Obama's kill list

[Deleted]

Yes, you are correct.

So in other words, "If a person is in America, then I agree that due process should be required" becomes quite irrelevant now doesn't it?

[goobernoob]

So in other words, "If a person is in America, then I agree that due process should be required" becomes quite irrelevant now doesn't it?

or you could say folks too poor to go on vacation are protected =)

[Kalyyn]

So in other words, "If a person is in America, then I agree that due process should be required" becomes quite irrelevant now doesn't it?

No. The issue is that the reason you came up with for why I said that is not the reason why I actually said it.

[Eo Jenkins]

I am a proud member of Obama's Enemy List. DOWN WITH THAT SOCIALIST PIG!!!

[Tastyfish]

Yes, you are correct.

Agreed. Home field advantage is the countries laws, and popular opinion. You flee that, or are so arrogant that you think you are bullet proof and leave, that is your life in your own hands.

In reality, you give someone a reason to punch you in the face, and they are smart, they wait till they can get away with it. Why would a government act any differently?

---------- Post added 2012-05-31 at 02:53 PM ----------

I am a proud member of Obama's Enemy List. DOWN WITH THAT SOCIALIST PIG!!!

Oh yea cause all the problems in America are his fault alone. It does not take a whole array of men and women to fuck it all up, over time.. it's just that one guys fault.
I am glad we are a monarchay.

[ptwonline]

I doubt it's a power that every president didn't already have through more subtle methods, this just means he doesn't need a covert asset on the ground
if you don't trust the people of your country to avoid voting for someone who would use this kind of power on your avg joe without good reasoning I don't know what to tell you.
just another reason to be careful who you vote into office

edit: awww, i lost my grunt title =(

It's not a question of being careful of who you vote in. It's a question of human nature.

When powers are new, people tend to use them more carefully because they recognize that it may be scrutinized more and because they are more likely to understand the responsibility that comes with that power. As time goes by, that fear of scrutiny and understanding of the responsibility tends to fade, and instead people merely see a tool that they can manipulate to their own advantage.

And someone like The President can't possbily be an expert with up-to-date peronal knowledge in all things, and so he/she will need to rely on quite a few experts and advisors. This forced reliance on advisors opens up another avenue of unelected and probably secret influence on how this sort of power gets used, and creates the opportunity for all sorts of abuse.

---------- Post added 2012-05-31 at 02:58 PM ----------

actually, history has shown that violence is usually the only way to get things changed. and terrorism is strictly a point of view, for example: the Boston tea party.

MLK says: "Attack!"

Or maybe not.

[ringpriest]

Claiming that the President has the unilateral authority to murder American citizens is morally repugnant and contrary to everything that America used to stand for. But above and beyond that, such a policy is idiotic because of how it will impact international law and American's foreign relations.

The Obama administration is creating international standards for drone warfare by their actions in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen. And apparently those standards are, "hey, as long as someone in charge signs off on it, murdering people is OK". So, will it still be ok when Putin decides to blow up some critic of his in a trailer in Nevada? When Chavez (or someone like him) levels an apartment building in NYC because an 'enemy of the regime' is staying there? Americans won't mind if the Mexican military kills a dozen or so U.S. citizens every month as their drones hunt down border-crossing drug dealers, as long as the President of Mexico says it's ok ? How about when the Premier of China orders the Chinese military start leveling parts of Californian cities to kill the Chinese dissidents who are living there? That will still be fine and dandy?

I didn't think it was possible for a President to be worse than Bush, but when it comes to Obama, 'Yes He Can!'

[Arkhias]

actually, history has shown that violence is usually the only way to get things changed. and terrorism is strictly a point of view, for example: the Boston tea party.

Fuck that Gandhi guy, he didn't do SHIT.

[Thorim]

Claiming that the President has the unilateral authority to murder American citizens is morally repugnant and contrary to everything that America used to stand for. But above and beyond that, such a policy is idiotic because of how it will impact international law and American's foreign relations.

The Obama administration is creating international standards for drone warfare by their actions in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen. And apparently those standards are, "hey, as long as someone in charge signs off on it, murdering people is OK". So, will it still be ok when Putin decides to blow up some critic of his in a trailer in Nevada? When Chavez (or someone like him) levels an apartment building in NYC because an 'enemy of the regime' is staying there? Americans won't mind if the Mexican military kills a dozen or so U.S. citizens every month as their drones hunt down border-crossing drug dealers, as long as the President of Mexico says it's ok ? How about when the Premier of China orders the Chinese military start leveling parts of Californian cities to kill the Chinese dissidents who are living there? That will still be fine and dandy?

I didn't think it was possible for a President to be worse than Bush, but when it comes to Obama, 'Yes He Can!'

This is the main point.

If a 'terrorist' against Russia, China, Israel etc is in hiding in the US, and they target them, killing US civilians.......the US population/gvt would be up in arms.

What if a member of the IRA was in hiding in NY and the British blew up his house, killing some innocent Americans, you'd all be cool about that just because this guy was a terrorist on the run? I'm sure Obama would be down with that, NOT.

[lavafoxx]

Claiming that the President has the unilateral authority to murder American citizens is morally repugnant and contrary to everything that America used to stand for

He does, in fact he's given the military the permissions to arrest and detain ANY United States Citizen at any time, when ever they feel like and for how long they wish

I didn't think it was possible for a President to be worse than Bush

actually my top two "worst presidents ever" are abe lincoln and JFK. the first one for setting the standard of "fuck the people and the states, only the federal government matters" and the latter for forcing the whole "obey the government" BS

[Reeve]

actually, history has shown that violence is usually the only way to get things changed. and terrorism is strictly a point of view, for example: the Boston tea party.

The Boston Tea Party was destruction of property, not the systematic effort to make non-combatants fear for their lives.

[GreatOak]

Pathetic


Queue the idiots that support this man and his anti-American agenda. I can't believe people vote party over principle as they ignore the: NDAA, signature drone strikes that murder civilians, patriot act, foreign entanglements, crack downs on local dispensaries, refusal to sign an executive order banning orientation discrimination in public jobs, bailouts, inflation of the currency, unilaterally killing american citizens with out trial. He's nothing more than a pragmatic neocon, just as bad as Mitt Romney.

I'll be voting for Gary Johnson, Ron Paul, or Rocky Anderson this fall.

---------- Post added 2012-05-31 at 04:06 PM ----------

Then she'll get wasted next, and no one will give two shits about her burning corpse.

The lesson here is that if you feel that you're being oppressed, terrorism isn't the way to go about bringing meaningful change to your society.

You're an embarrassment.

[Grizzly Willy]

I am a proud member of Obama's Enemy List. DOWN WITH THAT SOCIALIST PIG!!!

I'm going to assume you hated Bush as well, correct?

[lavafoxx]

the systematic effort to make non-combatants fear for their lives.

there is not ONE solid definition of terrorism, the Boston tea party was terrorism by several definitions. for example a definition proposed by Carsten Bockstette at the George C. Marshall Center for European Security Studies, underlines the psychological and tactical aspects of terrorism:

Terrorism is defined as political violence in an asymmetrical conflict that is designed to induce terror and psychic fear (sometimes indiscriminate) through the violent victimization and destruction of noncombatant targets (sometimes iconic symbols). Such acts are meant to send a message from an illicit clandestine organization. The purpose of terrorism is to exploit the media in order to achieve maximum attainable publicity as an amplifying force multiplier in order to influence the targeted audience(s) in order to reach short- and midterm political goals and/or desired long-term end states."

[Faloestin]

I think they are letting people know on purpose. Especially when they said there were American Citizens on that list.

Apparently, some citizens are betraying their country (Which some have) and have joined against them. Should they be military with secrets or availability to weapons, more people could be harmed then saved. I'm fine with the list.

Great - +1 for enthusiasm. So what counts as betrayal? You must mean something less than treason, because that's in the Constitution Who gets to decide who has betrayed the country? Do folks accused of betrayal get their day in court to rebut the charges? Do they even know they're being accused and convicted? Is there any external review of any kind of the process by which betrayers are being condemned?

Can you imagine any scenario in which the US would tolerate another country's government putting people (Americans or not) on assassination lists and then killing them on American soil?

"... more people could be harmed than saved" sounds like a fine basis for decisions - the greatest good, right? So what's the cutoff? One more person saved? 100? A percentage? "Could" implies you're ok with the harm being potential rather than actual. How likely does it need to be that harm could happen? 100%? 50%?

"Military with secrets" is a pretty curious phrase - do you mean US military personnel who have betrayed their oath of office and have taken up arms with the enemy in the field? I'm not sure that's actually happened since the civil war. Or do you mean the betrayer has military training that might make them a more potent threat to US interests?

[Arkhias]

there is not ONE solid definition of terrorism, the Boston tea party was terrorism by several definitions. for example a definition proposed by Carsten Bockstette at the George C. Marshall Center for European Security Studies, underlines the psychological and tactical aspects of terrorism:

Terrorism is defined as political violence in an asymmetrical conflict that is designed to induce terror and psychic fear (sometimes indiscriminate) through the violent victimization and destruction of noncombatant targets (sometimes iconic symbols). Such acts are meant to send a message from an illicit clandestine organization. The purpose of terrorism is to exploit the media in order to achieve maximum attainable publicity as an amplifying force multiplier in order to influence the targeted audience(s) in order to reach short- and midterm political goals and/or desired long-term end states."

Comparing dumping tea crates into the water with strapping a bomb to a child and detonating him in a crowded market.

Classy.

[Reeve]

there is not ONE solid definition of terrorism, the Boston tea party was terrorism by several definitions. for example a definition proposed by Carsten Bockstette at the George C. Marshall Center for European Security Studies, underlines the psychological and tactical aspects of terrorism:

Terrorism is defined as political violence in an asymmetrical conflict that is designed to induce terror and psychic fear (sometimes indiscriminate) through the violent victimization and destruction of noncombatant targets (sometimes iconic symbols). Such acts are meant to send a message from an illicit clandestine organization. The purpose of terrorism is to exploit the media in order to achieve maximum attainable publicity as an amplifying force multiplier in order to influence the targeted audience(s) in order to reach short- and midterm political goals and/or desired long-term end states."

And again, the Tea Party wasn't an act of violence. If anything, it could be classed as civil disobedience and destruction of property.

[GreatOak]

People do not care about the constitution anymore.

Things like this make me embarrassed to be an American.

[Faloestin]

And again, the Tea Party wasn't an act of violence. If anything, it could be classed as civil disobedience and destruction of property.

Read a bit about the Sons of Liberty. In addition to the Boston Tea Party, their tactics included mob violence, lynching, beatings, arson, and even the seizure and destruction of British naval ships. That's not to say the Sons of Liberty weren't right, or that they don't deserve a happy place in our 5th grade history books, but don't confuse them with nonviolent activists like Ghandi or Dr. King being beaten on bridges. If the British had the advantage of our modern vocabulary, they would have certainly called the Sons of Liberty terrorists.

[Reeve]

Read a bit about the Sons of Liberty. In addition to the Boston Tea Party, their tactics included mob violence, lynching, beatings, arson, and even the seizure and destruction of British naval ships. That's not to say the Sons of Liberty weren't right, or that they don't deserve a happy place in our 5th grade history books, but don't confuse them with nonviolent activists like Ghandi or Dr. King being beaten on bridges. If the British had the advantage of our modern vocabulary, they would have certainly called the Sons of Liberty terrorists.

Even then, according to your article it looks like the Sons of Liberty were targeting military and gubernatorial targets. In the vast majority of cases, the mobs caused property damage rather than violence against people. There were some groups that claimed to be Sons of Liberty who carried out acts of violence, but supposedly they were not part of the "True Sons."

Either way, whether or not the Sons themselves were involved in systematic violence, the Boston Tea Party is a terrible example, if you're trying to talk about terrorism.