Thread: Obama approves the killing of an American citizen.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36208306...new_york_times

I think we're past the level of waterboarding now. Should the citizen terrorist be read his rights and sent to court in New York before he is killed? I guess the past times of the Patriot Act and Guantanamo Bay were the goold ole days.

I really don't get you. I don't know how many times you have posted that
you think msnbc is propaganda. Why in the world would you link to them?

alright, nevermind, it's NYT in disguise..

Originally Posted by dajo

I really don't get you. I don't know how many times you have posted that
you think msnbc is propaganda. Why in the world would you link to them?

alright, nevermind, it's NYT in disguise..

It's a New York Times article. I do believe that the NYT, MSNBC, NPR, NBC, ABC, CBS, and other news sources are propaganda. However, I say that because of their extreme biases. I don't think any of them flat out lie on a regular basis, though CBS and the NYT were caught lying red handed once each. Lying is extraordinarily risky for those companies. What they do is leave out facts and drive others into the ground for the purpose of making the left look good and the right look bad. It is majorly dishonest, but it is not the same as lying. I don't think the NYT is all that much with Obama on foreign policy. He ended up being a fraud in that area.

What do you think of the policy discussed in the article?

I'm not big on hunting people down to kill them - I don't quite understand
what makes him so extraordinarily dangerous either, so that there is the
need to overstep this line, of targeting and assassinating a US citizen.
He is 'believed' to participate in attacks? He was linked? In what way?

It's the extraordinary reason I'm looking for that justifies an extraordinary action.

The broader policies are scary, of course. To think that it could have been
this easy to avoid the banning on assassinations after 9/11, by simply
labelling the target a 'military enemy' whatever that may mean. And I
have listened to enough hate speeches on the 'war on terror' by officials,
while none of them adress the deeper issues of what is going on. With all
those half-truths and dogmatic indoctrination, I am opposed to any laws
or policies that cut liberties to an unreasonable extent, to gain security.

Plus, I don't believe much of what 'the officials have to say' anyway.
So I'm naturally sceptical, when it comes to that war on terror.

Should his citizenship give him any more protection from his actions than other high level terrorists? Al-Qaeda members are viewed as unlawful combatants of war, dealt with by the military instead of law enforcement.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Should his citizenship give him any more protection from his actions than other high level terrorists? Al-Qaeda members are viewed as unlawful combatants of war, dealt with by the military instead of law enforcement.

It hits closer to home and makes American citizens, who generally feel safe from such a threat, see more of a threat to themselves.

How do you feel about the policy? How do you feel about waterboarding?

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Should his citizenship give him any more protection from his actions than other high level terrorists? Al-Qaeda members are viewed as unlawful combatants of war, dealt with by the military instead of law enforcement.

What many people don't seem to understand is that our right to trial exists because anyone can claim that you've done anything they want to claim. Do you personally have evidence that he has engaged in terrorism that makes you so willing to condemn him to die? If he had been caught in this country, do you think we should just drag him out behind the woodshed and shoot him?

I'm about ready to give up on this country. I see our rights being stripped away and I see people not just ignoring it, but actively supporting it. What will it take to get Americans angry?