Drones strikes of Americans...ok'd..in the name of terrorism

[sammy the sage]

http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/04/16843014-exclusive-justice-department-memo-reveals-legal-case-for-drone-strikes-on-americans?lite

oh yes...Gov't. grips getting stronger and stronger...ce le vie...

the interesting part...now THE Bush people will GET upset...and THE Obamite's WILL defend THESE actions....

and it's ALL one and THE same....regardless of party :rolleyes: :bang: :faint:

[classhandicapper]

http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/04/16843014-exclusive-justice-department-memo-reveals-legal-case-for-drone-strikes-on-americans?lite

the interesting part...now THE Bush people will GET upset...and THE Obamite's WILL defend THESE actions....

and it's ALL one and THE same....regardless of party :rolleyes: :bang: :faint:

That's because they all have the same flaws.

1. The standard is not whether or not they think specific powers should be at the federal government or state government level. The standard is whether they are ramming their own values down someone else's throat even if they disagree or someone else is ramming values they don't agree with down their throat.

2. I have already picked sides so don't confuse me with facts that might make me uncomfortable with my choice.

[Tom]

We might kill you, but by God, we will not water board you!

Is this the higher moral ground he wants us to retake? :lol::lol::lol:

[mostpost]

http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/04/16843014-exclusive-justice-department-memo-reveals-legal-case-for-drone-strikes-on-americans?lite

oh yes...Gov't. grips getting stronger and stronger...ce le vie...

the interesting part...now THE Bush people will GET upset...and THE Obamite's WILL defend THESE actions....

and it's ALL one and THE same....regardless of party :rolleyes: :bang: :faint:
In truth, there has been quite a bit of upset on the left about this. Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz to name two. I am not one of those. I think an American who has joined Al Qaeda has forfeited his rights. I think an AL Qaeda leader of any stripe should be taken out by the most efficient means available.
I think that now and I thought the same thing when George Bush was President.

This does not imply approval of drone strikes within the United States. Nor does it mean we should attack a crowded market place because a senior Al Qaeda official may be shopping for kabsa or kleeja. (look it up-I had to.)

Civilian casualties may be unavoidable, depending on the circumstances, but they should be minimized as much as possible.

[Tom]

United States citizens are protected by due process.
This is outright murder. No debate.

But strange, you will kill a US citizen, deny him his civil rights, but are not willing to water board a known enemy combatant plucked off the battlefield.
An act that leaves no long term physical problems and which our own people sometimes have willingly submitted to.

[Steve R]

In truth, there has been quite a bit of upset on the left about this. Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz to name two. I am not one of those. I think an American who has joined Al Qaeda has forfeited his rights. I think an AL Qaeda leader of any stripe should be taken out by the most efficient means available.
I think that now and I thought the same thing when George Bush was President.

This does not imply approval of drone strikes within the United States. Nor does it mean we should attack a crowded market place because a senior Al Qaeda official may be shopping for kabsa or kleeja. (look it up-I had to.)

Civilian casualties may be unavoidable, depending on the circumstances, but they should be minimized as much as possible.
You're not upset? Maybe you should be. Perhaps you can point out the part of the Constitution that exempts American citizens from due process under any circumstances. And why would a so-called liberal just take the government's word that their target is an enemy of the United States without that due process having been exercised?

Chris Hedges is right. The American liberal movement is impotent at best and clearly close to death. George W. Bush was apparently wiser than we thought when he called the Constitution just a "goddamned piece of paper."

[rastajenk]

When did he say that? (http://www.factcheck.org/2007/12/bush-the-constitution-a-goddamned-piece-of-paper/)

[Tom]

Obama insists that terrorists in captivity be given all the benefits of a citizen in terms of trial, lawyers, etc.

But he will kill real citizens.

I told you he was a terrorist.
Killing Americans, arming the Mulsim Brotherhood......connect the dots.

[classhandicapper]

In truth, there has been quite a bit of upset on the left about this. Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz to name two. I am not one of those. I think an American who has joined Al Qaeda has forfeited his rights. I think an AL Qaeda leader of any stripe should be taken out by the most efficient means available.
I think that now and I thought the same thing when George Bush was President.

This does not imply approval of drone strikes within the United States. Nor does it mean we should attack a crowded market place because a senior Al Qaeda official may be shopping for kabsa or kleeja. (look it up-I had to.)

Civilian casualties may be unavoidable, depending on the circumstances, but they should be minimized as much as possible.

I don't think joining Al Qaeda because you share their world view should be a crime, let alone justify drone attacks.

Now, if you are planning a violent act against US citizens or the government because of those beliefs and the feds find out and accumulate the required evidence, they have the right to "arrest" you and take you to court.

If you just think the US should not be involved in the foreign affairs of Muslim countries, should not support unpopular governments in the Muslim world, and should not give foreign aid and military equipment to the enemies of the Muslim world, then you have committed no crime. So you should be left alone. Hell, you may actually be right.

[johnhannibalsmith]

... I think an American who has joined Al Qaeda has forfeited his rights. ...


A 16-year-old American boy killed in an Obama administration drone strike "should have [had] a far more responsible father," Obama campaign senior adviser Robert Gibbs says in a new video released by the group We Are Change.

Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was the son of Anwar al-Awlaki, an al Qaeda propagandist killed by a U.S. drone a year ago. But the child was killed in a separate strike some two weeks after his father was killed. Gibbs wasn't entirely familiar with the situation, and didn't know that al-Awlaki's son was killed two weeks after his father was killed, a person familiar with his thinking at the time he was interviewed told HuffPost. We Are Change bills itself as a non-partisan media organization "working to expose corruption."

"I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well being of their children. I don't think becoming an al Qaeda jihadist terrorist is the best way to go about doing your business," Gibbs, the former White House press secretary, told the interviewer from We Are Change, when asked to justify "an American citizen that is being targeted without due process, without trial -- and, he's underage, he's a minor."

Gibbs had initially attempted to wave off a question about the boy. "I'm not going to get into Anwar al-Awlaki's son. I know that Anwar al-Awlaki renounced his citizenship, did great harm to people in this country." Anwar Al-Awlaki, born and educated in the U.S., was a senior al Qaeda recruiter and propagandist, American authorities have said.

But the reporter pressed him, noting that the teen had not renounced his citizenship and was underage. The Atlantic suggests that if Gibbs is giving the genuine rationale for the killing, it's grounds for impeachment.

"Again, note that this kid wasn't killed in the same drone strike as his father," writes The Atlantic's Conor Friedersdorf. "He was hit by a drone strike elsewhere, and by the time he was killed, his father had already been dead for two weeks. Gibbs nevertheless defends the strike, not by arguing that the kid was a threat, or that killing him was an accident, but by saying that his late father irresponsibly joined al Qaeda terrorists. Killing an American citizen without due process on that logic ought to be grounds for impeachment."

Friedersdorf also notes the distinction that al-Awlaki's son was not killed as a consequence of the strike against the father, but was hit separately. Esquire's Tom Junod covered the son's killing:

I'm guessing that's all well and good with you too. The right thing to do would have been to file with the local court system in east Shithole to be emancipated so that he wouldn't get blown all to hell because his daddy was a bad guy, eh?


Edited to add source, the rabid right-wing hate group, HuffPo:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/24/robert-gibbs-anwar-al-awlaki_n_2012438.html

[mostpost]

You're not upset? Maybe you should be. Perhaps you can point out the part of the Constitution that exempts American citizens from due process under any circumstances. And why would a so-called liberal just take the government's word that their target is an enemy of the United States without that due process having been exercised.
Due Process, like any other right, must be interpreted within the context of the situation. Potential victims of terrorism also have the right to due process. Under the Constitution and under the oath he takes, the President has the duty to "Preserve, Protect and Defend the Constitution." This includes the nation which that Constitution established and the citizens of that nation.

Many court cases have affirmed the legality of government officers (police, FBI etc.) using deadly force to prevent a person from harming another. The situation in Alabama this last week being a prime example.

In Hamdi v. Rumsfield the Supreme Court ruled that a citizen's rights under the due process clause do not preclude use of deadly force when necessary to protect a larger population. (my words; not the court) The words of the court can be found beginning with the second paragraph of page six of the White Paper. The White Paper can be accessed from the original article by clicking on the words sixteen page memo.

The President also has authority to use deadly force against enemy combatants under the AUMF passed by Congress and under international law giving nations the right to act in self defense.

[mostpost]

A 16-year-old American boy killed in an Obama administration drone strike "should have [had] a far more responsible father," Obama campaign senior adviser Robert Gibbs says in a new video released by the group We Are Change.

Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was the son of Anwar al-Awlaki, an al Qaeda propagandist killed by a U.S. drone a year ago. But the child was killed in a separate strike some two weeks after his father was killed. Gibbs wasn't entirely familiar with the situation, and didn't know that al-Awlaki's son was killed two weeks after his father was killed, a person familiar with his thinking at the time he was interviewed told HuffPost. We Are Change bills itself as a non-partisan media organization "working to expose corruption."

"I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well being of their children. I don't think becoming an al Qaeda jihadist terrorist is the best way to go about doing your business," Gibbs, the former White House press secretary, told the interviewer from We Are Change, when asked to justify "an American citizen that is being targeted without due process, without trial -- and, he's underage, he's a minor."

Gibbs had initially attempted to wave off a question about the boy. "I'm not going to get into Anwar al-Awlaki's son. I know that Anwar al-Awlaki renounced his citizenship, did great harm to people in this country." Anwar Al-Awlaki, born and educated in the U.S., was a senior al Qaeda recruiter and propagandist, American authorities have said.

But the reporter pressed him, noting that the teen had not renounced his citizenship and was underage. The Atlantic suggests that if Gibbs is giving the genuine rationale for the killing, it's grounds for impeachment.

"Again, note that this kid wasn't killed in the same drone strike as his father," writes The Atlantic's Conor Friedersdorf. "He was hit by a drone strike elsewhere, and by the time he was killed, his father had already been dead for two weeks. Gibbs nevertheless defends the strike, not by arguing that the kid was a threat, or that killing him was an accident, but by saying that his late father irresponsibly joined al Qaeda terrorists. Killing an American citizen without due process on that logic ought to be grounds for impeachment."

Friedersdorf also notes the distinction that al-Awlaki's son was not killed as a consequence of the strike against the father, but was hit separately. Esquire's Tom Junod covered the son's killing:

I'm guessing that's all well and good with you too. The right thing to do would have been to file with the local court system in east Shithole to be emancipated so that he wouldn't get blown all to hell because his daddy was a bad guy, eh?


Edited to add source, the rabid right-wing hate group, HuffPo:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/24/robert-gibbs-anwar-al-awlaki_n_2012438.html

While Gibbs' reply is questionable at best, your reply has nothing to do with whether it is legal to target American citizens who are active members of Al Qaeda engaged in planning or participating in attacks on US citizens or the USA itself. Read the White Paper.

[Show Me the Wire]

Mostie,

Your following quote illustrates you know not of what you speak.

"Due Process, like any other right, must be interpreted within the context of the situation. Potential victims of terrorism also have the right to due process."

[johnhannibalsmith]

Mostie,

Your following quote illustrates you know not of what you speak.

...

Why stop at that one?

[Show Me the Wire]

While Gibbs' reply is questionable at best, your reply has nothing to do with whether it is legal to target American citizens who are active members of Al Qaeda engaged in planning or participating in attacks on US citizens or the USA itself. Read the White Paper.


It is okay to target American citizens for death, but we must protect the civil rights of foreign enemy combatants. Only in Obama's America.

[Steve R]

Due Process, like any other right, must be interpreted within the context of the situation. Potential victims of terrorism also have the right to due process. Under the Constitution and under the oath he takes, the President has the duty to "Preserve, Protect and Defend the Constitution." This includes the nation which that Constitution established and the citizens of that nation.

Many court cases have affirmed the legality of government officers (police, FBI etc.) using deadly force to prevent a person from harming another. The situation in Alabama this last week being a prime example.

In Hamdi v. Rumsfield the Supreme Court ruled that a citizen's rights under the due process clause do not preclude use of deadly force when necessary to protect a larger population. (my words; not the court) The words of the court can be found beginning with the second paragraph of page six of the White Paper. The White Paper can be accessed from the original article by clicking on the words sixteen page memo.

The President also has authority to use deadly force against enemy combatants under the AUMF passed by Congress and under international law giving nations the right to act in self defense.
Your examples presume a clear and present danger and are not the same thing as a preemptive attack on someone the POTUS personally decides is a threat, regardless of whether that someone actually has been proven to be a threat.

[Steve R]

When did he say that? (http://www.factcheck.org/2007/12/bush-the-constitution-a-goddamned-piece-of-paper/)
The piece is more opinion than evidence, although it doesn't really matter whether or not Bush said it. He and his administration acted as if they believed the statement anyway, as does Mr. Obama and his motley crew.

[Robert Goren]

Do I have a problem with using drones to kill people who trying to kill us whether they are US citizens or not? I most certainly do not. What the point of waterboarding if we can't act on the information obtained just because it involves an American killer? How US soldiers are you willing to get killed trying to capture these murderors?

[elysiantraveller]

Hypocrisy abounds in this thread...

[Robert Goren]

Hypocrisy abounds in this thread...So it does. There is not one person who would oppose the use of the drones if anybody other than Obama was using them.

[johnhannibalsmith]

...we can't act on the information...

Why can't we act on intelligence? You're telling me that our only military/law enforcement action is blowing the living hell out of a "suspect" and anything within ear shot of the "suspect"?

[johnhannibalsmith]

So it does. There is not one person who would oppose the use of the drones if anybody other than Obama was using them.

Get the **** out of here with that preposterous stupidity you moron. You set the bar lower for your brain function with every new post.

[elysiantraveller]

So it does. There is not one person who would oppose the use of the drones if anybody other than Obama was using them.

I love drones...

What I don't like is using the United States Military as hitmen on American Citizens.

I'm glad al-Awlaki is dead just like the next guy but this ruling sets a VERY bad precedent.

What's even funnier is the "Gitmo Gang" coming out of the woodwork to defend this terrible ruling.

[Robert Goren]

Just send in the troops and get some killed and some more injured when a drone would do same job. And you have nerve to call me stupid. Is there no end to amount of danger that a person like is willing put our troops in just because you don't like the guy currently in the White House? Get over yourself and phony outrage! Mr Smith

[Robert Goren]

I love drones...

What I don't like is using the United States Military as hitmen on American Citizens.

I'm glad al-Awlaki is dead just like the next guy but this ruling sets a VERY bad precedent.

What's even funnier is the "Gitmo Gang" coming out of the woodwork to defend this terrible ruling. You have point, but we are at war with Radical Islam whether we like it or not and if some Americans decide to be traitors, we still have to go after the enemy. We are not talking about people here who have a political disagreement with government, we are talking about people who are out to destroy the country.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Just send in the troops and get some killed and some more injured when a drone would do same job. And you have nerve to call me stupid. Is there no end to amount of danger that a person like is willing put our troops in just because you don't like the guy currently in the White House? Get over yourself and phony outrage! Mr Smith

You are, in all reality, one of the biggest idiots I have ever read on this board. I used to find you at least entertaining. And I do like you, but these last few posts expose you as being a complete and total caricature of every pseudo-liberal community college genius.

You didn't get one thing right, anywhere, and honestly, I don't think you even have a minimal concept of what is being discussed. But, as usual, that won't stop you from talking in ridiculous generalities and wandering off on tangents about Obama and the motives of others. Considering I supported Obama once largely because I thought we'd see a serious decline, if not abolition, of this type of bogus "warfare" in a non existent war, I'm not even sure why I bother spending the three minutes necessary to type something that you can't possibly understand.

[Robert Goren]

You are, in all reality, one of the biggest idiots I have ever read on this board. I used to find you at least entertaining. And I do like you, but these last few posts expose you as being a complete and total caricature of every pseudo-liberal community college genius.

You didn't get one thing right, anywhere, and honestly, I don't think you even have a minimal concept of what is being discussed. But, as usual, that won't stop you from talking in ridiculous generalities and wandering off on tangents about Obama and the motives of others. Considering I supported Obama once largely because I thought we'd see a serious decline, if not abolition, of this type of bogus "warfare" in a non existent war, I'm not even sure why I bother spending the three minutes necessary to type something that you can't possibly understand.We are not in a bogus war with Radical Islam. We were in a bogas war in Iraq. There is difference but you are too blind to see it.

[johnhannibalsmith]

We are not in a bogus war with Radical Islam. We were in a bogas war in Iraq. There is difference but you are too blind to see it.

Okay, I'm blind to the difference in wars, I only abhor drone use because it's Obama, and I'm in favor of killing our troops.

That covers it, correct? I'll be whatever you want me to be. You can't handle anything more complicated than your own dopey stereotypes and conclusions that you dream up, which are generally based on absolutely nothing but the voices in your head.

[rastajenk]

The piece is more opinion than evidence, although it doesn't really matter whether or not Bush said it. He and his administration acted as if they believed the statement anyway, as does Mr. Obama and his motley crew.
Aahh, the ol' "fake but accurate" slant. :rolleyes:

[mostpost]

Mostie,

Your following quote illustrates you know not of what you speak.

"Due Process, like any other right, must be interpreted within the context of the situation. Potential victims of terrorism also have the right to due process."
Perhaps I should have better said that American citizens deserve the protection of their government from terrorist acts. It is well established that the prime duty of the President is to protect the country and its citizens. It is also established in domestic law that deadly force can be used against a perpetrator if the onsite authority feels that is the way to prevent harm to others.

In Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court extended that rule to those engaged in actions against the United States. It also ruled that an American citizen fighting side by side with foreign enemies is no different than those foreign enemies.

[riskman]

I am sure that President Obama's counterrorism adviser John Brennan and nominee as CIA director who awaits confirmation before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday will face some tough questioning on this "white paper."

I am certain the committee will ask for the legal opinion authorizing the killing of Americans without judicial involvement. Should be interesting to see how this shakes out. The ACLU is already making quite a bit of noise and expect a lot of discussion in the media about overreach of executive power. But who knows, it is difficult to gauge the importance of of such subjects in today's political environment.

[PaceAdvantage]

Okay, I'm blind to the difference in wars, I only abhor drone use because it's Obama, and I'm in favor of killing our troops.

That covers it, correct? I'll be whatever you want me to be. You can't handle anything more complicated than your own dopey stereotypes and conclusions that you dream up, which are generally based on absolutely nothing but the voices in your head.It's about time someone took Goren to task for his never ending stream of "shit on wall, see what I can stick" style of posting.

[Steve R]

Perhaps I should have better said that American citizens deserve the protection of their government from terrorist acts. It is well established that the prime duty of the President is to protect the country and its citizens. It is also established in domestic law that deadly force can be used against a perpetrator if the onsite authority feels that is the way to prevent harm to others.

In Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court extended that rule to those engaged in actions against the United States. It also ruled that an American citizen fighting side by side with foreign enemies is no different than those foreign enemies.
Perhaps you need to be reminded that in 1936, the Gestapo Law meant that the activities of the Gestapo were free from any review by courts of law. This law effectively meant that the Gestapo became a law unto themselves. You know, like the Bush and Obama administrations.

It also might be useful if you reviewed the following passage from The Holocaust Encyclopedia (ref: http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005467):

Law and Justice in the Third Reich

Back | Related Articles | Related Links | Comments | E-mail updates | How to cite this article

The Third Reich was a police state characterized by arbitrary arrest and imprisonment of political and ideological opponents in concentration camps.

With the reinterpretation of "protective custody" (Schutzhaft) in 1933, police power became independent of judicial controls. In Nazi terminology, protective custody meant the arrest--without judicial review--of real and potential opponents of the regime. "Protective custody" prisoners were not confined within the normal prison system but in concentration camps under the exclusive authority of the SS (Schutzstaffel; the elite guard of the Nazi state).

The Third Reich has been called a dual state, since the normal judicial system coexisted with the arbitrary power of Hitler and the police. Yet, like most areas of public life after the Nazi rise to power in 1933, the German system of justice underwent "coordination" (alignment with Nazi goals). All professional associations involved with the administration of justice were merged into the National Socialist League of German Jurists. In April 1933, Hitler passed one of the earliest antisemitic laws, purging Jewish and also Socialist judges, lawyers, and other court officers from their professions. Further, the Academy of German Law and Nazi legal theorists, such as Carl Schmitt, advocated the nazification of German law, cleansing it of "Jewish influence." Judges were enjoined to let "healthy folk sentiment" (gesundes Volksempfinden) guide them in their decisions.

Hitler determined to increase the political reliability of the courts. In 1933 he established special courts throughout Germany to try politically sensitive cases. Dissatisfied with the 'not guilty' verdicts rendered by the Supreme Court (Reichsgericht) in the Reichstag Fire Trial, Hitler ordered the creation of the People's Court (Volksgerichtshof) in Berlin in 1934 to try treason and other important "political cases." Under Roland Freisler, the People's Court became part of the Nazi system of terror, condemning tens of thousands of people as "Volk Vermin" and thousands more to death for "Volk Treason." The trial and sentencing of those accused of complicity in the July Plot, the attempt to kill Hitler in July 1944, was especially unjust.

After the war, prominent Nazi jurists like Curt Rothenberger, Franz Schlegelberger, and Josef Altstoetter were tried in the Jurists' Trial of the Subsequent Nuremberg Proceedings on charges of "judicial murder" and other atrocities.

[shouldacoulda]

Perhaps you need to be reminded that in 1936, the Gestapo Law meant that the activities of the Gestapo were free from any review by courts of law. This law effectively meant that the Gestapo became a law unto themselves. You know, like the Bush and Obama administrations.

It also might be useful if you reviewed the following passage from The Holocaust Encyclopedia (ref: http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article...duleId=10005467):

Law and Justice in the Third Reich

Back | Related Articles | Related Links | Comments | E-mail updates | How to cite this article

The Third Reich was a police state characterized by arbitrary arrest and imprisonment of political and ideological opponents in concentration camps.

With the reinterpretation of "protective custody" (Schutzhaft) in 1933, police power became independent of judicial controls. In Nazi terminology, protective custody meant the arrest--without judicial review--of real and potential opponents of the regime. "Protective custody" prisoners were not confined within the normal prison system but in concentration camps under the exclusive authority of the SS (Schutzstaffel; the elite guard of the Nazi state).

The Third Reich has been called a dual state, since the normal judicial system coexisted with the arbitrary power of Hitler and the police. Yet, like most areas of public life after the Nazi rise to power in 1933, the German system of justice underwent "coordination" (alignment with Nazi goals). All professional associations involved with the administration of justice were merged into the National Socialist League of German Jurists. In April 1933, Hitler passed one of the earliest antisemitic laws, purging Jewish and also Socialist judges, lawyers, and other court officers from their professions. Further, the Academy of German Law and Nazi legal theorists, such as Carl Schmitt, advocated the nazification of German law, cleansing it of "Jewish influence." Judges were enjoined to let "healthy folk sentiment" (gesundes Volksempfinden) guide them in their decisions.

Hitler determined to increase the political reliability of the courts. In 1933 he established special courts throughout Germany to try politically sensitive cases. Dissatisfied with the 'not guilty' verdicts rendered by the Supreme Court (Reichsgericht) in the Reichstag Fire Trial, Hitler ordered the creation of the People's Court (Volksgerichtshof) in Berlin in 1934 to try treason and other important "political cases." Under Roland Freisler, the People's Court became part of the Nazi system of terror, condemning tens of thousands of people as "Volk Vermin" and thousands more to death for "Volk Treason." The trial and sentencing of those accused of complicity in the July Plot, the attempt to kill Hitler in July 1944, was especially unjust.

After the war, prominent Nazi jurists like Curt Rothenberger, Franz Schlegelberger, and Josef Altstoetter were tried in the Jurists' Trial of the Subsequent Nuremberg Proceedings on charges of "judicial murder" and other atrocities.

Unfortunately I can see similarities from Nazi Germany to what is slowly happening in this country. Our rights are being eroded every day little by little. The right to due process has been undermined before the use of drones with the National Defense Authorization Act. Why are Gitmo detainees given a trial but Americans can be executed? I think it stinks.

If our founding fathers were alive to see how the republic they founded has been bought and paid for by the wealthy, and manipulated for their benefit they would puke. This "for your own good" legislation is bulls**t and a very dangerous thing. Where does it end? Now they want to use drones to spy on us at home. Why don't they use them to seal the friggin borders? Because those are future votes for the giveaways provided to these people coming in. But no, they will spy on us instead. Like they aren't already. 1984 may have come and gone but big brother is here to stay for the foreseeable future. If you're hung up in the left/right divisive diversion, you have missed the point entirely.

[cj's dad]

Obama insists that terrorists in captivity be given all the benefits of a citizen in terms of trial, lawyers, etc.

But he will kill real citizens.

I told you he was a terrorist.
Killing Americans, arming the Mulsim Brotherhood......connect the dots.

Yeah Tom, but he did win the Nobel Peace prize.

[cj's dad]

I hope Megyn Kelly is not inside.