"The killing of Dykes was justified because: he was actively and certainly and verifiably engaged in threatening the life of the child. " And Americans actively supporting terrorists abroad are engaged in treats to Americans everywhere. There is no difference. Dykes could have surrendered to face charges, and the Americans on a "hit" list can likewise surrender and face charges. There is no difference. "No one claimed it was justified because of any prescience of his future actions," You just did yourself -- a threat is a prediction or a concern about future actions.
On Tuesday, NBC released a confidential Department of Justice paper concluding that our government can authorize the use of drones to kill targeted terrorist leaders, including U.S. citizens abroad. This story bares the dividing line between honest liberals -- such as Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., the American Civil Liberties Union and the San Francisco Chronicle's editorial board, all of whom opposed some of the harsher anti-terrorism tactics employed under President George W. Bush's administration and under the current administration -- and rank opportunists, such as President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who denounced what...
- Quotes of the day Allahpundit 9 hours ago
- Scarborough: A certain network should cover Bridgegate clearing as much as allegations Mary Katharine Ham 10 hours ago
- Remind me again, why isn’t Condi Rice running for president? Allahpundit 11 hours ago
- Following Scotland’s lead: 25% of USA residents open to breaking away Noah Rothman 11 hours ago
- Video: Does watching NFL games make you an ‘enabler’ of domestic violence? Guy Benson 12 hours ago
- Video: Remy solves “the ISIS crisis” as only he can Allahpundit 13 hours ago