• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US looks to target American citizen with drone strike

I do not agree that there are as few socialists as you might think, just many who are less open and proud about it, instead we have socialists who play the "I'm not a socialist but..." or "If its not full socialism its not socialism" Jon Stewart types.

If its not full socialism then its not socialism, it will be a mixed market economy.
 
How can you be killed along with your entire family at a wedding unless they're having a wedding in a country that either lacks the ability to extradite you or won't, as well as you inciting violence, as well as that nation being unable to stop the US? How can that happen without those criteria being met?

Its called a Drone Strike, do google Abdulrahman al-Awlaki and spare yourself further evidence of your ignorance.
 
If its not full socialism then its not socialism, it will be a mixed market economy.

Spare that bull**** for incrementalists. The degree to which it is mixed is the degree to which it is socialist and its growing, much to your pleasure I assume.
 
Its called a Drone Strike, do google Abdulrahman al-Awlaki and spare yourself further evidence of your ignorance.

lol what ignorance? Why would you think I wouldn't know about al-Awlaki? lol wtf? What did I even post that made you think I wouldn't know about him? hahahah this is great
 
Spare that bull**** for incrementalists.

You can evolve to socialism sure. But you cant be "a little bit socialist". You can be a mixed market economy.
 
The fact that my right to due process can be voided at some official's say so and that I could be killed along with my entire family at a wedding by my own country without due process is a major ****ing issue!

Do you not believe in innocence until proven guilty, due process or habeus corpus?

The dude could kill you and set down to a fine meal. Of course he doesn't give a ****.
 
lol what ignorance? Why would you think I wouldn't know about al-Awlaki? lol wtf? What did I even post that made you think I wouldn't know about him? hahahah this is great

Keep laughing at "collateral damage" that has in fact occurred in this world, why would I think you ignorant? You who asked "How can you be killed along with your entire family at a wedding unless they're having a wedding in a country that either lacks the ability to extradite you" as if all accused were guilty until proven otherwise.

You clearly do not support due process for American citizens, i'm done with the likes of you. You who not only have no problem with summary executions, but regard them as "good."

The dude could kill you and set down to a fine meal. Of course he doesn't give a ****.

Clearly, nor does OldWorldOrder.

He asks, whats the issue with that? As if it were okay.
 
Last edited:
Keep laughing at "collateral damage" that has in fact occurred in this world, why would I think you ignorant? You who asked "How can you be killed along with your entire family at a wedding unless they're having a wedding in a country that either lacks the ability to extradite you" as if all accused were guilty until proven otherwise.

You clearly do not support due process for American citizens, i'm done with the likes of you. You who not only have no problem with summary executions, but regard them as "good."



Clearly, nor does OldWorldOrder.

He asks, whats the issue with that? As if it were okay.

Because he does think its ok and has openly said as much.
 
Maybe. Maybe we just couldn't do it. So either our ability got better or we stopped being ******s about it. Either way, I like it.

This policy of drone striking dissidents who are Americans is allowing our government to define imminent threats and legitimate targets without providing evidence of wrongdoing. How can you think that is okay?

They aren't even disclosing what country the guy is in. All details are kept under wraps.

The government always has an obligation to the People to justify its use of powers on its own people, and that's the way it was prior to the catch-all "war on terror" which you seem to support.

OldWorldOrder said:
No, it's not a fact. You just pretended your definition of justice meant that. And it's funny.

The Constitution of the United States is not pretend. You can put your fingers in your ears and shout "la la la" all you want but drone striking U.S. citizens without trial is controversial at best, and illegal at worst. Obama has already declared it illegal to use drones outside of the military, but what happens when the next President comes to power? Are we going to start taking people out all over the world no matter where they are?

Use your brain and not your emotions. The door is being open to major power grabs here.
 
Keep laughing at "collateral damage" that has in fact occurred in this world, why would I think you ignorant? You who asked "How can you be killed along with your entire family at a wedding unless they're having a wedding in a country that either lacks the ability to extradite you" as if all accused were guilty until proven otherwise.

I didn't say anything about being guilty? I asked how that would happen unless certain criteria were met. Then you brought up al-Awlaki, in which those criteria were met. So it had nothing to do with what I was saying. This is now the second time today that you're failing to have decent reading comprehension.

You clearly do not support due process for American citizens, i'm done with the likes of you. You who not only have no problem with summary executions, but regard them as "good."

lol? Okay? I'm glad you're done. I'm also glad the US government isn't done ignoring you.
 
This policy of drone striking dissidents who are Americans is allowing our government to define imminent threats and legitimate targets without providing evidence of wrongdoing. How can you think that is okay?

Evidence is provided. Just not to the public.

They aren't even disclosing what country the guy is in. All details are kept under wraps.

Not in public, no.

The government always has an obligation to the People to justify its use of powers on its own people, and that's the way it was prior to the catch-all "war on terror" which you seem to support.

That obligation is seen through via the Congress. Not through releasing things via press releases for everyone in the world to pore over.

The Constitution of the United States is not pretend.

And where does it define justice as what you said?

Use your brain and not your emotions. The door is being open to major power grabs here.

I don't really have much emotion about this whatsoever.
 
This policy of drone striking dissidents who are Americans is allowing our government to define imminent threats and legitimate targets without providing evidence of wrongdoing. How can you think that is okay?

They aren't even disclosing what country the guy is in. All details are kept under wraps.

The government always has an obligation to the People to justify its use of powers on its own people, and that's the way it was prior to the catch-all "war on terror" which you seem to support.



The Constitution of the United States is not pretend. You can put your fingers in your ears and shout "la la la" all you want but drone striking U.S. citizens without trial is controversial at best, and illegal at worst. Obama has already declared it illegal to use drones outside of the military, but what happens when the next President comes to power? Are we going to start taking people out all over the world no matter where they are?

Use your brain and not your emotions. The door is being open to major power grabs here.

The dude your debating doesn't do anything on emotion!
 
What are we supposed to do with an American that is an area were we can't arrest him as he is fighting against his country?

Snag and grab. Follow the rule of law to say the least.
 
Snag and grab. Follow the rule of law to say the least.

Snag and grab isn't inside the rule of law.

It might- just might- be that international law should be considered more a guideline than anything else.
 
Snag and grab isn't inside the rule of law.

It might- just might- be that international law should be considered more a guideline than anything else.

It certainly inside the rule of law.
If the country allows ours to enter their country and bring them back for trial we are then allowed to do that.
 
It certainly inside the rule of law.
If the country allows ours to enter their country and bring them back for trial we are then allowed to do that.

Uhh..."if" they allowed. That's a big if.

If they don't allow it...is that it? Give up? Not worth it then?
 
Back
Top Bottom