Yeah, that's a whole other can of worms though. There is a lot of things that I disagree with, things that shouldn't have ever happened but have. You're right, Congress did drop the ball. That upset me nearly as much as this has.
However, we're not even supposed to be in war in Yemen either. There we are, though.
Sure we are -- you forgot the word 'global' -- problem is the president isn't doing anything he's not be specifically allowed to do by Congress due to the laws passed right after September 9, 2001. To think people at the time wanted to make much of those same laws permanent.
So the question becomes -- why does President Obama want to keep the authority and abilities Congress has given him? Because he feels he can't complete the hopeless task they have given him without said authority and abilities -- in truth he probably can't either way but he's got more of a chance with than without.
Honestly on the day we allowed this farce to start we literally stated we were in control of the world and we would go where ever we feel we must in order to do what we feel we must.
We are simply now reaping what Hubris we had already planted.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
To Kryzbyn and others,
Suppose a Chinese citizen gains access to the US -- legally or illegally -- and settles in here. While here, he speaks out against the Communist regime, corruption, and human rights abuses back home in China. He even goes so far as to channel financial aid to activists and possibly revolutionaries back home, sets up TOR nodes and ways to circumvent the Great China Firewall, etc... all considered treason.
Then, without a trial or attempts to extradite, China hits him with a drone while in at his suburban residence in the US. Assuming the strike is surgical with no other casualties, is it still ok?
Bullplop. There was no evidence presented against the man. That is not collateral damage. That is murder.
You miss the irony -- 'collateral damage' is another term for 'murder we aren't going to apologize for'. It's the ultimate 'Hail Mary' play of the 'greater good' war strategy.
|
Yeah, that's a whole other can of worms though. There is a lot of things that I disagree with, things that shouldn't have ever happened but have. You're right, Congress did drop the ball. That upset me nearly as much as this has.
However, we're not even supposed to be in war in Yemen either. There we are, though.
Sure we are -- you forgot the word 'global' -- problem is the president isn't doing anything he's not be specifically allowed to do by Congress due to the laws passed right after September 9, 2001. To think people at the time wanted to make much of those same laws permanent.
So the question becomes -- why does President Obama want to keep the authority and abilities Congress has given him? Because he feels he can't complete the hopeless task they have given him without said authority and abilities -- in truth he probably can't either way but he's got more of a chance with than without.
Honestly on the day we allowed this farce to start we literally stated we were in control of the world and we would go where ever we feel we must in order to do what we feel we must.
We are simply now reaping what Hubris we had already planted.
Agreed, but we could stop making bigger strides toward authoritarianism in the US. We're becoming the thing we said we hate.
|
|
Bullplop. There was no evidence presented against the man. That is not collateral damage. That is murder.You miss the irony -- 'collateral damage' is another term for 'murder we aren't going to apologize for'. It's the ultimate 'Hail Mary' play of the 'greater good' war strategy.
Again, you're correct. I see we're not far off. I'm just a little less cynical about it, I think. ;)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm cool with assassination. Then again I'm in the military and it's kind of our jobs to kill people.
I don't have a problem with my country going after enemies of the state. I don't see America having a loftier set of ideals then anybody else though, either.
Just seems like the day to day workings of any government to me, I guess? It's not like it's a new concept, or that we should be inherently better than any other country because we're "AMERICA"...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To Kryzbyn and others,
Suppose a Chinese citizen gains access to the US -- legally or illegally -- and settles in here. While here, he speaks out against the Communist regime, corruption, and human rights abuses back home in China. He even goes so far as to channel financial aid to activists and possibly revolutionaries back home, sets up TOR nodes and ways to circumvent the Great China Firewall, etc... all considered treason.
Then, without a trial or attempts to extradite, China hits him with a drone while in at his suburban residence in the US. Assuming the strike is surgical with no other casualties, is it still ok?
Clever, Ambrosia.... you set a logic trap, there. It's impossible to ascertaing the "OK"-ness of the act because "Ok" is a value judgement... so the answer, for me, is;
If I'm american in the hypothetical - No that's an act of war.
If I'm chinese in the hypothetical - you bet your buns. That guys a scumbag.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm cool with assassination. Then again I'm in the military and it's kind of our jobs to kill people.
I don't have a problem with my country going after enemies of the state. I don't see America having a loftier set of ideals then anybody else though, either.
Just seems like the day to day workings of any government to me, I guess? It's not like it's a new concept, or that we should be inherently better than any other country because we're "AMERICA"...
If we want to be inherently better than any other country, then we need to act like it. >_<
|
|
To Kryzbyn and others,
Suppose a Chinese citizen gains access to the US -- legally or illegally -- and settles in here. While here, he speaks out against the Communist regime, corruption, and human rights abuses back home in China. He even goes so far as to channel financial aid to activists and possibly revolutionaries back home, sets up TOR nodes and ways to circumvent the Great China Firewall, etc... all considered treason.
Then, without a trial or attempts to extradite, China hits him with a drone while in at his suburban residence in the US. Assuming the strike is surgical with no other casualties, is it still ok?
Clever, Ambrosia.... you set a logic trap, there. It's impossible to ascertaing the "OK"-ness of the act because "Ok" is a value judgement... so the answer, for me, is;
If I'm american in the hypothetical - No that's an act of war.
If I'm chinese in the hypothetical - you bet your buns. That guys a scumbag.
And if you're a chinese person in china who disagrees with the whole farce?
To Kryzbyn and others,
Suppose a Chinese citizen gains access to the US -- legally or illegally -- and settles in here. While here, he speaks out against the Communist regime, corruption, and human rights abuses back home in China. He even goes so far as to channel financial aid to activists and possibly revolutionaries back home, sets up TOR nodes and ways to circumvent the Great China Firewall, etc... all considered treason.
Then, without a trial or attempts to extradite, China hits him with a drone while in at his suburban residence in the US. Assuming the strike is surgical with no other casualties, is it still ok?
The reason why this scenario doesn't work, is China knows if we thought a suspected terrorist was hiding in the United States, we would cooperate with China in his apprehension, and save assassination as a last resort.
Yemen, I suspect, would be (was) willing to do no such thing.
To Kryzbyn and others,
Suppose a Chinese citizen gains access to the US -- legally or illegally -- and settles in here. While here, he speaks out against the Communist regime, corruption, and human rights abuses back home in China. He even goes so far as to channel financial aid to activists and possibly revolutionaries back home, sets up TOR nodes and ways to circumvent the Great China Firewall, etc... all considered treason.
Then, without a trial or attempts to extradite, China hits him with a drone while in at his suburban residence in the US. Assuming the strike is surgical with no other casualties, is it still ok?
You mean would there be an outrage against what happened? Of course there would be, this is the USA we are currently perfectly fine with our hypocrisy.
Now removing my tongue from cheek: Did the Chinese ask permission from the legitimate USA government first, and do they have a 'global war' against a group their citizen is a member of?
If both are answered yes we currently don't have much choice in the manner. If the first is answered no then the question becomes the same that we force the other countries to ask on a regular basis -- how much of a stink to we want to create and are we willing to deal with the aftermath of doing so?
|
|
To Kryzbyn and others,
Suppose a Chinese citizen gains access to the US -- legally or illegally -- and settles in here. While here, he speaks out against the Communist regime, corruption, and human rights abuses back home in China. He even goes so far as to channel financial aid to activists and possibly revolutionaries back home, sets up TOR nodes and ways to circumvent the Great China Firewall, etc... all considered treason.
Then, without a trial or attempts to extradite, China hits him with a drone while in at his suburban residence in the US. Assuming the strike is surgical with no other casualties, is it still ok?
The reason why this scenario doesn't work, is China knows if we thought a suspected terrorist was hiding in the United States, we would cooperate with China in his apprehension, and save assassination as a last resort.
Yemen, I suspect, would be (was) willing to do no such thing.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! You're hilarious!
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
To Kryzbyn and others,
Suppose a Chinese citizen gains access to the US -- legally or illegally -- and settles in here. While here, he speaks out against the Communist regime, corruption, and human rights abuses back home in China. He even goes so far as to channel financial aid to activists and possibly revolutionaries back home, sets up TOR nodes and ways to circumvent the Great China Firewall, etc... all considered treason.
Then, without a trial or attempts to extradite, China hits him with a drone while in at his suburban residence in the US. Assuming the strike is surgical with no other casualties, is it still ok?
The reason why this scenario doesn't work, is China knows if we thought a suspected terrorist was hiding in the United States, we would cooperate with China in his apprehension, and save assassination as a last resort.
Yemen, I suspect, would be (was) willing to do no such thing.
China considers the Dalai Lama a terrorist.
They consider numerous human rights campaigners terrorists.
The USA does not consider them terrorists. Try again.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! You're hilarious!To Kryzbyn and others,
Suppose a Chinese citizen gains access to the US -- legally or illegally -- and settles in here. While here, he speaks out against the Communist regime, corruption, and human rights abuses back home in China. He even goes so far as to channel financial aid to activists and possibly revolutionaries back home, sets up TOR nodes and ways to circumvent the Great China Firewall, etc... all considered treason.
Then, without a trial or attempts to extradite, China hits him with a drone while in at his suburban residence in the US. Assuming the strike is surgical with no other casualties, is it still ok?
The reason why this scenario doesn't work, is China knows if we thought a suspected terrorist was hiding in the United States, we would cooperate with China in his apprehension, and save assassination as a last resort.
Yemen, I suspect, would be (was) willing to do no such thing.
Glad I made you laugh :)
|
|
Glad I made you laugh :)BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! You're hilarious!To Kryzbyn and others,
Suppose a Chinese citizen gains access to the US -- legally or illegally -- and settles in here. While here, he speaks out against the Communist regime, corruption, and human rights abuses back home in China. He even goes so far as to channel financial aid to activists and possibly revolutionaries back home, sets up TOR nodes and ways to circumvent the Great China Firewall, etc... all considered treason.
Then, without a trial or attempts to extradite, China hits him with a drone while in at his suburban residence in the US. Assuming the strike is surgical with no other casualties, is it still ok?
The reason why this scenario doesn't work, is China knows if we thought a suspected terrorist was hiding in the United States, we would cooperate with China in his apprehension, and save assassination as a last resort.
Yemen, I suspect, would be (was) willing to do no such thing.
Good, that was pretty funny honestly. I was thinking, "he can't be serious can he? No..." ;)
|
B. If this person had made a clear renunciation of their U.S. citizenship, and I don't know if this guy ever did (verbal or written), would that affect this situation?
I don't think he ever "officially" renounced his US citizenship, but it bears mentioning that when he came back for college in the early 90's he didn't claim citizenship.
He was born here to parents who were both citizens of Yemen and lived here until he was 7, then he moved back to Yemen and lived there until he was 18. When he came to the US for college he got a student visa, listed himself as an international student, and applied for a number of "foreign student" scholarships that he used to pay for his college. He also applied for a social security card when he came back, claiming to be from Yemen.
So he went pretty far out of his way to identify himself as a non-citizen of the US.
Again, you're correct. I see we're not far off. I'm just a little less cynical about it, I think. ;)Bullplop. There was no evidence presented against the man. That is not collateral damage. That is murder.You miss the irony -- 'collateral damage' is another term for 'murder we aren't going to apologize for'. It's the ultimate 'Hail Mary' play of the 'greater good' war strategy.
I'm sorry -- it's my allergy to stupid acting up again (it causes me to suffer personality changes from a nice guy to a jerk and occasionally spasm in such a manner as causes injury to the person presenting the stupid) -- the whole situation smells of it, and the way people are responding in general (not specific people in this specific conversation) isn't helping.
My personal opinion is what has happened is currently 'legal' -- regardless of the 'rightness' of it and is exactly what we (meaning citizens of the USA) should have thought about before we started this whole farce.
Now if the proper thought had been put into executing our 'war on terror' we would have already considered and answered the question of how we handle the situation of a citizen of the USA claiming membership in an 'enemy' organization regardless of where he is in the world.
*************
Now my 'personal preference' on how this situation could have been resolved better:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
If Congress had simply stated that aiding and abetting Al Qaeda was an act of treason as they are officially our enemy (a status I do believe we did assign Al Qaeda), then all that would have to be proven is that he has provided aid and comfort -- a relative simple task I would think for this case if he has provided the written and video evidence that he has been accused of.
To Kryzbyn and others,
Suppose a Chinese citizen gains access to the US -- legally or illegally -- and settles in here. While here, he speaks out against the Communist regime, corruption, and human rights abuses back home in China. He even goes so far as to channel financial aid to activists and possibly revolutionaries back home, sets up TOR nodes and ways to circumvent the Great China Firewall, etc... all considered treason.
Then, without a trial or attempts to extradite, China hits him with a drone while in at his suburban residence in the US. Assuming the strike is surgical with no other casualties, is it still ok?
The reason why this scenario doesn't work, is China knows if we thought a suspected terrorist was hiding in the United States, we would cooperate with China in his apprehension, and save assassination as a last resort.
Yemen, I suspect, would be (was) willing to do no such thing.
China considers the Dalai Lama a terrorist.
They consider numerous human rights campaigners terrorists.
The USA does not consider them terrorists. Try again.
Try again? The disconnect here is trying to twist the guy that got taken out into a human rights activist.
I suppose if the Dalai Lama had a terrorist recruitment website, or took credit for bombing places, we'd take him out ourselves...
B. If this person had made a clear renunciation of their U.S. citizenship, and I don't know if this guy ever did (verbal or written), would that affect this situation?
I don't think he ever "officially" renounced his US citizenship, but it bears mentioning that when he came back for college in the early 90's he didn't claim citizenship.
He was born here to parents who were both citizens of Yemen and lived here until he was 7, then he moved back to Yemen and lived there until he was 18. When he came to the US for college he got a student visa, listed himself as an international student, and applied for a number of "foreign student" scholarships that he used to pay for his college. He also applied for a social security card when he came back, claiming to be from Yemen.
So he went pretty far out of his way to identify himself as a non-citizen of the US.
Not to question your information but do you have citation to back this up? It would make the situation a bit more interesting if true, and raises another question -- do we have reason to believe he is a citizen of the USA other than the claims made by his family?
Not trying to get out on a technicality but this is an issue that is cropping up more and more since we don't actually have an offical 'citizen' list or federal proof of citizenship in the USA other than the social security card which is explicitly not supposed to be used for such purposes according to the legislation that was used to create it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Am I upset that this particular guy got taken out? Hell, no.
Am I upset that we, as citizens of the U.S., are apparently fine with giving the President -- one man -- the power to have any American killed anywhere, at any time, for no reason whatsoever if he so chooses? We think this is not only acceptable, but laudable? That scares the hell out of me. Obama gets cut off in traffic? "Targeted liquidation" or whatever. Dude gets bored one day? Let's knock off Rush Limbaugh or Steven Colbert for fun. Whatever.
If you give the guy the power to do whatever he wants, just because he didn't abuse it in this particular instance doesn't mean that no one ever will. It's a stupid, dangerous power to be handing out with no restrictions whatsoever, no checks or balances, just a blank check. It's incredibly STUPID to trust any one person -- especially a politician! -- that much.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Try again? The disconnect here is trying to twist the guy that got taken out into a human rights activist...To Kryzbyn and others,
Suppose a Chinese citizen gains access to the US -- legally or illegally -- and settles in here. While here, he speaks out against the Communist regime, corruption, and human rights abuses back home in China. He even goes so far as to channel financial aid to activists and possibly revolutionaries back home, sets up TOR nodes and ways to circumvent the Great China Firewall, etc... all considered treason.
Then, without a trial or attempts to extradite, China hits him with a drone while in at his suburban residence in the US. Assuming the strike is surgical with no other casualties, is it still ok?
The reason why this scenario doesn't work, is China knows if we thought a suspected terrorist was hiding in the United States, we would cooperate with China in his apprehension, and save assassination as a last resort.
Yemen, I suspect, would be (was) willing to do no such thing.
China considers the Dalai Lama a terrorist.
They consider numerous human rights campaigners terrorists.
The USA does not consider them terrorists. Try again.
I didn't get the impression anyone is conflating the Dalai Lama (or say Aung San Suu Kyi) with Anwar al-Awlaki. But if we had enough evidence to target him for assassination, then that should have been more than enough evidence to find him guilty in trial.
And if the US gets to wack alleged terrorists and traitors with impunity, why doesn't China or Russia or __________?
...I suppose if the Dalai Lama had a terrorist recruitment website, or took credit for bombing places, we'd take him out ourselves...
I can't tell if your serious. Are you familiar with the history of US foreign policy & CIA & NSA? We've propped up a lot of evil son-of-a-b$$!$es, except we called them "freedom fighters" instead of traitors/terrorists.
I didn't get the impression anyone is conflating the Dalai Lama (or say Aung San Suu Kyi) with Anwar al-Awlaki. But if we had enough evidence to target him for assassination, then that should have been more than enough evidence to find him guilty in trial.
And if the US gets to wack alleged terrorists and traitors with impunity, why doesn't China or Russia or __________?
I believe I pointed to this above in my posts.
To Kryzbyn and others,
Suppose a Chinese citizen gains access to the US -- legally or illegally -- and settles in here. While here, he speaks out against the Communist regime, corruption, and human rights abuses back home in China. He even goes so far as to channel financial aid to activists and possibly revolutionaries back home, sets up TOR nodes and ways to circumvent the Great China Firewall, etc... all considered treason.
Then, without a trial or attempts to extradite, China hits him with a drone while in at his suburban residence in the US. Assuming the strike is surgical with no other casualties, is it still ok?
Interesting question. I'm not sure if I'd be okay with this.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They can. If they can get away with it. Realpolitik.
And if the US gets to wack alleged terrorists and traitors with impunity, why doesn't China or Russia or __________?
In this case the US has been caught, and by it's own people no less. If there is any ethical sense left in the USA then we won't do this to our citizens. It doesn't make it any more proper for China or Russia or ____________ to do it either. Realethics.
Far better than attacks with mass civilian casualties.
We're not debating the merits of mass civilian casualties, we're debating the assassination of an American citizen by the American government. No American should stand for that, ever, unless they're willing to give up their rights to Due Process.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Extremely disquieting. But it's in keeping with the disdain for the rights of U.S. citizens displayed by the Obama administration (and the Bush administration before it).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just as an FYI, this is a super-fighty way to frame this discussion. Hot topic political threads need to be on their best behavior these days because we're tired of putting out flamewars. Not a specific warning to anybody just yet, just a reminder. Thanks.
Damn right. You should be ashamed of yourself for starting all those flame wars. We know its you on account of your flamey choice of avatar.
*Scribbles down a death warrant on the back of a candy wrapper*
Extremely disquieting. But it's in keeping with the disdain for the rights of U.S. citizens displayed by the Obama administration (and the Bush administration before it).
I would offer the following instead:
But it's in keeping with the disdain for the rights of U.S. citizens displayed by the USA and its citizens as long as they don't foresee a direct impact on themselves.
Senior Software Developer
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
*Scribbles down a death warrant on the back of a candy wrapper*
I know you're kidding, and you're in Australia, and probably crazy, and therefore probably not really a threat, but, ummm, can we not joke about killing Paizo staff? It kind of puts a negative pall on the day.
Obamba isn't the first president to order the assassination of an American citizen without going through the courts first but he is the first to not cover it up with a top secret stamp and publicly say he's done it. This type of stuff has been going on since the Civil War.
Obamba isn't the first president to order the assassination of an American citizen without going through the courts first but he is the first to not cover it up with a top secret stamp and publicly say he's done it. This type of stuff has been going on since the Civil War.
*cough* Before!
Though it is odd to right out fess up to it -- I accused McCain of tanking his campaign on purpose -- I'm starting to think Obama might be doing the same simply to get laws he sees as wrong repealed in a, "See what I'm doing? See how wrong it is? You let me do this, now please make me stop it" kind of way.
Could he simply not do it? Yes but then the ability would still be there for the next guy -- might be a method of making people realize where the responsibility for this ultimately lies.
Which is far, far less than the disdain for all the poor brown people we've been killing all these years.Extremely disquieting. But it's in keeping with the disdain for the rights of U.S. citizens displayed by the Obama administration (and the Bush administration before it).I would offer the following instead:
But it's in keeping with the disdain for the rights of U.S. citizens displayed by the USA and its citizens as long as they don't foresee a direct impact on themselves.
talking broadly in terms of groups of people yes you are correct. Willful ignorance of it doesn't excuse it -- but if using this incident will allow us to realize the folly of what has and is being done we should do so.
If he wanted due process he could have turned himself in to any police station in the US.
and THEN spent a life in prison.
/shrug
You really expected anything different?
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Doesn't matter what platform they run on, what they claim as their stance on any given issue, or how loudly they proclaim themselves different.
At this point, the system itself has become self-perpetuating without regard for which cog is filling what slot in the machine.
|
|
Am I upset that this particular guy got taken out? Hell, no.
Am I upset that we, as citizens of the U.S., are apparently fine with giving the President -- one man -- the power to have any American killed anywhere, at any time, for no reason whatsoever if he so chooses? We think this is not only acceptable, but laudable? That scares the hell out of me. Obama gets cut off in traffic? "Targeted liquidation" or whatever. Dude gets bored one day? Let's knock off Rush Limbaugh or Steven Colbert for fun. Whatever.
If you give the guy the power to do whatever he wants, just because he didn't abuse it in this particular instance doesn't mean that no one ever will. It's a stupid, dangerous power to be handing out with no restrictions whatsoever, no checks or balances, just a blank check. It's incredibly STUPID to trust any one person -- especially a politician! -- that much.
I agree with the sentiment of this conceptually, and I am a firm believer in the need for checks and balances and oversight for all people, as the alternative is tyranny.
And I agree that if this act were committed here, it would be such a gross attack on our sovereignty that we would be calling for blood and war.
But I also think this guy was someone who was a specific danger and I believe were I sitting in the Presidents chair I would have given the same order without hesitation. And I want the leader of my country to be given the authority to make such executive decisions in the same way he is able to grant pardons...even if it is occasionally corrupt.
There are checks and balances and there are shackles that lead to impotence.
I want the President to be held accountable when they make these kinds of decisions.
That being said, this particular account I am fairly sure would be one most people would be willing to settle up on.
I don't know how to adjudicate this grey area, I know I don't like what other presidents have done with this authority. But I don't think the president can do they job we expect of presidents without it.
If this sounds wishy, washy, it is.
There is a lot of grey in the world.
U.S.-Born Terror Boss Anwar al-Awlaki Killed in CIA-Led Drone Strike
Hurrah!
Pulls out an old Queen vinyl album and plays "Another One Bites the Dust."
Looks forward to seeing the predator drones in action again.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ron Paul might not have been able to stop the maddness, but he is one of the only ones that spoke against it. One man can only do so much, we need to back up those that are willing to bodly go against those who would abuse political power. I often used to wonder how Hitler got into power in Germany, why no one stood up against that nut. Now I find my own country heading in that same direction, even elected officials running on the platform to keep GITMO open and legalize torture.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Looks forward to seeing the predator drones in action again.
[slippery slope] Wait till you're seeing it... out your window! [/slippery slope]
Obamba isn't the first president to order the assassination of an American citizen without going through the courts first but he is the first to not cover it up with a top secret stamp and publicly say he's done it. This type of stuff has been going on since the Civil War.*cough* Before!
Though it is odd to right out fess up to it -- I accused McCain of tanking his campaign on purpose -- I'm starting to think Obama might be doing the same simply to get laws he sees as wrong repealed in a, "See what I'm doing? See how wrong it is? You let me do this, now please make me stop it" kind of way.
Could he simply not do it? Yes but then the ability would still be there for the next guy -- might be a method of making people realize where the responsibility for this ultimately lies.
I really really hope so. I doubt it, but I hope so.
Am I upset that this particular guy got taken out? Hell, no.
Am I upset that we, as citizens of the U.S., are apparently fine with giving the President -- one man -- the power to have any American killed anywhere, at any time, for no reason whatsoever if he so chooses? We think this is not only acceptable, but laudable? That scares the hell out of me. Obama gets cut off in traffic? "Targeted liquidation" or whatever. Dude gets bored one day? Let's knock off Rush Limbaugh or Steven Colbert for fun. Whatever.
If you give the guy the power to do whatever he wants, just because he didn't abuse it in this particular instance doesn't mean that no one ever will. It's a stupid, dangerous power to be handing out with no restrictions whatsoever, no checks or balances, just a blank check. It's incredibly STUPID to trust any one person -- especially a politician! -- that much.
+1. Just remember, there is a chance that Rick Perry or Michelle Bachmann might be the one making these descisions soon.
Also, didnt Joe Biden designate the Tea Party as terrorists?
Yeah I could care less.
Due process? If the people on the 'list' could kindly turn themselves in for a bit of due process it would be extended most enthusiastically I'd wager.
Suppose a Chinese citizen gains access to the US -- legally or illegally -- and settles in here. While here, he speaks out against the Communist regime, corruption, and human rights abuses back home in China.
Morally, i think what he's advocating matters.
"you should have access to google and a government that doesn't run you over with tanks! Protest!" is a completely different message from "Get out there and shoot as many civilians as you possibly can, bonus points for tear jerker targets like kids"
Speaking out against politics you don't agree with is a right we have whilst living in nice western democracies. He has the right to protest, he has the right to complain, and indeed has the right to behave like a jackass if he felt like it too.
None of these things involve plotting to terrorise and kill people in any given country, thereis lies a significant difference.