Painfully Aware

@debrakcarey (19925)
United States
March 13, 2013 9:18am CST
Now that it is news, now that Obama's administration has come out and said they were thinking of making it permissable for the executive branch to assassinate American citizens without due process, can you who support the President continue to support him? Do you who support him - understand the implications of THE PRESIDENT having such powers? And if you still trust him in particular, would you trust ANY ONE who comes after him with those same powers?
1 person likes this
8 responses
@amuzien (91)
13 Mar 13
i am fond of Obama,because he is smart and resonable.i trust him .but don't give so much hope on a person.after all,he is a humanbeing...
2 people like this
• United States
13 Mar 13
Did you not read her post? What about being able to assassinate you without cause? Yeah he's smart alright. Smart enough to get around the law.
1 person likes this
@AidaLily (1450)
• United States
13 Mar 13
And so were the other presidents who were before him. Seriously, explain to me why people think this is just coming up? Why do they think this is all something new? Having the ability to do something and actually doing it are two different things. Surely most people posting here realize that. Everyone has the ability to go buy a hammer with the intention of using it to commit murder, for example, whether or not they do it is something entirely different. When you think in pieces you scare yourself more than anyone ever could.
1 person likes this
@debrakcarey (19925)
• United States
13 Mar 13
I get your point Aida, but I ask you; did any of those others ADMIT in a PUBLIC way that they might have that right to do such a thing? It is in that context I am asking the question.
@crossbones27 (13530)
• Redlands, California
13 Mar 13
OH Deb, I love your wording. If this were a Republican President he would be a hero. I have already stated not a big fan of the law but understand it. Granted if this was a Republican President the left would be going crazy. Maybe the people need to ask themselves what the hell they actually believe in? I don't think they know. I will say its a hard to decipher what line to cross unless you think in political spectrum's. BTW Holder already sent Paul a letter saying its illegal to bomb Americans on American soil. The law is all over the place though and they need to specify.
1 person likes this
@Taskr36 (13928)
• United States
13 Mar 13
"If this were a Republican President he would be a hero." Yeah, because Bush's approval rating of 22% showed what a hero he was. Do you really think it would have gone up if he stated that he had the power to drone-bomb American citizens?
• Redlands, California
13 Mar 13
OH Taskr he was at the time though. Very few even bothered to question him. Sorry If you think my point is lame. I kind of think the point that Republicans continue want to do the same thing is lame. Even though they lost the election. Cut taxes and reduce spending. They have not learned anything else. WE all know that point of view.
• Redlands, California
13 Mar 13
I think there is a few ways this could go. I think your Bush point is fair but would it be the same point if Romney made this decision? Maybe we need arch rivals in the White House maybe it makes people see more clearly. Just saying I did not hear this over Iraq. Granted maybe we just learned our lessons. I am just going to leave it their though. No need to have a battle over past ramifications.
@AidaLily (1450)
• United States
13 Mar 13
You know I don't mind it. At least they are honest. Why anyone would be so naive as to think that no president ever thought of or had done things similar before is beyond me? I do hate how this administration makes everything so public. All it does is freak people out about what their government has most likely been doing for years upon years. It is just easier now with all the advances in technology. All our politicians are corrupt people. Do you honestly think if a republican or libertarian gets into office they will suddenly cease all this activity? This is the next step up after that darn Patriot Act that was signed by the previous and renewed in this one. You think it is going to get better after this? You think we should trust any president after this regardless of political affiliation? The funny thing is people thought we should trust presidents more after previous ones were involved in scandals and go back far enough (before either of us were born) I think someone became president after murdering someone. Why do you think anything has changed?
• United States
13 Mar 13
Lot of innuendo there, and some of it likely true. Some things which are plain is that government loves to grow in leaps and bounds.. Roosevelt, who added lots of initial branches, FHA, FICA, and like half a dozen more(?) was a republican but then the left adopted it all, beginning with Woodrow Wilson.. Nowadays, it seems the left wants to grow government in leaps and bounds, and the right will too but slightly more benign and not quite so malignantly (akA, overgrown to, imho, strangling stage)
• Redlands, California
13 Mar 13
Interesting the opposite view point on transparency at least on this one subject. You don't think if they would just make things clear all in shot, people's fears would be put at ease. I hear even the left wing media does not know the rules of this in totality. Maybe your second point already answered my question but just to make sure. Are you saying, "people can't handle the truth?"
@AidaLily (1450)
• United States
13 Mar 13
@flowerchilde: They both want to grow the government. The question is how? It is just like people who think that one side wont spend as much as the other. No, it is just about what that side deems important enough to spend stuff on. I don't buy into the whole "right will too but slightly more benign and not quite so malignantly". I just think they will be less transparent in doing so in order for the people not to know. @crossbones: All the transparency does is make the people aware of the fact our government has been corrupt for a very very long time. Unfortunately, they are just now noticing it so..... it is this big shock to them. So you asked "Are you saying 'people can't handle the truth'?" That is EXACTLY what I am saying. Would there be this much outrage and such if they could? Every former democratic and republican president knew the people couldn't handle the truth and so I don't know what on earth Obama was thinking when he thought they could.
@Fatcat44 (1142)
• United States
13 Mar 13
Where is the demorats, the party for the common people, at on this? They should be all over this. Imagine the revolt if Bush had said this? Or are the demorats showing their true colors?
@AidaLily (1450)
• United States
13 Mar 13
If Bush had said this, then you'd have to switch your question around as someone would ask where the republicans were on this. Then again would that just be republicans showing their true colors? The left would have revolted if Bush said this. The right would have kept silent and vice versa. Both sides are just as corrupt on the others. No need to split hairs like the politicians do.
@AidaLily (1450)
• United States
13 Mar 13
That should be "Both sides are just as corrupt as the other side." Didn't realize I accidentally deleted part of the sentence and kept typing. I have an over sensitive mouse pad on my laptop.
@Fatcat44 (1142)
• United States
13 Mar 13
Actually, the libertarian and conservative part of the right would have squawk on this. I do not see any of the left squawking.
@trruk1 (1031)
• United States
14 Mar 13
As far as claiming to have the authority to use against American citizens in this country, that is just not true. Both the Justice Department and the White House have said the President does not have that authority. Nobody got excited when Bush used drones. Now it is some kind of crime. I think they will probably be used here some day. Probably not by Obama, but maybe the next President. I hate the idea. They are distant and impersonal. Nobody gets his uniform dirty. Killing by remote controlled machine. So far they say it is not legal here, but when Bush was in office he could a legal opinion to support literally anything he wanted to do, and there is no assurance we won't have somebody with that same attitude some time in the future. Bush explicitly said that if he decided to do something, that made it legal. Obama won't use drones in this country--but some day somebody probably will.
@Taskr36 (13928)
• United States
14 Mar 13
"Both the Justice Department and the White House have said the President does not have that authority." They said that AFTER Rand Paul's 13 hour filibuster informing the American public that Obama and his justice department refused to say they did not have that authority. Prior to that Eric Holder actually claimed they DID have that authority. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/holder-yep-obama-could-kill-americans-u-soil-213059085--politics.html "Nobody got excited when Bush used drones." There were people, like myself, who didn't like the way Bush used drones. Of course Bush wasn't using them to target and kill American citizens who were not charged with any crimes. Only Obama has done that. Of course Obama's spokesman said it's ok to kill a 16 year old American who was never charged with or accused of a crime because he should have chosen a more responsible father. His American citizen father had been killed weeks earlier by a separate drone strike. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/mar/07/rand-paul/rand-paul-challenges-obama-spokesmans-comment-son-/ "Bush explicitly said that if he decided to do something, that made it legal." Really? Please link me to a video of him saying that. In absence of a video I would be happy to read an article by a reputable media outlet, no blogs, quoting him as saying that. Personally, I think you're just getting him mixed up with Nixon.
@debrakcarey (19925)
• United States
14 Mar 13
We have been made afraid, very afraid. And yes, both parties have been complacent in this fear mongering since 9/11. We're so afraid, we are actually making excuses for those who are putting in place laws, regulations and executive orders, a way to kill us... and we are accepting their authority to do so because we want to feel safe. We are being told it is for our own good, that they are only trying to protect us from the evil 'terrorist'. Meanwhile, our government sends money and arms to jihadist regimes. Meanwhile our government makes lists of 'dangerous' groups whom they have to control so we will be safe, that do not include ONE actual terrorist jihadist group. Lists full of names of those who are politically dangerous to their POWER. Lists that are full of conservative groups, and patriotic citizens who are raising alarm bells over government grabs at power, but NO JIHADISTS? Just who are the terrorists, is it American citizens who disagree with government or the guy who shoots 12 of his fellow soldiers while crying out ALLAH AKBAR? Ask yourself why a man who had personal contact with terrorists and then shoots up an army base killing soldiers is NOT being called a terrorist by the White House. Instead, list of those who disagree with current White House policy are placed on 'domestic terror' watch lists'? While we sit and bicker over who is more guilty of passing these laws, we are doing nothing to challenge their actual 'right' to make such laws no matter what PARTY they belong to. I don't personally CARE which party did it first, which president will actually do it in the future. I care about WHY they are making the laws, passing the regs and signing the executive orders.
@usaction (651)
• United States
5 Apr 13
I voted for Obama, back in 2008. In the 2012 Primaries, I voted Ron Paul, and in the General, Gary Johnson. Obama is just the face that the globalists are currently using to push their agenda. The fact that Obama is even considering the mass murder of Americans--on American soil--should disturb anyone. For those that don't think it would be mass murder, I point out the 180 kids who have been murdered by drone strikes, including two 3 year olds, and 2 1 year old girls...who were THEY threats to. If you do just a little searching on the web, you'd see those stats. That no one has bothered to look that up in the government, to bring in before Obama's attention, and to say that drone use is "wise" is cause for concern, to say the least.
@debrakcarey (19925)
• United States
8 Apr 13
God help us all, cause it's obvious we down here don't have the solution.
• United States
13 Mar 13
I haven't heard anything about this Deb. I don't have TV anymore. I don't check out any news. We used to watch FOX News but we can't get it now. The above being said...this is really scary. I will see what the other posters are saying. I'm writing from my email.
@flowerchilde (12520)
• United States
13 Mar 13
It's quite plain according to the constitution how outrageous the very idea is! "Due process" indeed!! It's good to try to point out to those starry eyed when their particular party is prez, that it's not a granting of sweeping powers to just their idol, but to all of government, namely the executive branch and federal government, which of course, btw, the constitution is the protection from.. is eXactly who and what the constitution regarded as a danger to put strict limits upon. But alas one party has infiltrated education and press, oiye! WoT NoW?!!