Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Louisiana Crude;5553985 said:I have mixed feelings on this.
If you read the fine print the article says the president can authorize deadly force such as drone attacks but it doesn't say he's limited to JUST THAT.
Yes this does step outside of due process.
Terrorist don't play by the rules whether they are domestic or foreign.
I don't know about you but if this country were under attack I would want the federal government to get involved and not just some weekend warriors (local law enforcement) from the local Y for the sake of due process.
If there were a high probability of civilian casualty on U.S. soil if drone attacks took place then I highly doubt that Obama or any other acting POTUS would authorize them and their cabinet members would strongly advise against it as well.
Some individuals do abuse their power and this safeguard put in place to help could actually hurt people if certain protocol wasn't followed and certain considerations weren't accounted for.
That I do acknowledge.
With that being said I don't think any elected president would authorize an attack on their own native soil without careful consideration of all these factors.
People want a saviour and President Barack Obama is not that but what he is is a step in the right direction and I am by no means an Obama mark.
I don't agree with all his policies but then I look at a guy like Mitt Romney and John McCain to a lot lessor degree and think President Obama is a better choice then any of those guys.
Due process is fair and should be applied in theory but when you're dealing with an enemy that will kill mass people in this country at any cost and has no regard for dying themselves decisions have to be made.
Terrorist generally make it known who they are therefore admitting guilt to their crimes and even when the government doesn't know the military and CIA generally have a good bit of intelligence to know who the culprits are behind an attack.
These individuals should be STOPPED by JUST ABOUT any MEANS NECESSARY even if that means deadly force.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong but I do think the government would sacrifice a few hundred maybe even a few thousand civilans if they knew it would save hundreds of thousands or millions of civilians.
Louisiana Crude;5553985 said:I have mixed feelings on this.
If you read the fine print the article says the president can authorize deadly force such as drone attacks but it doesn't say he's limited to JUST THAT.
Yes this does step outside of due process.
Terrorist don't play by the rules whether they are domestic or foreign.
I don't know about you but if this country were under attack I would want the federal government to get involved and not just some weekend warriors (local law enforcement) from the local Y for the sake of due process.
If there were a high probability of civilian casualty on U.S. soil if drone attacks took place then I highly doubt that Obama or any other acting POTUS would authorize them and their cabinet members would strongly advise against it as well.
Some individuals do abuse their power and this safeguard put in place to help could actually hurt people if certain protocol wasn't followed and certain considerations weren't accounted for.
That I do acknowledge.
With that being said I don't think any elected president would authorize an attack on their own native soil without careful consideration of all these factors.
People want a saviour and President Barack Obama is not that but what he is is a step in the right direction and I am by no means an Obama mark.
I don't agree with all his policies but then I look at a guy like Mitt Romney and John McCain to a lot lessor degree and think President Obama is a better choice then any of those guys.
Due process is fair and should be applied in theory but when you're dealing with an enemy that will kill mass people in this country at any cost and has no regard for dying themselves decisions have to be made.
Terrorist generally make it known who they are therefore admitting guilt to their crimes and even when the government doesn't know the military and CIA generally have a good bit of intelligence to know who the culprits are behind an attack.
These individuals should be STOPPED by JUST ABOUT any MEANS NECESSARY even if that means deadly force.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong but I do think the government would sacrifice a few hundred maybe even a few thousand civilans if they knew it would save hundreds of thousands or millions of civilians.
Amotekun;5553877 said:Leave where. A nigga can get touched anywhere on the globe. America is on Marsellus Wallace status "if a nigga runs off to indochina I wan a nigga hidin in a bowl of rice waitin to pop a cap in his ass."
nah B we good where we at. We're in the belly of the beast.
Louisiana Crude;5554227 said:@Amotekun I believe the government has little to no interest in killing civilians.
There are many people in government pushing agendas such as making money, greed, and power but I do not think there is some overwhelming conspiracy theory by the POTUS or U.S. government to exterminate it's own citizens.
The government actually probably prefers having more citizens which means there is a larger working class to work in private and commercial businesses to help the rich keep getting richer.
It actually benefits government to have more people particularly more middle class and poor people that work labor jobs and do not rely on heavily on government assistance.
Why would the government mess with its own money and economy by attacking citizens that didn't pose a threat to the greater population?
Say a situation like 9/11 is about to happen again and the U.S. government receives reliable intelligence to thwart a terrorist plot.
Why not deal with it that way and minimize as much civilian casualty as possible.
All this is doing is giving the president the power to take immediate action without having to go through Congress and also not having to worry about being giving due process to someone who is already been confirmed guilty and want to kill as many people as possible.
Just because we've only had a hand full of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil doesn't mean we won't possibly have more in years and decades to come.
The government is about making money and pushing agendas not necessarily killing.
Look at when George H. Bush was in office for example the government could have killed Saddam Hussein then.
The U.S. government was after him then not for mass killings of his people in Iraq but rather because he invaded Kuwait which is a major hub of oil for the United States.
After the U.S. ran the Iraqi military out of Kuwait they didn't go after Hussein like they could have because they then had what they wanted which was Kuwait not under Hussein's rule.
Theoretically it would have saved the U.S. billions if they would have went after Hussein then instead of years later like they did only for Bush's son to get him.
That's just an example of the United States and the government being after the almighty dollar.
The U.S. Government would rather have green then a lot of blood on their hands and billions of dollars spent due to tactical military strikes.
Most of those people in government are old conservative guys that are heavily influenced by lobbyist and looking to line their pockets.
Again I say no acting POTUS wants to deal with the responsibility of massive civilian casualties being tied to them.
Even with this power I can tell you with very little doubt President Obama would be very slow and careful about pulling the trigger on this even if an event happened that put him in a position where he had to pull the trigger on this.
No President wants to be remembered as the one whose tied to ordering an attack on U.S. soil or do they want to be held responsible for significant civilian casualties.
Louisiana Crude;5554371 said:I did a Google search and found no conclusive information that the government was behind the plot to assassinate certain occupy wall street individuals.
The FBI said it was an unknown source from everything I saw, read, and interpreted.
A lot of people stood a lot to lose behind that movement thats not necessarily saying the government did or didn't have anything to do with that but they didn't have to have anything to do with it.
A lot of people stood to lose something behind that movement.
As far as the CIA and government owning certain news stations I highly doubt that BUT I do acknowledge they can influence what goes on there.
There are plenty of other news channels and outlets true but I tend not to trust the known news stations and outlets completely much less the ones that aren't out there as much and haven't established a high level of credibility.
I'm truly one of those people who believes none of what I hear and only half of what I see.
Those lessor established news outlets can probably be persuaded to put out erroneous information easier than the larger ones could particularly if the price and incentives were right.