That's exactly the problem. The FBI for example has recently called U.S Patriots who believe in a strict constitutional interpretation and criticism of the U.S government --"domestic terrorists." Should these people be killed for their belief? Hence the need for forceful action in any interpretation of terrorism. 

It isn't ridiculous at all. Two-hundred and sixty million people died in the 20th century by their own governments. It is a rational precaution and being prepared for the worst, because the worst is inevitable. If you're interested in the details, just watch portions of Rand Paul's filibuster. He explains everything there. 

If it were truly a doomsday scenario only matter, then obviously it would never had gained the support it has gained among statemen and the population alike. 

As I said, if anyone can be aprehended on US soil, they will be - it's cheaper than throwing a missile at them and morally less questionable so win-win for everyone in that sense. 

Comparing the US to places like Syria/Cambodia etc is utterly, utterly insane. Just because some dictator kills people in his country doesn't mean the US will suddenly follow their example...Why not say "Germany started 2 wars, let's pre-emptively nuke it before the third!"?? 

Politicians are out to appease the masses, not stir up a country where 50% own a gun. Also think about the logic behind it - why would the US start killing it's own people on it's own soil? It hasn't yet so why will it suddenly revert back? Will people also start to wear animal hide and live off the land? It's little more than sensationlism. If the US government won't even blow up drug runners on the border, they certainly won't start blowing up houses on the prairie. 

Not necessarily. Then they'd have to actually go through a trial, in which case if the person were innocent, would likely be found out to be. Trials cost time and money, and require evidence. Gunning down somebody because they're on a kill list, for whatever corruptible motivations, does not. 

I was more comparing the U.S to the British Empire, Nazi Germany, and Soviet Russia . All of which consisted of regimes which killed millions both directly and indirectly. 

Correction: politicians are out to appease their lobbyists and corporatist funders. That is why the U.S is in wars, for example. The military industrial-complex buys politicians who will manipulate events to enact war. Because these politicians are the ones with the money, they are the ones who campaign, and the vast majority of options are bought by one group or another. The whole game is competition of which corporation has the most money and influence and can take more resources and persuade more politics for their advantage. If you learned enough history, you'd know very well why a government official would want to kill other government officials, or people. Government is never good, this is the basic axiom of natural law purported by Thomas Paine. It is but the lesser of evils. 

And if they are innocent they are let off. As I said, it's a win-win scenario. Imagine the public backlash if you killed an innocent man without a trial whilst aprehension was completely feasible. Which party is really going to go for that?

Yeah all those places/governments no longer exist...The world's moved on...

Which corporation is going to fund killing innocents?! Great way to kill your share prices....Supplying 20,000 troops armour and weapons to help liberate a country is one thing, but there is no money from blowing up a guy in a pickup located on an interstate....Governments will always be flawed, but flawed doesn't mean blood thirsty lunatics.

The problem is that this information isn't freely available. We still don't know why that sixteen year old U.S citizen was murdered other than "being a son of a terrorist." Are you saying we should just accept it on faith? That the (or any) president (and his administration) are gods who canmake no fault? No thank you. 

Except millions died in the process. It is very irrational to believe that after thousands of years of government-sponsored genocide, in the last 70 years we've overcome it, or that world events that aren't so easily controllable might not move us in the opposite direction. For an empirical thinker, it seems like intentional ignorance. 

Corporations already fund killing innocents. The "ministry of propaganda" just tells us these things in newspeak: "they are terrorists", " there is always collatoral damage" , so on and so on. Why do hundreds of children in Pakistan die because of drone bombs yearly? Because of corporate interests. These things don't happen with a smaller, restricted government. HENCE the point of asking the president whether or not he thinks he has the power to kill U.S nationals and aliens on U.S soil. 

Dude, collateral damage.....harsh but he wasnt the target from what I'm aware of.

You just admitted that governments are human and therefore flawed...mistakes can happen, but ultimately that's all they are - mistakes, not deliberate. 

Well when was the last time a modern country shot the shit out of it's own citizens? It hasn't so why don a tinfoil hat and bunker down waiting for the past to re-emerge? Life doesn't work like that since we overcame the Dark Ages. 

Ministry of propoganda? This isn't China dude...What are you on about? Ironic how you question if people are guilty but not that stats of how many innocents die...Since when has a US president chosen to kill a US citizen on US soil when aprehension was possible? Why not ask if the president will enslave Idaho and force them all to Gangnam-style till they die? 

We don't know if he was or not. We have NO information. 

Hence, why they shouldn't be given the ability to harm others without any auditing. 

That is a logical fallacy. At the start of the 20th century "modern countries" didn't commit genocide either. Then once the economic pressures came people started to point fingers and take away the liberty, property, and lives of others. We can't change human nature, but we can certainly put safeguards to minimalize the effects of it. 

So you're telling me that because I don't live in China the media doesn't lie to me or skew the facts? lol. How blissful. There is plenty of propaganda in the corporate owned media which affect voting and support for political actions. 

Let's forget the current world status for a second though. The world changes quite rapidly, and who isn't to say that twenty years from now many of the things we think aren't possible now might become possible. 

The auditing will be classified...

Go watch Unthinkable. You need to understand how the way to save people isn't always the morally easiest. 

At the beginning of the 20th century there was an arms race and very little economic dependancy on one another, so no, it's not a fallacy. 

Media =/= government. In China there is litteraly a department of propogande. In the US you're free to choose CNN, Fox or Al Jazerra. In 20 years from now 50% of US citizens will probably still own a firearm. Have fun being the president who pisses them off.

I mean a public auditing. 

I'm not talking about "saving" people. I'm talking about not harming them. 

So when the stock market collapsed in the 30's it wasn't a global depression? Things haven't changed. They're just following cycles. 

When both the government and media are sponsored by the same corporations, it makes no difference. We have a corporatist govenrment in the U.S. The media is owned by the corporations and the government is funded by the corporations. CNN, Fox, etc are all controlled by different (or in some cases the same) corporations all with their own corporate interests. It's like saying choose which guy you want to beat you up and steal your money in order to spend that money to buy a gun and kill somebody in order to gain a profit.