Not to mention the NDAA program under Obama, which was accepted by progressives like a wife accepting her husband's throbbing member on her wedding night.
How many American senior operational leaders of Al Qaeda are there in America? Zero. Oh then what the (*)(*)(*)(*) are you talking about?
So where was your outrage and calls for Bush's impeachment when he used drones to kill a US citizen in 2002?
Law enforcement is beginning to use drones in the US because they are cheaper then surveillance helicopters. And just because we are leaving Afghanistan, that doesn't mean that we have ended our war against Al Qaeda.
I don't have a problem with drone warfare on AQ war criminals, even Americans. US citizens fought for Herr Hitler too. But, I am calling out the hypocritical Left for being against it with Bush and for it with Obama. Either Bush and Obama are both war criminals, or they are not.
Paul is right. This is a huge and frightening new power granted to the presidency. Reach out and kill someone?
I'm shocked that the resident progressives would use Bush in order to derail the thread. Problem is, Rand Paul was elected in 2010, and had nothing to do with the Bush Administration or its policies. It's going to be hard for them to associate Rand Paul with Bush, but that won't stop them from trying, I guess. Anyway, why won't Brennan just answer the question? What is he hiding? I thought the Obama Administration was all about transparency.
Right. And alarming still, is that Brennan was unable to answer with an affirmative 'yes' or 'no' to the question posed to him.
It is a chilling possibility. If suspected terrorists can be summarily executed via drone flights in Yemen, why not here? Why only terrorists? Why not suspects in other sorts of crimes as well? Take out the drug dealers, the gang leaders, really clean up this country (with just a little bit of collateral damage, you understand). Constitution? Oh, that's just a piece of paper.
Things are seemingly progressing to the very likelihood of Americans being targeted by drones on American soil. I am already preparing myself to see the news item on Drudge Report or Google News one of these days. I hope not, but... hope is hard to come by.
\ Yes, it is. So far, 4,700 people have been killed by drone strikes, according to Lindsey Graham. That seems to me to be a lot of terrorist leaders.
No doubt. The drone program has exploded under the Obama administration, so it will be both interesting and horrifying to see how much further the program can be taken under his leadership. I just really hope a statistic tally doesn't start for 'In America'. I mean, we've already got one going for Americans, so I guess we'll see.
How are these family members and associates innocent? I honestly do not understand the logic. If you are a terrorist (someone who kills the defenseless, AKA women and children), and then hide behind your own women & children, to make a backwards ass radically religious charged political point, "YOU" do not value their life any more than anybody else, and accept the responsibility for them when the civilized world retaliates against your stupid ass. They are animals and their wives used to create children who are inevitably going to become little memes, just like their sick and twisted parents, then this is simply eradicating the nest.
See, the thing is, I believe you're looking at this wrong. The civilized world is not supposed to "retaliate" against civilian populations. The civilized world is not supposed to define any male in the vicinity as an enemy combatant. Simply because this is happening from our drones but upon Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and Afghanistan people does not make it irrelevant. I am pretty sure that you would want the world to have humility for you and your loved ones if our country were besieged with War, and a foreign entity was in one fashion or another, indiscriminately killing innocent people, even if terrorists and bad guys were hiding amongst them. I mean, do you not value human life? Or do you just value American lives?
As far as I know they are not just going after any men. These 'men', and I use the term loosely are at war with the world, and use their warped religious views to justify the horror they dish out to make a political point, stark terror in communities and yes destroy innocents. I have a hard time believing the people these animals surround themselves with are innocent, or are not terrorists in training. They declared war, and they have to accept the consequences of their actions. The people who harbor these animals, know exactly what they are doing and are just as guilty of the crimes that their friends commit, so when you declare war on the world, you get what you deserve. I haven't used violence or the threat there of to place people in a perpetual state of fear over my religious beliefs or my political inclinations. Your analogy is warped. The people you are protecting are the ones who would attack our families without blinking an eye, and for that reason need to be stopped before the opportunity arises yet again.
[video=youtube;bh82f9dLIDI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bh82f9dLIDI[/video]
The question is, what will it be used for here in the USA? Personal vendettas? Political vendettas? Corporate espionage? The potential abuse of government employees is always a potential threat to the individual citizen, look at the over use of probable cause. "Oh well you appear to be nervous." "NO officer I am not nervous at all, I am pissed off that you would use your authority to harass and abuse the privilege of your authority to carry on with an illegal highly unethical search just because you do not like the color of my skin or the length of my hair. But it is obvious you have no regard for individual rights or privacy our constitution protects so could you just move it along and do what ever it is you are going to do so I can get back to my regular routine." Very little that can be done, when the people entrusted by government authority decide to abuse their power, and even when the appropriate restraints are in place, their lawyers will usually get around that. Now do I feel that drones are inappropriate, for surveillance purposes. NO! Do I feel that it would be inappropriate for a police force acting upon a legal warrant to give the officers an eye in the sky of a potentially dangerous suspect. NO! Do I feel that an armed drone could never be a useful tool to eliminate a potentially high hazard situation where the public is in danger? NO! Do I feel that the best government corporate money can buy would abuse the privilege no matter how limited the usage is supposed to be? Abso(*)(*)(*)(*)inglutely without a doubt! Any power that is freely given to unethical elected officials is a scary situation indeed, especially if they believe they are above reproach, and think they are above the law. - - - Updated - - - The question is, what will it be used for here in the USA? Personal vendettas? Political vendettas? The abuse of government is always a potential threat to individuals, look at the over use of probable cause. "Oh well you appear to be nervous." "NO officer I am not nervous, I am pissed off that you would use your authority to harass and abuse the privilege to carry on with an illegal unethical search just because you do not like the color of my skin or the length of my hair. But it is obvious you have no regard for individual rights or privacy so could you just do what you are going to do so I can get back to my regular routine." Very little that can be done, when the government abuses their power, even when the appropriate restraints are in place, their lawyers will usually get around that. Now do I feel that drones are inappropriate, for surveillance purposes. NO! Do I feel that it would be inappropriate for a police force acting upon a legal warrant to give the officers an eye in the sky of a potentially dangerous suspect. NO! Do I feel that an armed drone could never be a useful tool to eliminate a potentially high hazard situation where the public is in danger? NO! Do I feel that the best government corporate money can buy would abuse the privilege no matter how limited the usage is supposed to be? Abso(*)(*)(*)(*)inglutely without a doubt! Any power that is freely given to unethical elected officials is a scary situation indeed, especially if they believe they are above reproach, and think they are above the law.
When i first heard about the Patriot Act, I recall the first word I used to describe it was "treasonous". - - - Updated - - - That was day one...the Soviet Union was a founding member.
