US citizens can be killed without due process.....
White House: US Citizens can be killed without due process - Bill Wilson -
www.dailyjot.com Attorney General Eric Holder sent another letter to Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky) denying that the occupant of the Oval Office has authority to use drones to kill American citizens. But the White House is splitting hairs in an effort to play down its belief that the Constitution allows for the president to kill American citizens without due process. One has to understand the fine line the Department of Justice and the White House is walking. Press Secretary Jay Carney played the Constitution against itself at Thursday's White House press briefing. On one hand, he said the president cannot kill American citizens without due process; on the other, he says the president has authority to do so given an imminent threat.
Carney told reporters: "If...the United States were under attack or there were imminent threat, all the same laws that applied to the President's authority apply now, whether it has to do with drones or other modes that you would use to prevent a terrorist attack or an attack like Pearl Harbor, or any other hypothetical that you can imagine. The law is the law, and the Constitution is the Constitution. And I think that's what the Attorney General was saying...The question that Senator Paul asked: Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil? The answer to that question is no."
Perhaps not so obvious is that Carney made a distinction that supports the Justice Department's justification of killing Americans without due process. He is saying that if there were an imminent threat, the Constitution gives the president authority to kill American citizens without due process. Then he said the president does not have the authority to kill an American not engaged in combat. Herein lies the problem: The Justice Department and Attorney General Eric Holder are relying on "an informed, high-level official of the US government" to make the determination whether an American citizen is "an imminent threat." This makes the US government no different than any dictatorial regime seeking to protect its power.
Brothers and sisters, this is serious. It is longstanding US law that the federal government cannot arbitrarily determine who is an enemy and who isn't. It never has been "legal" for "an informed government official" to determine whether a citizen could live or die. This White House says it is legal. All that is required is that a government official believes you to be an imminent threat. Carney's and Holder's explanations fit the end time prophecy of Paul in 2 Timothy 3:13, "But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived." This topic would never have risen to the public if not for the Justice Department white paper outlining intent to identify US citizens for assassination. Where there is smoke, there is fire--in this case fire from hell.
there is fire--in this case fire from hell.
GeneB
Loc: Chattanooga Tennessee
I beleive that this is how the North Koreans look at things lately. Nuke 'em all Kim.
jim charron wrote:
White House: US Citizens can be killed without due process - Bill Wilson -
www.dailyjot.com Attorney General Eric Holder sent another letter to Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky) denying that the occupant of the Oval Office has authority to use drones to kill American citizens. But the White House is splitting hairs in an effort to play down its belief that the Constitution allows for the president to kill American citizens without due process. One has to understand the fine line the Department of Justice and the White House is walking. Press Secretary Jay Carney played the Constitution against itself at Thursday's White House press briefing. On one hand, he said the president cannot kill American citizens without due process; on the other, he says the president has authority to do so given an imminent threat.
Carney told reporters: "If...the United States were under attack or there were imminent threat, all the same laws that applied to the President's authority apply now, whether it has to do with drones or other modes that you would use to prevent a terrorist attack or an attack like Pearl Harbor, or any other hypothetical that you can imagine. The law is the law, and the Constitution is the Constitution. And I think that's what the Attorney General was saying...The question that Senator Paul asked: Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil? The answer to that question is no."
Perhaps not so obvious is that Carney made a distinction that supports the Justice Department's justification of killing Americans without due process. He is saying that if there were an imminent threat, the Constitution gives the president authority to kill American citizens without due process. Then he said the president does not have the authority to kill an American not engaged in combat. Herein lies the problem: The Justice Department and Attorney General Eric Holder are relying on "an informed, high-level official of the US government" to make the determination whether an American citizen is "an imminent threat." This makes the US government no different than any dictatorial regime seeking to protect its power.
Brothers and sisters, this is serious. It is longstanding US law that the federal government cannot arbitrarily determine who is an enemy and who isn't. It never has been "legal" for "an informed government official" to determine whether a citizen could live or die. This White House says it is legal. All that is required is that a government official believes you to be an imminent threat. Carney's and Holder's explanations fit the end time prophecy of Paul in 2 Timothy 3:13, "But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived." This topic would never have risen to the public if not for the Justice Department white paper outlining intent to identify US citizens for assassination. Where there is smoke, there is fire--in this case fire from hell.
White House: US Citizens can be killed without due... (
show quote)
What is interesting in this whole debate is the Administrations reluctance to quickly put this to bed... Pretty much all American's understand that an imminent threat will be dealt with... Just as we would expect there to be consideration of a highjacked airliner to be shot down if it were headed towards Washington given the lessons of 911... There is little question, it is pretty much the same as police using lethal force against an armed suspect in a crime.
Why was it so hard for the White House to simply respond quickly and concisely to this question? Then you see some of the odd purchases of late attributed to Homeland Security and it does give one reason to scratch his head in wonderment.
GeneB
Loc: Chattanooga Tennessee
Blurryeyed wrote:
jim charron wrote:
White House: US Citizens can be killed without due process - Bill Wilson -
www.dailyjot.com Attorney General Eric Holder sent another letter to Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky) denying that the occupant of the Oval Office has authority to use drones to kill American citizens. But the White House is splitting hairs in an effort to play down its belief that the Constitution allows for the president to kill American citizens without due process. One has to understand the fine line the Department of Justice and the White House is walking. Press Secretary Jay Carney played the Constitution against itself at Thursday's White House press briefing. On one hand, he said the president cannot kill American citizens without due process; on the other, he says the president has authority to do so given an imminent threat.
Carney told reporters: "If...the United States were under attack or there were imminent threat, all the same laws that applied to the President's authority apply now, whether it has to do with drones or other modes that you would use to prevent a terrorist attack or an attack like Pearl Harbor, or any other hypothetical that you can imagine. The law is the law, and the Constitution is the Constitution. And I think that's what the Attorney General was saying...The question that Senator Paul asked: Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil? The answer to that question is no."
Perhaps not so obvious is that Carney made a distinction that supports the Justice Department's justification of killing Americans without due process. He is saying that if there were an imminent threat, the Constitution gives the president authority to kill American citizens without due process. Then he said the president does not have the authority to kill an American not engaged in combat. Herein lies the problem: The Justice Department and Attorney General Eric Holder are relying on "an informed, high-level official of the US government" to make the determination whether an American citizen is "an imminent threat." This makes the US government no different than any dictatorial regime seeking to protect its power.
Brothers and sisters, this is serious. It is longstanding US law that the federal government cannot arbitrarily determine who is an enemy and who isn't. It never has been "legal" for "an informed government official" to determine whether a citizen could live or die. This White House says it is legal. All that is required is that a government official believes you to be an imminent threat. Carney's and Holder's explanations fit the end time prophecy of Paul in 2 Timothy 3:13, "But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived." This topic would never have risen to the public if not for the Justice Department white paper outlining intent to identify US citizens for assassination. Where there is smoke, there is fire--in this case fire from hell.
White House: US Citizens can be killed without due... (
show quote)
What is interesting in this whole debate is the Administrations reluctance to quickly put this to bed... Pretty much all American's understand that an imminent threat will be dealt with... Just as we would expect there to be consideration of a highjacked airliner to be shot down if it were headed towards Washington given the lessons of 911... There is little question, it is pretty much the same as police using lethal force against an armed suspect in a crime.
Why was it so hard for the White House to simply respond quickly and concisely to this question? Then you see some of the odd purchases of late attributed to Homeland Security and it does give one reason to scratch his head in wonderment.
quote=jim charron White House: US Citizens can be... (
show quote)
maybe because the guy in the white house is so transparent....
Blurryeyed wrote:
jim charron wrote:
White House: US Citizens can be killed without due process - Bill Wilson -
www.dailyjot.com Attorney General Eric Holder sent another letter to Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky) denying that the occupant of the Oval Office has authority to use drones to kill American citizens. But the White House is splitting hairs in an effort to play down its belief that the Constitution allows for the president to kill American citizens without due process. One has to understand the fine line the Department of Justice and the White House is walking. Press Secretary Jay Carney played the Constitution against itself at Thursday's White House press briefing. On one hand, he said the president cannot kill American citizens without due process; on the other, he says the president has authority to do so given an imminent threat.
Carney told reporters: "If...the United States were under attack or there were imminent threat, all the same laws that applied to the President's authority apply now, whether it has to do with drones or other modes that you would use to prevent a terrorist attack or an attack like Pearl Harbor, or any other hypothetical that you can imagine. The law is the law, and the Constitution is the Constitution. And I think that's what the Attorney General was saying...The question that Senator Paul asked: Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil? The answer to that question is no."
Perhaps not so obvious is that Carney made a distinction that supports the Justice Department's justification of killing Americans without due process. He is saying that if there were an imminent threat, the Constitution gives the president authority to kill American citizens without due process. Then he said the president does not have the authority to kill an American not engaged in combat. Herein lies the problem: The Justice Department and Attorney General Eric Holder are relying on "an informed, high-level official of the US government" to make the determination whether an American citizen is "an imminent threat." This makes the US government no different than any dictatorial regime seeking to protect its power.
Brothers and sisters, this is serious. It is longstanding US law that the federal government cannot arbitrarily determine who is an enemy and who isn't. It never has been "legal" for "an informed government official" to determine whether a citizen could live or die. This White House says it is legal. All that is required is that a government official believes you to be an imminent threat. Carney's and Holder's explanations fit the end time prophecy of Paul in 2 Timothy 3:13, "But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived." This topic would never have risen to the public if not for the Justice Department white paper outlining intent to identify US citizens for assassination. Where there is smoke, there is fire--in this case fire from hell.
White House: US Citizens can be killed without due... (
show quote)
What is interesting in this whole debate is the Administrations reluctance to quickly put this to bed... Pretty much all American's understand that an imminent threat will be dealt with... Just as we would expect there to be consideration of a highjacked airliner to be shot down if it were headed towards Washington given the lessons of 911... There is little question, it is pretty much the same as police using lethal force against an armed suspect in a crime.
Why was it so hard for the White House to simply respond quickly and concisely to this question? Then you see some of the odd purchases of late attributed to Homeland Security and it does give one reason to scratch his head in wonderment.
quote=jim charron White House: US Citizens can be... (
show quote)
Maybe instead of scratching our heads,we should be scratching together some money to arm ourselves? Just askin'!
DennisK wrote:
Blurryeyed wrote:
jim charron wrote:
White House: US Citizens can be killed without due process - Bill Wilson -
www.dailyjot.com Attorney General Eric Holder sent another letter to Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky) denying that the occupant of the Oval Office has authority to use drones to kill American citizens. But the White House is splitting hairs in an effort to play down its belief that the Constitution allows for the president to kill American citizens without due process. One has to understand the fine line the Department of Justice and the White House is walking. Press Secretary Jay Carney played the Constitution against itself at Thursday's White House press briefing. On one hand, he said the president cannot kill American citizens without due process; on the other, he says the president has authority to do so given an imminent threat.
Carney told reporters: "If...the United States were under attack or there were imminent threat, all the same laws that applied to the President's authority apply now, whether it has to do with drones or other modes that you would use to prevent a terrorist attack or an attack like Pearl Harbor, or any other hypothetical that you can imagine. The law is the law, and the Constitution is the Constitution. And I think that's what the Attorney General was saying...The question that Senator Paul asked: Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil? The answer to that question is no."
Perhaps not so obvious is that Carney made a distinction that supports the Justice Department's justification of killing Americans without due process. He is saying that if there were an imminent threat, the Constitution gives the president authority to kill American citizens without due process. Then he said the president does not have the authority to kill an American not engaged in combat. Herein lies the problem: The Justice Department and Attorney General Eric Holder are relying on "an informed, high-level official of the US government" to make the determination whether an American citizen is "an imminent threat." This makes the US government no different than any dictatorial regime seeking to protect its power.
Brothers and sisters, this is serious. It is longstanding US law that the federal government cannot arbitrarily determine who is an enemy and who isn't. It never has been "legal" for "an informed government official" to determine whether a citizen could live or die. This White House says it is legal. All that is required is that a government official believes you to be an imminent threat. Carney's and Holder's explanations fit the end time prophecy of Paul in 2 Timothy 3:13, "But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived." This topic would never have risen to the public if not for the Justice Department white paper outlining intent to identify US citizens for assassination. Where there is smoke, there is fire--in this case fire from hell.
White House: US Citizens can be killed without due... (
show quote)
What is interesting in this whole debate is the Administrations reluctance to quickly put this to bed... Pretty much all American's understand that an imminent threat will be dealt with... Just as we would expect there to be consideration of a highjacked airliner to be shot down if it were headed towards Washington given the lessons of 911... There is little question, it is pretty much the same as police using lethal force against an armed suspect in a crime.
Why was it so hard for the White House to simply respond quickly and concisely to this question? Then you see some of the odd purchases of late attributed to Homeland Security and it does give one reason to scratch his head in wonderment.
quote=jim charron White House: US Citizens can be... (
show quote)
Maybe instead of scratching our heads,we should be scratching together some money to arm ourselves? Just askin'!
quote=Blurryeyed quote=jim charron White House: ... (
show quote)
Well to each his own, but I think that public discourse and debate will do better against a hellfire missile than a gun will... I have to respect Paul's filibuster no matter what that "Wackobird" McCain has to say about it.
Blurryeyed wrote:
DennisK wrote:
Blurryeyed wrote:
jim charron wrote:
White House: US Citizens can be killed without due process - Bill Wilson -
www.dailyjot.com Attorney General Eric Holder sent another letter to Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky) denying that the occupant of the Oval Office has authority to use drones to kill American citizens. But the White House is splitting hairs in an effort to play down its belief that the Constitution allows for the president to kill American citizens without due process. One has to understand the fine line the Department of Justice and the White House is walking. Press Secretary Jay Carney played the Constitution against itself at Thursday's White House press briefing. On one hand, he said the president cannot kill American citizens without due process; on the other, he says the president has authority to do so given an imminent threat.
Carney told reporters: "If...the United States were under attack or there were imminent threat, all the same laws that applied to the President's authority apply now, whether it has to do with drones or other modes that you would use to prevent a terrorist attack or an attack like Pearl Harbor, or any other hypothetical that you can imagine. The law is the law, and the Constitution is the Constitution. And I think that's what the Attorney General was saying...The question that Senator Paul asked: Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil? The answer to that question is no."
Perhaps not so obvious is that Carney made a distinction that supports the Justice Department's justification of killing Americans without due process. He is saying that if there were an imminent threat, the Constitution gives the president authority to kill American citizens without due process. Then he said the president does not have the authority to kill an American not engaged in combat. Herein lies the problem: The Justice Department and Attorney General Eric Holder are relying on "an informed, high-level official of the US government" to make the determination whether an American citizen is "an imminent threat." This makes the US government no different than any dictatorial regime seeking to protect its power.
Brothers and sisters, this is serious. It is longstanding US law that the federal government cannot arbitrarily determine who is an enemy and who isn't. It never has been "legal" for "an informed government official" to determine whether a citizen could live or die. This White House says it is legal. All that is required is that a government official believes you to be an imminent threat. Carney's and Holder's explanations fit the end time prophecy of Paul in 2 Timothy 3:13, "But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived." This topic would never have risen to the public if not for the Justice Department white paper outlining intent to identify US citizens for assassination. Where there is smoke, there is fire--in this case fire from hell.
White House: US Citizens can be killed without due... (
show quote)
What is interesting in this whole debate is the Administrations reluctance to quickly put this to bed... Pretty much all American's understand that an imminent threat will be dealt with... Just as we would expect there to be consideration of a highjacked airliner to be shot down if it were headed towards Washington given the lessons of 911... There is little question, it is pretty much the same as police using lethal force against an armed suspect in a crime.
Why was it so hard for the White House to simply respond quickly and concisely to this question? Then you see some of the odd purchases of late attributed to Homeland Security and it does give one reason to scratch his head in wonderment.
quote=jim charron White House: US Citizens can be... (
show quote)
Maybe instead of scratching our heads,we should be scratching together some money to arm ourselves? Just askin'!
quote=Blurryeyed quote=jim charron White House: ... (
show quote)
Well to each his own, but I think that public discourse and debate will do better against a hellfire missile than a gun will... I have to respect Paul's filibuster no matter what that "Wackobird" McCain has to say about it.
quote=DennisK quote=Blurryeyed quote=jim charro... (
show quote)
Actually I was referencing the Homeland Security part of your post.
DennisK wrote:
Blurryeyed wrote:
DennisK wrote:
Blurryeyed wrote:
jim charron wrote:
White House: US Citizens can be killed without due process - Bill Wilson -
www.dailyjot.com Attorney General Eric Holder sent another letter to Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky) denying that the occupant of the Oval Office has authority to use drones to kill American citizens. But the White House is splitting hairs in an effort to play down its belief that the Constitution allows for the president to kill American citizens without due process. One has to understand the fine line the Department of Justice and the White House is walking. Press Secretary Jay Carney played the Constitution against itself at Thursday's White House press briefing. On one hand, he said the president cannot kill American citizens without due process; on the other, he says the president has authority to do so given an imminent threat.
Carney told reporters: "If...the United States were under attack or there were imminent threat, all the same laws that applied to the President's authority apply now, whether it has to do with drones or other modes that you would use to prevent a terrorist attack or an attack like Pearl Harbor, or any other hypothetical that you can imagine. The law is the law, and the Constitution is the Constitution. And I think that's what the Attorney General was saying...The question that Senator Paul asked: Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil? The answer to that question is no."
Perhaps not so obvious is that Carney made a distinction that supports the Justice Department's justification of killing Americans without due process. He is saying that if there were an imminent threat, the Constitution gives the president authority to kill American citizens without due process. Then he said the president does not have the authority to kill an American not engaged in combat. Herein lies the problem: The Justice Department and Attorney General Eric Holder are relying on "an informed, high-level official of the US government" to make the determination whether an American citizen is "an imminent threat." This makes the US government no different than any dictatorial regime seeking to protect its power.
Brothers and sisters, this is serious. It is longstanding US law that the federal government cannot arbitrarily determine who is an enemy and who isn't. It never has been "legal" for "an informed government official" to determine whether a citizen could live or die. This White House says it is legal. All that is required is that a government official believes you to be an imminent threat. Carney's and Holder's explanations fit the end time prophecy of Paul in 2 Timothy 3:13, "But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived." This topic would never have risen to the public if not for the Justice Department white paper outlining intent to identify US citizens for assassination. Where there is smoke, there is fire--in this case fire from hell.
White House: US Citizens can be killed without due... (
show quote)
What is interesting in this whole debate is the Administrations reluctance to quickly put this to bed... Pretty much all American's understand that an imminent threat will be dealt with... Just as we would expect there to be consideration of a highjacked airliner to be shot down if it were headed towards Washington given the lessons of 911... There is little question, it is pretty much the same as police using lethal force against an armed suspect in a crime.
Why was it so hard for the White House to simply respond quickly and concisely to this question? Then you see some of the odd purchases of late attributed to Homeland Security and it does give one reason to scratch his head in wonderment.
quote=jim charron White House: US Citizens can be... (
show quote)
Maybe instead of scratching our heads,we should be scratching together some money to arm ourselves? Just askin'!
quote=Blurryeyed quote=jim charron White House: ... (
show quote)
Well to each his own, but I think that public discourse and debate will do better against a hellfire missile than a gun will... I have to respect Paul's filibuster no matter what that "Wackobird" McCain has to say about it.
quote=DennisK quote=Blurryeyed quote=jim charro... (
show quote)
Actually I was referencing the Homeland Security part of your post.
quote=Blurryeyed quote=DennisK quote=Blurryeyed... (
show quote)
Well if the government ever were to try and take what little freedom we have left I would hope that people would make them continue to pay a price that in the end they would not be willing to keep paying.... Homeland security is now purchasing armored vehicles, it does make on wonder what the hell is going on.....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/16/police-tank-purchase-new-hampshire_n_1279983.html
sinatraman
Loc: Vero Beach Florida, Earth,alpha quaudrant
every body sit down and avoid the shock. In this case I believe President Obama is right. (yes, hell has frozen over) if you are an enemy combatant iregardless of your citizenship you are fair game under the Presidents executive powers to wage war. Most of these "american citizens" are Muslim extremists who gained their citizenship under false pretences. If you pose a clear and prescent threat to the security of the US, then the government has every right to use any method to eliminate that threat.
What al queda does is wage war on the citizens of the us. yes it is also a crime but it is first of all a national security threat. I won't lose one second of sleep knowing that if you are alqueda, their is a drone fired missle with your name on it.
besides precedent was set by President Lincon. He did not send the US Marshals to arrest Jeff Davis and company, he sent the US Army.
sinatraman wrote:
every body sit down and avoid the shock. In this case I believe President Obama is right. (yes, hell has frozen over) if you are an enemy combatant iregardless of your citizenship you are fair game under the Presidents executive powers to wage war. Most of these "american citizens" are Muslim extremists who gained their citizenship under false pretences. If you pose a clear and prescent threat to the security of the US, then the government has every right to use any method to eliminate that threat.
What al queda does is wage war on the citizens of the us. yes it is also a crime but it is first of all a national security threat. I won't lose one second of sleep knowing that if you are alqueda, their is a drone fired missle with your name on it.
besides precedent was set by President Lincon. He did not send the US Marshals to arrest Jeff Davis and company, he sent the US Army.
every body sit down and avoid the shock. In this c... (
show quote)
With due respect, you are so wrong.... First of all we are talking about kill lists that are internally developed and not shared and we do not know what standards are used in the development of those lists, secondly the Lincoln example is in no way comparable to the current circumstance, the South had seceded from the union and what followed was a civil war, the use of drones on US soil to kill members of a secret fraternity by virtue of the president's say so.... is not at all the same.
We are not talking about someone with his finger on a detonator switch, as it is already agreed that when imminent danger is present that lethal force is acceptable, we are talking about circumstances where imminent danger is absent and where the constitution protections still apply regardless the thoughts of those who fear emerging threats to our society.... Holder is right, the president has no such power, I only wish that he had been more emphatic in his answer... It should have been "HELL NO HE HAS NO SUCH AUTHORITY!"
jim charron wrote:
White House: US Citizens can be killed without due process - Bill Wilson -
www.dailyjot.com Attorney General Eric Holder sent another letter to Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky) denying that the occupant of the Oval Office has authority to use drones to kill American citizens. But the White House is splitting hairs in an effort to play down its belief that the Constitution allows for the president to kill American citizens without due process. One has to understand the fine line the Department of Justice and the White House is walking. Press Secretary Jay Carney played the Constitution against itself at Thursday's White House press briefing. On one hand, he said the president cannot kill American citizens without due process; on the other, he says the president has authority to do so given an imminent threat.
Carney told reporters: "If...the United States were under attack or there were imminent threat, all the same laws that applied to the President's authority apply now, whether it has to do with drones or other modes that you would use to prevent a terrorist attack or an attack like Pearl Harbor, or any other hypothetical that you can imagine. The law is the law, and the Constitution is the Constitution. And I think that's what the Attorney General was saying...The question that Senator Paul asked: Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil? The answer to that question is no."
Perhaps not so obvious is that Carney made a distinction that supports the Justice Department's justification of killing Americans without due process. He is saying that if there were an imminent threat, the Constitution gives the president authority to kill American citizens without due process. Then he said the president does not have the authority to kill an American not engaged in combat. Herein lies the problem: The Justice Department and Attorney General Eric Holder are relying on "an informed, high-level official of the US government" to make the determination whether an American citizen is "an imminent threat." This makes the US government no different than any dictatorial regime seeking to protect its power.
Brothers and sisters, this is serious. It is longstanding US law that the federal government cannot arbitrarily determine who is an enemy and who isn't. It never has been "legal" for "an informed government official" to determine whether a citizen could live or die. This White House says it is legal. All that is required is that a government official believes you to be an imminent threat. Carney's and Holder's explanations fit the end time prophecy of Paul in 2 Timothy 3:13, "But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived." This topic would never have risen to the public if not for the Justice Department white paper outlining intent to identify US citizens for assassination. Where there is smoke, there is fire--in this case fire from hell.
White House: US Citizens can be killed without due... (
show quote)
US citizens are killed everyday on the streets of our cities. If the government wants blow away a terrorist in Iowa then go for it!
Raider Fan wrote:
jim charron wrote:
White House: US Citizens can be killed without due process - Bill Wilson -
www.dailyjot.com Attorney General Eric Holder sent another letter to Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky) denying that the occupant of the Oval Office has authority to use drones to kill American citizens. But the White House is splitting hairs in an effort to play down its belief that the Constitution allows for the president to kill American citizens without due process. One has to understand the fine line the Department of Justice and the White House is walking. Press Secretary Jay Carney played the Constitution against itself at Thursday's White House press briefing. On one hand, he said the president cannot kill American citizens without due process; on the other, he says the president has authority to do so given an imminent threat.
Carney told reporters: "If...the United States were under attack or there were imminent threat, all the same laws that applied to the President's authority apply now, whether it has to do with drones or other modes that you would use to prevent a terrorist attack or an attack like Pearl Harbor, or any other hypothetical that you can imagine. The law is the law, and the Constitution is the Constitution. And I think that's what the Attorney General was saying...The question that Senator Paul asked: Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil? The answer to that question is no."
Perhaps not so obvious is that Carney made a distinction that supports the Justice Department's justification of killing Americans without due process. He is saying that if there were an imminent threat, the Constitution gives the president authority to kill American citizens without due process. Then he said the president does not have the authority to kill an American not engaged in combat. Herein lies the problem: The Justice Department and Attorney General Eric Holder are relying on "an informed, high-level official of the US government" to make the determination whether an American citizen is "an imminent threat." This makes the US government no different than any dictatorial regime seeking to protect its power.
Brothers and sisters, this is serious. It is longstanding US law that the federal government cannot arbitrarily determine who is an enemy and who isn't. It never has been "legal" for "an informed government official" to determine whether a citizen could live or die. This White House says it is legal. All that is required is that a government official believes you to be an imminent threat. Carney's and Holder's explanations fit the end time prophecy of Paul in 2 Timothy 3:13, "But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived." This topic would never have risen to the public if not for the Justice Department white paper outlining intent to identify US citizens for assassination. Where there is smoke, there is fire--in this case fire from hell.
White House: US Citizens can be killed without due... (
show quote)
US citizens are killed everyday on the streets of our cities. If the government wants blow away a terrorist in Iowa then go for it!
quote=jim charron White House: US Citizens can be... (
show quote)
I would agree with you as soon as you can tell me that said target is indeed,100% a terrorist.Can you assure me of that?
Raider Fan wrote:
jim charron wrote:
White House: US Citizens can be killed without due process - Bill Wilson -
www.dailyjot.com Attorney General Eric Holder sent another letter to Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky) denying that the occupant of the Oval Office has authority to use drones to kill American citizens. But the White House is splitting hairs in an effort to play down its belief that the Constitution allows for the president to kill American citizens without due process. One has to understand the fine line the Department of Justice and the White House is walking. Press Secretary Jay Carney played the Constitution against itself at Thursday's White House press briefing. On one hand, he said the president cannot kill American citizens without due process; on the other, he says the president has authority to do so given an imminent threat.
Carney told reporters: "If...the United States were under attack or there were imminent threat, all the same laws that applied to the President's authority apply now, whether it has to do with drones or other modes that you would use to prevent a terrorist attack or an attack like Pearl Harbor, or any other hypothetical that you can imagine. The law is the law, and the Constitution is the Constitution. And I think that's what the Attorney General was saying...The question that Senator Paul asked: Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil? The answer to that question is no."
Perhaps not so obvious is that Carney made a distinction that supports the Justice Department's justification of killing Americans without due process. He is saying that if there were an imminent threat, the Constitution gives the president authority to kill American citizens without due process. Then he said the president does not have the authority to kill an American not engaged in combat. Herein lies the problem: The Justice Department and Attorney General Eric Holder are relying on "an informed, high-level official of the US government" to make the determination whether an American citizen is "an imminent threat." This makes the US government no different than any dictatorial regime seeking to protect its power.
Brothers and sisters, this is serious. It is longstanding US law that the federal government cannot arbitrarily determine who is an enemy and who isn't. It never has been "legal" for "an informed government official" to determine whether a citizen could live or die. This White House says it is legal. All that is required is that a government official believes you to be an imminent threat. Carney's and Holder's explanations fit the end time prophecy of Paul in 2 Timothy 3:13, "But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived." This topic would never have risen to the public if not for the Justice Department white paper outlining intent to identify US citizens for assassination. Where there is smoke, there is fire--in this case fire from hell.
White House: US Citizens can be killed without due... (
show quote)
US citizens are killed everyday on the streets of our cities. If the government wants blow away a terrorist in Iowa then go for it!
quote=jim charron White House: US Citizens can be... (
show quote)
You see, the checks written into the constitution on government authority were written for a reason.... How many times last year did we see the Democratic party try and define the Tea Party as terrorists... The Southern Poverty Law Center has already listed Tea Party groups as hate groups and it would seem that our government pays close attention to SPLC and follows suit... There is no justification for the government killing a person on US soil who is not an active and imminent threat, we have other resources available to us to subdue and bring that person to justice...
Are you really supporting armed drones flying over the skies of the United States and some pimply faced 20 something CIA operative using a joystick while operating out of a dark basement somewhere killing US citizens on the president's say so with no due process? Please tell me that people are just kidding and there is no such support in this country.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
