Obama Admin: Targeting US citizens for assassination within the US may be ok

Good to know Obama isn't water boarding foreign born prisoners of war. That would be abuse of power and evil. Killing US citizens on US soil without trial on the other hand, that is all good.

 

I agree. I hope they target members of the previous administration first. What a great way to have the US respected around the world again. I can just imagine Cheney's head hanging from Golden Gate bridge. That will help calm down that al-queda mob they created. Though from previous experience Obama will probably just bury them at sea, quietly.

 

In the article it says the 3 criteria for killing US citizens overseas:

It goes on to say:

Even now, if a US citizen in the US is posing an imminent threat of violent attack, and capture is not feasible, they'll probably end up being killed. For example, let's say an individual is holding people hostage and threatening to kill them. And, further, in the best judgment of law enforcement, they don't believe they can capture the individual without the hostages being killed, I think they would use a sniper if at all possible.

 

This is true even when they killed Vernon Wayne Howell or most popularly known as David Koresh. They even have to kill an imminent threat by the name of William H Bonney long ago.

 

We are talking about targeted assassination, not killing in the process of capture. It does remind me of the old "Wanted: Dead or Alive" posters, but we haven't had those around for nearly a century.

 

In the article they were saying what is known is they will kill a US citizens overseas under these required conditions:

My opinion is Mueller was confused by the question of whether it applied to Americans inside the U.S., and it may not have even been discussed. The reason why is if an American in the US is an imminent threat of making a violent attack and capture is not feasible, they would probably be taken out anyway.

 

Thank Obama today for our new NDAA.

That should be the slogan. Between the Patriot Act started by Bush, then Obama extending it and then sneakily signing the NDAA, it just seems to get worse. I mean, shouldn't it be commonplace to assassinate or hold Americans indefinitely without due process I ask you?

 

I think the short answer is, you should only be upset about it if a Republican is in the Oval Office.

 

He didn't do it alone. You can see how everyone voted below.

The NDAA vote:
HR 1540 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 - Voting Record
Senate Vote On Passage: S. 1867: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012

The extension of the Patriot Act vote:
House Vote 376 - To Extend Provisions of the Patriot Act
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 112th Congress - 1st Session

 

Oh I know he didn't do it alone. He just said that he would veto it and then over New Year's in the middle of the night when basically no one was around, signed it into law anyway. He's just as much to blame as those that concocted such an atrocity.

Caving to political pressure is akin to cowardice. And cowardice is never an excuse.

 

Rightly or wrongly, the president gets the blame (or credit). One can put together a majority in the house or Senate across party lines and a variety of different people. Only with the president does that responsibility come down to a single person.

 

What I would like to get my head around is why is it okay to target Iraqi extremists but not Americans? Surely a 'dangerous' individual should be taken out whatever their nationality. It's like you support killing Muslims but not Christians when they're both religious. What makes dangerous Americans untouchable?

 

Point taken.

Still, I felt compelled to show the voting record for the NDAA and Patriot Act. As you know, Obama didn't just sign them without wide support from Republicans and Democrats. And, at this point, it doesn't seem likely Ron Paul will be nominated.

It will probably be this guy.

[video=youtube;FUZoPnYjx0g]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUZoPnYjx0g[/video]

 

So Obama signed the NDAA and Romney said he would have. The only difference between the two on that issue is that Obama said he didn't support the NDAA and then signed it anyway.

I know one of the qualities I look for in a president is a man who says one thing and does another. If a canddate really wants my vote, he needs to be able to do something while actively campaigning against it(SuperPacs, Military Tribunals, Crony Capitalism, Gitmo, Undeclared Wars,Transparency in Government). After all, isn't hypocrisy is a sign of character and deep seated inner strength?

 

People like you make me wish for a nuclear winter .

 

I hope YOU get it then. Me, I'm just hoping for snow.

 

I'm seriously starting to wonder if you believe in what you're saying or you've went into permatroll mode .

 

Says DP's biggest troll. If you can't tell sarcasm well... I guess one needs a brain to know it when one sees it. We all know on that you fail miserably.

 

Here you go...

 

LOL even as troll you fail . Let me show you how you look : Bushy *I want to see Chaney hanged by the Golden Gate bridge* *Sarcasm*

Yep nothing more sarcastic then a corpse hanging in a public place . Totally legit