Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Obama Administration Says President Can Use Lethal Force Against Americans on US Soil

Posted 1 year ago on March 5, 2013, 6:59 p.m. EST by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

123 Comments

123 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

In political science, legitimacy is the popular acceptance of an authority, usually a governing law or a régime. Whereas “authority” denotes a specific position in an established government, the term “legitimacy” denotes a system of government — wherein “government” denotes “sphere of influence”. Political legitimacy is considered a basic condition for governing, without which a government will suffer legislative deadlock(s) and collapse. In political systems where this is not the case, unpopular régimes survive because they are considered legitimate by a small, influential élite.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_(political)

It just seems like this Wikipedia Link fits the Question of Drone Strikes... DOJ has to create a new Law to allow Drone Strikes since this is new Technology and a New Question. I can see how gun shot by a Robo-Cop or Drone is in Question. I don't think bombs, missiles, or Chem-Bio Weapons with short Duration should be considered since this Teaches a Value for War Action against our people ... it would teach a Value against humanity, against peaceful communities, would teach an image of brute force against our own kind, ... it dehumanizes Americans.

But I think People would Rail against, Rally against Video Evidence by a Robo-Cop or Drone. I think the Robo-Cop Gun Shot Killings would de-legitimize our government and our Represenatives in Congress and in State Houses of Representives.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_(political)

In moral philosophy, the term “legitimacy” often is positively interpreted as the normative status conferred by a governed people upon their governors’ institutions, offices, and actions, based upon the belief that their government's actions are appropriate uses of power by a legally constituted government. In law, “legitimacy” is distinguished from “legality” (see colour of law), to establish that a government action can be legal whilst not being legitimate, e.g. the Southeast Asia Resolution, Public Law 88-408 (The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution), which allowed the U.S. to war against Vietnam, without a formal declaration of war; a government action can be legitimate without being legal, e.g. a pre-emptive war, a military junta. An example of such matters arises when legitimate institutions clash in a constitutional crisis.

[-] 4 points by mideast (506) 1 year ago

FROM THE LINK:
Holder's answer stating that under certain circumstances, the president would have the authority to order lethal attacks on American citizens. The two possible examples of such "extraordinary" circumstances were the attack on Pearl Harbor and the 9/11 terrorist attacks. An American president ordering the use of lethal military force inside the United States is "entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no president will ever have to confront," Holder wrote. Here's the bulk of the letter:

As members of this administration have previously indicated, the US government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so. As a policy matter moreover, we reject the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat. We have a long history of using the criminal justice system to incapacitate individuals located in our country who pose a threat to the United States and its interests abroad. Hundreds of individuals have been arrested and convicted of terrorism-related offenses in our federal courts.

The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no president will ever have to confront. It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States. For example, the president could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances like a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001.

The letter concludes, "were such an emergency to arise, I would examine the particular facts and circumstances before advising the president of the scope of his authority."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Shall we play a game?
You are president & you get 100% reliable evidence that within ten minutes, an American will launch a rocket at Three Mile Island.
What would you do?

[+] -4 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

That's already covered under the War Powers act. The president can commit troops for 60 days without congressional authority if we're under imminent danger. Noone is questioning that.

The fact that the Brennan can't offer a simple "absolutely not we can't legally assassinate american citizens on US soils who are "suspected" of terrorism".......is absolutely crazy.

Look i know Obama is a likeable guy...he gets on stage and does his little 10 minute act....don't be deceived so easily though...look at the record, not how he talks or looks on stage. People will lie right to your face and not think anything of it.....just look at Lance Armstrong...or George Bush.

[-] 2 points by mideast (506) 1 year ago

Holder 's new letter said NO

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

hundreds of thousands of Americans have been killed in America by Presidential orders

[-] 4 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

This sounds like another Secret Government Program that Destroys Democracy, Destroys Sovereignty, Destroys Transparency, Creates Secret Contractor Budgets, Secret Contractor-Corporate Responsibilies and Functions, Creates Special Relationships and Crony Insiders, .... and further Degrades States Soveriegny, States Powers, and States Rights.

In other words Same Old Story, Nothing New, the Federal Government is Grabbing More Power, Stealing Rights of People, Militarizing, Spending more money for the PMIC, and Expanding Federal Empire-Networks-Relationships-Cronyism to Indoctrinate and Propagandize All of us US Citizens.

But you know that. I'm guessing you are talking about the False Wars like Vietnam, the curtailment of safety regulations in our corporate production and the death of Americans due to the War on Drugs and prescription of legal drugs that kill people in and out of our hospitals every year ... without regulation increases against our doctors.

Opps, got carried away. The president does do all that ... he is just the comander in chief of our Regulators.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Lincoln's orders led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans by Americans in America.
I'm not saying good or bad, right or wrong,
but it seems LEGAL to me
And it has been for centuries - since President Washington ordered an attack by Americans on Americans
I'm not saying good or bad, right or wrong,
but it seems LEGAL to me

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

yeah, Lincoln is a case we should remember and consider.

I guess you hold other civil rights Principals. So perhaps Drone Strikes as a Federal Agency Action have to be at least compared to the principals of the Magna Carta, the US Bill of Rights, and this principal of Equal Rights which I extend to Foreigners with regard to US Federal Actions or actions of US Citizens. The more difficult part of principals for me is what are US States Rights ... but as you point out ... Federal Crimes, Revolts, Secession, and Terror Plots have been accepted for decades as being Federal Jurisdiction.

If we have no problem with Jurisdiction of Federal Agents for Terrorism or Revolts ... Then seems the Principal might have to do with the use of war ordinance like missile, bombs, and chemical & Biological weapons against citizens (our people). We are really saying yes or No to the use of weapons which have greater chance of collateral injury to other people. And we are saying these are weapons of war, do we want to use weapons of war in society, in our towns, in our cities, in our communities. Do we want to bring these weapons of war to our police forces or federal agencies? Won't a Value for these war weapons change our culture and our value for Human Life?

But as you say ... police or federal agents use deadly force Daily probably. I disagree with DEA Raids in Guatamala in combined operations that have lead to DEA agents firing the shots that killed the perp. But could be the perpetrator was a very dangerous criminal or a confused man with a gun. I disagree with our military training torture techniques or guerrilla forces in one country to be used as mercenaries in another country to qwell revolution or civil war.... And in general I'm pretty sure the moral compass of our military forces and their masters is off kilter.

Therefore, seems logical we should hold that drone bombs or missiles or chem-bio weapons should be Prohibited in the USA. But that provides an opportunity for gun shots from a drone or Robo-cop.

Gun shots from Robo-Cop probably can be the source of civil unrest even if video footage is provided for transparency to the MSM. In the End A People Know what Oppression Feels like to Them. The Feeling, Appearance of a Legitimate Government and Police should be a High Principal. In the End if a Government is killing people in a community or city, but doesn't enjoy the appearance of Legitimacy.... this is a predictable "Mis-Step".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_(political)

Legitimacy is a well know Theme in politics and government. I feel sure we can hold this as a Principal in OWS.

In political science, legitimacy is the popular acceptance of an authority, usually a governing law or a régime. Whereas “authority” denotes a specific position in an established government, the term “legitimacy” denotes a system of government — wherein “government” denotes “sphere of influence”. Political legitimacy is considered a basic condition for governing, without which a government will suffer legislative deadlock(s) and collapse. In political systems where this is not the case, unpopular régimes survive because they are considered legitimate by a small, influential élite.[1]

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

After your sincere answer, I will give my OPINION.
Sadly most posts wont address FACTS and just attack me.


Drones are weapons, bombs are weapons, guns are weapons.
The real difference is that drones RISK no Americans.
I believe drone attacks outside the United States should be controlled by the military, not the CIA - like all other weapon attacks - like the new CIA director wants..
Inside the United States, drone weapons should be under the same laws as any other weapons.

We all know any president would have legally shot down any of the 9/11 planes if he could.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Yes, any president would shoot don't a highjacked plane that was supposed to crash or kill people on the ground or in buildings. If there are bombs aboard the plane in the hands of terrorist ... we might not ever know they shot it out of the sky, but most Americans would totally support shooting a plane with explosives out of the sky.

Yes, we have many police and agencies that might have Drones. They are all weapons as you list them. And just like people have weapons in their houses today. Won't be long if not already on the books... some civilian will put a weapon on a drone that he bought for himself.

I wonder if there have been any arrests for spying with a drone so far. You know like taking pictures of your girlfriend or wife through her window with a drone....

I can see charges against people shooting down someone's remote controlled airplane with a rifle also ... saying they thought it was someone spying on them.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

you raise some interesting issues.
I think this program started by bush & expanded by Obama
is a very new concept. When cars took over from horses,
society had to change many things and consider new laws.
I think Obama kept this in the shadows too long.
It may relate to using drones on terrorists in a country that we are no t at war with. But now, we need to set the rules.
I doubt any non-military non-police could get their hands on one, but it should be illegal.

[-] 2 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Well there were some kids interested in Remote control aircraft when I was like 15 years old or something. Do you remember the Estes Rockets and the Edmunds Catalog? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Scientific_Corporation

Anyway you know how smart some guys are. I guess a lot of these types become Engineers. A Camera payload today is very small and doesn't weigh much. I guess a stable platform would be multiple engines for thrust with a computer module for stability... and designed like a helicopter to hover. Guns themselves come in all shapes and sizes and weights. You cut off or remove the stock and maybe cut down the magazine or load one bullet, firing pin, trigger, power source, barrel of 8 inches, line up the barrel with the camera and if you can view the camera remotely through same or separate radio you can line up your shot at close range. I don't know radios. But they are already slaved to the radio with many functions.

I'm sure some civilian did this in the first year that Drone Strikes were televised in the USA. I've never seen it. But it is a hobby and guys out west have the open spaces to do what they want... Texas or any Western State really. Maybe it is on the web or I heard it in an office one time... I can't remember.

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

I see your point. Just another reason why we need no regulate these things.
Lets see if the Rs are crazy enough to say this is a states rights issue, not a national issue.

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Please don't invoke the 9/11 tragedy as a justification for a legal authority for assassinating Americans. It's spin and it's not right to do so.

Drones due pose a risk to Americans. Drones have already been used to kill several Americans.

Obama's administration targeted 1 for assassination and has killed 3, and Bush's administration killed 1 too.

They also have killed scores of civilians and as their use is grown and expanded, the number of civilian casualties will grow. Possibly the number of Americans too.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Imagine a world where instead of putting Charles Manson in prison for life after pressing charges and having a court case, they instead blew up his house and killed a few civilians as well. That is the story of the assassination of Anwar al-Aulaqi.

And that is the discussion in regards to the legal authority to assassinate Americans. It has nothing to do with the civil war.

[-] 0 points by conservatroll (161) 1 year ago

I have no doubt they would have droned the LA Cop killer if they had one at the ready. Hell, as it is they burned him up....same difference.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

it's not legal to target Americans for assassination.

It is even more illegal when charges have never been filed, and there was not even a single attempt for arrest.

For example if you killed someone and you flee and got away with it and a month later they find out where you live, they cannot blow up your house and kill you. They have to try to arrest you, after pressing charges against you for a crime.

Sorry to break this to you, but the president has committed war crimes.

[-] -3 points by TimetoStop (-55) 1 year ago

So you agree with giving the president these powers? To possibly kill hundreds of thousands more?

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

The president HAS these powers
Lincoln orderd the deaths of 100,000+ Americans
Washington orderd the deaths of 3-4 Americans


On 9/11, would you, as President, have shot down the plane full of Americans before it hit the WTC ?

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 1 year ago

You know Benny what really chaps my hide about you dutifully defending this position is that if Romney had won, you most likely would be making the counter claim.

As far as I'm concerned, The office of the Presidency has never had this type of authority. Even wire tapping Americans by the Administration has a check against its authority, the fisa courts. No institution should have the authority to kill and ask questions later.

I believe every person should voice disagreement against this new authority.

Dropping bombs on individuals with out duo process is not the same as Ruby red, WACO and other presidential actions. This is different. A drone can't arrest you, and you cannot surrender.

I know my argument is verging towards a slippery slope argument, but as long as the Federal Government wants to conduct War on Terror indefinitely, I believe we should all be hesitant giving new authorities willy nilly.

Besides, Democrats are not going to run the office of the Presidency forever. Are you sure you want to defend their rights to kill Americans with drones? ;)

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

The president does not have the power to assassinate an American without charge nor trial for something such as "conspiracy to murder"

Also does not have the authority to just bomb a foreign country. You need Congress to do that.

Read the memos and tell me if you support the Bushesque imminent threat rhetoric that doesn't need to be backed by evidence.

[-] -1 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

Show me the laws.....provide them to me. Quotes from the constitution or an amendment.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

there is no law stating " the president can use a drone"
Lincoln ordered hundreds of thousands of Americans to kill hundreds of thousands of Americans
true or false ? Washington ordered American soldiers and they killed 3-4 Americans true or false ?
How many presidents ordered the deaths of thousands of NATIVE Americans ?

Are you really that afraid to answer any of my questions ?

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Please show me where Lincoln "ordered" hundreds of thousands of Americans to KILL hundreds of thousands of Americans?

The "Confederate States of America" declared succession from the United States and THEY initiated hostilities by attacking Fort Sumter. Lincoln organized an army to retake the fort and defend the territories held by those not belonging to the CSA. He ordered soldiers to defend against the enemies threatening the United States of America.

Washington served as a General before he was President, and there was no actual United States or office of President of the US until later.

If you cannot tell the difference between a US President consulting with other branches of government and determining to defend the country against enemies who are not part of that country (or have declared that they are no longer members of it) that have openly declared war upon it, and the US President having the SOLE AUTHORITY to decide to kill someone or a group of someone's in the US who actually ARE citizens of this country who have not declared war upon it WITHOUT consulting with another branch of government, then it only proves you to be an idiot or a madman.

Your questions don't apply because the examples you cite have only one thing in common with this drone legislation and that's that they involve former "Presidents".

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

FYI Lincoln never acknowledged that "the confederacy" existed - the whole purpose of the civil war was to stop a revolution by some Americans
check your President Washington history -
the Whiskey Rebellion

There is evidence that Linclon ordered the assassination of Jeff Davis

How many NATIVE Americans were killed under how many presidents?

Can you find any public official who said that he would NOT have shot down one of the 9/11 planes if he could? If you were president, would you have let the planes hit the towers?

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

One. More. Time.

If you can PROVE that Lincoln or Washington or "many presidents" ordered the killing of specific US citizens without any consultation or agreement from any other branch of the government, without any sort of due process, post that proof.

If you can't, you have no point here.

Jefferson Davis outlived Lincoln.

"President Washington, confronted with what appeared to be an armed insurrection in western Pennsylvania, proceeded cautiously. Although determined to maintain government authority, he did not want to alienate public opinion. He asked his cabinet for written opinions about how to deal with the crisis. The cabinet recommended the use of force, except for Secretary of State Edmund Randolph, who urged reconciliation.[75] Washington did both: he sent commissioners to meet with the rebels while raising a militia army."

Both your examples fail.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

President Lincoln never declared war on the Confederacy. In the first place he never recognised the Confederacy as a legal entity, so there was (in his eyes) nothing to declare war on. In addition, he considered the southern states to be part of the Union and simply in rebellion against the lawful government, so he was never about to declare war on his own people.

In his first inaugural address Lincoln made it plain that, if there was to be a war, the South must be the aggressors. "You can have no quarrel unless you strike the first blow" he said.

Throughout the war Lincoln sought to preserve the Union. He never saw the conflict as anything other than a rebellion by the southern states, which he always considered to be part of the Union.

So, was Lincoln acting lawfully? Absolutely. His duty as Chief Executive was, amongst other things of course, to manage the affairs of the entire United States. So, in putting down a rebellion by some states that threatened the integrity of the Union, Lincoln was acting, not only lawfully, but also in the best interests of the United States as a whole.

DO YOU HAVE LINCOLN'S DECLARATION OF WAR ?

I never referred to "specific named citizens" but , as I said there is evidence that Linclon ordered Davis assassinated. Evidence - not proof - (Dahlgren Affair)

[-] -2 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

bensdad -- Why are you so desperate to give the (any) president a "legal" right to murder us? Are you really that naive?

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Are you still on about this?

Look at it this way.

The precedent was set long ago.

We are a country of laws based on precedent.

Every day Americans die at the hands of officials.

Every day. The cop on the corner kills someone with little or no evidence.

Every day.

So by precedent, how can you refuse it to other law enforcement entities?

I don't like it, but that's the way it is.

[-] -1 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

You are a fool if you do not understand the issue at stake. And you clearly do not.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Why is it different?

I understand perfectly, what's at stake.

It's at stake every day on that street corner.

It seems to be you that doesn't understand the immediacy of what's at stake. Every day, on that street corner.

Are you saying the system is not built on precedence?

I didn't say I liked it.

I didn't say I endorsed it.

I don't.

I said that's the way it is. How can you refuse it?

It's the precedent.

Even if you don't accept that NO other President, ever did such a thing.

I don't accept that. I think other Presidents have, or at least would have, if they were convinced that the situation called for it.

In the end, it's the transparency you've been asking for.

How do you like it now?

Oh, and that guy on the corner?

You should learn to understand him.

[-] 0 points by satohirona (-20) 1 year ago

Our fight is lost when we start defending the tyranny of one president by calling out the wrongs of prior presidents. There is no excuse for tyranny. This is not moveon.org, we are not obliged to worship Obama no matter what he does.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Where's this alleged defense?

I checked the threads on tyranny in Michigan and not a word from you.

Not a single peep.

Why so peepless?

Saving them for Easter?

[-] -1 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

I understand perfectly well what came before. Who did what to whom. None of it justifies legally sanctioned murder, citizen or otherwise. Much of it was illegal then. Much of it lies at the root of the evil we suffer today. It's simply not justifiable. It's blowback.

You rationalize tyranny. You shame yourself shooz...

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

If you understand it, why aren't you talking about it?

You ignore tyranny, so please don't play that game.

Tyranny's tyranny.

Not a word from you about precedence either.

[-] -2 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

You clearly don't understand the differences john32 and I are pointing out. So it's useless to continue with you.

[-] -2 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

Where is the law???? I don't care what someone did decades ago.

James Holmes went into a movie theatre and killed 12 people....so now is it legal for everyone to go in and kill people in movie theatres? NO! Why not? Because the law says it is illegal. Much like it is illegal to kill US citizens in a drone strike without due process...or any other way for that matter.

[-] 0 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

He's either not understanding the difference or ignoring it.

A) A branch of the government gathering evidence, asking for a warrant, and having other official bodies of legislators or judges concur, and then assassinating known enemies of the United States (like Bin Laden) based on the evidence of their prior crimes being enough proof to justify killing them so as to prevent more crimes. Constitutional according to the checks and balances of the separation of powers.

B) the President authorizing the execution of AMERICAN CITIZENS completely at his own discretion. NOT Constitutional because it only involves one branch of the government and violates the checks and balance system.

[+] -4 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

This is a new precedent though....claiming a president can assassinate anyone legally.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

shall we play a game ?

you are president
you have 100% proof that an American is five minutes away from flying his plane loaded with explosives into the Empire State Building.
Do you have the legal right to kill him?
Do you launch a plane that will take 20 minutes to get there?
Do you launch a drone that will take 3 minutes?

How about a nice game of chess?

FYI- there is evidence that Lincoln ordered the assassination of Jefferson Davis

George Washington ordered suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion - killing some Americans

[-] 1 points by PeterKropotkin (1050) from Oakland, CA 1 year ago

Even a Broken Clock is right twice a day

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) announced on the Senate floor Wednesday he intended to filibuster the nomination of John Brennan as director of the CIA, citing concerns about President Barack Obama's policy on civil liberties.

"I will speak until I can no longer speak," Paul said.

Paul, an outspoken libertarian, pointed to what he called the abuses of executive power and civil liberties under Obama's administration. In particular, he objected to the contents of a letter he received from Attorney General Eric Holder that asserted the U.S. government had the legal authority to kill a U.S. citizen on American soil.

"Where is the Barack Obama of 2007?" he asked, referring to then-presidential candidate Obama's criticism of Bush-era violations of civil liberties. "If there were an ounce of courage in this body, I would be joined by many other senators," he added. "Are we going to give up our rights to politicians?"

Paul had asked the Justice Department about the constitutionality of drone strikes and whether they could be used agains U.S. citizens. Holder responded in a letter that conceded the military could authorize a drone strike on U.S. soil.

"It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States," Holder wrote.

Paul elaborated on his concern Wednesday: "When I asked the president, 'Can you kill an American on American soil,' it should have been an easy answer. It’s an easy question. It should have been a resounding an unequivocal, ‘No.’ The president’s response? He hasn’t killed anyone yet. We’re supposed to be comforted by that. The president says, ‘I haven’t killed anyone yet.’ He goes on to say, ‘And I have no intention of killing Americans. But I might.’ Is that enough? Are we satisfied by that?"

Paul started his filibuster speech around 11:45 a.m. Unlike most modern filibusters, the Kentucky senator is actually attempting to talk through the whole thing -- like Jimmy Stewart in "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington" -- rather than simply raising his hand to object and requiring 60 votes to proceed. The last "talking" filibuster was in 2010, when Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), spoke out against extending the Bush-era tax cuts. Filibuster reform advocates have proposed returning to this old-fashioned style.

"I will not sit quietly and let him shred the constitution," Paul said of Obama, later adding that getting an answer from the president on drone strikes was like "pulling teeth."

The White House declined to comment Wednesday.

Paul's speech drew on the work of bloggers from both the left and right who have criticized the president on civil liberties, such as Glenn Greenwald of The Guardian and Conor Friedersdorf of The Atlantic. Kevin Williamson of the National Review also earned a mention for a piece he wrote asking whether under Obama's standards the Nixon and Johnson administrations should have bombed college campuses.

"To be bombed in your sleep? There's nothing American about that," Paul said. "There's nothing constitutional about that."

Last week, Paul voted for the nomination of Chuck Hagel as defense secretary -- another key Obama national security appointment -- after first voting against cloture on the matter, saying he was using his vote to try to get more information about Hagel.

Paul also used his filibuster Wednesday to speak out against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. He conceded that he would have supported the Afghanistan war at the outset, but said it had since become far wider than its initial response to the Sept. 11 attacks.

"The problem is as this war has dragged on, they take that authorization of use of force to mean pretty much anything, and so they have now said that the war has no geographic limitations," he said. "So it's really not a war in Afghanistan, it's a war in Yemen, Somalia, Mali. It's a war in unlimited places."

Paul went on to reprimand Congress for ceding its authority to govern U.S. wars. "Were we a body that cared about our prerogative to declare war, we would take that power back," he said. "But I'll tell you how poor -- and this is on both sides of the aisle -- how poor is our understanding or belief in retaining that power here."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/06/rand-paul-filibuster_n_2819740.html

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

So that's what rp said. I might agree with some of it if an honorable man said it.
BUT WHAT DO YOU SAY?
shall we play a game ?

you are president
you have 100% proof that an American is five minutes away from flying his plane loaded with explosives into the Empire State Building.
Do you have the legal right to kill him?
Do you launch a plane that will take 20 minutes to get there?
Do you launch a drone that will take 3 minutes?

How about a nice game of chess?

FYI- not twice a day; hundreds of thousands of Americans have been killed in America by presidential order

[-] 4 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

In that scenario, 90% of people questioned would support any & all action including drones to stop them.

[-] 1 points by PeterKropotkin (1050) from Oakland, CA 1 year ago

It's just amazing to watch what passes for the mainstream left in this country enthusiastically cheer as the country descends into totalitarianism.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

are you afraid to play a game?

[+] -4 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Are you the computer from War Games?

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

WOPR

[-] -1 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

That is what one might call an astute observation...

[+] -4 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

amen

[-] -3 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 1 year ago

I too have to commend Rand Paul on his Mr smith moment. I believe a definitive needs to be articulated by the Administration, and a real push by the People to see that the Office of the Presidency does not get such a power.

Although, this whole quagmire could be resolved if our nation would just put to rest this notion of war on terrorism.

[-] -1 points by highlander2 (-48) 1 year ago

You were probably have fits over Bush's wiretaps.

[-] -1 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

Apples and oranges. I understand the necessity of killing a civilian in the commission of a crime. But this president claims the right to assassinate based on what someone might do in the future, or upon an association with others whom the administration disapproves. Do you understand this difference?

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

When did Obama say w hat you said he said
"president claims the right to assassinate based on what someone might do in the future, or upon an association with with others whom the administration disapproves"

[-] -1 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

You do know the administration maintains a "kill list", right?

That whatever information places someone on this kill list is considered "classified information", right?

That USG policy is to kill anyone on this list anytime, anywhere, right?

That Americans on this list have already been killed, including a sixteen year old boy, right?

That all "military age" people are considered "enemy combatants" when the USG uses a drone for a "signature strike", right?

That's the fucking difference... imbecile.

[-] -1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

You are holding up a straw man that has nothing to do with the OP. There have always been laws justifying necessary force to stop a crime or the imminent commission of a crime. But you know that.

[-] -3 points by BitterClinger (8) 1 year ago

Bensdad, Sure is a good thing you hate guns.......am sure poor Ben is seriously, big time damaged goods.

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

██████░████.░░.█████.░░█░░░░░ █
░░ █░░░ █░░░█░ █░░░░█ ░.█░░░░░ █
░░ █░░░ █░░░█░ █░░░░█ ░.█░░░░░ █
░░ █░░░ ████░░ █░░░░█ ░.█░░░░░ █
░░ █░░░ █░░.█░░█░░░░█ ░.█░░░░░ █
░░ █░░░ █░░░█░ █░░░░█ ░.█░░░░░ █
░░ █░░░ █░░░█░ █░░░░█ ░.█░░░░░ █
░░ █░░░ █░░░█.░.█████ ░░█████░ █████


Troll “tells”
Attack the poster
Lie
Change the subject
Don’t answer questions


[+] -5 points by RepealAUMF (-16) 1 year ago

That is arguably a lie, a half-truth at best, and no justification either way. Ask them to correct your script.

[-] 6 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Ever hear of the Civil War?
An estimated three-and-a-half million men fought in the American Civil War and approximately 620,000 perished, which is more than all of America's combined combat fatalities. There are various reasons why there is not an exact fatality and casualty count for the American Civil War: incomplete, inaccurate, and destroyed records; casualty exaggerations; several died from disease after the war; missing-in-action (MIA), which is an implication since the soldier may have deserted, been captured, or been completely blown to pieces in battle. The general consensus (best estimates) is 618,000 to 700,000

[+] -4 points by RepealAUMF (-16) 1 year ago

You thinking Civil War, not-so-spinmeister? So are others...

Fair is Fair: If #Obama & #EricHolder can fire #Drones at #American #citizens, we can fire back. We will. #RepealAUMF #AUMF #NDAA #OWS #NWO

https://twitter.com/RepealAUMF/status/309424686549315584

[-] 5 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

I made a statement - you said it was "arguably a lie"
I proved you wrong
You changed the subject

[+] -4 points by RepealAUMF (-16) 1 year ago

Incoherent babble. Stick to the script they gave you...

[-] 4 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

The Fed gov (FBI) kills American suspects all the time. This new tech makes it easier and I'm against drone strikes but shouldn't our outrage be against the killing of Americans and not the technology.

How they kill us is less important than the actual killing no?

[-] 0 points by freakyfriday (179) 1 year ago

Agreed, I kept squirmming every time Rand said DRONE strike instead of govt execution.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

We shouldend the phony 'war on terror'! That wouldaddress much ofthe probem.

Domestic police state tactics (drone or not) must be challenged as well, but ending the war on terror should improve even the domestic problems 1st.

l

[-] 0 points by peacehurricane (293) 1 year ago

You stick to whatever you can and let others do whatever the fuck they want

[-] 2 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

Outrageously unconstitutional. Holder should be fired. Obama should be impeached. If Obama is merely the puppet POTUS, manipulated by the shadow government puppetmasters, he should resign -- he'll go down in history as a monster. His good name is gone.

Incidentally, the military could legally ignore any orders to commit drone assassinations in the U.S., they all took an oath to protect the Constitution from enemies foreign or domestic.

[-] 2 points by grapes (3317) 1 year ago

All American citizens should recall what our Truman Doctrine says, "[It is] the policy of the United States to support free people who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures."

[+] -6 points by Micah (-58) 1 year ago

The US govt is supplying the Syrian rebels with guns , yet seeks to disarm the American people.

[-] 5 points by mideast (506) 1 year ago

do you have a link to prove that US is sending guns to Syria?
I cant find any info on that
I also could not find a ny elected official who wants to "disarm" the American people
But I'm sure you can give us your list

[-] -3 points by Micah (-58) 1 year ago

cuomo, bloomberg.

[-] 2 points by mideast (506) 1 year ago

So I guess you are right if you say
"disarm the American people"
means take away illegal guns or reduce gun v iolence
like the 1934 law that made selling automatic "al capone" type machine guns illegal


You can define it that way,
I define "disarm the American people" as taking away all guns
as in - if a judge rules that a released convict
is to be "disarmed" - he therefore can OWN NO GUNS

[-] -1 points by Micah (-58) 1 year ago

guess you never heard of a cold gun? do you think that criminals care about the law?

[+] -4 points by freakyfriday (179) 1 year ago

Arming the same folks that have killed and maimed our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan....that's the REAL Benghazi coverup. Here's a nyt article on Obama's Fast and Furious, Mideast edition

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/world/middleeast/jihadists-receiving-most-arms-sent-to-syrian-rebels.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[-] 1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

I think nut is a compliment at this point.

[-] 1 points by OccNoVi (415) 1 year ago

How's about putting anti-aircraft guns on top the New York Freedom Tower ???

It's a stupid idea building the damn thing, but why leave it undefended ?

(And drones? The exapnsion to 30,000 was invented by a Republican -- ex-Representative Rick Berg of North Dakota. Beaten by Heidi the Hun over exactly this issue.)

[-] 1 points by fanya9 (-2) 1 year ago

Liberals support this. They are cool with it,,,just like they are with war now. as long as a democrat sits in the White House...they are okay with it. It's just when a Republican gets in, the fake outrage comes out.

[-] 0 points by OccNoVi (415) 1 year ago

So ????

If an unidentified team took over a cargo plane next summer and headed toward Lower Manhattan, aiming at the new 1776-foot New York City Freedom Tower, any president or any law enforcement manager would order a shoot-down.

If an armed robber invades a bank lobby or a bodega, same difference. Shooting armed robbers happens every month. Not every day, but surely every month.

Using force against criminals is nothing new. The War on Drugs has been in full swing since the 1980s.

Drugs vs. terrorism -- doing a hit on terrorists has to go through the White House. Otherwise there is no practical difference.

[-] 2 points by NVPHIL (664) 1 year ago

In that case you have air traffic control warn the plane to change course or befired upon. Same as cops telling a perp to stop or be shot. How many bank robbers are shot without the option to surrender? The problem with drone strikes against ground targets is there is no way to demand surrender.

[-] 1 points by OccNoVi (415) 1 year ago

During hot pursuits and where firearms are being brandished by an individual who has already exhibited violent behavior, a verbal "demand" for surrender is most likely pro forma.

Law enforcement personnel protect themselves. Shoot first, talk very little when faced with fire fights.

Also, clearly, the lethality of PETN-plus-liquid-butane bombs was proved beyond anyone's doubt back on October 23, 1983, in Lebanon. Obama lost 4 in Benghazi, but Reagan lost 241 there and 392 total in four such truck bomb attacks.

Terrorists can easily enough detonate such a bomb and kill anyone who approaches them on such a silly mission as to demand their surrender.

What ??? Threaten to kill them? They're in the game to become martyrs anyway.

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (664) 1 year ago

And if the person they kill is innocent then what? Do we tell the family we are safer now?

The dangers we face will only get worse as technology advances.

[-] 1 points by OccNoVi (415) 1 year ago

Of course.

On the other hand we are seeing the Palestinians set aside teachings of The Prophet. Instead they have gone over to Gandhi and NV strategy and tactics. IDF keeps killing them, but the momentum is all with them.

"Five Broken Cameras" catches these changes. The deaths with the Intifadas and suicide-bombings made no difference at all. The deaths for NV protests are permanent features of village life.

[-] 0 points by LeoYo (5909) 1 year ago

Holder: Yep, Obama could kill Americans on U.S. soil

White House Correspondent

By Olivier Knox, Yahoo! News | The Ticket – 3 hrs ago

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/holder-yep-obama-could-kill-americans-u-soil-213059085--politics.html

President Barack Obama has the legal authority to unleash deadly force—such as drone strikes—against Americans on U.S. soil without first putting them on trial, Attorney General Eric Holder wrote in a letter released Tuesday. But Holder, writing to Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, underlined that Obama “has no intention” of targeting his fellow citizens with unmanned aerial vehicles and would do so only if facing “an extraordinary circumstance.”

Paul had asked the Obama administration on Feb. 20 whether the president "has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil and without trial." On Tuesday, he denounced Holder's response as “frightening” and “an affront to the Constitutional due process rights of all Americans.” “The U.S. government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so,” Holder assured Paul in the March 4, 2013 letter. The attorney general also underlined that “we reject the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat.”

Holder added: “The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no President will ever have to confront."

But "it is possible, I suppose to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States," Holder said. "For example, the President could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances of a catastrophic attack” like Pearl Harbor or 9/11. “Were such an emergency to arise, I would examine the particular facts and circumstances before advising the President on the scope of this authority,” said Holder.

Paul, whose office released the letter, denounced the attorney general’s comments.

"The U.S. Attorney General's refusal to rule out the possibility of drone strikes on American citizens and on American soil is more than frightening—it is an affront the Constitutional due process rights of all Americans," the senator said in a statement.

The exchange came as the White House agreed to give Senate Intelligence Committee members access to all of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel opinions justifying Obama's expanded campaign of targeted assassination of suspected terrorists overseas, including American citizens. Some lawmakers had warned they would try to block top Obama counterterrorism adviser John Brennan's nomination to head the CIA unless they were able to see the memos.

A few hours after the White House agreed to share the information, the committee approved Brennan 12-3, setting the stage for a full Senate vote.

Obama's drone war—relatively popular at home, reviled across the Muslim world—has drawn fresh scrutiny ever since NBC News obtained and published a Justice Department memo that lays out the legal justification behind it. The White House has defended the policy as “necessary,” “ethical” and “wise.” But civil liberties champions have sharply criticized it.

[-] 5 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

shall we play a game ?

you are president
you have 100% proof that an American is five minutes away from flying his plane loaded with explosives into the Empire State Building.
Do you have the legal right to kill him?
Do you launch a plane that will take 20 minutes to get there?
Do you launch a drone that will take 3 minutes?
WHAT DO YOU DO?
Its not really that difficult, or are you afraid to answer a simple question

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5909) 1 year ago

I fire those responsible for letting the aircraft get within five minutes of its target with 100% proof of the event since such a degree of knowledge of the event obviously required exstensive knowledge that had existed long before it came down to five minutes. As president, having 100% proof of an American being five minutes away from flying a plane loaded with explosives into the Empire State Building means that national security agencies involved with Homeland Security such as the NSA are already aware of the situation (unless you're imagining the president has some kind of special knowledge of events apart from being informed) and as such are already legally authorized to take action involving deadly force. In fact, to have 100% proof of the event would require both onboard surveillance of the aircraft interior showing both the pilot and the explosives and offboard surveillance of the aircraft's trajectory meaning that both interior and exterior access to the aircraft had already been established making the entire event preventable.

So now, you are the president

you have 100% proof that a boat of peaceful Arab-Americans and a US senator's daughter bringing relief to Syrian refugees in Lebenon is travelling up the coast in international waters parallel to Tell Aviv when you receive word that Israel has ordered a strike on the boat due to Israeli intelligence somehow identifying it as an imminent terrorist threat.

You order the Israeli Prime Minister to call off the strike but he refuses citing a nation's right to defend itself furthermore declaring that any attempt to interfere with the decision will amount to an act of war in which all American tourists in Israel will immediately be taken as prisoners of war and that the use of nuclear retaliation will be an option against any NATO members supporting US interference.

An American fleet that had been conducting war games with Turkey is in the vicinity and in position to engage the Israeli fleet that has now launched the strike.

WHAT DO YOU DO?

Its not really that difficult, or are you afraid to answer a simple question

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

By the time I read & understood your answer, the Empire State building would be rubble - because you DID NOT tell me what you would do. Does the president have the right to shoot down that plane????

We know he could have ordered the 9/11 planes shot down

Your question's answer- I would fly US planes in between the Israeli planes & the ship
[ thank you Mr. Kennedy ]

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5909) 1 year ago

If you had understood the answer you would have understood that presidential authority had never been required as the security agencies are already authorized to enact deadly action just as during 9/11 when the president had been out of town and informed after the fact. Certainly, if the security agencies are already authorised to act, a president wouldn't be excluded from such authority. Thus, the only thing to do after the situation had been automatically handled by those already authorized to do so is to fire those responsible for having let an under control situation progress that far. But of course, as you already know, such a scenario was never the issue. The issue is whether or not the president has the authority to bomb an American terrorist suspect sitting in an American coffee shop reading a book on the very same grounds in which he has the authority to bomb an American terrorist suspect sitting in a coffee shop in another country.

[-] -3 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Dont worry, they will be patroling the skies fulltime soon. No need to worry about lift offs for terrorists. Or those are simply not wanted.

[+] -4 points by engineer4 (352) 1 year ago

You are playing the game "imminent threat". That is quite different and can be justified under laws of self defense. But I believe the problem becomes how we define "imminent threat". In the Mideast, we justify taking out terrorists because of of the difficultly of actually capturing them, location, or we have a "chance" before they might plan and act against us, or our troops, etc. This includes US citizens on foreign soil that have basicly changed sides (given up citizenship).

But the question here (US soil) is this: Can a US citizen, maybe on a watch list, maybe has been overheard planning a bombing or attack, be killed outright without due process? This not only includes the subject of drones, but any means of lethal force. Where is the line drawn to define "imminent threat"? We have due process for a reason.

As a side note: from a technology standpoint, we are getting hung up on the word "drone". We should classify any remote controlled device with capabilties of lethal force as separate class item, as we already have robots, wheeled vehicles, etc. Eventually,, from a military, or even police need, there will be some that will be armed. This is not a bad thing if the rules are made ironclad. I would rather have a armed wheeled drone go into a dark building than a policeman who may be put into harms way. And the armaments do not have to be lethal, they could be subduing type weapons such as tranquilizing darts, etc. That technology is not far away, if not already here.

[+] -4 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

Let me ask you something...lets play another game....it's a yes or no game:

are you comfortable with the next radical Tea Party president having these powers while he's in office? That's what you need to think about.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

I asked first, but in a gesture of good will, I will answer your question - the president ALREADY has these powers
Lincold ordered the killing of over 100,000 Americans.


now - can you answer my question

[-] -1 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

"you have 100% proof that an American is five minutes away from flying his plane loaded with "

Was anwar al-awlaki's 16 year son 5 minutes away from devastating this country? Was he 5 minutes away from destroying a major landmark such as the Empire State Building? No. He was at a barbecue across the world from us. Now that he's been assassinated has the Obama administration offered up any proof or even a shred of a case against why they assassinated this child? No. This is what we're arguing against. A tyrannical government that can just willy nilly assassinate American citizens without any judicial oversight.

If you can't see how dangerous this is by looking at it as if there were a Tea Party president...or some guy you can't stand in office...i don't know how to help you. I know you like Obama...put him aside.....this is now something that every president that comes after is going to have the power to do. Perhaps a president how can't stand Occupy...perhaps he labels us terrorists. But you say we're not. Who cares? There's no judicial oversight and he doesn't have to prove $hit.

What you're discussing is already covered under the war powers resolution..a major imminent attack against the US..the pres can commit troops for 60 days without congressional approval if there is an imminent attack.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

I dont see an answer - what would you do

[+] -5 points by TimetoStop (-55) 1 year ago

What a surprise. Straight out of the DNC talking points. Can drones take down an airplane? And that isn't what anyone is talking about. And yes I know that will make zero difference to your masters. You are truly a disgusting toady.

[-] 5 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Afraid to answer the question?

[-] -3 points by TimetoStop (-55) 1 year ago

Nope. Can a drone down an airplane? Is your lord and master going to kill Americans, in America, just because they are suspected of crimes against your master? Have you abandoned every concept of the Constitution to serve your masters power?

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

██████░████.░░.█████.░░█░░░░░ █
░░ █░░░ █░░░█░ █░░░░█ ░.█░░░░░ █
░░ █░░░ █░░░█░ █░░░░█ ░.█░░░░░ █
░░ █░░░ ████░░ █░░░░█ ░.█░░░░░ █
░░ █░░░ █░░.█░░█░░░░█ ░.█░░░░░ █
░░ █░░░ █░░░█░ █░░░░█ ░.█░░░░░ █
░░ █░░░ █░░░█░ █░░░░█ ░.█░░░░░ █
░░ █░░░ █░░░█.░.█████ ░░█████░ █████


Troll “tells”
Attack the poster - not the post
Lie
"re-interpret" the post rather than quote it ( ala faux noose ) Change the subject
Afraid to answer questions


[-] -1 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

Well said. As long as a democrat is sucking up the power they could give two shits about their rights being ripped away from them right before their eyes.

[+] -5 points by highlander2 (-48) 1 year ago

Drone strikes make sense in the Swat valley of Pakistan. Huge, rugged, remote area. Operation Tora Bora in 2002 showed the extreme difficulty in a manhunt in that kind of terrain. Unfortunately, civilians die in drone attacks over there. I am sure the president would be tickled pink to have collateral damage from a drone strike on US soil.

[+] -4 points by BitterClinger (8) 1 year ago

Especially if an AR-15 in a civilian's hand is involved!

[-] -1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

You know, I read that and my first thought was................so, you have admitted it. My second thought was, you bastards. Especially that little snippet under "extraordinary circumstances". Really? I'd like a firm definition and a few examples of extraordinary circumstances.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

weird how he listed examples of foreign attacks as his justification. The entire time I was thinking, no one is debating whether or not you can defend against invaders that are attacking a military base on US soil. We're talking about American citizens on US soil and what one would have to do to be targeted for assassination instead of arrest.

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Exactly.

[-] 0 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

Yeah i hear ya....a lot of peeps commenting on this thread are chewing me out because i think they think i'm anti-obama. This affects occupy though......we already have FBI surveillance going on....free speech zones...and now this...i mean with this type of stuff being tauted as legal - influential peaceful people making big political strides like MLK could very simply be labeled terrorists and assassinated legally. It's very easy to twist the view people have about certain individuals when you have a major propaganda machine going.

As Cardinal Richelieu said:

"Give me six lines written by the most honest man, and I will find something there to hang him."

[-] 3 points by gnomunny (6614) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

There's nothing wrong with being anti-Obama. Welcome to the club.

[-] 3 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

holy $hit

[-] 1 points by OccNoVi (415) 1 year ago

Anti-Obama.

Pro-Bush. Pro-Romney. Pro-Koch. Pro-Ryan. Pro-Palin. Etc.

[-] -2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Well, here is the thing that I think people forget. This has been on the table for a minute -at least from around about this time last year. Knowing that this was in the back ground and reading the text of Rand's prior amendment does give one pause.

[-] 0 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

Yeah I didn't hear anything about that.....good link.

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

"Former British citizens killed by US drone strikes after passports revoked" - http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2013/02/27/former-british-citizens-killed-by-drone-strikes-after-passports-revoked/

"The (UK) government has secretly ramped up a controversial programme that strips people of their British citizenship on national security grounds – 2 of whom have been subsequently killed by US drone attacks."

Do you think this could be a "we'll scratch your back, if you scratch ours" situation?

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

That's what it looks like to me, although, I hadn't seen anything about this coming from the UK.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

It's pretty hard to find damning evidence from mainstream news sources when nationalism comes into play. Promiscuous sex scandals are a different story. Those hit the front page every time and last weeks in the news circuit. Anthony Weiner shows his wiener makes the front page but Goldman Sachs fraud and the funding of politicians barely makes the papers. There's more than likely a UK equivalent to Weiner.

[-] 1 points by OccNoVi (415) 1 year ago

Like Vitter ?????

Whoring with lobbyist-paid prostitutes didn't get a front-page story anywhere.

Forgotten................

[-] -1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

A 100 year propaganda machine with a dumbed down school system can convince people of almost anything.

[-] -2 points by TimetoStop (-55) 1 year ago

Sure why not?

[-] -2 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

I would be careful about taking this one out of context.

[-] -3 points by RepealAUMF (-16) 1 year ago

Fair is Fair: If #Obama & #EricHolder can fire #Drones at #American #citizens, we can fire back. We will. #RepealAUMF #AUMF #NDAA #OWS #NWO

https://twitter.com/RepealAUMF/status/309424686549315584

[-] -3 points by Micah (-58) 1 year ago

No sane American should.

[+] -4 points by blacksad (-58) 1 year ago

Kinda makes you think twice about going to the next OWS rally. If you do, keep your eyes peeled for drones.

[-] -1 points by freakyfriday (179) 1 year ago

Drones in the air or the Obamanots?

[+] -5 points by TimetoStop (-55) 1 year ago

Careful! You are going to piss off the DNC slaves!

[-] -1 points by peacehurricane (293) 1 year ago

Piss on the attempts against all this Country stands for. We Stand Strong in our Free Land! Everything else is nothing to Worldwide Freedom because God is with us and that is enough. The end comes to this and the sooner than later is NOW... In Solidarity ALL ONE!