(01-15-2020, 09:17 AM)The Real Marty Wrote:

(01-15-2020, 08:09 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: You’re correct, we should. The original question addressed the legislative temper tantrum democrats threw in the House by voting on a resolution to block Trump from engaging in any military activity in Iran without their approval. An act that one snarky rep said had no more teeth than a New Year’s resolution. The dems bought their own WWIII hyperbole and came out the other side looking foolish and feckless.

I think it's a good question to ask, where do we draw the line on unrestricted Presidential authority to kill people.  There are plenty of hypotheticals where we can say yes, and there are other hypotheticals where we should say no.  As it stands now, it appears that any President can declare that the target posed a threat to our national security and have that person killed.  Is that what we want?  Can he kill a terrorist?  Probably.  Can he kill a person he deems to have supported terrorism?  Maybe?   Does that include leaders of other countries that he says have supported terrorists?  Is this too much power to give a single person? 

I don't have a lot of faith that in this wildly partisan era, this thread will yield any decent discussion of these issues.  But at least we need to recognize that there are legitimate questions about how much power we give to one person, whether it be Trump, Obama, or any other President who has authorized such killings.

Absolutely correct.  I stated it several times right here when Obama was using executive orders to bypass congress, just wait until the shoe is on the other foot.  That is the problem with everyone of the short sighted partisan people on both sides of the isle, It's always ok if it is my guy, regardless of how far away we get from checks and balances.

---