Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Apparently this is the breaking point, [View all]Lint Head
(15,064 posts)121. To me the drone decision proves the powerful protect each other without regard to the less powerful.
To say it is OK to target and murder any citizen the federal government deems a terrorist without trial basically negates anything else the criminal Bush family has done to destroy the Constitution. There is a reason Bush, Cheney and Rice were not prosecuted. The powerful protect the powerful without regard to the less powerful. Apparently nothing has changed throughout the history of mankind and nothing will without an upheaval, revolution or outright defiance by the people being oppressed.
To turn this on it's head. The less powerful must protect each other without regard to the more powerful or the less powerful become nothing more than a meat machines that generate labor and money to make the powerful more so.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
343 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations

America's Culture Of Violence And Bravado Has Compromised The Presidency And American Morality
cantbeserious
Feb 2013
#2
Thats what I like about Madhound..everything he/she posts, is always in absolutes...
Katashi_itto
Feb 2013
#3
Yup and he dusted off a new rhetorical device to use today! Wonder how many times we'll have to
FSogol
Feb 2013
#5
Not only are you in the wrong party, you're on the wrong side of history, the constitution, goodness
grahamhgreen
Feb 2013
#181
You no longer have to wonder about how the good Germans allowed Hitler to happen.
grahamhgreen
Feb 2013
#224
The who? You mean the people sworn to defend the constitution from all threats, will defend it?
grahamhgreen
Feb 2013
#223
Ok and our choice was - it doesnt sound like he's talking about choice for prez
leftyohiolib
Feb 2013
#29
it is bad, BUT given the reality we live in---PUKES slavering at the bit to grab power and
BlancheSplanchnik
Feb 2013
#172
For which he ought to be able to provide specific examples. But no one ever does.
stevenleser
Feb 2013
#105
Yes, I have a problem with torture. I am sure I left other things out too. nt
stevenleser
Feb 2013
#129
The memo cites undue burden in capturing these people without defining what the burden should be.
NOVA_Dem
Feb 2013
#151
I am glad you are against war crimes at least when the REpublicans do them.
rhett o rick
Feb 2013
#157
Those who decide what war crimes are and who came up with the idea do not agree. nt
stevenleser
Feb 2013
#158
I have more research to do but I believe the UN has not endorsed killer drone strikes outside
rhett o rick
Feb 2013
#163
How sad. Very sad. You are rationalizing that killing with drones is ok because Bush did it.
rhett o rick
Feb 2013
#292
"Codifying the conditions" is that like a pinky swear? And "LESS likely" is only good until it isnt
rhett o rick
Feb 2013
#154
Sorry, but the rights granted under Amendment 6 do not apply outside the US....
OldDem2012
Feb 2013
#62
Show me in the Constitution where the Constitution does not apply to a US citizen accused of a crime
RC
Feb 2013
#91
Again, read Amendment 6 carefully. The protections extend only to US Citizens in US states and....
OldDem2012
Feb 2013
#179
You're confusing the rights of law-abiding US Citizens traveling or working abroad....
OldDem2012
Feb 2013
#187
What should I "try" about it? If you have an argument on this issue, take it up with...
OldDem2012
Feb 2013
#239
Because the Reagen Administrator did it, that makes it legal for every Administration after that?
RC
Feb 2013
#248
Show me where the Drone attacks are limited to persons "taking up arms against the US overseas"
Vincardog
Feb 2013
#170
No person …nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
Vincardog
Feb 2013
#256
What Due Process is a non-custodial enemy combatant owed? Specifically, what is the due? nt
msanthrope
Feb 2013
#138
If an American is participating in a plot to harm US military or civilian personnel overseas....
OldDem2012
Feb 2013
#267
Ah...the truth comes out. You're not an American, but you want to dictate what....
OldDem2012
Feb 2013
#272
If you think this discussion is about "American fascism" then you either....
OldDem2012
Feb 2013
#278
Will be very curious to know what Republican you will want for president in 2016
Katashi_itto
Feb 2013
#11
Well as long as Republicans make Attila the Hun look like Mother Teresa...technically yep.
Katashi_itto
Feb 2013
#20
Well, leaving those countries completely at the mercy of the turmoil Bush caused...
randome
Feb 2013
#48
It is NOT okay with me. I would prefer additional restraints on the use of military power.
randome
Feb 2013
#178
If you want to argue the inhumanity of war, that's probably best saved for another thread.
randome
Feb 2013
#123
Madhound...for some, there is nothing, and I mean NOTHING that Obama could do
truth2power
Feb 2013
#24
Why is it nobody seems to want to discuss the fact that this policy was started under Reagan....
OldDem2012
Feb 2013
#28
But, are the actions carried out by the Obama Administration any more or less Constitutional ....
OldDem2012
Feb 2013
#58
People are blowing this way out of proportion and should save their energy...
EastKYLiberal
Feb 2013
#32
When the little kids get blown up along their supposed extremist parents....
FredStembottom
Feb 2013
#309
Only to people who repeatedly post about other poster's intellect (sic)....
Democracyinkind
Feb 2013
#325
the constitution is undergoing a revision as far as laws maintaining their guild lines of the conste
IsiahHallJr
Feb 2013
#36
No doubt about it. There is no Constitutional foundation for 'extrajudicial killing.'
Octafish
Feb 2013
#38
If we're going to support regulation for assault rifles for the population,
Baitball Blogger
Feb 2013
#51
"Taking up arms" is a good rhetorical device that makes things seem pretty airtight
TheKentuckian
Feb 2013
#99
What the critics don't seem to understand is the key language in Amendment 6....
OldDem2012
Feb 2013
#67
I see your point, but they are also targeting people who have not "taken up arms".
limpyhobbler
Feb 2013
#74
Will it be okay to take out Domestic terrorists with drones on American soil?
proReality
Feb 2013
#96
And run the risk of having Romney in the White House? Seriously?? Please. nt.
OldDem2012
Feb 2013
#84
You've been here since June of this year, and you're sending off long-timers?
DisgustipatedinCA
Feb 2013
#139
Sorry to hear about your execution. It looks like the resurrection is working nicely though.
DisgustipatedinCA
Feb 2013
#145
I disagree MH. This is not the "breaking point". As you can see in this thread
rhett o rick
Feb 2013
#92
There is no perfect solution if a group is that determined I get the feeling they will find a way to
Arcanetrance
Feb 2013
#106
Yes the president takes that oath but violating other nations borders with drones and "targeted"
Arcanetrance
Feb 2013
#118
Putting troops on the ground on other countries would kill FAR more civilians than drones.
randome
Feb 2013
#124
Forgive me if you took what I said as an insult it wasn't meant that way.
Arcanetrance
Feb 2013
#132
What a sad rationalization. Killing just a few innocent women and children is ok
rhett o rick
Feb 2013
#169
To me the drone decision proves the powerful protect each other without regard to the less powerful.
Lint Head
Feb 2013
#121
My breaking point came when he promised to escalate the lost war in Afghanistan.
Tierra_y_Libertad
Feb 2013
#126
And many of those people were Taliban beheading women and chopping the hands off unbelievers.
randome
Feb 2013
#133
And putting troops on the ground would ensure more civilian casualties. That's a fact.
randome
Feb 2013
#198
Personally, I think the only thing missing was an Official Declaration of War against Al Qiada
lapfog_1
Feb 2013
#134
You wouldn't have found a supportive word on DU for Bush had he written the same memo
LittleBlue
Feb 2013
#261
Why is anybody surprised? Obama has been far worse than Bush about this all along
BlueStreak
Feb 2013
#194
Is there a difference between a "breaking point" and a "line in the sand"?...
SidDithers
Feb 2013
#250