White House - Do Not Kill List

[MadMan1978]

First I will remind you all to stay on topic


I have a huge issue with this thread and some comments...

I have a hard time believing that any President would have a "KILL" LIST...Really does anyone believe that anyone sitting in that office first would have such a list...and if they remotely had a list such as this ...Would they let it leak that this list even exists?

Call me what you wish...I think this is one of those cases of someone saying something and it being turned sideways by the media

[tpeichel]

First I will remind you all to stay on topic


I have a huge issue with this thread and some comments...

I have a hard time believing that any President would have a "KILL" LIST...Really does anyone believe that anyone sitting in that office first would have such a list...and if they remotely had a list such as this ...Would they let it leak that this list even exists?

Call me what you wish...I think this is one of those cases of someone saying something and it being turned sideways by the media

I agree that it is shocking, but it's not some wacky conspiracy theory. Here's a link to the story in the NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/wo...pagewanted=all

[TheTGB]

A very reasonable argument.

The problem I see is that the government has taken on a "laws are for the little people" attitude. (Note how many people in government don't pay their taxes, the President's belief that no laws were broken by the banksters or regulators during the housing boom and collapse, etc) They frequently circumvent the Constitution and do as they please.

When you say:
Yes, he is "breaking" the Constitution, however, it is for the good of the country. If you were put in that position, what would you do to get the job done?

Since 2001 we've seen our freedoms and liberties encroached upon little by little with very little push back by the American people. (Been fondled by the TSA lately and who knows who's if anything we do or say is safe from government spying). At every point along the way we're told it's for our own protection. I mean is it really so dangerous in the U.S. that we need drones patrolling our skies? How long before we need "protection" and the government decides to arm the drones?

At some point we need to say enough is enough and to me that time has past.

If the government ever decided to do a drone strike domestically, it would probably be the most stupid thing a President could sign off on. Unless there was validated proof that the drone strike saved a very large number of lives like preventing a nuclear holocaust that would kill millions. A decision where you may take the lives of a few innocent to save the lives of a million innocent people is a situation that is not unfeasible. Being the President is a tough job and people who oppose actions just because they have a certain letter by their name don't have an open mind to whatever is going on.

[tpeichel]

If the government ever decided to do a drone strike domestically, it would probably be the most stupid thing a President could sign off on. Unless there was validated proof that the drone strike saved a very large number of lives like preventing a nuclear holocaust that would kill millions. A decision where you may take the lives of a few innocent to save the lives of a million innocent people is a situation that is not unfeasible. Being the President is a tough job and people who oppose actions just because they have a certain letter by their name don't have an open mind to whatever is going on.

I agree that it sounds far-fetched, but I used to think that we'd never see unmanned drones in the U.S.A providing surveillance for the government. I never thought the government would create a procedure that gropes women and children just to ride on an airplane. And I never thought the government would pass a law that allows them to hold U.S. citizens indefinitely without a trial if the government says they are a terrorist.