{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
originally posted in:Secular Sevens
3/6/2013 3:32:59 AM
16
[quote] I'm sure this speaks for itself. It is disgusting, it is scary, and this man, Barack Obama, should not be in the office of the most powerful position on Earth. Isn't this essentially the precursor to fascism and militarized law enforcement? It's an absolute disregard for the rule of law and the idea of a limited government with a separation of powers.[/quote]
Wait, so if the government kills someone who is attacking them, then it's fascism and militarized law enforcement?
English
-
Edited by Ron Paul: 3/29/2013 7:46:49 AMIf a government has a Constitution that says a citizen has a right to fair trial, but said citizen is killed without even receiving one, then the government is corrupt.
-
Don't government agents have the right to self defense?
-
What if that citizen was trying to shoot somebody? You can't exactly try them in time to save the person being shot at.
-
When they're using the military to their own citizens in violation of the rights protected to them by the supreme law of the land, yes. Obama should be impeached and removed from office immediately.
-
oh baph, u so silly
-
It's not easy being too right for the liberals and too left for the conservatives. :/
-
Especially when you call for the impeachment of a President for a hypothetical scenario which will probably never occur. You have a better chance of going to war with China.
-
Except they aren't doing that, they didn't say that they would do that, and there's no indication that they're lying. It helps to read the entire article before you post is.
-
They said they have the authority to do that, which they don't, and if they're allowed to speak as if they do and not face any consequences, it's only a matter of time before a future administration takes it a step further. I read the article, so you can stop insisting that I didn't.
-
They've always had that authority. If someone is an immediate threat to you, then you can kill them to save your own life. Everyone has that right.
-
And how does a drone strike qualify as self-defense?
-
In a situation like Pearl Harbor, like Holder mentioned. Like I'm saying, there's really nothing to see here.
-
Saying a "situation like Pearl Harbor" doesn't answer my question. If they had drones back then, how would remotely killing American citizens have been an act of self-defense?
-
If, for example, a group of citizens decided to (violently) attack the government and were actively doing so, then the government could use drones against them. A drone strike qualifies as self defense when there is an attack to defend against. In the same way the President could order soldiers to defend against an attack, he can use drones.
-
No, the scary thing is, when the idea of an "Enemy combatant" changes to include anyone that is anti-government.
-
[quote]No, the scary thing is, when the idea of an "Enemy combatant" changes to include anyone that violently expresses that they are anti-government.[/quote]This is far more accurate. They're not going to use drones on people that are peacefully protesting anti-government ideas.
