Obama Administration: Drone Strikes On US Citizens Are “Legal, Ethical And Wise”

Jay Carney April First

A leaked Department of Justice “white paper” makes the case for the legal killing of US citizens abroad who the government defines as imminent threats to national security, and it states that actual evidence or intelligence showing that the target is actually involved in a plot or a plan to attack the US isn’t necessary.

A target can be an imminent threat just because the President deems it so. And, according to White House press secretary Jay Carney, that’s “legal, ethical and wise.”

“We conduct those strikes because they are necessary to mitigate ongoing, actual threats – to stop plots, prevent future attacks and again, save American lives,” said Carney in a press briefing today. “These strikes are legal, they are ethical and they are wise. The U.S. government takes great care in deciding to pursue an al-Qaeda terrorist, to insure precision and to avoid loss of innocent life.”

Meanwhile, Carney also couldn’t come up with anything in the US Constitution that might prohibit a US citizen in America from being assassinated:

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney could not identify a constitutional principle that would prevent President Obama from carrying out a drone strike on an American citizen in the United States.

“I am not a lawyer and these are the kinds of things that are probably best expressed and explained by lawyers,” Carney said during the press briefing. “There are issues here about . . . feasibility of capture that I think are pertinent to that question.”

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, in the Bill of Rights, says that “no person shall . . .be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

A Justice Department white paper emphasized the importance of believing that an American citizen overseas, such as terrorist leader Anwar al-Awlaki, is an imminent threat to Americans when debating a drone strike.

“The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future,” the white paper, obtained by NBC News, said.

So the Obama administration is claiming the legal authority to kill people, even US citizens inside of America, if they’re deemed a threat to national security. And the president gets to decide who is and is not a threat.

Not only is that an affront to due process rights enshrined in the 5th amendment, but it sets a dangerous precedent for future presidents. Because while some of you might trust President Obama to wield these powers (I don’t), would you have said the same thing about George W. Bush? Would you feel that way about a President Romney?

Congress needs to rein President Obama in, and step would should be rescinding the post-9/11 authorization for use of military force in the “war on terror.”

Rob Port is the editor of SayAnythingBlog.com. In 2011 he was a finalist for the Watch Dog of the Year from the Sam Adams Alliance and winner of the Americans For Prosperity Award for Online Excellence. In 2013 the Washington Post named SAB one of the nation's top state-based political blogs, and named Rob one of the state's best political reporters. He writes a weekly column for several North Dakota newspapers, and also serves as a policy fellow for the North Dakota Policy Council.

Related posts

  • SigFan

    Just setting the stage for the coming war on right-wing conservative “terrorists” (as deemed so by Obamao himself). Not a good development no matter who is in the WH.

    • matthew_bosch

      Because we support the document for which the Nation was founded, that Nation views us as potential terrorists….what a world we live in.

  • Random Passerby

    This is…extremely dangerous.
    Any opposition to the current president has been described as, at best unpatriotic or racist, and at worst as precursers for terrorists.
    (Dangit, Sig beat me to that point)
    so..by that definition, he could start raining drone strikes down anywhere, at any time, against any one that does not Fully and Publicly Support him at all times in all things.
    adding to the absurdity is the complication of getting some organizations declared as supports of, or participants of terrorist organizaitons when they have publicy (published) stated goals of terror generation. Yet a (paid for, biased) study can be used as justification for the terrorist designation for political opponents.
    Again, like Sig, it does not matter who is in the white house, or what party he/she/it/they belong to…this is a bad power grab.
    Sadly, we must again observe that if a (D) does it, it is ignored at worst or hailed as brilliant/miraculous at best by the media….but if an (R) has this kind of power it is EVIL INCARNATE and must be stringently curtailed (until a (D) attains power, that is).
    in fact I do beleive, on this topic, someone in the media has stated that had this been proposed, or suggested with an (R), it would be a never ending media firestorm.

    • borborygmi

      so..by that definition, he could start raining drone strikes down anywhere, at any time, against any one that does not Fully and Publicly Support him at all times in all things.
      adding to the absurdity is the complication of getting some organizations declared as supports of, or participants of terrorist organizaitons when they have publicy (published) stated goals of terror generation. BS and Horse Pucky. The President (any) is not going to embroil the country in a civil war. He would have to have total control of all armed service branches the state and local civil authority and all National Guard and Reserve units. Not going to happen. Red Dawn is not going to happen , Jack Booted thugs not going to happen. Drones flying overhead are not going to target you because you are Posse. Now someone riding by on a motorcycle and attaching a bomb to your car…..oh yeah be afraid, be very afraid.
      7.62 had some of the best insight on this when he mentioned wars being conducted in accordance to the money behind the thrones. A civil war in the US would be bad for business. THe money wouldn’t be there after the war.

      • donwalk

        American drone deaths highlight controversy
        NBC News
        By Andrew Rafferty, Staff Writer, NBC News
        February 5, 2013

        But the most controversial drone strike took place on Oct.
        14, 2011, when 16-year-old Abdulrahman was killed by U.S. forces.
        Family of the Denver-born teenager say he had no ties to
        terrorist organizations and was unjustly targeted because of his father.
        Nassar al-Awlaki, grandfather of Abdulrahman and father to
        Anwar, said he tried to protect his grandson as Anwar al-Awlaki’s profile grew.
        In December, Nassar al-Awlaki told CNN, “In Anwar it was
        expected because he was under targeted killing, but how in the world they will go and kill Abdulrahman. Small boy, U.S. citizen from Denver, Colorado.”
        Nassar al-Awlaki said his grandson snuck out of their Yemen
        home one night, leaving a note for his mother saying he would return in a few days. The boy never returned, killed instead while eating at an outdoor restaurant.
        “Since the issue regarding Anwar came, I tried to insulate
        the family of Anwar from everything, regarding this matter,” Nassar al-Awlaki told CNN. “I took care of him, and suddenly after 2 year absence from his father, he decided to go to our government in Yemen to seek information from his father. That was the only reason he went, and he did not tell us.”
        The Obama administration has remained mostly mum regarding
        Abdulrahman’s death, and at times has struggled to explain it.

      • $8194357

        Everything has its season gurgle…
        Cut off the nationalist arm to save the global body…

  • Random Passerby

    And as an aside to the whole thing..when a PR flack tells me something is legal, ethical and wise, I automatically presume that it is not only morally questionable, of dubious standing and while techinically legal it is most likely is not the right thing to do.
    And it rankles that there is a whiff of Plato’s Philopher King being presented to me.

  • borborygmi

    Weird to see conservative libertarians and Rachel Maddow in agreement. Anwar al-Awlaki was a terrorist and at a time of ongoing war could be deemed a traitor. Warning if you are an anti-gov’t and are hanging around terrorists in a foreign land oops maybe you should rethink. The new conservative Soft on terrorism?

    As far as war on conservatives bs and blather. You have been watching too much of Red Dawn. Do you really think that the President is going to embroil the country in civil war.

    • Random Passerby

      so if/when you are “deemed” a terrorist in accordance with internaltional law, by personal consultation, in secret, and are “considered” unapprehendable (in secret) you are OK with your elected leader dropping a missile on you in your own country?
      And if said missile misses, you are OK with being told nothing as to the why of it all, and being denied the ability to challenge said designation (which you cannot be told about), and no choice but to die at the whim of someone “wiser” than you?

      • borborygmi

        “Warning if you are an anti-gov’t and are hanging around terrorists in a foreign land oops maybe you should rethink”…. In a foreign land would be the operating words. Conservatives castigated the Muslim Obama being soft on Muslim Terrorists now they are becoming soft on Terrorists? Please! Why would you tell a terrorist that oh by the way could you stay put so we can discuss their situation and then we will be back to drop the bomb.Conservatives have either drastically changed their minds or are hypocrits.

        • Random Passerby

          I won’t be replying after this, mainly because there is no point in a debate with you – you have you views firmly fixed and will not be persuaded by me, (or anyone else here for that matter). As others have noted, if this were an (R) doing this you would be raising all sorts of stink (and this has been admitted on your MSNBC too), so your charges of hypocrisy do little to sway me to your point of view.
          by some current definitions, if i visit mexico, or canada, I am already at risk of a drone visit. According to DHS veterans, second amendment supporters, and constitutionalists are to be considered highly at risk for terroristic activity. This is supported by DHS studies/reports and a prominant west point study.
          to answer the (strawman – SQUIRREL!) charge, heh, were I in charge like your king, there would be little terror activity directed at the US…but then, I would have active kill teams working the target regions with a rather clear understanding of how terror works in their areas. And no, I don’t really give a fart about the international repurcussions. They don’t like it? Stop the terrorists before they come to my notice. They come to my notice I go after them with the full force at hand (and no stupid hearts and minds touchy feely rules of engagement)..and I would be willing to back it with nukes. Once a few cities start glowing, the target regions will get the hint. I am a believer in the old laws of war school. not the diplopansy lootacracy the UN has turned out to be.
          Yes I am several miles to the right of Genghis Khan.
          This is why it is a) good that I am not king and b) possibly better that I don’t make the decisions at that level….yet.

          • borborygmi

            You are willing to use kill teams (who might also get killed) you are willing to use Nukes you know killing a few million is okay buy you complain about more surgical drone strikes. ……..WOW . Now when you use Nuclear Weapons and American CItizens that are in the area are “glowing” you don’t see anything wrong with that. Double Face Palm….. You have now become the new Poster Boy OF Conservatism……..My Hero. How many more Conservatives (Random is Speaking for you) also believe Nuking the Bastards is the way to go……..Just Lovely , I just can’t imagine why one should fear Conservatives.

          • borborygmi

            “I won’t be replying after this, mainly because there is no point in a debate with you – you have you views firmly fixed and will not be persuaded by me, (or anyone else here for that matter)”…You actually believe that anyone has changed their mind on this board. Lalaland.

          • borborygmi

            Interesting that you mention Genghis Khan. You indicate in your phrasing that you are right of Khan implying that although Khan is a righty you several miles further to the right. SO a man who took over most of the world ruling as a supreme ruler ruthlessly killing his opponents is a Conservative or at least far right of center. Hmm I wonder what your conservative brethern would have to say about that.

        • donwalk

          Does that apply to sixteen year olds also?

          • borborygmi

            I wonder how many sixteen yr olds have strapped a bomb to themselves? You have to remember 16 year olds over there grow up faster not to grow up then over here.

          • donwalk

            Just because you wonder gives you the right to kill a sixteen year old American citizen? This kid didn’t have to strap a bomb to himself now, did he?

            Subject: [ndsayanything] Re: Obama Administration: Drone Strikes On US Citizens Are “ Legal, Ethical And Wise”

          • borborygmi

            How would you have handled Awlakii. Let him live or risk lives trying to capture. 16yr.old . unfortunate collateral damage, happens all the time in war.

          • donwalk

            Duh! By going after Awlakii, not a sixteen year old teenager.
            This country’s capabilities are great enough that that we could single out one individual and get him without you so-called, empathetic “Collateral Damage”. That is, when we have leaders with intelligence and empathy for those who have not been proven to have done anything wrong – KIND OF LIKE TEENAGERS, YOU KNOW? You Liberals were crapping your pants because President Bush was monitoring International phone calls without warrants, but you turn a blind eye towards massive use of drones killing civilians, and then your bleeding hearts claim “Oh-h-h, they are just collateral damage!” You hypocrisy is showing as usual.

            Subject: [ndsayanything] Re: Obama Administration: Drone Strikes On US Citizens Are “ Legal, Ethical And Wise”

    • Wayne

      Hey Hypocrite, look in the mirror and ask yourself, ‘How would I feel it Bush had done this?’. Try to be honest with yourself for once in your life. And don’t tell me. I already know the answer.

      • Anon

        Hey Hair-Brained Wayne, look in the mirror (not too long though, that face is depressing) and ask yourself, “Why wasn’t I complaining this loud when Bush did this?” Try to be honest with yourself once in your life.

        • Wayne

          Tell me Lying Pea Brain, when did Bush kill Americans with drones? Hypocrite.

          • ellinas1

            Bush killed Americans by sending them to Iraq under false pretenses.
            Obama has no business killing American citizens.
            The USA has no business meddling in the affairs of other countries, no matter who is president.

            Why is it y’all provided cover for Bush when he invaded Iraq under false pretenses?

        • donwalk

          American drone deaths highlight controversy
          NBC News
          By Andrew Rafferty, Staff Writer, NBC News
          February 5, 2013

          But the most controversial drone strike took place on Oct.
          14, 2011, when 16-year-old Abdulrahman was killed by U.S. forces.
          Family of the Denver-born teenager say he had no ties to
          terrorist organizations and was unjustly targeted because of his father.
          Nassar al-Awlaki, grandfather of Abdulrahman and father to
          Anwar, said he tried to protect his grandson as Anwar al-Awlaki’s profile grew.
          In December, Nassar al-Awlaki told CNN, “In Anwar it was
          expected because he was under targeted killing, but how in the world they will go and kill Abdulrahman. Small boy, U.S. citizen from Denver, Colorado.”
          Nassar al-Awlaki said his grandson snuck out of their Yemen
          home one night, leaving a note for his mother saying he would return in a few days. The boy never returned, killed instead while eating at an outdoor restaurant.
          “Since the issue regarding Anwar came, I tried to insulate
          the family of Anwar from everything, regarding this matter,” Nassar al-Awlaki told CNN. “I took care of him, and suddenly after 2 year absence from his father, he decided to go to our government in Yemen to seek information from his father. That was the only reason he went, and he did not tell us.”
          The Obama administration has remained mostly mum regarding
          Abdulrahman’s death, and at times has struggled to explain it.

      • borborygmi

        Actually a lot of liberals and Democrat (Rachel Maddow) and you are in full agreement. Please tell me how you would have taken care of Awlakii

  • whowon
  • whowon

    Letter sent to the big O from Senators

  • LibertyFargo

    Let’s see, Miranda rights for non-citizen, enemy combatants and terrorists but no due process for actual american citizens? Where is the outrage that we saw from the left with “War Criminal Bush” but nothing but smoke blowing and adulations of praise for Obama?

    ***chirp***chirp***

    This is a problem: http://nbcnews.to/WqJSH9

    • borborygmi

      Watch Rachel Maddow. She spent a half hour on this last night.
      Where was the ourtrage from You when Bush did it?

      • Wayne

        Hey Delusional One, tell us when did Bush kill Americans with drones? Stop lying.

        • borborygmi

          true he didn’t kill them with drones but the search for weapons of mass destruction weren’t very healthy for our troops,

          Let us play your game how if you were President would you have handled Anwar al-Awlakil. Would he still be walking free just like Bush let Bin-laden walk free. Would you send in the Seal Team. Of course you can do this only so many times before someone is killed from a Seal Team thus making you culpable for his death so you could save a terrorists albeit an American borne terrorists life. That makes sense. Please let us here your solution. Anyone else wish to offer one. Rob you started the debate. Your solution should be most illuminating.

          • $16179444

            wait, you actually said Bush let OBL walk? how stupid are you? how many times did Clinton look the other way?

          • borborygmi

            Bush said he was going to get him and said ah not that big of deal. I will agree Clinton was wrong and Bush was wrong so that makes Obama right . Thanks

          • $16179444

            Obama hasn’t been right since day one. and considering that AQ is still going strong, OBL wasn’t that big of deal at that point….but when Clinton was in office it was a different matter

          • $8194357

            Every time he soaked a cigar?

          • RandyBoBandy

            In the words of Hilary Clinton transposed to the Iraq War and WMDs, “What difference does it make?”

          • $8194357

            Apoligist useful idiot.

      • donwalk

        Please, do tell when President Bush killed citizens with Drones. You Liberals were crapping your pants when all he was doing was monitoring international phone calls. Readers will be anxiously waiting for your posting of actual facts.

        • borborygmi

          Please see above response. Yes liberals didn’t care for the monitoring of phone calls anymore then Conservative/Libertarians wish to have drones flying overhead nor do They wish to be inconvenienced by searches at airports. Let see by you standards al-Awlakii should have been able to fly back and forth without being searched since he is an American citizen. “The Muslim Obama is soft on Muslim terrorist” rant the Conservatives. Obama kills many Muslims. Damn you Obama…… Wait he killed an American Muslim Terrorist” Shame on him! Mr al-Awlakii should be treated like any other American and stand trial. Mr al-Awlakii could you please turn your self in and while you are thinking about it please don’t kill or plot to kill or incite others to kill Americans. See Mr Obama you just have to talk nice to the terrorist……Mr Obama you should know habeas corpus, the long term detaining of prisoners without charge and without trial and the torture of prisoners is only Okay if they aren’t American Citizens….WE are at war with them you know…..”Oh sh!t if we are at war then Mr.al-Awlakii is nothing more then a traitor who can be executed, if he would just play nice and turn himself in. Conservatives proving they are truly screwed up.
          Proof the gov’t is coming after anti gov. conservatives look at the execution they did to the poor bunker bound Conservative in Alabama. He only killed a bus driver and took a kid hostage.

          • PK

            There’s a thing called due process, even for traitors. The higher the crime, the more protection the law gives you. But now we’re throwing the law out the window and the President is the judge, jury and executioner. The only time lethal force is legal is if the person is actively engaging in an attack posing imminent danger to life. You can’t go kill your neighbor if you think he’s plotting to kill you. That’s the issue here. The government says they can kill any American if they think they’re working for al-Qaeda or an affiliated force. Are you defending this craziness or are you just getting a shot in at some conservatives for not speaking up when a few Amendments were being curtailed under Bush? If you didn’t agree with what Bush did, you certainly can’t support this.

          • borborygmi

            Do you think due process should be given to Gitmo prisoners? Would you have let mr. Awlakii stay alive plotting agains US? If you feel he should have been brought to justice, How? According to some on this board Awlakii was Muslim and his loyalties with the facist islamist thus renouncing loyalty to the US. Do you agree with them?

          • LibertyFargo

            How many Gitmo prisoners are american citizens?

            I was no defender of Bush for expanding Executive power in the name of “war time” if we weren’t ACTUALLY at war (congress declaring war vs. authorization of military action).

            Heck, The whole of homeland security could be flushed for all I care.

            What is astonishing to me is that Code Pink is silent on, what I would argue, a GREATER offense to American Citizens, the Constitution, and the rule of law when it comes to Obama (and even Clinton) but shame on Bush the ‘war criminal’ for being part of the same system.

            Hypocrisy.

          • PK

            http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1322397/Al-Qaedas-Anwar-Al-Awlaki-invited-Pentagon-lunch-9-11-attacks.html#axzz2K8jkVLUp

            He worked for the government man. It’s all a big joke. We run al-Qaeda and are using them to overthrow Syria right now. We used them in Egypt and Libya. Get a clue. DHS is for us, the American people.

          • borborygmi

            Blaming Bush again? One more mistake that Pres. Obama had to take care of.
            I notice you didn’t offer a suggestion on how to take care of Awlakii.

          • donwalk

            Care to comment on the murdering of a 16 year old son who hadn’t done anything, now that you have had a chance to practice your deflection methods. Stop avoiding the purpose of my post – comment on the killing of the 16 year old.
            Subject: [ndsayanything] Re: Obama Administration: Drone Strikes On US Citizens Are “ Legal, Ethical And Wise”

      • Somebodysomewhere

        When Bush did what? Nothing any other preceding Pres has ever done that remotely compares to what Obama has done and continues to do. (Except Woodrow Wilson). When are the Obama.worshipers going to realize the truth?

  • BismarckBigfoot

    A case could be made that the current President and his administrations policies are a threat to our national security.

  • Mike Adamson

    I didn’t buy “the President can do what he wants in wartime” under Bush and I’m not buying it under Obama. The sooner Washington disabuses itself of this notion the better off we’ll all be.

    • borborygmi

      Can you then be strong against terrorism and strong on liberty. Can the two coexist?

      • Neiman

        Yes!

        • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

          Exactly.
          God has blessed America with such a President.
          His name is Barack Hussein Obama.

          • Neiman

            Yes, just like He did with his fellow travelers Mao, Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot just to name a few. Yes, He gave us another devil in Obama.

          • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

            Why do you hate the man God has chosen for America, Old Pal?

          • Neiman

            He no more “chose” Obama than He did Barbarossa, Hitler. Stalin or any other murderous dictator, the people, the sheeple, by their freewill choice wanted the devil that Obama is – he is NOT God’s choice and you have absolutely no proof that he is.

          • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

            So much hate for God’s work, huh Old Pal?
            That’s not gonna pay off too well for you at the big meeting.

          • Neiman

            What do you care? You rejected salvation in Christ and you will take the express down escalator anyway. You cannot prove hate on my part against Lord Obama your Messiah, just honesty; but, you liberals like to charge hate, racism and other crap to hide your own evil.

          • Neiman

            Prove He chose Obama and that it was not our freewill choice in America or shut your lying mouth.

          • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

            Romans 13

          • Neiman

            That is disappointing, it is no answer at all and no proof. You are consistently unable to argue/debate any issue. You failed to offer what specific passage you were using and you failed to argue why it in any manner proved your point.

            I am loathe to answer you, because you are intellectually impoverished and grossly dishonest. I have shown you many times that unless you are a Christian, you cannot understand ANY spiritual truth, by your own admission you are not a Christian; so like your father in hell , you twist scripture to deceive others, which is the only reason I answer here, to correct your damnable lies.

            Simple logic, something absent in your character, would tell you that if these passages about any man sitting in places of power were there by God’s Will, applying to Obama, it would mean that it had to also apply to every murderous, barbarous dictator in world history, it would mean that God placed them in power as well. Is that your position?

            Because all power comes from God and by His Permissive Will he allows us, by our freewill to vote men into power, it does not mean they have his approbation, that they are His anointed servants; it must only mean they governments are instituted for the benefit of man and that wicked men will also ascend to power in those governments.

            Go to this link to learn what these passages really men: http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/romans-13/

            Obama is no more anointed by God than Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Barbarossa or any other murderous dictator. He is certainly no Christian.

          • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

            I’m sorry to see that actual answer upset you so, Old Pal.
            No need get all emotional.
            I do have to admit your lunatic ravings are fun to read though.

          • Neiman

            More lies, I am not upset, especially by a demon possessed child like you. Yet, that is what liberal demons do, they make wild accusations without any proofs, like you, calling people racists, haters and other things, having no proof but believing if they repeat the lie often enough, it will magically become the truth. You abused the bible, I corrected you with the truth from God’s Word and now all you can do is lie about me, it is all you have – LIES.

            You are dishonest, you will not answer any questions about your so-called religion, because you know the answers would expose yo as the child of hell I have always maintained and that with many proofs.

          • ellinas1

            Romans 13: Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

          • Neiman

            You’ll understand that I have no more respect for your faulty interpretation of Scripture than I do for Gay Bob, as I don’t believe you have the Spirit of Christ either.

            Before, I get more specific, I do agree we are subject to the lawful authority as long as it does not cause us to violate the Word of God, which for Christians is the Law above all man made laws. I also agree that when we rebel against those lawful authorities, except in the cases wherein they would force us to violate our faith, we will suffer the consequences of law breaking like anyone else. But, that does not make Obama God’s anointed servant for America, or if that is what you believe, then you must accept that Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and a host of other murderous, barbarous world leaders in the history of mankind were also His anointed servants. Surely, you do not believe that, do you?

            I offer an example as to violating the law of man, when it violates God’s Law. Remember MLK was willing to be beaten and suffer prison and ridicule and attacks on his own family, rather than disobey God. So, he was by your standard of interpretation a law breaker, he broke the law many times; he also suffered for his crimes, while being honored by God for his standing on God’s Word and against the State.

            Romans 13:1
            for there is no power but of God; God is the fountain of all power and authority; the streams of power among creatures flow from him; the power that man has over all the creatures, the fowls of the air, the beasts of the field, and the fishes of the sea, is originally of God, and by a grant from him; the lesser powers, and the exercises of them, in the various relations men stand in to one another, are of God, as the power the husband has over the wife, parents over their children, and masters over their servants; and so the higher power that princes have over their subjects: for it is the God of heaven that sets up kings, as well as pulls them down; he is the King of kings, from whom they derive their power and authority, from whom they have the right of government, and all the qualifications for it; it is by him that kings reign, and princes decree justice. The powers that be are ordained of God.

            The order of magistracy is of God; it is of his ordination and appointment, and of his ordering, disposing, and fixing in its proper
            bounds and limits [The offices, not the men]. The several forms of government are of human will and pleasure; but government itself is an order of God. There may be men in power who assume it of themselves, and are of themselves, and not of God; and others that abuse the power that is lodged in them; who, though they are by divine permission, yet not of God’s approbation and good will. And it is observable, that the apostle speaks of powers, and not persons, at least, not of persons, but under the name of powers, to show that he means not this, or the other particular prince or magistrate, but the thing itself, the office and dignity of magistracy itself; for there may be some persons, who may of themselves usurp this office, or exercise it in a very illegal way, who are not of God, nor to be subject to by men. The apostle here both uses the language, and speaks the sentiments of his countrymen the Jews, who are wont to call magistrates,”powers”; hence those sayings were used among them; says Shemaiah.

            Thus it is that by our freewill God allows us, as with Saul, to choose among men others to rule over them, but it was only by His Permissive Will they sit in power. He permitted their elevation, but that does not mean they are His chosen vessels or men of God at all, or in tune with God’s Will and who are actually abusers of men. So, while we obey the laws and submit to the laws of men/government/powers; it does not mean the men are of God at all.

            As this same biblical book which you and Gay Bob hold up as God’s Word to be obeyed, it also, in Chapter One, condemns homosexuality, as a depraved thing, which thing Obama defends and promotes and advances against God’s Will. The same God said “Thou shalt not kill (do murder), but Obama not only supports the mass murder of children in the womb against the Commandments, he supports dragging them half-way out and shoving scissors into their brains. God calls us to obey Him first in all things, but Obama wants to force Christians to violate their faith and pay for abortion and abortion drugs for sinful people of this world. On and on I can list why Obama is not by word or deed a Christian at all. So, He is in power only by God’s Permissive Will, as will be the anti-Christ. The laws he issues, as long as they do not force us to violate God’s Word, we must meekly obey and not be lawbreakers; and, we must also be willing for Obama to order our deaths when we are forced to choose God and disobey his unlawful commands.

          • borborygmi

            The same God said “Thou shalt not kill (do murder), You forgot the rest of this as shown in the Bible. Thou shalt not kill except if it is God’s will or commanded by God. I am God thus I can kill when I wish.

          • Neiman

            No Christ hater, when God commanded people be killed or He killed them by His Own direct Power, as I proved in other replies to you from God’s Word, it was because they were thoroughly evil, even sacrificing their own children to idols. As that is true, it is not murder. God did not command anyone, not you liberals to slaughter (murder) over 55 million in the womb.

          • ellinas1

            Neiman: “No Christ hater, when God commanded people be killed or He killed them by His Own direct Power,….”
            Are you sure?

            Methinks somewhere in the Old Testament God commanded the Hebrews to kill all the inhabitants of Jericho and some other cities.
            Not only did he command them to kill the people, but also every living thing within the city.

          • Neiman

            Try remedial reading, I said in the very line you pasted that He commanded people to be killed and when you kill a cancer, in this case a moral/spiritual cancer, you kill it all, every bit or it will rise up again to kill you.

            Why are you always joining with those that are against God and willing to criticize God? That is the practical atheism Flamemeister speaks of, you say you are a Christian, but for all practical purposes are His enemy and an enemy of His children and if you examine your heart, you are really an atheist.

          • ellinas1

            No sir, Mr Neiman.
            Your answer is neither correct nor acceptable.
            You said: “when God commanded people be killed or He killed them by His Own direct Power,”
            He did not kill them “by His Own direct Power”. The passage is clear.
            The scripture writer claims God ordered the Israelites to kill them.
            So the people of Jericho were not killed directly by Him.

            I am not “always” joining with those that are against God and willing to criticize God.
            I disagree with your interpretation of the Scriptures, and what God wants from us,
            People who disagree with you are neither His enemy nor an enemy of His children.

          • Neiman

            I was not referring just to Jericho with that statement, but in response to Christ hating borborygm, I was showing him that sometimes God killed directly (Sodom, the flood, etc) and sometimes He commanded Israel to do the killing of evil people. So, you are wrong again.

            You have never here at SAB defended God’s Word and often, very often openly, passionately oppose His Word, even accusing Him of ignorance and/or impotence. You side with liberal policies like abortion and homosexuality and Obama forcing faith based companies to violate their faith, etc. and attack every Christian minister with great hate when they fail and never offer them an ounce of the love you offer admitted non-Christians like Gay Bod.

            You are sir a man that thinks he is a Christian, but is in fact an atheist.

          • ellinas1

            No sir, Mr Neiman.
            Your answer is neither correct nor acceptable.
            You may not have been referring to Jericho but I was.
            Everybody and their mama knows about the flood and Sodom and Gomorrah.
            But when God “ordered” his minions to not just kill, but exterminate and effect ethnic cleansing people must be reminded of the passages.Defending what you term as “Gods word” is agreeing with your interpretation of the scriptures.
            As I have numerous times said I disagree with your interpretation of the Scriptures, and what God wants from us.
            People who disagree with you are neither His enemy nor an enemy of His children.
            I don’t attack every “Christian minister with great hate when they fail”. I simply point out the schmucks who are out to give their flock a haircut, and those that defend said schmucks.

            When president Bush went to war against Iraq and did it with false pretenses he violated my faith.
            You have not once defended my faith from being violated by the war mongers.

          • Neiman

            First, your not being born again of His Spirit and thus not knowing God in spirit, you fail by assuming God leaves us to our own interpretation of His Word (I Cor 2:14 “The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.). In His Love, knowing all men’s hearts are desperately wicked, He would never leave it to such men to interpret His Word. He does interpret His own Word throughout Holy Writ. The Lord offers us each Truth many times and in various ways:

            It simply means that the scriptures must harmonize. The orthodox Christian view of the Bible is that it is not in error and does not contradict itself. Therefore when trying to examine one passage we must approach it with an eye to what the whole Bible says about that topic.

            http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/79/what-does-it-mean-that-scripture-interprets-scripture

            “knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit”

            http://www.koinoniablog.net/2010/05/can-an-individual-interpret-scripture-2-pet-120.html

            So, I do not lean unto my own understanding “Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding;.” Proverbs 3:5

            So, I trust and use the Bible, God’s Written Word and I, versus you, trust Him completely, even when I do not understand everything clearly, knowing He will not fail to show me the truth.

            I also believe God is just when He directly or through Israel commanded whole peoples be destroyed, men, women and children; while unlike you I know that what applied to God directly or when He spoke directly to His Children Israel through their prophets in the Old Testament of Law, does not apply in the New Testament of Grace.

            Like all liberals you have attention deficit disorder, bring up President Bush. You know that many millions of Americans disagree and do not think the war was launched under false pretenses. In matter of fact most Democrats, including demigod Ted “I kill my dates” Kennedy, having the same intelligence data made even a stronger case for that war than did Bush. So, if Bush offended your faith, I cannot see how as you have no proof of false pretenses.

            Yet, when Obama advocates for partial birth abortion (shoving scissors into a live child’s brain), gay marriage and for Christians to be forced to violate their faith, for some strange reason none of that offends your faith at all, though God condemns them all.

          • ellinas1

            As I have numerous times said I disagree with your interpretation of the Scriptures, and what God wants from us.
            People who disagree with you are neither His enemy nor an enemy of His children.
            I don’t care how many Americans including Ted Kennedy,may God forgive his sins, believe(d) the war was just.
            When I say he violated my faith and religious beliefs, That is exactly what I mean,
            Funny thing, you want to honor some Christian peoples beliefs and not mine and those that do believe as I do.

            Finally, on the question of God ordering the Israelites to ethnically cleanse the so called promised land, if one was to accept your premise, one would also have to accept the premise that God severily pushed the Hebrews when they sinned.
            Now I ask you, what kind of sin could the Hebrews could possibly have committed as to provoke His Holy anger so much that he visited Hitler upon them?

          • Neiman

            Ezek 39:27-29 “When I have brought them [Israel] back from the
            nations (Diaspora) and have gathered them from the countries of their enemies (1948), I will show myself holy through them in the sight of many nations.” 28 “Then they will know that I am the LORD their God, for though I sent them into exile among the nations [The whole world], I will gather them to their own land, not leaving any behind.” 29 “I will no longer hide my face from them, for I will pour out my Spirit on the house of Israel, declares the Sovereign LORD.”

            Much later, Amos warned Israel, “Behold, the eyes of the Lord GOD are on the sinful kingdom, and I will destroy it from the face of the earth” (Amos 9:8).

            The patriarchs were, as God attests again and again, faithful. However, the people of Israel failed to observe the terms of God’s conditional promises to them. Israel exhibited again and again its refusal to obey God. As a result, it has yet to enter into the peace, prosperity, and eternal possession of the land He promised the patriarchs. Hebrews 3:8-11 summarizes the matter: “In the day of trial in the wilderness, [the children of Israel] . . . tested Me, proved Me, and saw My works forty years. Therefore I was angry with that generation. . . . So I swore in My wrath, ‘They shall not enter My rest.'”

            Because of the peoples’ recalcitrance, God withheld His blessings, ultimately separating Himself from them by casting them out of the land He had promised the patriarchs. God punished Israel for its disobedience by deferring the fulfillment of His promises to the patriarchs. This deferment did not make Him unfaithful to the people, because His promises to them were conditional, based on their obedience to His revelation.

            In fact, it is not perverse to assert that God was completely faithful to the children of Israel, doing to them exactly what He promised He would do if they persistently sinned against Him. At the right time and for the right people, God will honor His unconditional promises to the
            patriarchs. Israel’s sad history is the consequence of peoples’ faithlessness, not of their God’s weakness.

            For more discussions of their sins, read more: http://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Topical.show/RTD/cgg/ID/2283/Israels-Punishment.htm#ixzz2KWBRK1cA

            By their sins, by their freewill choices/rebellion, Israel (Jews) were scattered throughout the whole earth; in such rebellion other men, the world actually, all of them hating the Jews, knowing they were the Chosen People of God, by own their freewill often expelled the Jews from their lands and killed them, Hitler was just one of those Jew haters. You cannot blame God, Israel were a hard hearted people, they sinned against God and thus took themselves out of His Protective Hand and the Prince of Darkness that has this world in His control now, abused and killed the Jews. But, God will punish them all for daring to touch “the apple of His eye;” except those few that repent and find Christ.

            God hates, yes He hates disobedience, not because He is an angry dictator; but, because He loves His human creation and as He cannot accept sin in His Holy Presence, none with the slightest sin of stain could ever enter Heaven and God wants children like unto Himself for whom He might pour out His love and blessings forever. Through the truly innumerable sins of Israel, He showed us that no one can gain Heaven by any works of the flesh, by any attempts by the finite, sinful flesh to obey the Law perfectly. He had to show the world the utter futility of works as a way to please God, thus preparing those that would listen to Him in how He dealt with Israel, to accept His Salvation as a gift of Grace (unmerited favor) through faith in Christ Jesus, Whom obeyed all the Law perfectly for all that would believe, His perfect obedience credited to their account by faith.

            So through Israel the world was blessed with Salvation and He has not cast Israel away, they have already been miraculously restored as a nation once again and that will be an everlasting possession. All the earth will under the reign of Christ pay tribute to Israel and there will the Christ sitting as King of Kings and Lord or Lords of the whole earth.

            It is not up to you, if you were a Christian, to agree or not agree with my interpretation, but to be able to defend your own interpretations ONLY by the Word of God, not what any priest may tell you or by any extra biblical proofs, but by His Perfect Word alone and that, you never do, like all liberals and practical Christians, your objections are solely based on your emotions and not esclusively on God’s Word and that is where you fail the test.

            I will never honor any beliefs not based solely on God’s Word and if you were a Christian, neither would you. If Bush was wrong, you have not proved it objectively and most important, you have failed to establish by God’s Word why it offends your faith; and, why based on God’s Word 55 million murdered babies, homosexual marriage and Christians being forced to compromise their faith in God by Obamacare do not.

            It is not about what I believe, it is about anyone that denies God’s Word as written, being the enemy of God. For instance, they very idea of any works of the flesh earning anyone salvation as you and Gay Bob believe, denies Salvation by faith alone in Christ alone, thus being anti-Christ and makes such people enemies of God. If God is my God, why wouldn’t His enemies be my enemies?

          • ellinas1

            I ask you, what kind of sin could the Hebrews could possibly have
            committed as to provoke His Holy anger so much that he visited Hitler
            upon them?

          • Neiman

            Games, that is all I get – games.

            God did not visit Hitler on the Jews, it was men through their freewill that brought him to power, they allowed and aided Hitler to kill the Jews, as you aid Obama in slaughtering babies in the womb; and in God’s Permissive Will, He simply did not restrain them or you from your evil. If you ever read the Bible, you will find that the anti-Christ will reign over the earth, killing hundreds of millions and that because men in their freewill shall help him gain absolute power. God gave us freewill and He is loathe to interfere when we choose against His Will and the Jews and the Germans chose to act against His Will, as you choose to support those that engage in our American baby holocaust and they/you stoke the fires of hell.

            You atheists always want to blame God for our actions, why didn’t He restrain them, why did He allow evil? The prices of gathering unto Himself a people that chose Him and accepted His Divine rule over their lives, was that He knew most men would choose to rebel against Him and engage in evil. There was no other way, God could not force men to love Him, that is not love at all, it is fear and in Love there is no fear. So, He had to grant every human the freewill to choose or reject Him and in the latter, serving their own lusts, they would choose to do evil. Yet, some would see the love of God in Christ Jesus, walk by faith and become members of the family of God, while most would not. People like you and Gay Bob, no matter how good you think you are, have rejected His Salvation and you support the evils of abortion and homosexuality, among a host of sins rather than submit to God.

            I notice like Gay Bob, you pick and choose your answers and refuse to answer questions, while demanding others answer yours. Like this question you keep avoiding: “Why is it when Obama advocates for partial birth abortion (shoving scissors into a live child’s brain), gay marriage and for Christians to be forced to violate their faith, for some strange reason none of that offends your faith at all, though God condemns them all?

          • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

            To answer your question: He Chose them. Bad things happen to Chosen People.

          • ellinas1

            OK! He chose them.

            Now answer this: During the flood, per the Old Testament, only Noah his family and whatever animals they could stuff in the ark survived. We all hail from the incestuous relations of the flood survivors, therefore we are all his chosen people.

            Should the DNA (mitochondrial or otherwise) of everybody contain info that speaks to that common ancestry?
            The DNA of a Polynesian should point to that common ancestry, and it should be similar to that of Benjamin Netanyahu or that of Ariel Sharon?

            Since we are all descendants of Noah, Benjamin Netanyahu and

            North Korea’s boy leader Kim Jong-un are related and members of the chosen people. Right?

          • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

            I don’t know when the Jews got chosen, do you? I think it was later on. Aside from that, the “Noah and the Ark” story is a variant of a very ancient (Sumeria, Vedic India) story. Pardon me if you are a Fundamentalist.

          • ellinas1

            No, I am not a Fundamentalist. I am an Orthodox christian who applies logic to the Bible, and is not afraid to question the scriptures.

            Most, if not all ancient cultures stretching from Greece to India have a story about some kind of flood.
            No matter when the Jews got chosen my questions remain valid.
            I don’t think God thought that some Jews were more Jewish than other Jews.

          • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

            Apply logic to the Bible? Much good may that do you!

          • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

            Footnote: “God, I know we are your chosen people, but couldn’t you choose somebody else for a change?”

            —Shalom Aleichem

          • ellinas1

            Inquiring minds, including mine, want to know

          • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

            There is evidence that “replies” have been very tardy in delivery.

          • borborygmi

            So as long as you are THE Deity you can kill at whim.

          • borborygmi

            God did not command anyone, not you liberals to slaughter (murder) over 55 million in the womb.” True but he did command “but slay both man and woman, child and suckling.” I guess some of the women were pregnant so some unborn were killed not to mention children and babies…..Definitely not 55 million but now we are just talking numbers. Since God does have the power of life and Death he could have taken the children at least the youngest or take the pregnant women let them give birth and then kill them. “Thou Shalt not Kill” unless you are God or ordained by God”

            Foot note in the Bible “The Great Master of life and death sometimes ordained that children should be put to the sword , in punishment for the crimes of their parents,and that they might not live to follow the same wicked ways. But without such an ordinance of God it is not allowable, in any Wars, to kill children. ……….There you have it all you need to kill children is the ordinance from God.

          • $16179444

            This isn’t God’s work any more than abortion is.

          • donwalk

            A Presidency bought and paid for with entitlements and promises of rainbows!

          • ellinas1

            A presidency lost because Romney and his party were a threat to the well being of Americas working people.

          • $16179444

            yeah, because that 7.8% unemployment rate and record number of people on food stamps isn’t a threat.

          • ellinas1

            And the people rejected what Romney and the repubs/cons offered.
            The people did not trust Romney and the repubs/cons.
            You keep on blaming the entitlements and promises of rainbows, and never accept responsibility for your errors.

          • donwalk

            U-h-h, you left out the fact that at a minimum, this country now has over 89 million people unemployed and record numbers of disability recipients, record numbers of food stamp recipients, record numbers of unemployment benefit recipients and record numbers of citizens living off of student loans that are in default. That is the real threat to this once great country – voting to receive others earned income and being forced to live on government programs because there is no economic freedom and there are no jobs being created.
            Your post as usual, ignoring the real facts.

            Subject: [ndsayanything] Re: Obama Administration: Drone Strikes On US Citizens Are “ Legal, Ethical And Wise”

          • ellinas1

            null

          • donwalk

            So your plan is to provide those without jobs government benefits. I say it is more humanitarian to provide an economic environment that will encourage and assist the private sectors to expand and grow, thus providing what citizens really want – JOBS! The disconnect is that Liberals and Democrats (one and the same) want to use tax revenues to provide for those citizens without jobs. Real, honest Conservatives want to create jobs and a job growth environments so those same citizens can obtain jobs, reach goals they have had in sight for years and take care of their children and families. The majority of those same citizens don’t want to be on government programs, which is in direct conflict of the goals of Liberal Democrats. Liberal Democrats want as many citizens as possible to be dependent upon government so those citizens can be controlled in the political process. Your attitude towards employers is exactly the problem with creating jobs under Democratic leadership. You represent their hate for the private sector quite well. Blaming and using the excuse of world wide economic problems is not, and has not been the American way of solving problems and taking care of their own. Again, you represent the Liberal Democrat(s) quite well in that regard also.
            Subject: [ndsayanything] Re: Obama Administration: Drone Strikes On US Citizens Are “ Legal, Ethical And Wise”

        • borborygmi

          rather simple answer. Could you elaborate a little. Some detail perhaps.

  • RandyBoBandy

    It is truly a sad day when it is not surprising that the president does not work within the constitution.
    HOPE, CHANGE, & FORWARD!

  • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

    Thought experiment: Meditate on what would happen if this Administration’s wish list went forward completely without opposition. Libs can opt out of this experiment due to their handicap.

    • borborygmi

      Interesting proposition fruitless and meaningless but let me think on it. Lets see you can should ten bullets in rapid succession before slipping in another clip in a few seconds so you can shoot ten more bullets off in rapid succession. THe gov’t knows this so they send heavy armor , airstrikes etc to take out the last AR owner. AR owners, if still alive. will wonder what would have happened if they could have used 30 shot clips instead…….as they march to the Gulag.

      • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

        Ah! The bore-bore never disappoints. My thought experiment notion is not meaningless, and its fruitfulness is dependent solely on the meditator. I gave you the choice to opt out due to your handicap, but instead you plowed ahead and “thought” on it. The product of your “thinking” does, however, illustrate the fruitlessness of my suggestion in your case, and its meaningless in terms of the “thought experiment” suggestion. (Prediction: What I have just written will remain incomprehensible to you.)

        • borborygmi

          What? Lets play the game. What would happen if this Administrations wish list went forward completely without opposition? Please enlighten? I know I wasn’t far off.

          • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

            I guess I have to spell it out … What if the Administration proceeded unrestrained on matters of (1) curtailing religious freedom, (2) gun confiscation, (3) … etc. This is an Occupying Power. They are not restrained by considerations of the Constitution, traditional values of any sort, identification with the American people, good faith, transparency, truth, justice, fair play, whatever … Whatever stands in the way of their objectives is considered wrong for that reason alone, and the notion of “advise and consent” or any of that other hogwash is merely fodder for tittering at WH parties. How you got to clip sizes and government retaliation still baffles me. Try stretching your imagination. Ready? One, two, three … strreeeeeeetchhh!!!

          • borborygmi

            Can you point out where your guns have been confiscated? I still have mine.
            Curtailing religous Freedom. An example please and not hyperbole.
            What do you forsee as the state of the Nation with this “occupying power” What is going to be the state of the state after Pres. Obama has finished his final four years?
            I tell you what I will go to your side if Pres Obama gets elected for another 4 years.
            Clip sizes and gov’t retaliation is what you and yours are worried about not me. I just like to show how ludicrous it looks when you take the hyperbole of the right conspiracists and expand it to their illogical extreme.
            HOw would you have handled Awlakii

          • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

            Prediction: What I have just written will remain incomprehensible to you. —Q.E.D.

          • borborygmi

            non answers are the safe answers. You should be a politician

          • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

            It’s good that you shake it a couple of times before you put it back in your pants.

          • borborygmi

            no more then a couple otherwise its playing

  • mickey_moussaoui

    Schwarzenegger trusted drones in the Terminator until they turned on humans…just sayin’.
    Beware of Skynet

    • borborygmi

      and the Robots turned on the humans in I ROBOT. Beware of Corp. run by computers.

  • $16179444

    eagerly awaiting the Bush is a war criminal crowd to say the same about Obama…I have a feeling I will be waiting a loooooooooooooooong time

    • LastBestHope

      If W had claimed such power for himself, the riots in the street would be at full flame and the media would be pouring gas on the White House lawn.

      But this is the reign of Obama The One…. and all previous US laws are worn out relics from an unenlightened time past.

      Forward

  • LastBestHope

    Liberal outrage? Meh..

    But at least one democrat has it right: Senator Ron Wyden, Oregon Democrat, puts it rather bluntly: “Every American has the right to know when their government believes that it is allowed to kill them.”

    Seems fair….and we’re all about Fair in the new ObamaNation…right? right?

  • $16179444

    how fitting

  • 1911bullseye

    I get it now. Americans are “skeet,” and the shotgun is a drone.

  • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

    … and Obama’s favorite video game ….

  • Spartacus

    So, if U.S. citizens that have been determined to be a threat to the state are fair game for assassination by drone when they’re not on U.S. soil doesn’t that make Obama or any other liberal a reasonable target of opportunity when they’re out of the country? One can only hope.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Afi-Keita-James/651695123 Afi Keita James

    It’s time for impeachment.

  • tcraigbrown

    If drone strikes are legal and ethical on terrorists then I guess the White House, Obama’s family, and all of his muslim co-conspirators in congress are on the drone strike list…right?

Top