Panetta : Obama decides who is a terrorist and if they should be killed

reply to post by KonquestAbySS


I hear ya. Sadly, the ones that have not woken up to it just won't. Just look up a few posts to see that.

Some of the brave ones have come forward and admitted it was a huge mistake voting for him, they learned their lesson, the remainder will stay with blinders on till the bitter end. It's called blind faith, more the type you should have for a spouse.

It's sad in a way, but very comical in another. You have to laugh, else you would cry.

If only it wasn't their fellow countrymens' blood on HIS hands.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Libertygal

 

Ugh! I never said I agreed with it or that I supported it. I just said that IF we're going to be killing people, then the guy at the top should make the tough decision and live with the consequences.

And this isn't about the NDAA. This is about the Awlaki killing last year. And this secret presidential process was used by Bush as well. Obama didn't invent it.

Of course, you all got crazy on me with assumptions about my position, so I really don't have anything more to say here. I can't help it you make these assumptions and go off the deep end.

Seems I did post about the killing.

And I went off the deep end making assumptions?

Pot. Kettle. Black. Much?

ETA: And why bring Bush into it? It was pointed out he set the framework for it. But, he never used it, did he? Besides, he isn't president anymore and coming up for re-election, is he? Therefor, he is no longer a danger like Obama is.

Originally posted by MrWendal
The part Panetta is NOT telling you??

This authority for the President do decide who is a terrorist and can kill you was started with the Bush Administration. They created the legal frame work in order to do such a thing. Obama used it.

Today, Obama says he will never use the powers of the NDAA..... I actually believe him. I don't think he will. Just like Bush didnt kill American Citizens. That does not mean it wont ever be used by someone who holds the Office later. This is why these laws and acts must be repealed. No one person should EVER have this power.

Blame it on Bush. Again. Can't Obama make any independant, self initiated, INTELLIGENT decisions? Seriously, if the Bush administration needed a partner in crime, they certainly found the right man. Because everything Obomba does is because "he (Bush) made me do it. waaahhhhhh." Obama bases his decisons not on what needs to be done now, but carrying on with the same crap.

And yes, all presidents enact into law procedures they themselves would never use. They are just trying to make it easier for the next administration. (snicker snicker)

Give me a break already!

Sorry can't blame this on Bush no matter how many times people try to simple fact Bush ain't the Potus Obama the current campaigner in cheif you know that guy who campaigned on everything Bush did but has done the same and expanded it's intrusions.

You might be a terrorist if your white,post on forums,be critical of the adminstration,educated,rich etc.

Obama did diecide the murders of a myriad of people including American citizens abroad and now targeting them here at home.

What people are not putting together is when we were over there this wasn't even a thought rolling in that hamster cage wheel they call a government brain.

People wanted out of Iraq,Afghanistan,Somalia,Yemen and other countries and now look at what is happening.

Careful what you wish for people with their tunnel vision never look at the bigger picture and the ndaa and Obama decisions of who gets to live and who dies and who is a terrorist.

There is that hope and change working for you Bush was bad but Obama beats him by a mile the party of real fascism.

Originally posted by Gridrebel

Originally posted by MrWendal
The part Panetta is NOT telling you??

This authority for the President do decide who is a terrorist and can kill you was started with the Bush Administration. They created the legal frame work in order to do such a thing. Obama used it.

Today, Obama says he will never use the powers of the NDAA..... I actually believe him. I don't think he will. Just like Bush didnt kill American Citizens. That does not mean it wont ever be used by someone who holds the Office later. This is why these laws and acts must be repealed. No one person should EVER have this power.

Blame it on Bush. Again. Can't Obama make any independant, self initiated, INTELLIGENT decisions? Seriously, if the Bush administration needed a partner in crime, they certainly found the right man. Because everything Obomba does is because "he (Bush) made me do it. waaahhhhhh." Obama bases his decisons not on what needs to be done now, but carrying on with the same crap.

And yes, all presidents enact into law procedures they themselves would never use. They are just trying to make it easier for the next administration. (snicker snicker)

Give me a break already!

edit on 31-1-2012 by Gridrebel because: (no reason given)

The last sentence in your rant is exactly my point.

I am not blaming Bush and I am not defending Obama. I am pointing out that the legal framework was put into place by the previous Administration. It is an Agenda.

By Panetta making such a statement he is laying blame on Obama and that is not entirely accurate. It started with the previous Administration. Obama just put it to use. This is something people need to understand especially with the newest laws being passed for our "safety". All it takes is for one President to abuse these powers.

I'm sure someone else has mentioned this, but uhm this power is different than what GWB had how again?

Since the mad power grab that followed the inside job of 9/11 all politicians have been about usurping our liberty.

Derek

Originally posted by MrWendal
By Panetta making such a statement he is laying blame on Obama and that is not entirely accurate.

Actually Panetta said, "The President of the United States" has the final word. The title to this thread (and the article) are sensationalism. It is the posters here blaming it on Obama.

From the OP source:

"[The] President of the United States obviously reviews these cases, reviews the legal justification, and in the end says, go or no go," Panetta said.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by MrWendal
By Panetta making such a statement he is laying blame on Obama and that is not entirely accurate.

Actually Panetta said, "The President of the United States" has the final word. The title to this thread (and the article) are sensationalism. It is the posters here blaming it on Obama.

From the OP source:

"[The] President of the United States obviously reviews these cases, reviews the legal justification, and in the end says, go or no go," Panetta said.

So one could argue by the very definition of Panetta's words,"The President of the United States" has the final word." In that the United States is no longer a Democratic nation, but rather a Monarchy


All I know is, our Supreme justices best step in or Nazi-Germany of old will pail in comparisons to what this Nation state we call the U.S. will soon look like

As well if they do not step in, its time for Congress, the Senate, and the Supreme Court to go home as they are definetly no longer needed.

reply to post by charles1952


In the situations you presented, there is (usually) a clear and present danger.

An officer will eliminate a threat, same as an infantryman. For the sake of argument, the official story says that usama was a threat.

When it comes to the NDAA, they can detain you just for words, like I hate the pres or the gov sucks, actually you don't even have to say anything (or type it) its at the discretion of the person in charge, which should not be the case.

reply to post by calnorak

Dear calnorak,

Thank you for your thoughtful response.

You are absolutely right that an immediate threat comes from an entirely different set of circumstances. Many "terrorists" present a clear danger, but since they can attack when they choose, it's almost never an immediate threat. And, of course, leaders never attack, they just aim their supporters at the target and let go.

This NDAA business gives me pause. I can't say that I disagree with the broad idea behind it, but the implementation is something else. I wish it was more sharply defined. People think they are safe, and they probably are, but I wish it more clearly spelled out what behavior would prompt a bullet to the back of my head.

With respect,
Charles1952

We live in a dictatorship now. Pure and simple.

He signed himself to that position when he signed this law.

There IS no greater authority than to take someone's life at will based on your own decision.

That's GOD LIKE power, and it is not the American way.

I'm sorry if we are too scared to stand our ground and face the fear and live with the danger - have the bravery that it takes to insist on our values.
It breaks my heart.

reply to post by KonquestAbySS


That's something I keep telling my friends and family;

"You better be on the good side of the next guy you vote in, 'cause he's got the power to take you out."

Originally posted by charles1952
I wish I had the certainty that some of you displayed, but I am confused again.

In combat, the infantryman decides who lives and dies, there's no trial. The President decided to kill Bin Laden (For the sake of argument, I'm accepting the official story.) No trial here, either. Policemen kill without trial first.

All of these seem to be based on some kind of self-defense doctrine. Is that what the President is claiming here? If so, why isn't it valid?

Not trying to stir up controversy, just being confused.

Assuming for a moment that hypothetically speaking, I agreed with you in a purely battlefield context, that is not what we are discussing, here.

What we are discussing, is Obama gaining the ability to invade Americans' living rooms and drag domestic citizens away to FEMA camps for processing, in the same type of manner that has already been done for years now in Iraq.

Obama does not, however, want you to think that the above is the scenario that he is aiming for. Instead, he wants you to think that it will only be used in a defensive manner, and only against non-American citizens; because that way, he will get your support for it.

The bottom line is, that even if Obama is given this ability ostensibly for purely battlefield situations, it will inevitably end up in the living room; so he must not be given it ideally at all. All of this relates to the depopulation program; the War on Terror, all of it.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


But the key word is "suspected"
not "guilty" of terrorism...
what ever happened to a right to a trial of a jury before your peers?

Dude: If PAUL or ROMNEY or anyone else gets elected....it will be the same. Even the "liberal" candidate. Your point is moot...and it will be by next year. Same decision...new President.

You know everyone has the same ability, i suppose its just whoever has the biggest budget or opportunity

Originally posted by vault13er
...quoted reply removed and poster now banned...

Dude, that's more than a bit radical isn't it? Do you KNOW any Jews? Because I know a few and they've never even been to Isreal and don't seem to care that much about it. They are just good people working just like anyone else. They love their families, try to take care of their home and animals???

I don't like broad sweeping statements like this about a whole group. It's dark and dangerous.

I blame the unholy trinity, Hillary, Valerie, and Michelle.

reply to post by Vitchilo


My observation regarding this clear policy of fascism is that "no one cares". What do you think would happen if people truly cared? Obama would be shaking on his boots, but he is not, because he and other figures in power have the confidence to do this in public.