Bush abused Executive power just like Obama. No argument there.

 

I'm no fan of Bush, but I don't recall him calling a drone strike to kill american citizens, especially a 16 year old kid.

 

True. At the time the boundries being crossed seemed to make sense - somewhat. But the lack of enforcing border and immigration control - I believe a number of the 9/11 hijackers were on expired visas - and arm waiving after 9/11 opened the doors to what are now more ominous powers in the executive branch.

 

I supported the Patriot Act until I saw the video where Judge Napalitano laid out what it really did from a Constitutional aspect.

 

The war on terrorism is starting to look like the (never-ending) war on drugs. Both have been leveraged to attack constitutional rights.

Bush abused Executive power just like Obama. No argument there.

 

I'm no fan of Bush, but I don't recall him calling a drone strike to kill american citizens, especially a 16 year old kid.

 

Come on, you know that POTUS isn't ordering drone strikes on American citizens intentionally. You act as if a drone strike would be ordered under minimal circumstances. This is just another way for the right to stir up fear...

Come on, you know that POTUS isn't ordering drone strikes on American citizens intentionally. You act as if a drone strike would be ordered under minimal circumstances. This is just another way for the right to stir up fear...

So, you would have supported Bush if he had the same policy, correct?

Come on, you know that POTUS isn't ordering drone strikes on American citizens intentionally. You act as if a drone strike would be ordered under minimal circumstances. This is just another way for the right to stir up fear...

 

If you think this is ok in any way shape or form, I simply don't know what to say. If he does it just once, what is to keep it from happening the next time for a different reason. This so goes against the right of due process it isn't even funny.

So, you would have supported Bush if he had the same policy, correct?

 

I sure would have, If an American citizen is plotting a terrorist attack against Americans, I think whatever force is needed should be used to stop the attack against innocent people.

If you think this is ok in any way shape or form, I simply don't know what to say. If he does it just once, what is to keep it from happening the next time for a different reason. This so goes against the right of due process it isn't even funny.

 

So you don't think it's okay if an American citizen has sided with a terrorist group?

I sure would have, If an American citizen is plotting a terrorist attack against Americans, I think whatever force is needed should be used to stop the attack against innocent people.

 

So you were OK with enhanced interrogations on apprehended terrorists and disagree with the current administrations policy on it?

If you think this is ok in any way shape or form, I simply don't know what to say. If he does it just once, what is to keep it from happening the next time for a different reason. This so goes against the right of due process it isn't even funny.

 

So let me ask you a question, what do you feel about what happened this week in California?

 

Two women delivering newspapers in a blue Toyota Tacoma truck in Torrance, California were shot in manhunt for ex-cop. Police shot up the newspaper delivery truck with out checking to make sure this was the man they wanted putting 40+ bullets into the vehicle that didn't even match the make of the truck they were looking for.

 

2 women delivering newspapers in a Toyota Tacoma in Torrance, CA were shot in manhunt for ex-cop. Police put 40 bullets into the | Peace . Gold . Liberty

So you were OK with enhanced interrogations on apprehended terrorists and disagree with the current administrations policy on it?

 

Yep, I sure was..I'm not a democrat or Republican. Both parties have good and bad ideas

So you were OK with enhanced interrogations on apprehended terrorists and disagree with the current administrations policy on it?

 

I'm in the thinking if you try to intentionally harm innocent Americans with terrorist activities with a group like AL-quita then you lose your rights as a US citizen IMO.

So let me ask you a question, what do you feel about what happened this week in California?

 

Two women delivering newspapers in a blue Toyota Tacoma truck in Torrance, California were shot in manhunt for ex-cop. Police shot up the newspaper delivery truck with out checking to make sure this was the man they wanted putting 40+ bullets into the vehicle that didn't even match the make of the truck they were looking for.

 

2 women delivering newspapers in a Toyota Tacoma in Torrance, CA were shot in manhunt for ex-cop. Police put 40 bullets into the | Peace . Gold . Liberty

 

The police who comitted this crime should be prosecuted as such. They are looking for a cop killer, so apparently they let their emotions take over their professionalism. They should be prosecuted the same way that I would be for comitting the same act.

I'm in the thinking if you try to intentionally harm innocent Americans with terrorist activities with a group like AL-quita then you lose your rights as a US citizen IMO.

 

Not that I like it, but according to our Constitution, you don't lose your rights. If one piece of the document doesn't hold weight, the whole document doesn't hold weight. Do you really want our executive power to choose who will and will not be assasinated using military technology when it comes to U.S. citizens?

The police who comitted this crime should be prosecuted as such. They are looking for a cop killer, so apparently they let their emotions take over their professionalism. They should be prosecuted the same way that I would be for comitting the same act.

 

It's a interesting topic and it walks a fine line. I've comments justifying the action because they were doing their job trying to keep the public safe.

It's a interesting topic and it walks a fine line. I've comments justifying the action because they were doing their job trying to keep the public safe.

 

I can't buy the line of thinking that you are keeping the public safe by shooting at the innocent public. A very good friend of mine is a Secret Service agent. They done qualify for their job until they can shoot two rounds per trigger squeeze accurately out of a fully auto MP5. This is because they are trained that they are responsible for every single round that leaves a barrell of their weapon, and that they will be held accountable if they ever hit an innocent. These cops are acting unprofessional because this guy is going on a killing rampage for other cops and their loved ones. You can't let blind vengance enter your brain as a police officer. You are there to protect the innocent, not shoot the innocent. I have never squeezed off a round at an unclear target, and if they do, they should pay the consequences just like me.

Not that I like it, but according to our Constitution, you don't lose your rights. If one piece of the document doesn't hold weight, the whole document doesn't hold weight. Do you really want our executive power to choose who will and will not be assasinated using military technology when it comes to U.S. citizens?

Let me ask you this, do you think a piece of paper should to protect a individual who has turned his or her back on duties of being an citizen? If a person plots attacks against Americans who actually value their life and liberties, this person, IMO, turned his back their citizenship.