In response to:

The Drone Debate: A Matter of Trust

BigDog848 Wrote: Mar 08, 2013 1:08 PM
targeting unlawful combatants, no matter who they are or where they are, is the direct responsibility of the Commander in Chief. Oversight by the Intelligence Committees of Congress as required by the National Security Act, Sections 501 and 502, applies. Once targeted, the US military is then authorized to find them and kill them any way they can. These rules do not apply to US citizens anywhere in the world who are not combatants. Use of any surveillance device in the US for law enforcement requires a warrant from a judge. Pretty simple.
Corbett_ Wrote: Mar 08, 2013 1:37 PM
Since when did the National Security Act trump the Constitution?
BigDog848 Wrote: Mar 08, 2013 1:57 PM
It doesn't. Go read it and get an education regarding the duties of Congress.
Corbett_ Wrote: Mar 08, 2013 2:29 PM
I have read the Constitution. ALL of it -- including the 5th Amendment.
BigDog848 Wrote: Mar 08, 2013 3:05 PM
Which does NOT APPLY TO TERRORISTS.

God, you're stupid.
Corbett_ Wrote: Mar 08, 2013 4:23 PM
BD:

Have you even READ the 5th Amendment? It doesn't contain a "terrorist exception". It applies to the US government at ALL times and in ALL places and under ALL circumstances.
ericynot Wrote: Mar 09, 2013 9:26 AM
Dog, the Constitution does not exempt terrorists or any other group.
ericynot Wrote: Mar 08, 2013 1:35 PM
Dog, kindly point out where in the Constitution a president is given the authority to roam about the world assassinating people.
Corbett_ Wrote: Mar 08, 2013 1:53 PM
Eric:

Big Dog doesn't believe in the Constitution.
BigDog848 Wrote: Mar 08, 2013 1:56 PM
It doesn't: and that is the point. The authority of the Commander in Chief is contained in the rules of war. Google it. And stop using the word "assassinate"; it does not apply to combatants.
BigDog848 Wrote: Mar 08, 2013 2:00 PM
Do not again make this statement, ahole.
BigDog848 Wrote: Mar 08, 2013 2:01 PM
Corbett_ Wrote: Mar 08, 2013 2:26 PM
Big Dog,

It would, of course, help is you would tell us which statement you are referring to. But since I suspect that you are referring to mine, I will explain what I mean.

The US Constitution is EXTREMELY PLAIN. The 5th Amendment says, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, ...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

Your argument is that the 5th Amendment should be thrown out. That is why I say you do not believe in the Constitution.
BigDog848 Wrote: Mar 08, 2013 3:05 PM
YOU are an idiot. I wrote no such thing. Go back and read the thread and develop the mental faculties to absorb what I have written. Idiot.

In conversations with those opposed to the notion of drone attacks against U.S. citizens, on or away from American soil, I ask a question as a consistency test:

Is your opposition based on a blanket principle that no President should have such power, or is it a spurred by a mistrust of the current administration?

In many cases I get the first answer, so I know I am engaged with a libertarian mindset, which I always respect and often share. We should always take great pause before empowering government to take bold action unilaterally that could result in loss of life...