Nazi Pelosi unsure if its ok to kill USA citizens with drones.

[andreisdaman]

She should be put in with male prisoners.

Gangbang in the shovers.

Give somethingback to society for the things she has done.

I wouldn't get myself worked up...3333 almost always misquotes people out of context

[andreisdaman]

so in your mind pouring water over someones head to help gain information that will save lives is worse than one person without oversight, judicial review or reporting ordering the death of a fellow citizen?

I supported Bush's use of torture.....it was a difficult time...when in doubt I give the president the benefit of the doubt...like I am doing with Obama

[tonymctones]

I supported Bush's use of torture.....it was a difficult time...when in doubt I give the president the benefit of the doubt...like I am doing with Obama

I dont know why you keep bringing up bush, bush never ordered attacks on US citizens in my memory.

This is solely on obama...

[Skip8282]

so imminent threat doesnt mean imminent.

There's a difference between someone who is actively taking up arms and someone who HAS done something.

I see it as extremely unconstitutional and should be fought against on every level.

Yes....as I said, the definition of imminent is hazy.  They want to define it as an overall threat.  Like, we're at war with AQ (undeclared, non-conventional), so we can hit their soldiers with impunity.

If you're born in the US, leave to join a group that wants to destroy us, I'm not big on extending them Constitutional protections.

Also, there's a practical aspect to consider.  How do you bring them to justice?  Do you try and go in, kill the 5 or so non-citizens, and attempt to take the one citizen alive?  This is just one scenario to consider.

[Soul Crusher]

Yes....as I said, the definition of imminent is hazy.  They want to define it as an overall threat.  Like, we're at war with AQ (undeclared, non-conventional), so we can hit their soldiers with impunity.

If you're born in the US, leave to join a group that wants to destroy us, I'm not big on extending them Constitutional protections.

Also, there's a practical aspect to consider.  How do you bring them to justice?  Do you try and go in, kill the 5 or so non-citizens, and attempt to take the one citizen alive?  This is just one scenario to consider.

Here is the problem - they don't have a sign in sheet or roster.   I really think there needs to be judicial oversite of this before granting the executive branch such powers that extend to american citizens, 

[andreisdaman]

I dont know why you keep bringing up bush, bush never ordered attacks on US citizens in my memory.

This is solely on obama...

I bring up Bush to show that unlike you I am not a partisan hack

[dario73]

I bring up Bush to show that unlike you I am not a partisan hack

You need to solve your persistent reading comprehension problem.

Again:

I dont know why you keep bringing up bush, bush never ordered attacks on US citizens in my memory.

This is solely on obama...

[Skip8282]

Here is the problem - they don't have a sign in sheet or roster.   I really think there needs to be judicial oversite of this before granting the executive branch such powers that extend to american citizens, 

OK...but how is that going to be practically applied?  If it's just some judge that's going to rubber stamp the Administration...then it's just a waste of money.

If true due process is to be applied, it will mean fair and possibly public trial, confronting witnesses, being given their rights, etc.

How do you extract the 1 guy in a group of 10 terrorists to do this?

[Skip8282]

You need to solve your persistent reading comprehension problem.

Again:

He claims to have 2 Masters degrees...yet debates like a 9 year old. 

[tu_holmes]

OK...but how is that going to be practically applied?  If it's just some judge that's going to rubber stamp the Administration...then it's just a waste of money.

If true due process is to be applied, it will mean fair and possibly public trial, confronting witnesses, being given their rights, etc.

How do you extract the 1 guy in a group of 10 terrorists to do this?

If someone is actively fighting against being taken into custody, similarly to how current scenarios play out, they can be killed if resisting in a manner that leaves no other option.

[Soul Crusher]

OK...but how is that going to be practically applied?  If it's just some judge that's going to rubber stamp the Administration...then it's just a waste of money.

If true due process is to be applied, it will mean fair and possibly public trial, confronting witnesses, being given their rights, etc.

How do you extract the 1 guy in a group of 10 terrorists to do this?

Don't know - but when administering the death penalty as a first resort in cases where there is no evidence of imminent attack - I think that is a real slippery slope there no executive should have wo oversight of some type. 

[tonymctones]

Yes....as I said, the definition of imminent is hazy.  They want to define it as an overall threat.  Like, we're at war with AQ (undeclared, non-conventional), so we can hit their soldiers with impunity.

If you're born in the US, leave to join a group that wants to destroy us, I'm not big on extending them Constitutional protections.

Also, there's a practical aspect to consider.  How do you bring them to justice?  Do you try and go in, kill the 5 or so non-citizens, and attempt to take the one citizen alive?  This is just one scenario to consider.

I can agree with everything you said skip, the issue I have is there is no judicial oversight, no clarified order on who has the ability to order these hits and no clarity.

I understand the need to be able to take out ppl who are threats to our safety regardless of their nationality, but to allow it to happen with no judicial process or review?

That's way more power than I am willing to give anybody nevertheless someone in a govt position

[andreisdaman]

He claims to have 2 Masters degrees...yet debates like a 9 year old. 

you have talk to the audience at their level unfortunately

[andreisdaman]

Don't know - but when administering the death penalty as a first resort in cases where there is no evidence of imminent attack - I think that is a real slippery slope there no executive should have wo oversight of some type. 

really weird how you want black muggers put to death and call everyone a communist, traitor, etc yet with American Terrorists you become the Attorney General all of a sudden and stand on the law

weird