Honda CBR 600RR Forum banner

1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
955 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
President Obama: “For the record, I do not believe it would be constitutional for the government to target and kill any US citizen – with a drone, or a shotgun – without due process. Nor should any president deploy armed drones over US soil, but when a US citizen goes abroad to wage war against America – and is actively plotting to kill US citizens; and when neither the United States, nor our partners are in a position to capture him before he carries out a plot – his citizenship should no more serve as a shield than a sniper shooting down on an innocent crowd should be protected from a SWAT team.”

Essentially, the president said 'it’s illegal to kill US citizens with drones without due process but if i think it is necessary then sometimes it is okay.'

Let's discuss the analogy the President gave. apparently, he doesn't know what an imminent threat is or has arbitrarily changed the definition to suit himself. a sniper shooting at ppl poses an imminent threat. a person who is not holding a weapon and is minding his own business at a particular time is not an imminent threat. conspiring to kill US citizens is illegal but does not pose an imminent threat. there is a double standard here. domestic police forces can't kill a criminal unless they are reaching for a weapon. they can't kill a criminal even if they have been convicted for merely conspiring. They can arrest him but not kill him. Why does the federal gov't think they don't have to abide by these same laws? Rule of Law means that all US citizens are entitled to the same rights without prejudice or exception.

To sum it all up, this is illegal to do in the US: “when a [US citizen] … is actively plotting to kill US citizens; and [police forces] nor partners are in a position to capture him before he carries out a plot –[he should be killed immediately (or put more kindly…] his citizenship should no more serve as a shield than a sniper shooting down on an innocent crowd should be protected from a SWAT team.”

Eric Holder said “Al-Awlaki repeatedly made clear his intent to attack US persons and his hope that these attacks would take American lives, based on this information, high-level US government officials appropriately concluded that al-Awlaki posed a continuing and imminent threat of violent attack against the United States.”

Al-Awlaki was the US citizen who was intentionally killed by a drone strike. as stated above, making clear an intent to attack US persons and hoping they die does not allow domestic authorities to shoot that person in the back of the head. It is not an imminent threat. for some reason, Eric Holder thinks it is.

Again, to sum it all up, this can’t be done in the US: “[A person] repeatedly made clear his intent to attack US persons and his hope that these attacks would take American lives, based on this information [police officials] appropriately concluded that [this person] posed a continuing and imminent threat of violent attack against the United States [and were justified in killing him immediately].”

Lindsey Graham said about drone strikes, “Sometimes you hit innocent people, and I hate that, but we’re at war, and we’ve taken out some very senior members of Al-Qaeda.”

hmm okay. Stanford University and New York University "found that only about 2 percent of drone casualties are top militant leaders" and "the Pakistani Interior Minister has said that around 80 percent of drone deaths in his country were suffered by civilians." that's funny, i didnt realize 80% was "sometimes" killing innocent people. a few months ago, Senator Graham admitted that 4700 people have been killed by US drone strikes. Does this not seem ridiculous to anyone else? why do we want to kill terrorists? because they want to kill innocent people. but in the process of killing terrorists, we are killing innocent people. I understand the PIM is not the most reliable source for data but i think its pretty safe to say we are killing more innocent lives than terrorists. even if we aren't, even if we are killing less civilians than terrorists, this still isn’t justified. I am all for saving as many as we can. But here is where some of you may disagree with me: i do not believe we should save as many as we can AT THE EXPENSE of other innocent people! its completely paradoxical. we are killing some innocent people to save more innocent people? that logic is faulty because no matter how you look at it, those innocent lives that you sacrificed are now on your hands! the blood of all these civilians are on the hands of this admins. top officials. Is that really better than if Al Qaeda would have been responsible? I do not agree with this logic. We should always empower the innocent. ALWAYS. if more innocent ppl die because bad people are around, fine. the blood will be on their hands and we will do as much as we can to continue to empower the innocent against the criminal! This is me going off on a tangent and i don't expect many to agree with me; however, the issue of drone strikes is illegal and unconstitutional. Graham said “we’re at war.” Really? I don’t remember Congress declaring war on Pakistan…

the current admin. has admitted they killed 4 US citizens with drones and potentially thousands of civilians. there needs to be some sort of accountability. people are being murdered by our admin. the admin even acknowledges that 3 of the US citizens who were killed were killed on accident. well, their blood is on your hands. someone needs to be held accountable for that. Some of the people leading our country are murders or aspiring murders and they keep getting re-elected. If a top ranking government official went out on the street and killed an innocent passerby, would that official not be imprisoned? But because they aren’t the ones actually pulling the trigger but are telling others to do it, they are let off the hook. Look we are Americans and we should be proud of that. BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY WE ARE CITIZENS OF THE WORLD. Just because the innocent ppl dying are from a different country and have darker skin and different religion does not mean they are not as important as Americans. As Bruce Lee used to say, we are all human beings.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
217 Posts
Agreed, it really makes me upset when people twist words and shift responsibility to make these atrocities seem okay. And then the media doesn't even bat an eyelash at it, so most people don't even realize what's really going on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
567 Posts
The focus is on the wrong issue. Whether or not drone strikes are good or bad is irrelevant. The real issue, which is only getting minor attention, is that we have an administration who has sworn to uphold the constitution, but believes they are above the law. Focusing on which law is pointless.

Sent from Motorcycle.com Free App
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
955 Posts
Discussion Starter #8 (Edited)
The focus is on the wrong issue. Whether or not drone strikes are good or bad is irrelevant. The real issue, which is only getting minor attention, is that we have an administration who has sworn to uphold the constitution, but believes they are above the law. Focusing on which law is pointless.

Sent from Motorcycle.com Free App

thanks for your opinion.
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top