Slippery slopes can be fun.
BO also said there would be no lobbysits in his administration - turned
out to be a lieObamacre would REDUCE healthcare costs by $2500 per year
per family - another liethat his would be an open and transparent
administration - another lie - see the article about him classifying MORE public
informationHolder had a hard time figuring out why the house repubs
wanted to know about his fast and furious guns being used by Mexican cartels to
kill US and Mexican citizens.And despite the dishonesty of this
administration, people still comment that BO would never lie to us or do such
dastardly deeds as kill a US citizen in the US without due process.what is due process to a Chicago politician?Or, as aptly put by an
Obamacare supporter in the house, "what does the constitution have to do
with it?" the constitution matters NOTHING to the demonrats and chicago
cabal currently mismanaging the country.
Lets see Senator Ryan.... you are upset about drones.... but not airborne
attacks from helicopters, airplanes or perhaps even cruise missiles. You
don't care if they use snipper guns like at Ruby Ridge. Nor are you
concerned about heavy armor dumping gas into a compound resulting in the burning
down of the compound with citizens inside.... nope. The game changer is
drones.Hopefully enough people saw Ryans stunt as just another ploy
to spread fear where if there were a problem already, this doesn't change
the game much. If the government had an agenda to take you out.... you would be
taken out. Its just the government doesn't have such a hair brained
agenda - not even Obama.
What scares me is not that a some President may use deadly force against a U.S.
citizen turned terrorist, but that some citizens act like terrorists, forming
militias to protect a deviant 2nd amendment interpretation which they love more
than the Constitution itself.
What I cannot understand is why people like Paul and this author do not seem to
understand we already have laws against the use of deadly force against people
in the US that do not present a threat to others. All Paul accomplished is to
get written confirmation of what most of us learned in crammer school, but even
with this the author continues to push unfounded fear mongering .
Since Washington acquiesced to Hamilton in 1794 and sent military forces to put
down the Whiskey Rebellion it has been accepted fact that the government can use
deadly force against citizens who pose a threat to other citizens or the US.
This is true whether on the local, state, or federal level. The entire Civil War
was an exercise in deadly force being used against citizens to protect the
country. If Congress is so concerned about drones, they need to do
their job and pass legislation prohibiting their use. They won't because
they recognize the value and potential drones have of stopping a terrorist
attack while preserving innocent lives. To be angry that Obama utilizes all
available resources while preserving those resources for future presidents to
use is sophomoric and hypocritical. As for this idea that Obama may
decide to attack unarmed citizens who pose no threat - give me a break. If you
truly believe he is sociopathic enough to do that, follow proper procedures to
have him removed from office. But don't insult his intelligence or ours by
pretending that putting something in writing is some kind of magic guarantee.
Is there really not a distinction to be made between a Terrorist, American or
not, in a foreign country targeting Americans and a bad guy sitting in a US
Cafe?The question is not about drones, it is about whether the US
can use the military to kill Americans.What difference does the weapon
make?I much prefer the drone strike on Awlaki than risking American
lives in an attempt to capture him. His being an American makes no difference
to me.I wish we had the foresight to take out Hussein that way.And I can assure you that the American in a US cafe will be easily taken
into custody and tried. I am also confident that is how it would be handled.