President Obama supporting islamic terrorists

Is that the answer to: why don't you like people making assumptions about you?

 

Look I'm angry about the drone business and I think that Obama needs to do better upholding the Constitution, BUT

your statement is inaccurate and extremely misleading when you say "ANY". Come on. You are just trying to get people to hate him.

He claims the right to kill Americans who his intelligence agencies tell him are engaged in terrorist actions that threaten America. That is very, very different from what you said and reflects badly on your reputation.

 

Sunfighter, I agree with you that in this instance Obama got the bad guys. What disturbs me is that he [ Obama ] and the attourny General are stating that the president can use these drone strikes here in America against Americans on the president`s order to do so. And this right will be passed on to all future presidents.
I can imagine scenarios where this would be appripriate, such as a house full of well armed terrorists. But at least right here in America it does seem to me that law enforcement officials should make that decision and not the president. ...Oscar

 

Thank you sunfigter for clarifying that. I absolutely do embrace the HIPPY VALUES. To enjoy what pleasure we can find in life as long as it does NOT harm others. Sex, drugs, booze and all that.
I also see a very real need to protect those rights. These rights are under attack both here in America and abroad. I am an Atheist. There are laws being proposed by moslems that would make that a crime. And maybe some Christians also. I really have not heard of that but Christians also get angry with me sometimes.
The first amendmant to the constitution is supposed to guarantee a seperation of church and state. ...Oscar

 

Oscar, that is not true. It appeared to be true at one point, but it is not true. It was settled last March 7. If you would have Googled it before you posted, you would have found this on Mother Jones.

Please Oscar, check your facts before you post.

 

Here is a link to obama`s policy of using drones to kill Americans in America:



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...one-strikes-to-kill-Americans-on-US-soil.html

 

Sorry
We cannot find the page you are looking for.
The page may have been moved, updated or deleted.
There might be a problem with the website.
You may have typed the web address incorrectly. Please check the address and spelling.

 

Oscar, once again. Did you not read my post? The policy was clarified on March 7. The story you just posted was from March 6.

 

bad link...try again

 

6:52PM GMT 06 Mar 2013

 

Here is the letter in question.

 

Never mind Pres. Obama in support of a terrorism plot like Al-qaeda against fellow citizens which is utterly erroneous. Al-qaeda never acts against the mere fellow-citizen. Obama should be for the security of the nation in the harmonious bias for All races and religions.

How about David Suzuki, famous geneticist turned environmentalist, supporting pres. Al-assad against the peace conference of mid November of bureaucratic compatriots to organize the nation with balanced leadership (or something of economic interests with the Saudis in mind). Thus the bias for the Saudi Arabians by his Research Group for the United Nations budding out of the political ideals in the middle East.:2thumbsup:

 

Oscar, I don't mean to be too hard on you. It was pretty weird that on March 6 the press reported this story and the very next day, Holder denied their conclusions. I can see how even using Google could give you the wrong answer. But what stands now is what Holder said on the 7th. Obama cannot do and does not claim the authority to do what you said.

 

SO what, you have genetically pickle juiced surrigates type for the president this information.

 

Clones, clones, clones are infiltrating the Al-qaada.

 

Oh you are going to have to provide a link for this shit. :toetap05:

David Suzuki is dude! :beatnik:

 

The Attorney General
Washington, D.C.
March 7, 2013

The Honorable Rand Paul
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Paul:

It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: "Does the
President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in
combat on American soil?" The answer to that question is no.

Eric H. Holder, Jr.

That response is one big loophole for any president to use as a reason for ordering a drone attack against Americans in America. In my opinion: There is no legitimate reason for any president to decide to use drones to attack Americans IN America. For example how do you define combat ? Two guys fighting it out outside a bar or anywhere else are in combat.
Simply stated: No president of the US should be making such desicions. That is a job for policemen. A rogue president could make up whatever reason to order such an attack and there is NO legal recourse for anyone attacked as this law now stands. People are concerned about this for very good reasons. ...Oscar

 

The fundamental problem goes back to the days right after 9/11 when the question was, "Are we at war? How can we be at war, not with a country but with a tactic -- terrorism?" Many, including me, thought it was best treated as a criminal matter, but those who wanted a military response won the argument, even tho a War on Terror is not winnable by definition.

This decision has made all the difference. We are now in an endless War on Terror.

 

A criminal matter ? Like shoplifting? Whaaaaaaaat? Are you for real?

 

The President should not suport terrists.