• #10
    I'm outraged.. As Politix's official most conservative and reliable (R) vote, how can a president play judge, jury, and executioner? It's just not right. It's not. You know it's not.

    obama just randomly executes whoever he deems an enemy of state. We have to have trials for these kinds of things. You know what, liberals cried about waterboarding. Not so many tears for execution though.

    obama, judgment without trial, and illegal war activities is what you get when you vote (D).
  • #11
    Hmmm...When the tide turns and the next "R" sits in the Oval this a good precedent to have established?

    That the POTUS can order SUSPECTED targets KILLED by remote control?

    Nothing good can come of this.
  • #12
    @AntiPorcheria - It should not be allowed by anyone. If it is an American citizen then we apprehend them and then prosecute them. If convicted, a judge will sentence them. If not, they are free to go. It is what our democracy was founded on. Republican or Democrat have no right to change that. NONE!
  • #13
    @Neo_NtheMatrix - Of course I agree. It seems to me, however, that those who would defend this action would be the die-heard left that see Mr. Obama as incapable of wrong-doing.
  • R Load more replies

  • #8
    It's a short distance between killing Americans SUSPECTED of terrorism overseas to killing Americans SUSPECTED of terrorism on our own shores.

    This is a bad, bad business.
  • #71

    I have wanted to leave the Dems for a while because of the catering to illegals and refusing to close the borders .

    Most people aren't truly aware of the price that this has taken on our hospitals alone .

    The GOP is out of the question because of what I call Bible thumpers and in truth 90% are all talk and not going to do a thing about illegals.

    The other parties are far to right or far to left.
  • #73
    @JoseinThrdWrld - No party necessary.

    Don't be a follower.

    I have been politically active since Kennedy and Nixon and have never voted or towed a party line.

    Both sides lie...and I get sick of decoding who is lying the least.

    They lie because they have to. They lie because our Professional Elitist Politicians are bought and paid for by Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Tobacco, Big What-the-hell-ever.

    I'll never be part of any party until Mr. Smith gets his ass to Washington.

    I await the rise of a third party...a Common Sense of lobbyists and big of the Paid Professional Pundits and bullshitting Professional Elitist Politicians... save this country.
  • #81

    I agree as far as not being a follower but my options are one of two parties as far as state and federal elections .

    I do not think that USA has that much time left that a valid third party can win .

    When the Tea Party first made their appearance . I was elated because I thought I had found a party but I realized they were not for me due to the religious bunch who took them over (at least in Florida).
    In the end at least in Florida they only enable illegals and they have lost Tea Party support . Mostly Marco Rubio and Gov. Rick Scott .

    I do not think that a common sense party which is not up for sale can make a stand against the other two well financed power houses .

    I agree with you in theory but let's be realistic as far as politics is now the lesser of 2 evils .
  • R Load more replies

  • #4
    This is just wrong. Americans have constitutional rights that our government must respect be they within our boarders at the time or not.
  • #29
    Try a hypothetical: suppose Osama bin Ladin was an American. Suppose further we had solid Intel about the impending 9/11 attacks and had drones overhead during the early 2001 meeting in which he would make the decision to proceed with the attack - or not.

    It's your call. What do you do?
  • #32
    Nt when they are openly calabirating with the that case they forfiet their rights and citizenship.
  • #52

    You made a great point which I agree with but let's hope that down the line, speaking out against individual politicians or just the way the government is heading . Is not seen as being a potential terrorist or terrorist sympathizer .

    An enemy of the state .

    This is the legitimate concern that some have .

    Again, I agree with you but it can be a slippery slope .
  • #65
    @bsking I don't care about offing a terrorists, it's the secrecy and distrust of the government that worries me. Obama has brought this us against them mentality to the front burner with his actions.

    You can't be happy with Snowden and this plan at the same time.
  • R Load more replies

  • #21
    The AP story made two legally distinct statements:

    "suspected of terrorism", which could be any of us, and
    "who is part of the forces of an enemy organization", which is pretty restrictive.

    I'd agree with droning someone in the second category, if I believed nobody in the decision-making process was lying, which I'm not. The first category rolls us back to before the Magna Carta, and we've got plenty of King Johns in positions of power these days.
  • #44
    @Ryuo Looking at this situation logically, if you restrict the actions of a President in a war or warlike situation because you don't trust his judgment, then who do you trust to conduct military actions and how exactly do a nation conduct a war? We'd all be speaking Japanese and German if the country had been as concerned about its Constitutional Rights as it is now when it was fighting the Second World War.

    What I find amusing is that the Republicans don't trust a Democratic president to turn a terrorist to sand and Democrats don't trust a Republic to pick the right one atomize, so it looks like both sides are suggesting that we conduct a war on terrorism in the courts and according to public opinion, because half of our voters don't trust the commander-in-chief no matter which party he is in the Oval Office.
  • #45
    @Ryunkin exactly! I didn't want to say it, because it tends to distract from the core issue, but I doubt if here the same concerns from the same people ten years ago.
  • #46
    The fact is the United States has gradually become a nation of indecision. One that buries itself in contradictory data and calls it progress. Sadly, Americans have evolved into lawyers in all areas of life, more devoted to a process than a result. More obsessed with procedure than needful of the truth.

    Nowhere is it more evident than in the "legal" complaints that are currently registered in the conduct of a war to prevent the death and destruction that occurs every day in the cities of Iraq and Syria. The damned process doesn't mean anything to an American if he or she is dead. Killing identified terrorists in foreign lands with missiles is an action that needs little more process than the collection of intel and the armchair lawyers had best understand that before there is no country for their beloved Constitution to rule.
  • R Load more replies

  • #26
    Are you kidding me, should we let them kill our soldiers, Marines? If these "Americans" are in a foreign country aiding and abetting the enemy eff them........ They are no better than the terrorists..........
  • #78
    Indeed, but I do believe there needs to be a more substantial legal process in order to prevent abuses.

    I'm typically a proponent of government efficiency but not when it comes to killing people with drones. The order to do that shouldn't be allowed to come from a single man or agency.
  • #113
    @BobSmith But just what legal process do you want to happen ? This has been discussed, cussed, put before courts, and simply has no easy answer, beyond the fact that it has been approved by the courts, and is being carried out by our government, which we elected. That is, if you voted. No matter how we voted, the government is us.
  • #3
    Conservative opposition to the targeting of American enemy combatants is based on the false premise that the rights protected by the Constitution are uniquely American. They are not unique; they are inalienable rights endowed upon all men by their creator.
  • #7
    Exactly. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness should NOT... just for those who are lucky enough to be born on a certain portion of land. They are for all humans across world.
    It's time blind nationalistic patriots open their eyes and see that humans are humans who's natural rights are to be respected no matter which side of a boarder they are born!
  • #19
    @RONPAULFAN Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is the declaration of independence and not the constitution.
  • #22
    Those particular rights are indeed universal to all men. But there are other rights that are unique to Americans that are protected by the Constitution, let's not ignore those.
  • R Load more replies

  • #70
    Not only Americans but any terrorist that intends to kill Americans anywhere they hide , like Bin Laden was. Others will also do it if they had the capability to have drones do that
  • #64
    Cops kill criminals all the time, what is the difference? Give the drone a Cops name, dress it up like a crazed ninja with body armor and do your own investigation and find it was a 'good shooting'

    That is where we are at.
  • #35
    I'd say it's OK overseas because you can't just send a cop to the door in the middle east and serve a warrant, but it does bring about some concern about expansion of the idea being misused.
  • #1
    Do you support America's use of drones?
    To kill Mooslims? Indeed I do.

    To kill Americans in the USA....NO or to monitor the folks privacy....NO
  • #9
    Why do you say Muslim instead or Terrorists or Radical Islamists? You instead make a blanket statement that appears to many as if you are ok with American drones committing large scale religious genocide.
  • #58

    For a person who is always screaming about less government you support giving a President the power of life or death as far as American citizens over-seas.
  • R Load more replies

  • #117
    Right, lets "arrest" every enemy , with a gun and who is shooting at us. You see, sometimes there is simply no time to do so. Where possible, we DO arrest people, and do put them before the courts. You cannot do that when they are shooting missiles at us.
  • #77
    Not Americans like they do now. There needs to be more of a legal process.

    I will say kill everyone else and DON'T TRY NON-CITIZENS IN THE US!

    Send them to GITMO!
  • #72
    I don't trust this administration or our government enough at this point anymore to support's too easy for them to label someone, kill them, and then hide the truth...just look at the blatant crap they've been caught doing now already.
  • #56
    All humans have certain inalienable rights endowed by their creator, killing suspected criminals violates those rights... unless they are clearly enemy combatants. In the past at least our fellow Americans would receive recognition of these rights, today it seems that is no longer the case.
  • #148
    I would just be happy to known a terrorist leader would be introduced to his maker. I don't really care where he was born, just that he is dead!
  • #146
    I don't agree with it if they are, "Suspected of terrorist activities" but then again the one in question was an openly active member of Al Queda which are the terrorists responsible for the deaths of many Americans so there was no, "Suspected" about it. He was an enemy combatant and therefor a legitimate target.
  • #144
    as a citizen these folks are supposed to have a trial first. if this is allowed who is to say hit squads are not next here at home. then it will come down to who is a terrorists and how that conclusion was gotten.

    how many folks were or are on watch lists,vets or others who disagree with gov,like my take against illegal immigration,when will the line be crossed where gov has the right to murder any citizen at any time with made up reasons?

    we know gov starts out with one thing,turns and twists it into something else. the reason nothing they do is straight forward and right to the point so they leave room for twisting.
  • R Load more comments...