Think of it as a "death panel". Those are OK.

HockeyDad wrote:

So what? I have no problem with killing those outside our borders, who are a likely lethal terrorist and are a threat to the U.S. and other countries. If they happen to be U.S. citizens, F 'em. It's war...

rfenst wrote:

The biggest problem isn't the (alleged/accused) terrorists that are killed in these drone strikes. It is the number of non-targets killed along with them, who are estimated to number over 1,000 so far -- including almost 200 children. Another problem is that we are violating the borders and airspace of sovereign nations and dropping bombs. Dropping bombs and killing people are acts of war, and as such should be voted on by Congress.

I do have a big problem with this. As with all things government does, it is a slippery slope to go down. The definition of the word 'terrorist' has changed quite a bit in the last few years. I don't give a s#it if Al-Alawki was a terrorist. He was an American citizen. So was his son. We can't pick and choose which Americans the Constitution applies to. We have Constitutional rights for a reason. These rights are not there to protect the guilty, but the innocent. Once these rights are denied to those who have not even been CONVICTED of a crime....wow...it's a scary thought.

borndead1 wrote:

I love this.

Certain people here were bleeding out their eyeballs that terrorists were being "tortured" by pouring water on their faces, and phone calls to places outside this country were being monitored. Now citizens - CITIZENS - of the United States traveling outside this country are being summarialy executed without due process, and without trial. The response by the same people mentioned above? Ho Humm.

The former were terrorists, not covered AT ALL by the Geneva Convention, and were no better than meat byproducts is captured. The latter have rights grated to them by their citizenship status.

It is little wonder why a Idi Amin wannabe is still in the Oval Office...

jpotts wrote:

The biggest problem isn't the (alleged/accused) terrorists that are killed in these drone strikes. It is the number of non-targets killed along with them, who are estimated to number over 1,000 so far -- including almost 200 children. Another problem is that we are violating the borders and airspace of sovereign nations and dropping bombs. Dropping bombs and killing people are acts of war, and as such should be voted on by Congress.

I do have a big problem with this. As with all things government does, it is a slippery slope to go down. The definition of the word 'terrorist' has changed quite a bit in the last few years. I don't give a s#it if Al-Alawki was a terrorist. He was an American citizen. So was his son. We can't pick and choose which Americans the Constitution applies to. We have Constitutional rights for a reason. These rights are not there to protect the guilty, but the innocent. Once these rights are denied to those who have not even been CONVICTED of a crime....wow...it's a scary thought.

borndead1 wrote:

Here's a link to an ACLU article on who now could be considered a "Domestic Terrorist" under the Patriot Act (yes, I know, Bush's fault, but your guy didn't do anything to overturn it).

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/how-usa-patriot-act-redefines-domestic-terrorism 

After reading who could now be considered a "Domestic Terrorist", do you still think it's fine for the US Government to assassinate US Citizens whom they deem to be possible terrorists without a trial and conviction? Slippery slope indeed.

dpnewell wrote:

A few legal precedents and a few more fringe wackos killing people and we could realistically be living in a nightmare world, with no privacy, no property rights, no guns, no freedom of assembly, and only the illusion of freedom of speech left.

borndead1 wrote: