not a secret. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323951904578288380180346300.html?mod=googlenews_wsj http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf
What is there in that statement that bothers you? If there is an imminent threat, shouldn't executive action be taken?
Winston1 said: ↑ “They have been posted before don't ask me to do your job bub.I knew you didn't know them Here it is again Red I read the Times article apparently it has things you don't want to hear so you ignore it. I will do your job bubba Winston1 said: ↑ “Fan They aren't just arguing, they are killing people. If the supremes say it is illegal should pres Obama and the subordinates be impeached or charged with murder (remember Nuremburg & Hitler's generals)? Second if you read the whole article you would have seen that the standards set for" imminent violent threat" & "capture not feasible" are so vague as to be meaningless. Also there is no procedure or order of escalation to follow. It is in effect an action taken on a whim. This from an article in the NY Times & the Washington Post not by Fox. Ron Wyden D senator from Washington (+& other D senators & 3 Rs) and the ACLU are questioning this seriously as well. SO DON"T BLAST THIS AS A RIGHT WING ANTI OBAMA RANT. It is a concerned position taken by many across the political spectrum from left to right.
This. Also, specifically how is imminent defined? What proof is required? From the white paper it looks like all it takes is someone to simply tell the pilot to shoot. Lots of wiggle room there...
Amigo, I wish you would learn how to use multiple quotes. Don't be obtuse, do you really imagine that I am in charge of the drone strikes? The limits of citizenship is in the Constitution for all to read. We freely elected an Executive and Commander in Chief. Then what exactly is your issue? You keep bringing him up. You have not offered a single instance where this drone policy has been abused to target Americans not actively involved with Al Qaeda. Well over 99% of the drone strikes targeted foreign agents of Al Qaeda. Exactly! Congress authorized war against Al Qaeda. They do not get involved in operational matters like rules of engagement, which are set by the Commander in Chief. The very fact that rules of engagement is at play defines this action as international warfare. ROE are not used for domestic operations. Instead, use of force by US forces in such situations is governed by Rules for the Use of Force (RUF). Not many are calling for it at all! Exactly 11 Congressmen. The other 98% have not called for anything of the kind. When it comes to drone strikes, the fight in Washington has no parallel in the general public. 83% of the American public approves of the drone strikes. Washington Post: The American Public loves drones I understand your concern that such power could be abused. But it has not been abused in the 12 years that it has been in place. It has been highly effective militarily. If abuse ever did occur, THEN the existing checks and balances would come into play. If it ain't broke . . . No one thought that White House officials would reveal a covert CIA operative either. But when it happened, it could not be kept secret and persons were brought to trial for it. No one thought that a President would use government official to spy on political opponents, but when it happened it could not be kept secret and a President was forced to resign. The check and balances are already there and they work.
