DOJ/AG Say the US Can Kill Americans on US Soil via Drones

[SicEmBaylor]

Sen. Paul has been requesting a position paper from the AG's office on the legality of killing US citizens on US soil.

Holder responded today:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/holder-yep-obama-could-kill-americans-u-soil-213059085--politics.html

Absolutely terrifying.

[MR2-Sooner86]

If you're not doing anything wrong...

[diverdog]

Sen. Paul has been requesting a position paper from the AG's office on the legality of killing US citizens on US soil.

Holder responded today:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/holder-yep-obama-could-kill-americans-u-soil-213059085--politics.html

Absolutely terrifying.

How are drones any different than any other weapon of war? The president has the authority to order air strikes if he wants to.

[Blue]

Premeditated assasinations are legal on Americans by americans on US soil? Really Diver? No due process? No rights?

[Blue]

Libs were all in a huff over waterboarding known terrorists, but completely agree with turning fellow citizens into a dust pile with a hat on top with no questions asked.

Hypocrites.

[Blue]

It seems the world and most of our citizens are done with the constitution. By a supposed constitutional law professor no less.

Its a brave new world and those of us who stand up for life and liberty are now the "traitors".

[jkjsooner]

Sen. Paul has been requesting a position paper from the AG's office on the legality of killing US citizens on US soil.

Holder responded today:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/holder-yep-obama-could-kill-americans-u-soil-213059085--politics.html

Absolutely terrifying.

Did you even read the article?


Holder added: “The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no President will ever have to confront."

But "it is possible, I suppose to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States," Holder said. "For example, the President could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances of a catastrophic attack” like Pearl Harbor or 9/11.


If you're going to ask a crazy question you're going to get a crazy answer.

Yes, if a person built a nuclear weapon and was about to set it off the government would act quickly to protect the lives of millions. If a U.S. citizen hijacked a plane and was trying to fly it into a large building they would shoot it down. That was the sort of answer Holder gave. If you don't see that then you're willfully blind.

But I agree Holder should have never answered such a stupid question. He shouldn't have taken the bait.

[Blue]

Who deems a circumstance, "extraordinary"?

You have the freedom of speech, unless....you can bear arms, except....we can search you lawfully, if.......

You have no rights unless we say you do.

[Soonerjeepman]

this is exactly what obama and his croonies want....

"you guys are crazy" "no way this would ever happen"...

just keep burying heads in the sand...

[SoonerProphet]

And there is this...

Jameel Jaffer, the Director for the ACLU’s Center for Democracy, said the decision "insulates the statute from meaningful judicial review and leaves Americans’ privacy rights to the mercy of the political branches." Alito's opinion argues that the Court's standing doctrine, upon which the dismissal of the case relies, "serves to prevent the judicial process from being used to usurp the powers of the political branches."

http://www.policymic.com/articles/28535/clapper-v-amnesty-international-usa-court-rules-against-challenges-to-warrantless-wiretapping

[FaninAma]

How are drones any different than any other weapon of war? The president has the authority to order air strikes if he wants to.

What? The POTUS has the right to order executions of US citizens?

[jkjsooner]

Who deems a circumstance, "extraordinary"?

You have the freedom of speech, unless....you can bear arms, except....we can search you lawfully, if.......

You have no rights unless we say you do.

Can the police kill a US citizen without a trial? Of course they can if a life is in danger. Same here. Read more into it if you want but you're simply looking for an issue that doesn't exist.

[olevetonahill]

What? The POTUS has the right to order executions of US citizens?

Sounds Like Gaddafi, Saddam, and a few others dont it?

[jkjsooner]

What? The POTUS has the right to order executions of US citizens?

Who said anything about executions? He mentioned if it was a 9/11 type situation.

And diverdog is right to question why the fact that it's a drone makes any difference. It doesn't except to sensationalize the issue.

[Blue]

Can the police kill a US citizen without a trial? Of course they can if a life is in danger. Same here. Read more into it if you want but you're simply looking for an issue that doesn't exist.

You don't get it.

[jkjsooner]

Guys Rand Paul went on a fishing expedition asking if there was any conceivable way it could be legal. Any honest answer would be yes because there are conceivable circumstances - immediate threat of death, etc. - that would warrant the use of deadly force. This has always been true and is no less true it were a drone or robot...

[jkjsooner]

You don't get it.

Why don't you explain what I don't get. I read the article. Apparently you did not.

I get it. You want to believe the very worst about our government so you'll ignore what Holder said and claim he's for executions.

[Blue]

Why don't you explain what I don't get. I read the article. Apparently you did not.

Read all the previous comments, dude.

I read the article. It tells me they can do whatever the hell they want when they want when they deem it, "necessary."

Thanks for popping your head out of the sand long enough to tell us that laws on the books for 230 years don't mean ****.

[Blue]

Guys Rand Paul went on a fishing expedition asking if there was any conceivable way it could be legal. Any honest answer would be yes because there are conceivable circumstances - immediate threat of death, etc. - that would warrant the use of deadly force. This has always been true and is no less true it were a drone or robot...

When is a drones life in danger?

[jkjsooner]

When is a drones life in danger?

Where did anyone say the drone was in danger? Where the hell did that come from?

Here's a clue. I'm not talking about the drone being in danger. Thought that would be obvious but apparently not with you.

And nice calling me a dick. Look in the mirror.

[Blue]

Where did anyone say the drone was in danger? Where the hell did that come from?

And nice calling me a dick. Look in the mirror.

Well I erased that. Despite the fact that you are a dick, I felt it wasn't appropriate.

Lets agree to disagree.

[FaninAma]

Can the police kill a US citizen without a trial? Of course they can if a life is in danger. Same here. Read more into it if you want but you're simply looking for an issue that doesn't exist.
Draw the line on that slippery slope. Does the culprit have to be actively involved in a life threatening crime or do they just need to pose a credible, serious threat?

[Blue]

Where did anyone say the drone was in danger? Where the hell did that come from?

Here's a clue. I'm not talking about the drone being in danger. Thought that would be obvious but apparently not with you.

And nice calling me a dick. Look in the mirror.

If a drones life is not in danger what gives anyone the right to kill a US citizen by a drone without giving him his day in court? Please enlighten us.

[jkjsooner]

Let me summarize one more time. The question was asked if xxx would ever be legal. The answer: Yes, under extraordinary circumstances.

Paranoid response: the government says they can execute citizens.

About sum it up?

[Blue]

I guess. Everybody on this thread is a paranoid schizo except you.

[Blue]

F u c k you. If I get banned your *** better be too.

Waaa. I'm not even riled up. Take a break.

[jkjsooner]

Waaa. I'm not even riled up. Take a break.

Well I didn't start the name calling.

[FaninAma]

Using drones is the same as using any other segment of the military to carry out a hit.

[Blue]

Well I didn't start the name calling.
I erased it in 5 seconds after I calmed down. I sorry.

[jkjsooner]

Using drones is the same as using any other segment of the military to carry out a hit.
Says you. Holder said in a circumstance similar to 9/11. I take that to mean a situation that poses an immediate threat to many lives.

[Blue]

Holders a dick...

[jkjsooner]

I erased it in 5 seconds after I calmed down. I sorry.

I deleted mine too. We're good.

[olevetonahill]

I erased it in 5 seconds after I calmed down. I sorry.

Heh Blue Ya got him all riled up at ya,

Blue and JKJ :very_drunk:
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lw3wt0M9jB1qcapudo1_400.jpg

[Midtowner]

This is only a thing if you don't know the first goddamn thing about when the police are allowed to use deadly force.

[SicEmBaylor]

How are drones any different than any other weapon of war? The president has the authority to order air strikes if he wants to.

The President should not have the authority to specifically target American citizens on American soil. In fact, the President shouldn't have the right to specifically target and kill American citizens anywhere in the world.

Due process of law is the foundation of our Constitution and our liberties. If the President can execute an American citizen via a drone then our rights and liberties are in serious jeopardy.

[SicEmBaylor]

This is only a thing if you don't know the first goddamn thing about when the police are allowed to use deadly force.
This isn't a police issue, necessarily, it's a military issue. If you don't think police abuse their power then you're living in lala land. Of course, I would expect nothing less from Mr. "The ends justify the means even if it means shredding the constitution." You lost all legitimacy with me when you made that ridiculous argument.

[SicEmBaylor]

Let me summarize one more time. The question was asked if xxx would ever be legal. The answer: Yes, under extraordinary circumstances.

Paranoid response: the government says they can execute citizens.

About sum it up?

It's hardly paranoia, and I most certainly do not trust the government or any President with the right to determine when "extraordinary circumstances" warrant the disregard of the right to the due process of law and what amounts to a summary execution.

I think this administration has shown that it lacks the judgement to determine what would constitute such a situation, and I sure as hell don't accept the precedent this sets for future administration whose concept of "extraordinary" may be as bad or worse as this administration's.

[olevetonahill]

This isn't a police issue, necessarily, it's a military issue. If you don't think police abuse their power then you're living in lala land. Of course, I would expect nothing less from Mr. "The ends justify the means even if it means shredding the constitution." You lost all legitimacy with me when you made that ridiculous argument.

You trying to say he said sompun dumber than he would Have his Old lady kill their baby to save the Dog?

[jkjsooner]

Due process of law is the foundation of our Constitution and our liberties. If the President can execute an American citizen via a drone then our rights and liberties are in serious jeopardy.

You're drawing a lot of conclusions that are not backed up by what Holder said.

He was given the question if there's any scenario where it would be legal. If he doesn't answer yes he would be lying. It was a dumb hypothetical question...

[SicEmBaylor]

You're drawing a lot of conclusions that are not backed up by what Holder said.

He was given the question if there's any scenario where it would be legal. If he doesn't answer yes he would be lying. It was a dumb hypothetical question...
It isn't a dumb hypothetical in the least since the President has already executed American citizens abroad via drone with no respect to their right of due process. The question as to whether the same could happen domestically is perfectly reasonable and appropriate.

The correct answer should have been to say that the United States should not and will not conduct drone strikes domestically and that a citizen's right to due process of law will be respected.

[Blue]

Heh Blue Ya got him all riled up at ya,

Blue and JKJ :very_drunk:
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lw3wt0M9jB1qcapudo1_400.jpg

Shut up, bitch.

[olevetonahill]

Shut up, bitch.

:very_drunk:
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTcnAAUNvPvH4CORFpu2V3YntpBWMjPQ DPHKSUi4_ElGbSCMAf8Qg

[okiewaker]

Whatever the gov starts it usually expands. Anyway,,this don't sit well considering here just recently they talking about more gun control.

[Blue]

:very_drunk:
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTcnAAUNvPvH4CORFpu2V3YntpBWMjPQ DPHKSUi4_ElGbSCMAf8Qg

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Sad-Dog-by-Tim-Dawson-300x223.jpg <-------Sidenote: Obama drone strikes dogs like that all the time. For fun. True story.

[Midtowner]

This isn't a police issue, necessarily, it's a military issue. If you don't think police abuse their power then you're living in lala land. Of course, I would expect nothing less from Mr. "The ends justify the means even if it means shredding the constitution." You lost all legitimacy with me when you made that ridiculous argument.

I'm a defense attorney. OF COURSE I THINK POLICE ABUSE THEIR POWER BECAUSE THEY DO!!!

That said, do I think police ought to empty their entire clip when some gangsta points a gun at a police officer? You betcha.

That said, if President Obama learned that Alik Abu Al Makur Shabazz Mohammad Mohammad Jihad had a nuke and was on I-whatever on his way to Manhattan and that it was impossible to intercept him otherwise, would I say blow that SOB from here to kingdom come with an F-16 and air to ground missiles?

Yes I would.

That said, if we knew Alik Abu Al Makur Shabazz Mohammad Mohammad Jihad was in the mere planning stages of a huge attack, the man deserves due process if he's on American soil if we can possibly afford it to him.

As for the folks overseas we've killed, I agree with you, it's a total impeachable breach of the Constitution. Shut the hell up about Benghazi. Killing Americans overseas without any due process? Obama doesn't deserve to be the President.... given the choice between him and a Romney who I'm confident would've done the same thing, I still pulled the lever for Obama.

It ain't hard to try someone in abstentia. You publish notice, give a reasonable best effort to locate them, put the facts in front of a jury and winner/winner/chicken/dinner. We owe them at least that.

But not in a FISA court... those things are utter jokes. 18,761 warrants were granted, while just five were rejected in 2004, and under Bush (and probably Obama), the executive just took to ignoring the FISA court.

The public should demand better.

[Harry Beanbag]

I can't believe Holder is still the Attorney General and hasn't been impeached, disbarred, and incarcerated so who gives a **** what his sorry *** has to say. This country is upside down.

[diverdog]

Premeditated assasinations are legal on Americans by americans on US soil? Really Diver? No due process? No rights?

Blue:

That is not what the article was saying. And secondly the notion of using the military against citizens is nothing new. If you want to see how far that has gone read about the Battle of Blair Mountain and what the government did against striking coal miners.

And explain to me how a drone killing someone is any different than CIA assassinating someone? Our government at times has had to use military force on US for better or worse.

[Blue]

Blue:

That is not what the article was saying. And secondly the notion of using the military against citizens is nothing new. If you want to see how far that has gone read about the Battle of Blair Mountain and what the government did against striking coal miners.

And explain to me how a drone killing someone is any different than CIA assassinating someone? Our government at times has had to use military force on US for better or worse.

I think Sic em summed up my thoughts best. The precedent it sets. Keep it under wraps. Don't flat out tell me (govt) that the constitution means nothing.

[diverdog]

It seems the world and most of our citizens are done with the constitution. By a supposed constitutional law professor no less.

Its a brave new world and those of us who stand up for life and liberty are now the "traitors".

Blue, that world never existed in the first place.

[olevetonahill]

Ok let me see if I understand this, Matlock you say its Perfectly reasonable and Just for the President to blow away any citizen with out recourse to Law, Because he has credible evidence that that dude or dudes have some kinda Mass weapon and May be headed for DC or where ever to blow up a bunch of folks?
Is that what Im hearing from You lefties?

[Blue]

Blue, that world never existed in the first place.

Maybe not. But TPTB are getting very bold. Who gives them their power? We do. Theyve created a system that is almost impossible to "opt out" of. I dont see this all ending up in the utopia we all hope for. More like 1984.

[diverdog]

I think Sic em summed up my thoughts best. The precedent it sets. Keep it under wraps. Don't flat out tell me (govt) that the constitution means nothing.

If there is an over riding threat to this nation then the President is well within his duty to use whatever force necessary to protect and defend the constitution. Read Article 1 Section 9 of the Constitution:




The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#HABCOR) shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the publicSafety may require it.

[SoonerProphet]

I'm a defense attorney. OF COURSE I THINK POLICE ABUSE THEIR POWER BECAUSE THEY DO!!!

That said, do I think police ought to empty their entire clip when some gangsta points a gun at a police officer? You betcha.

That said, if President Obama learned that Alik Abu Al Makur Shabazz Mohammad Mohammad Jihad had a nuke and was on I-whatever on his way to Manhattan and that it was impossible to intercept him otherwise, would I say blow that SOB from here to kingdom come with an F-16 and air to ground missiles?

Yes I would.

That said, if we knew Alik Abu Al Makur Shabazz Mohammad Mohammad Jihad was in the mere planning stages of a huge attack, the man deserves due process if he's on American soil if we can possibly afford it to him.

As for the folks overseas we've killed, I agree with you, it's a total impeachable breach of the Constitution. Shut the hell up about Benghazi. Killing Americans overseas without any due process? Obama doesn't deserve to be the President.... given the choice between him and a Romney who I'm confident would've done the same thing, I still pulled the lever for Obama.

It ain't hard to try someone in abstentia. You publish notice, give a reasonable best effort to locate them, put the facts in front of a jury and winner/winner/chicken/dinner. We owe them at least that.

But not in a FISA court... those things are utter jokes. 18,761 warrants were granted, while just five were rejected in 2004, and under Bush (and probably Obama), the executive just took to ignoring the FISA court.

The public should demand better.

Or what happens when the intel on Mr. Jihad turns out to be erroneous? Or worse, a fabrication made up by the likes of kooks trying to cook up a fabrication? Cause that kinda sh!t never goes down

[jkjsooner]

I think Sic em summed up my thoughts best. The precedent it sets. Keep it under wraps. Don't flat out tell me (govt) that the constitution means nothing.

Holder wasn't trying to set a precedent. He was asked a question if a drone strike could conceivably be legal. He answered the question just as if any attorney or law professor would answer it.

It's like if I asked Obama if it would ever be legal for him to use his penis to poke out the eyeballs of another citizen. And of course it would be legal if he needed to do so to defend himself or someone else. That doesn't mean he's planning on going out and poking someone's eyes out with his penis.

Ask a question if something would ever be legal and you'll get an answer. Read more into that answer then that is your fault.

[jkjsooner]

As for the folks overseas we've killed, I agree with you, it's a total impeachable breach of the Constitution.
...
...
It ain't hard to try someone in abstentia. You publish notice, give a reasonable best effort to locate them, put the facts in front of a jury and winner/winner/chicken/dinner. We owe them at least that.


I'm going to disagree with you and SicEm on this.

When there is an American citizen who has joined a terrorist organization and is actively plotting terrorism against us or our allies, he is just as much a part of the enemy as anyone else. It is no different than any American citizen who might have gone back to Germany to fight along with the German army in WW2.

As for trying in abstentia. Let's be real. Do you think that would stop the terrorist from plotting against us and our allies? Do you think he would stop his activities just because we tried and convicted him?

In an ideal world we would be able to go and get these guys and bring them to trial but in a war zone that isn't so easy and I don't suggest we use our armed forces to invade Yemen just so we don't have to kill one American who is our sworn enemy.


From an ethical standpoint it makes no difference whether the terrorist is an American citizen or not.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Holder wasn't trying to set a precedent. He was asked a question if a drone strike could conceivably be legal. He answered the question just as if any attorney or law professor would answer it.

It's like if I asked Obama if it would ever be legal for him to use his penis to poke out the eyeballs of another citizen. And of course it would be legal if he needed to do so to defend himself or someone else. That doesn't mean he's planning on going out and poking someone's eyes out with his penis.

Ask a question if something would ever be legal and you'll get an answer. Read more into that answer then that is your fault.

I used to think Matlock was the only one on here that had his head stuck completely up his ***...I was wrong.

[jkjsooner]

Or what happens when the intel on Mr. Jihad turns out to be erroneous? Or worse, a fabrication made up by the likes of kooks trying to cook up a fabrication? Cause that kinda sh!t never goes down

Are you talking about in the US or outside.

Overseas, crap happens in war. It sucks but it's been that way ever since the beginning of time.

On US soil, it was clear to me that Holder isn't starting a campaign of drone strikes. I think his statement was really clear so your concern is misguided.

[jkjsooner]

I used to think Matlock was the only one on here that had his head stuck completely up his ***...I was wrong.

Unlike you, I'm actually reading what Holder said. You seem to be drawing your conclusions based on your prior opinion of Holder.

Ask a question if something could ever be legal and you'll more than likely get an answer of "yes" unless the person answering the question decides evade the question and not to take the bait.

[FaninAma]

Says you. Holder said in a circumstance similar to 9/11. I take that to mean a situation that poses an immediate threat to many lives.

At what point would you have called out the drone hit...the planning stage or the actual attack? You see, that's the problem with the drones. They are effective only if they are preemptive and that means their use will always be determined by human judgement....judge, jury and executioner. BTW, the drone attacks in the Middle East and Afghanistan/Pakistan have killed about 18 innocent bystanders for every terrorist they have killed. Is this acceptable collateral damage for you.

You are defending the indefensible. You are defending a human rights and civil liberties violation in a manner that is reminiscent to those that defend Lincoln's atrocities against civilians in the South. You and your ilk are dangerous because you give latitude to tyrants.

[jkjsooner]

At what point would you have called out the drone hit...the planning stage or the actual attack?

I saw nothing in Holder's comments that said he would use a drone strike while a domestic terrorist is in the planning stages.

You want to believe that that is what he said but nothing in his words indicated that.

If they started doing that or said they would then I'll be standing with you.

[FaninAma]

Blue:

That is not what the article was saying. And secondly the notion of using the military against citizens is nothing new. If you want to see how far that has gone read about the Battle of Blair Mountain and what the government did against striking coal miners.

And explain to me how a drone killing someone is any different than CIA assassinating someone? Our government at times has had to use military force on US for better or worse.

Most drone attacks kill about 18 x the number of innocent civilians as terrorists. Can you really not see how the drone program will be the biggest recruiting tool the terrorists could ever hope to have?

[FaninAma]

I saw nothing in Holder's comments that said he would use a drone strike while a domestic terrorist is in the planning stages.

You want to believe that that is what he said but nothing in his words indicated that.

If they started doing that or said they would then I'll be standing with you.

So when would he use it? There are more effective means when the attack is under way that would not cause the loss of hostage lives.

There is only one effective way to use drones....in a stealth, preemptive attack. That's the way they are used overseas and that is the way they would be used here.

[jkjsooner]

Most drone attacks kill about 18 x the number of innocent civilians as terrorists. Can you really not see how the drone program will be the biggest recruiting tool the terrorists could ever hope to have?

Now you're getting off topic. A general criticism of our drone activities overseas is fair.

One thing that drives me crazy is the obsession with drones as if doing the same thing with manned aircraft is somehow different.

[FaninAma]

Now you're getting off topic. A general criticism of our drone activities overseas is fair.

One thing that drives me crazy is the obsession with drones as if doing the same thing with manned aircraft is somehow different.

No, it is fair criticism. It highlites the hypocrisy of the left. If the POTUS ordered a drone strike in this country that killed dozens of innocent US citizens in order to kill one or 2 terrorists the country would be outraged and the President would probably be impeached. But because Obama knows 90% of the country does not know much about anything beyond what they read on twitter and facebook he can kill innocent men, women and children in other countries with impunity.

It also highlites the uselessness of the drone as an effective weapon to stop an ongoing terrorist attack.

[jkjsooner]

So when would he use it? There are more effective means when the attack is under way that would not cause the loss of hostage lives.

There is only one effective way to use drones....in a stealth, preemptive attack. That's the way they are used overseas and that is the way they would be used here.

Holder didn't come up with an exact scenario but his words make it clear that it would be an "extraordinary circumstance" and something that is "unlikely to occur."

Taking his words at face value your concern is misguided. If you don't believe Holder then that's fine but if that's the route you take then it makes no sense to use his words against him since you're not going to believe anything he says anyway.

[olevetonahill]

I used to think Matlock was the only one on here that had his head stuck completely up his ***...I was wrong.

Look out, He will get his panties all in a wad if you call him names Like Dick or asshat or sompun. Hes tender that way.

[jkjsooner]

No, it is fair criticism. It highlites the hypocrisy of the left. If the POTUS ordered a drone strike in this country that killed dozens of innocent US citizens in order to kill one or 2 terrorists the country would be outraged and the President would probably be impeached.

Hypocrisy of the left? Plenty on the left have criticized the drone program.

Let's look at the right. When Bush was President he could do anything he wanted in the war on terror (including drone strikes) with almost no criticism. In fact, many on the right charged that critics were unpatriotic. Then of course when Obama took office it seems that questioning these things became the norm.

As for my personal opinion, it hasn't changed. I have the same opinion I did when Bush was President. The drone strikes are perfectly within the realm of a justified war but I'm not so sure they don't cause more problems than they solve.

[jkjsooner]

Look out, He will get his panties all in a wad if you call him names Like Dick or asshat or sompun. Hes tender that way.

So Blue didn't get his panties in a wad when he called me a dick?

[MR2-Sooner86]

Jesus Christ!

I'll try to explain this as best as I can but I'm still afraid some of you won't get it. If that's the case I'll break out thr sock puppets, crayons, and construction paper to bring it down to your intelligence level.

Anwar al-Aulaqi was an American citizen.
As an American citizen, Anwar al-Aulaqi had certain Constittuional rights, like due process.
Anwar al-Aulaqi gave speeches about jihad and anti-Americanism.
Anwar al-Aulaqi's speeches were comparable to Black Panther or Neo-Nazi groups.
Anwar al-Aulaqi never killed anybody.
Anwar al-Aulaqi associated with people who planned terrorist operations.
It was unknown if Anwar al-Aulaqi ever helped with any terrorist plots.
Anwar al-Aulaqi's case the government had against him hasn't been released to the public.
Anwar al-Aulaqi was monitored by the United States for at least a week.
Anwar al-Aulaqi's location was known, by the United States, at all times, over a period of days.
Anwar al-Aulaqi's car was targeted while he was driving by a drone.

Given what has been said in this thread, folks would be alright with murdering Americans, on American soil, who talk about the Turner Diaries, associated with Timothy McVeigh, and killed, assassination style, while going about their daily lives.

Anwar al-Aulaqi's 16 year old son, Abdulrahman Anwar al-Aulaqi, was killed while eating lunch in a drone strike.
United States officials lied about his age saying he was a "military-aged male" so his death was justified.
Abdulrahman Anwar al-Aulaqi was said to not be the original target and was "in the wrong place at the wrong time."
Abdulrahman Anwar al-Aulaqi would've been collateral damage.
Abdulrahman Anwar al-Aulaqi was also an American citizen.

Both American citizens were on no battlefield.
Both were in countries were had no legal declaration of war on.
Both were not in the process of attacking or caring out any sort attack.

So, is the big picture starting to become clear or do I need to break out the glue, glitter, and play-doh to make more sense?

This is close to the LAPD shooting first, asking questions later, on trucks they "thought" were Chris Dorner's. Except now it'll be drones flown by the United States military. Collateral damage? You shouldn't have been at that 7-11 at that specific time. We gotta get them terrorist bad guys ya know!

Look, I know some of you like authoritarianism because your fears of everyday life control you. I know you love big statism to standup for you because you never learned to standup for yourself. However, your fears and insecurities are your fears and insecurities, not mine. So I'm sorry if I don't go along with your throwing out of the Fifth Amendment to make you feel better about yourself.

I see two options:
A. Learn that life is scary but you can't take away others rights to make yourself feel better about it.
B. Kill yourself to save you from living in this awful world.

[olevetonahill]

So Blue didn't get his panties in a wad when he called me a dick?

Not as bad a Knot as YOU did when you told him to go F*** himself then cried about maybe gettin banned.
Sides he edited his comment out almost as soon as he posted it You waited quite some time ya Crybaby

[jkjsooner]

Given what has been said in this thread, folks would be alright with murdering Americans, on American soil, who talk about the Turner Diaries, associated with Timothy McVeigh, and killed, assassination style, while going about their daily lives.


Nobody in this thread has stated that or anything close to that.

We've stated that a drone attack could be used in the same way the police use justified deadly force today and only in a circumstance that the drone attack is the only alternative.

[Turd_Ferguson]

So Blue didn't get his panties in a wad when he called me a dick?

http://pics2.ds-static.com/prodimg/369662/300.JPG

[MR2-Sooner86]

Nobody in this thread has stated that or anything close to that.

We've stated that a drone attack could be used in the same way the police use justified deadly force today and only in a circumstance that the drone attack is the only alternative.

Except that's what you are saying. You're saying that because those same circumstances were used on Anwar al-Aulaqi.

So why do you want to kill Americans driving in their cars who express their freedom of speech you don't agree with?

[olevetonahill]

http://pics2.ds-static.com/prodimg/369662/300.JPG

Heh, Turd, Did ya notice he used his same old tired leftist ploy of Crying "well Look what some one else did"?

They cant own their Own pile they have to try and pass the blame to some one else.

[FaninAma]

Nobody in this thread has stated that or anything close to that.

We've stated that a drone attack could be used in the same way the police use justified deadly force today and only in a circumstance that the drone attack is the only alternative.

The drone is an ineffective weapon in a situation where there are hostages or innocent bystanders.....you might as well use a howitzer. Its only justifiable use is in a preepmtive strike on a threat determined by those in the government. I would consider their use if a judicial review were conducted before authorization. I doubt you would get many judges signing off on a preemptive execution.

[Fraggle145]

http://images1.fanpop.com/images/photos/1500000/24-Jack-Bauer-24-1583060-883-581.jpg

If it was this guy nobody would give a ****. This is such a non-issue. We are getting our *** kicked by the economy and out of control spending on **** that doesnt matter with no taxation, all while health expenses ram it up our *** even deeper and we are worried about a hypothetical scenario?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ivu5LDQeHJ4

[olevetonahill]

The drone is an ineffective weapon in a situation where there are hostages or innocent bystanders.....you might as well use a howitzer. Its only justifiable use is in a preepmtive strike on a threat determined by those in the government. I would consider their use if a judicial review were conducted before authorization. I doubt you would get many judges signing off on a preemptive execution.

Fan, The Left wingnuts keep throwing up the PoPo Use of Deadly force , What they aint gettin is a Cop can only use that force IF He/She has a Clear target and that target is putting someone else in Imminent danger of Life.

A cop Cant and MOST wouldnt anyway, fer instance Go up on a situation Where there is a Nutcase say that has a Weapon with a Brazillion round Magazine and decide This Nut is gonna Hurt a shatload of Folks lets throw some hand grenades at him. Nope that dont compute at all.

[FaninAma]

Fraggle, I would be right there with you if the US government had not already used drone strikes as a way to summary execute US citizens without due process. I am not willing to totally dismiss the possibility of them doing the same thing here just because those who support Obama say he would never use them the same way in this country.

[SicEmBaylor]

If there is an over riding threat to this nation then the President is well within his duty to use whatever force necessary to protect and defend the constitution. Read Article 1 Section 9 of the Constitution:




The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#HABCOR) shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the publicSafety may require it.





I have never understood Article I, Section II to be a reserved right of the President to assassinate American citizens on American soil. That's a rather large stretch nor would I necessarily characterize a terrorist act as a form of rebellion or invasion. Nonetheless, Article I are legislative not executive branch authorities; therefore, it's unreasonable to assume that it was intended as a military tool under the authority of the Executive branch.

Holder wasn't trying to set a precedent. He was asked a question if a drone strike could conceivably be legal. He answered the question just as if any attorney or law professor would answer it.

It's like if I asked Obama if it would ever be legal for him to use his penis to poke out the eyeballs of another citizen. And of course it would be legal if he needed to do so to defend himself or someone else. That doesn't mean he's planning on going out and poking someone's eyes out with his penis.

Ask a question if something would ever be legal and you'll get an answer. Read more into that answer then that is your fault.
When the Attorney General issues an opinion it sets a precedent. Holder knows this as well as you do.


I'm going to disagree with you and SicEm on this.

When there is an American citizen who has joined a terrorist organization and is actively plotting terrorism against us or our allies, he is just as much a part of the enemy as anyone else. It is no different than any American citizen who might have gone back to Germany to fight along with the German army in WW2.
Says who or what? Where exactly is that in the Constitution? You may consider it perfectly reasonable to fully strip an American citizen of their Constitutional rights but the only legal procedure for doing that is to try that individual for treason.

Now, clearly, if they are out in the middle of a battlefield and they're killed in the regular course of doing battle then that's another matter entirely and cannot be helped. However, we're not dealing with the random death of an American enemy combatant -- this is the specific targeting and killing of an American citizen either at home or abroad. That is not a case of getting killed in the regular course of battle -- that is targeted assassination. You keep trying to confuse the issue here.


As for trying in abstentia. Let's be real. Do you think that would stop the terrorist from plotting against us and our allies? Do you think he would stop his activities just because we tried and convicted him?
It isn't an issue of deterrence. The reason for doing this is to give an American citizen his/her proper Constitutional right to due process BEFORE the President of the United States orders their assassination.


In an ideal world we would be able to go and get these guys and bring them to trial but in a war zone that isn't so easy and I don't suggest we use our armed forces to invade Yemen just so we don't have to kill one American who is our sworn enemy.


From an ethical standpoint it makes no difference whether the terrorist is an American citizen or not.

It would be a moral not an ethical standpoint, and there is a huge legal difference as to whether a terrorist is an American or not. I may despise they and their activity but by virtue of being born an American they are still entitled to their rights.

[Midtowner]

Or what happens when the intel on Mr. Jihad turns out to be erroneous? Or worse, a fabrication made up by the likes of kooks trying to cook up a fabrication? Cause that kinda sh!t never goes down

I'd say it's comparable to a cop using lethal force when he thinks someone is pulling a gun, but it turns out to be a flashlight.

[SicEmBaylor]

I'd say it's comparable to a cop using lethal force when he thinks someone is pulling a gun, but it turns out to be a flashlight.

Cops operate under a wholly different set of laws with a completely different "mission statement" than the President of the United States. Comparing the action of a cop on the street to the President with the full weight and might of the United States military is definitely a case of apples v. oranges.

[olevetonahill]

I'd say it's comparable to a cop using lethal force when he thinks someone is pulling a gun, but it turns out to be a flashlight.

Keep graspin at those straws their matlock. You aint got a ****in clue what you are talking about as usual

[olevetonahill]

Cops operate under a wholly different set of laws with a completely different "mission statement" than the President of the United States. Comparing the action of a cop on the street to the President with the full weight and might of the United States military is definitely a case of apples v. oranges.

It aint even Apples to oranges Bro. Its More Like a Grapefruit to a raisin

[Midtowner]

I'm going to disagree with you and SicEm on this.

When there is an American citizen who has joined a terrorist organization and is actively plotting terrorism against us or our allies, he is just as much a part of the enemy as anyone else. It is no different than any American citizen who might have gone back to Germany to fight along with the German army in WW2.

No, an American citizen is a citizen and has all of the rights of a citizen. In a criminal situation like this, he is presumed innocent until the government can prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Much of the Bill of Rights is centered on criminal prosecutions and the protection of privacy. 3 (arguably), 4, 5, 6 and the 8th Amendments center around guarantees of liberty against the government's power to prosecute crimes and punish them. If the government cared about following the Constitution here, they'd be giving some due process as that is the right of every citizen.

If the government has decided it can kill you without due process or any exigent circumstances requiring immediate action to, for example, save lives and/or severe damage to infrastructure to mitigate that need of due process, which of our rights means anything anymore if the government can take away the biggest one (life) without any due process at all?


As for trying in abstentia. Let's be real. Do you think that would stop the terrorist from plotting against us and our allies? Do you think he would stop his activities just because we tried and convicted him?

I'd be fine with trying in abstentia, provided there's adequate notice and an opportunity for a hearing, after which a possible outcome is a warrant for capture or kill. I'm not interested in putting our troops at risk to kill someone who is a real threat, but I'm very much about requiring the executive to go to someone in the judicial branch after some reasonable notice has been given to ask for a death warrant.


From an ethical standpoint it makes no difference whether the terrorist is an American citizen or not.

Then from an ethical standpoint, you're calling your citizenship meaningless.

[Midtowner]

Cops operate under a wholly different set of laws with a completely different "mission statement" than the President of the United States. Comparing the action of a cop on the street to the President with the full weight and might of the United States military is definitely a case of apples v. oranges.

Not in this sense, no.

There are situations, conceivably, which could occur which would give the President exigent enough circumstances to ask for a targeted killing within the U.S. of an American citizen. I'm imagining a very narrow set of circumstances where the time required to make the decision is too small for adequate process to occur and to where other local law enforcement remedies are a no go.

[jkjsooner]

Except that's what you are saying. You're saying that because those same circumstances were used on Anwar al-Aulaqi.

So why do you want to kill Americans driving in their cars who express their freedom of speech you don't agree with?

No, it isn't what I am saying. I was talking about a drone attack on foreign / hostile lands where we can't exactly send the police in to arrest a guy.

The circumstances behind such an attack would have to be very different in the US. Holder said as much.

[SicEmBaylor]

Not in this sense, no.

There are situations, conceivably, which could occur which would give the President exigent enough circumstances to ask for a targeted killing within the U.S. of an American citizen. I'm imagining a very narrow set of circumstances where the time required to make the decision is too small for adequate process to occur and to where other local law enforcement remedies are a no go.
And I absolutely reject that. What kind of evidence would constitute allowing a President to make this decision? Who is to decide if enough evidence exists to justify the action? The President is not a jury. The President is not a judge. We're talking about an American citizen who has rights and whether we, as citizens, can rely on those rights under any circumstance. That is the true test of the resilience of our Constitution.

[SicEmBaylor]

No, it isn't what I am saying. I was talking about a drone attack on foreign / hostile lands where we can't exactly send the police in to arrest a guy.

The circumstances behind such an attack would have to be very different in the US. Holder said as much.
A drone strike specifically intended to kill an American citizen is an illegal act and should be grounds for impeachment.

An American terrorist who is killed in the regular course of battle with the US military is another matter. This situation is not what Sen. Paul is concerned with; therefore, it is outside the purview of this discussion.

[jkjsooner]

The drone is an ineffective weapon in a situation where there are hostages or innocent bystanders.....you might as well use a howitzer. Its only justifiable use is in a preepmtive strike on a threat determined by those in the government. I would consider their use if a judicial review were conducted before authorization. I doubt you would get many judges signing off on a preemptive execution.

Let me reiterate. Here is one thing Holder said:


I suppose," to imagine an "extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate" under U.S. law for the president to authorize the military to "use lethal force"

He answered a hypothetical posed by Paul as if he was a law professor answering a student's question. No more should be read into that.

They are not starting a drone assassination program nor do they see that that would ever be necessary. Holder made this very clear. He answered a hypothetical question with a legal answer and his answer was correct. We can all dream up scenarios where a drone strike against a US citizen would be legal.

Rand Paul asked a loaded question and knew what the answer was going to be and knew he could spin the answer in directions that would rile up his base. That's all this is.


Let me ask Rand Paul if it would be legal for a drone strike to take out an invading Cuban army on US soil even if the tank commander was a known US citizen. Because he asked if something would ever be legal and you can't answer such a question without dreaming up any and all possible circumstances - lest you want to evade the question which is what Holder should have done to begin with.

[jkjsooner]

Then from an ethical standpoint, you're calling your citizenship meaningless.

No, from an ethical standpoint killing someone without due process is killing someone without due process.

Are you saying that from an ethics perspective (not legal perspective) due process is only necessary for US citizens?


As for the killing of a US citizen terrorist, if you're saying we would try and convict them before sending the drone to kill them then I suppose I could agree with you. I don't feel it is necessary though. Once you've gone overseas to fight with our enemy, you are a war combatant and the normal concepts of due process no longer apply. This is just the same as if you went to fight for Nazi Germany or Japan. That's just my opinion.

[MR2-Sooner86]

No, it isn't what I am saying. I was talking about a drone attack on foreign / hostile lands where we can't exactly send the police in to arrest a guy.

The circumstances behind such an attack would have to be very different in the US. Holder said as much.

How is Yemen a hostile land or even a war zone? We have no declaration of war on them and actually conduct relations, including economic aid.

As for sending in the police, we watched him for a week, at least. We watched him so well we knew which car he got into for when we sent in the drone.

You're saying in that span of an entire week we couldn't have nabbed him?

Why are you so eager to kill Americans without due process?

[jkjsooner]

A drone strike specifically intended to kill an American citizen is an illegal act and should be grounds for impeachment.

An American terrorist who is killed in the regular course of battle with the US military is another matter. This situation is not what Sen. Paul is concerned with; therefore, it is outside the purview of this discussion.

I've loaded up 5000 lbs of explosives in my UHaul truck. I'm heading towards Owen Field. The only viable way to stop me is via a drone attack. Are you saying that such an attack in the threat of immediate danger would be illegal?

Holder said nothing to indicate that his scenarios would be any less obscure. He said he didn't envision such a situation arising and that it would have to be an extraordinary situation. These are parts that you conveniently ignore.


And I absolutely reject that. What kind of evidence would constitute allowing a President to make this decision? Who is to decide if enough evidence exists to justify the action? The President is not a jury. The President is not a judge. We're talking about an American citizen who has rights and whether we, as citizens, can rely on those rights under any circumstance. That is the true test of the resilience of our Constitution.

We have justified killings often where there is no jury or judge. If there is imminent danger the rules are different. And it doesn't even have to be a police force. If I break into your house and threaten you, in many jurisdictions you have a right to shoot and kill me. No jury, no judge.

Again, you are reading a lot more into Holder's statement and ignoring much of what he said.

[jkjsooner]

How is Yemen a hostile land or even a war zone? We have no declaration of war on them and actually conduct relations, including economic aid.

As for sending in the police, we watched him for a week, at least. We watched him so well we knew which car he got into for when we sent in the drone.

You're saying in that span of an entire week we couldn't have nabbed him?

Yes, I am saying that. There are parts of Yemen that are not controlled by their government. For all intents and purposes these are hostile areas.

And, yes, Yemen is not a war zone. I'm glad we don't have to make it a war zone and commit thousands of troops just to get rid of one terrorist.

[SicEmBaylor]

I've loaded up 5000 lbs of explosives in my UHaul truck. I'm heading towards Owen Field. The only viable way to stop me is via a drone attack. Are you saying that such an attack in the threat of immediate danger would be illegal?

Holder said nothing to indicate that his scenarios would be any less obscure. He said he didn't envision such a situation arising and that it would have to be an extraordinary situation.
Yes, it should be illegal.

1)Where did the evidence come from that you are driving that truck?
2)Who evaluated the evidence and acted as a jury to determine there was no reasonable doubt you are driving that truck?
3)By what authority does the President have the right to sign the death warrant of an American citizen based upon information that was never evaluated by a jury of one's own peers?
4)Drones should never operate above American soil.

Your argument makes the assumption that there is PERFECT evidence to suggest you're driving that truck, but I have yet to hear anyone explain to me the process for collecting that evidence, evaluating that evidence, and the legal authority to use that evidence to authorize the death of an American citizen.

[jkjsooner]

Yes, it should be illegal.

1)Where did the evidence come from that you are driving that truck?
2)Who evaluated the evidence and acted as a jury to determine there was no reasonable doubt you are driving that truck?
3)By what authority does the President have the right to sign the death warrant of an American citizen based upon information that was never evaluated by a jury of one's own peers?
4)Drones should never operate above American soil.

Your argument makes the assumption that there is PERFECT evidence to suggest you're driving that truck, but I have yet to hear anyone explain to me the process for collecting that evidence, evaluating that evidence, and the legal authority to use that evidence to authorize the death of an American citizen.

Is there perfect evidence when person A kills person B in self defense? Or if an FBI agent kills a person to save the life of another person? No, and if they're wrong there will be severe consequences. This is no different.

As far as armed drones operating above American soil, to my knowledge this isn't happening and there is no plan to have them. But if you ask a guy if we happened to have them and if there is any conceivable scenario where their weapons could be used legally then you're going to get the predictable answer. Ask a loaded question and you'll get a loaded answer.

[SicEmBaylor]

Is there perfect evidence when person A kills person B in self defense? No, and if they're wrong there will be severe consequences. This is no different.

Of course there isn't. That's precisely my point. There is always going to be doubt in your "truck bomb" scenario and there needs to be a jury to evaluate whether that doubt is reasonable or not. The problem here is that no judge or jury has the opportunity to evaluate the evidence and make a determination as to whether a citizen's constitutional rights should be wholly and entirely disregarded along with an accompanying death warrant authorized by the President of the United States.

[MR2-Sooner86]

Yes, I am saying that. There are parts of Yemen that are not controlled by their government. For all intents and purposes these are hostile areas.

So when the mayor of Chicago said certain areas need the national guard because it's too dangerous for police, you'd be fine killing anybody in that area because it's just too dangerous to go in and arrest them? Got it.


And, yes, Yemen is not a war zone. I'm glad we don't have to make it a war zone and commit thousands of troops just to get rid of one terrorist.

So now you're for committing acts of war against other countries illegally?

I'd say us flying drones around, shooting missiles onto the highway, makes it a war zone.

You're really trying awfully hard to spin this anyway possible so the state has an excuse to assassinate an American deemed a threat.

[SicEmBaylor]

If Ashcroft or Gonzales had issued a position statement that the President has the authority to fly military drones over American airspace and kill American citizens without the right to due process then the hysterical howls from some of you would be deafening.

...and for good reason.

[MR2-Sooner86]

If Ashcroft or Gonzales had issued a position statement that the President has the authority to fly military drones over American airspace and kill American citizens without the right to due process then the hysterical howls from some of you would be deafening.

...and for good reason.

This is Obama we're talking about though. He wouldn't abuse power like Bush. He's a fine public servant whose judgment should be trusted.

[Midtowner]

Yes, it should be illegal.

1)Where did the evidence come from that you are driving that truck?
2)Who evaluated the evidence and acted as a jury to determine there was no reasonable doubt you are driving that truck?


While you were preparing your evidence to present to a judge and getting a Petition ready to file in federal court and providing notice to the accused, 50,000 people died.

Good job.

[diverdog]

A drone strike specifically intended to kill an American citizen is an illegal act and should be grounds for impeachment.

An American terrorist who is killed in the regular course of battle with the US military is another matter. This situation is not what Sen. Paul is concerned with; therefore, it is outside the purview of this discussion.


Good lord. You guys act as if this was some yahoo on a family vacation who was killed. He was not and as far as I have read he was a legit target as a recruiter for AQ. Maybe you guys have forgotten these are the people who have killed almost 10,000 Americans. Ya know the dudes that pulled off 9/11.

[SicEmBaylor]

Good lord. You guys act as if this was some yahoo on a family vacation who was killed. He was not and as far as I have read he was a legit target as a recruiter for AQ. Maybe you guys have forgotten these are the people who have killed almost 10,000 Americans. Ya know the dudes that pulled off 9/11.
The severity of his crimes does not justify the disregard of an American citizen's constitutional rights without due process. End of story.

[olevetonahill]

The severity of his crimes does not justify the disregard of an American citizen's constitutional rights without due process. End of story.

Sic yer beatin yer head against a ****in wall. You only have rights as long as THEY say so.

[SicEmBaylor]

Sic yer beatin yer head against a ****in wall. You only have rights as long as THEY say so.
Yep and when "they" are able to decide that, it scares the absolute bejesus out of me!

[OU Adonis]

Yep and when "they" are able to decide that, it scares the absolute bejesus out of me!

What about the 16 year old US citizen killed by drone? (Albeit outside of the USA) What imminent threat did he pose to the well being of the USA?

[KantoSooner]

Can I solve this for you?

Step 1: a US President is made aware of a US citizen, in the territory of the USofA who is preparing to do something awful, or who already has done something awful.

Step 2: The President is made aware of the fact that he has, at his command, a drone (why armed drones would be patrolling domestic skies is an interesting question but outside the scope of this hypothetical.)

Step 3: The President is made aware that this person is reasonably believed to be unstoppable by means other than a lethal drone strike, right now, without further consultation with anyone. And, that if he is allowed to go ahead, innocent(s) will die.

Step 4: The President then does the only thing any serious moral actor could and orders the a-hole vaporized.

Step 5: A variety of do-gooders and constitutional groupies demand an impeachment of the President.

Step 6: The leadership of both parties in congress looks at each other and says, 'Why the hell not? It's a slow week.'

Step 7: Impeachment charges are brought, the entire congress disolves in laughter, votes it down and then adjourns to a barbecue on the South Lawn at which high fives are exchanged between the President and John Boehner.

Hypothetical A-hole crushed with extreme prejudice, President impeached. Everybody happy now?

[diverdog]

The severity of his crimes does not justify the disregard of an American citizen's constitutional rights without due process. End of story.

How about this. If you feel so strongly about this why don't you go into the CIA and volunteer to go get him. I mean you are willing to sacrifice other folks to bring him to justice why not do it yourself?

And yes his crimes rose to the level of being targeted and killed. The people he recruited acted against America. I guess you would have preferred to have him kill someone himself. I say thank god he was stopped. I have a pretty damn dim view of traitors. Call me old school.

[SicEmBaylor]

What about the 16 year old US citizen killed by drone? (Albeit outside of the USA) What imminent threat did he pose to the well being of the USA?

Preaching to the choir.

[diverdog]

Can I solve this for you?

Step 1: a US President is made aware of a US citizen, in the territory of the USofA who is preparing to do something awful, or who already has done something awful.

Step 2: The President is made aware of the fact that he has, at his command, a drone (why armed drones would be patrolling domestic skies is an interesting question but outside the scope of this hypothetical.)

Step 3: The President is made aware that this person is reasonably believed to be unstoppable by means other than a lethal drone strike, right now, without further consultation with anyone. And, that if he is allowed to go ahead, innocent(s) will die.

Step 4: The President then does the only thing any serious moral actor could and orders the a-hole vaporized.

Step 5: A variety of do-gooders and constitutional groupies demand an impeachment of the President.

Step 6: The leadership of both parties in congress looks at each other and says, 'Why the hell not? It's a slow week.'

Step 7: Impeachment charges are brought, the entire congress disolves in laughter, votes it down and then adjourns to a barbecue on the South Lawn at which high fives are exchanged between the President and John Boehner.

Hypothetical A-hole crushed with extreme prejudice, President impeached. Everybody happy now?

I bow before your genius.

[SicEmBaylor]

How about this. If you feel so strongly about this why don't you go into the CIA and volunteer to go get him. I mean you are willing to sacrifice other folks to bring him to justice why not do it yourself?

And yes his crimes rose to the level of being targeted and killed. The people he recruited acted against America. I guess you would have preferred to have him kill someone himself. I say thank god he was stopped. I have a pretty damn dim view of traitors. Call me old school.

There is a mechanism for dealing with treason under Article III, Section III which (surprise surprise) falls under the Judicial branch and not the Executive branch.

Your argument boils down to, "I don't like them and what they do is horrible therefore it's okay to kill them regardless of the law." That's the short of it.

[diverdog]

What about the 16 year old US citizen killed by drone? (Albeit outside of the USA) What imminent threat did he pose to the well being of the USA?

Wrong place at the wrong time.

[olevetonahill]

Can I solve this for you?

Step 1: a US President is made aware of a US citizen, in the territory of the USofA who is preparing to do something awful, or who already has done something awful.

Step 2: The President is made aware of the fact that he has, at his command, a drone (why armed drones would be patrolling domestic skies is an interesting question but outside the scope of this hypothetical.)

Step 3: The President is made aware that this person is reasonably believed to be unstoppable by means other than a lethal drone strike, right now, without further consultation with anyone. And, that if he is allowed to go ahead, innocent(s) will die.

Step 4: The President then does the only thing any serious moral actor could and orders the a-hole vaporized.

Step 5: A variety of do-gooders and constitutional groupies demand an impeachment of the President.

Step 6: The leadership of both parties in congress looks at each other and says, 'Why the hell not? It's a slow week.'

Step 7: Impeachment charges are brought, the entire congress disolves in laughter, votes it down and then adjourns to a barbecue on the South Lawn at which high fives are exchanged between the President and John Boehner.

Hypothetical A-hole crushed with extreme prejudice, President impeached. Everybody happy now?


I bow before your genius.


Wrong place at the wrong time.

Ok DD. lets take this a tad further ok?
Lets say Obammy says Vaporise this arsehole and do it now Poof hes gone every body happy cept YOU because Like you just said Your family was nearby, But Oh well they were in the Wrong place at the wrong time .
Yall get moren more silly by the post.

[SicEmBaylor]

Ok DD. lets take this a tad further ok?
Lets say Obammy says Vaporise this arsehole and do it now Poof hes gone every body happy cept YOU because Like you just said Your family was nearby, But Oh well they were in the Wrong place at the wrong time .
Yall get moren more silly by the post.

Exactly.

Or, since we've already established earlier in this thread that no evidence is perfect, let's say the information regarding this "ticking time bomb" scenario is faulty. Let's say the intelligence is wrong (like that ever happens, amirite?) -- you've just killed an American citizen on American soil. But just wrong place/wrong time, right?

Let's say the Drone misses and takes out half a block of homes and everyone in it.

However, these terrorist scenarios aren't what frightens me. What frightens me is the precedent of flying armed American droves over American soil with a government that has the authority to use those drones when they deem it necessary. Nobody likes terrorist so few are going to shed a tear at their loss, but there are other far more troubling circumstances...

For example, I fear what the government would do in a more domestic situation and scenario.

[MR2-Sooner86]

How about this. If you feel so strongly about this why don't you go into the CIA and volunteer to go get him. I mean you are willing to sacrifice other folks to bring him to justice why not do it yourself?

And yes his crimes rose to the level of being targeted and killed. The people he recruited acted against America. I guess you would have preferred to have him kill someone himself. I say thank god he was stopped. I have a pretty damn dim view of traitors. Call me old school.

Anwar al-Aulaqi gave speeches. Yup, that's it.

Going by your logic you're fine with assassinating Bill Ayers because he has preached violence against the capitalist system and somebody might pick up where the Weather Underground left off.

Why do you hate the first amendment?

[FaninAma]

Exactly.

Or, since we've already established earlier in this thread that no evidence is perfect, let's say the information regarding this "ticking time bomb" scenario is faulty. Let's say the intelligence is wrong (like that ever happens, amirite?) -- you've just killed an American citizen on American soil. But just wrong place/wrong time, right?

Let's say the Drone misses and takes out half a block of homes and everyone in it.

However, these terrorist scenarios aren't what frightens me. What frightens me is the precedent of flying armed American droves over American soil with a government that has the authority to use those drones when they deem it necessary. Nobody likes terrorist so few are going to shed a tear at their loss, but there are other far more troubling circumstances...

For example, I fear what the government would do in a more domestic situation and scenario.

Exactly. The old slipperry slope argument. Obama may never exercise the power to execute a US citizen in this country with a drone but the fact that he has legitimized the use allows the next administration to use their judgement in deciding appropriate use of that authority.

And how about using drones for surveillance of citizens without suspicion or warrant?

[jkjsooner]

So when the mayor of Chicago said certain areas need the national guard because it's too dangerous for police, you'd be fine killing anybody in that area because it's just too dangerous to go in and arrest them? Got it.

You sure do like to put words in my mouth. I guess I'll have to say it one more time. I'm not in favor of using drone strikes to take out people on US territories. Neither is Holder. Please read this paragraph about 10 times so maybe I won't have to repeat it 10 more times.


I'd say us flying drones around, shooting missiles onto the highway, makes it a war zone.

I thought you just said it wasn't a war zone. Is it or isn't it?


You're really trying awfully hard to spin this anyway possible so the state has an excuse to assassinate an American deemed a threat.

I'm not spinning anything. If the American takes up arms in a foreign land with a group that is a sworn enemy of the US and has attacked or attempted to attack US interests then the rules of the game have changed. He is just as much an enemy as a guy who took up arms to fight for the Germans.

[jkjsooner]

There is a mechanism for dealing with treason under Article III, Section III which (surprise surprise) falls under the Judicial branch and not the Executive branch.

Your argument boils down to, "I don't like them and what they do is horrible therefore it's okay to kill them regardless of the law." That's the short of it.

No, it boils down to - this is an act of war not a judicial punishment. We are at war with al-Qaeda. If you take up arms with Al Quada you are a potential target just as any soldier who has ever fought against the US has been a potential target.

Remember war on terror, we'll fight terrorists wherever they are, etc? I know you personally may not agree with all of that but I know a lot of the folks jumping on your bandwaggon did.

It seems like defending the right of terrorists somehow went from being un-American to patriotic around 2008 or so...

[jkjsooner]

There is a mechanism for dealing with treason under Article III, Section III which (surprise surprise) falls under the Judicial branch and not the Executive branch.

Your argument boils down to, "I don't like them and what they do is horrible therefore it's okay to kill them regardless of the law." That's the short of it.

If you're saying we must have some type of treason trial prior to blowing the guy into pieces then I don't necessarily think that would be a bad thing but I don't personally feel it would be necessary as the moment you take up arms and join our enemy you are a enemy combatant.

I don't think the law is on your side here simply because these actions against al-Qaeda are not criminal punishments but are acts of war.

In the majority of the cases, such an enemy combatant would be killed without any knowledge that the guy was a US citizen. This one case was pretty unique because he was a high ranking person and we knew a lot about his background.

[jkjsooner]

Exactly. The old slipper slope argument. Obama may never exercise the power to execute an Amaerican in this country with a drone but the fact that he has legitimized their use provides the next administration to use their judgement in deciding appropriate use of that authority.

Nope. A question was asked if it could ever be legal and the question was answered. Ask a loaded question get a loaded answer.


And how about using drones for surveillance of citizens without suspicion or warrant?

I hope it doesn't happen.

Now if someone asked if such an action was legal then I'd say yes. You don't need a warrant to perform surveillance on someone in public. Doing so with a drone is creepy and unsavory but isn't illegal.

Now that I gave my opinion on the legality of surveillance does that mean I'm pushing for such an action or condone it? Of course not. In the same sense Holder's answering of his opinion of the legality of using a drone strike on US soil does not imply that he condones such an action.

[FaninAma]

Exactly.

Or, since we've already established earlier in this thread that no evidence is perfect, let's say the information regarding this "ticking time bomb" scenario is faulty. Let's say the intelligence is wrong (like that ever happens, amirite?) -- you've just killed an American citizen on American soil. But just wrong place/wrong time, right?

Let's say the Drone misses and takes out half a block of homes and everyone in it.

However, these terrorist scenarios aren't what frightens me. What frightens me is the precedent of flying armed American droves over American soil with a government that has the authority to use those drones when they deem it necessary. Nobody likes terrorist so few are going to shed a tear at their loss, but there are other far more troubling circumstances...

For example, I fear what the government would do in a more domestic situation and scenario.

For instance Lincoln could have shortened the course of the Civil War with drones but I guess he had to use the means to enforce his tyranny that were at his disposal at the time.

[FaninAma]

No, it boils down to - this is an act of war not a judicial punishment. We are at war with al-Qaeda. If you take up arms with Al Quada you are a potential target just as any soldier who has ever fought against the US has been a potential target.

Remember war on terror, we'll fight terrorists wherever they are, etc? I know you personally may not agree with all of that but I know a lot of the folks jumping on your bandwaggon did.

It seems like defending the right of terrorists somehow went from being un-American to patriotic around 2008 or so...

And the fact that the government lied and twisted data to support the use of force should make you very hesitant to give them one more weapon of force to use on whomever they deem hostile....facts be damned.

[KantoSooner]

There's a great Harry Turtledove book in which time travelling racists arm the Army of Northern Virginia with AK-47's immediately before the battle of The Wilderness.

I won't spoil it for you, but it does make a difference in the outcome of the Civil War.

And, yes, the Colt Arms Company is mighty interested in a couple of captured samples of the new 'repeater'.

[jkjsooner]

And the fact that the government lied and twisted data to support the use of force should make you very hesitant to give them one more weapon of force to use on whomever they deem hostile....facts be damned.

Now you're talking about Iraq which has almost nothing to do with the war on terror.

I don't want to give them one more weapon. But my opinion doesn't change the legality of killing a US citizen turned al-Queda combatant.

[olevetonahill]

This thread has Now entered
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRL356CFVz6ShJrM92W35DxQ_5qi67pp zoHWDp4RbGNVMd2YodcaQ

[SicEmBaylor]

There's a great Harry Turtledove book in which time travelling racists arm the Army of Northern Virginia with AK-47's immediately before the battle of The Wilderness.

I won't spoil it for you, but it does make a difference in the outcome of the Civil War.

And, yes, the Colt Arms Company is mighty interested in a couple of captured samples of the new 'repeater'.

I've read that book. I'm not really into fiction, but the idea of reading a novel about the ANV being outfitted with modern assault rifles and mowing down those Union sons of bitches like they were blades of grass on the baseball field just filled my heart with so much joy and satisfaction that I had to read it cover-to-cover.

[FaninAma]

There's a great Harry Turtledove book in which time travelling racists arm the Army of Northern Virginia with AK-47's immediately before the battle of The Wilderness.

I won't spoil it for you, but it does make a difference in the outcome of the Civil War.

And, yes, the Colt Arms Company is mighty interested in a couple of captured samples of the new 'repeater'.

When I was a medical student I had a couple of discussions with my attending who was a thoracic surgeon and military history buff on the topic of the consequences of the South being provided superior battlefield medical care(oh say, something as simple as having penicillin available). He thought that the the outcome would have been much different since most deaths were not related to battlefield wounds but rather infection.

[jkjsooner]

Back to the original topic. This question that was asked to Holder would be very similar to the following scenario.


Back up the February of 2001. Let's say someone who was worried about US fighter jets flying over the US asked John Ashcroft if those jets could ever legally be used to bring down a private aircraft piloted by a US citizen.

Ashcroft could be honest and say, yes, there are very odd and unlikely scenarios where such a thing could happen. Or he could do the smart thing and say, "I don't see any realistic scenario where our military aircraft could be used to bring down a civilian plane." The latter would have been avoidingn the question but would have been the smarter answer. The former would be the most direct and accurate answer.

Neither answer would have meant that Ashcroft thought it would be wise to use our military jets to attack US citizens except under the most extreme circumstances.

As it turns out, this scenario got damn close to happening. And, to make it even more troublesome, while the pilots were not US citizens, the planes were full of innocent US citizens.

It would have been interesting if the government had had to take down one of the flights on 9/11. Some of course would have argued this was an illegal action while others would have said that under such a threat (especially considering the innocents were facing sure death anyway) the action was appropriate and legal.

Nevertheless, had Ashcroft given his opinion on the matter back in February of 2001 it would have just been an answering to an outlandish question. Nothing more nothing less.


Holder clarified his comments today and his clarifications go right along with what I have been saying and in no way contradict what was written about him in the article posted on this original thread.

[KantoSooner]

Therer are many times in which, as a leader/commander/headmfincharge of whatever little slice of heaven you command, you are called upon to make a decision that doesn't fit neatly into the rules.

It is almost always best to act, guided by your judgement and morals and let the second guessers take it up with you after the fact, than it is to dither until it's too late to act.

And it is so in cases of national security as in the above case just as it is in the case of whether to order the good wine that's kind of too expensive when you're entertaining clients. Just make a damn decision and live with the consequences. Good Lord we're a bunch of wussies these days. You think Washington would have had a problem with this decision? Hell no, you'd have had dead terrorists and Big George daring congress to call him on it.

[FaninAma]

It's not the use of the power that concerns most of us Kanto it is the lack of oversight and inability to take corrective action against him if he misuses the power or exhibits bad judgment that worry me. I could see the scenario where the use of unilateral force by the POTUS on our own home soil might percipitate a Consitutional crisis.

[Midtowner]

And how about using drones for surveillance of citizens without suspicion or warrant?

The courts will address that issue and they haven't been ultra-clear in the way they'd handle these things. For example, a recent case held that the use of a GPS tracker (a small device which either transmits or logs the locations it goes after being attached to a vehicle or something else) without a warrant is a search and that any evidence collected that way would fall under the exclusionary rule.

There was a strong counterargument in that no one had a reasonable expectation of privacy when they're driving around on the open road and otherwise in public places, so it wouldn't be a search. I think the Court is going to err on the side of privacy and against the use of drones to conduct warrantless searches.

That said, the use of drones for border surveillance or to detect drug fields on national forest/parks lands is something I'm just fine with. I do think the use of drones will have a part to play in our law enforcement. The courts will hopefully hold the police to the Constitution as we develop our laws.

[KantoSooner]

Fanin,
Yes, I can, too. I went to law school. I have the ability to create tormented fact patterns that make most anything into a quagmire. To wit:

"...and little Johnny went down the hill on his bicycle and crashed and broke his leg, who's liable? But wait, he didn't just crash, he went off a cement truck ramp, what then? No, wait! What if he didn't just go off the ramp, but into a vat of boiling asphalt? And it was at night? And the city had turned off the street lights? And it was raining....but KJRH had given a mistaken weather forecast? No, No, the weatherman had been drunk....and the station manager knew it but did nothing? What then?"

You want review? You've got it, after the fact. Sorry but real life is not perfect and we'll just have to live with that. If the President goes insane and orders drones to begin machine gunning innocent civilians for no good reason, I really do have faith that some one of the many people in that chain of command are going to break out of behaving like robots and call him on it. And that he will then be subject to the judgement of our elected representatives (ie, the people).

I'll trade that for an executive ability to make a damn common sense decision without resort to an intellectual circle jerk.

And I think the evidence of the last 230 odd years favor my position.

[olevetonahill]

Yall going on past the Twilight zone and following Alice now
https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSlJe9nN4HGTpd9HQtkQZIelLZh6IiUM TsF5Qs2lra7S1L8Bxcutw

[8timechamps]

Well, the bright side is that should you be a target, you'll never know what hit you.

So, there's that.

[champions77]

President Obama has said before that they Constitution was a "flawed" document, that it limits too much what the federal government can do, he has said in the past that he would like to see a "National Civilian Security" force, better equipped and better funded than the US Military, not ever specfying what exactly the mission of such a force would be. He would like to see many assault type rifles outlawed, has problems with 20-30 round clips, never mind that people killed by assault rifles represent a very smal fraction of all murders, he has repeatedly demonstrated a desire to increase the power, scope and authority of the Federal Government, knowing it would diminish personal freedoms along the way. Now his AG can't bring himself to say that drones would not ever be used against Americans on American soil.

A pattern here, connect the dots?

[Midtowner]

A pattern to made up facts? A National Civilian Security Force?

Not really.

[champions77]

A pattern to made up facts? A National Civilian Security Force?

Not really.

www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DTt2yGzHfy7s

[Midtowner]

Viewing the statement in context, there's no reasonable way to even infer he was wanting to do anything more than expanding AmeriCorps and the Peace Corps and the USA Freedom Corps. The RW bubble has taken a quote out of context, assumed various facts, ???? then feigned outrage. Turns out the gullible are easy to fool.


Obama, July 2, Colorado Springs, CO: [As] president I will expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots [from 75,000] and make that increased service a vehicle to meet national goals, like providing health care and education, saving our planet and restoring our standing in the world, so that citizens see their effort connected to a common purpose.

People of all ages, stations and skills will be asked to serve. Because when it comes to the challenges we face, the American people are not the problem – they are the answer. So we are going to send more college graduates to teach and mentor our young people. We’ll call on Americans to join an energy corps, to conduct renewable energy and environmental clean-up projects in their neighborhoods all across the country.

We will enlist our veterans to find jobs and support for other vets, and to be there for our military families. And we’re going to grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy. We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set.

We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded. We need to use technology to connect people to service. We’ll expand USA Freedom Corps to create online networks where American can browse opportunities to volunteer. You’ll be able to search by category, time commitment and skill sets. You’ll be able to rate service opportunities, build service networks, and create your own service pages to track your hours and activities.

This will empower more Americans to craft their own service agenda and make their own change from the bottom up.

[KantoSooner]

Vet was right, we're way beyond any rational discussion. Did someone pass out double meds after lunch, today?

[olevetonahill]

Vet was right, we're way beyond any rational discussion. Did someone pass out double meds after lunch, today?

Heh I been LOL at this crazy pretty much all day

[champions77]

Viewing the statement in context, there's no reasonable way to even infer he was wanting to do anything more than expanding AmeriCorps and the Peace Corps and the USA Freedom Corps. The RW bubble has taken a quote out of context, assumed various facts, ???? then feigned outrage. Turns out the gullible are easy to fool.

So you stretch the notion of service to the country by mentoring people in health care, education and saving the planet, whatever that means, into being the same as a "National Civilian SECURITY Force"? Is the mission of the Americorps or Peace Corps in any way connected to any kind of security? I thought they involved themslves in how to dig water wells, providing shelter and growing crops?

[SicEmBaylor]

So you stretch the notion of service to the country by mentoring people in health care, education and saving the planet, whatever that means, into being the same as a "National Civilian SECURITY Force"? Is the mission of the Americorps or Peace Corps in any way connected to any kind of security? I thought they involved themselves in how to dig water wells, providing shelter and growing crops?

This is an idea that has been bandied about for decades and thank God it has gone nowhere. Federal programs such as this scare the bejesus out of me. It subjugates the individual to the interests of the national state. It's left-wing nationalism. It's the left's attempt to get people into Federal service other than the military. Nationalism in general (I'm a sectionalist) frightens me, but left-wing nationalism is extremely scary.

[SoonerorLater]

How anybody can think this is anything but a horrible idea is beyond me. A politician shouldn't be given any wiggle room or discretion in something like this. Even if somehow you can accept the idea of the President of the United States ordering drone attacks on its own citizens would you want a hack politician deciding where to draw the line?

[Blue]

No, it boils down to - this is an act of war not a judicial punishment. We are at war with al-Qaeda. If you take up arms with Al Quada you are a potential target just as any soldier who has ever fought against the US has been a potential target.

Remember war on terror, we'll fight terrorists wherever they are, etc? I know you personally may not agree with all of that but I know a lot of the folks jumping on your bandwaggon did.

It seems like defending the right of terrorists somehow went from being un-American to patriotic around 2008 or so...

There was an article in USA Today, today, about militias. I believed they used the words "anti-government" about 6 times. Along with conspiracy and far right wing, and Tim Mcveigh. Thats getting awful close to labeling them as "terrorists" wouldn't you say?

[jkjsooner]

There was an article in USA Today, today, about militias. I believed they used the words "anti-government" about 6 times. Along with conspiracy and far right wing, and Tim Mcveigh. Thats getting awful close to labeling them as "terrorists" wouldn't you say?

No and we're not at war with all terrorists despite what you may have been told. We are at war with al-queda, its affiliates, and any government who supports them.

Nobody here has suggested that just because you express anti-government beliefs that that makes you a terrorists nor have they said we would take down a domestic terrorist with a drone. Holder said this exact thing today.

All he ever said was that there are very rare cases that such a use would be legal. He also made the point to differentiate the use overseas by stating that we can't simply arrest terrorists in many foreign lands.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Head up *** ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[Blue]

No and we're not at war with all terrorists despite what you may have been told. We are at war with al-queda, its affiliates, and any government who supports them.



"The War on Terrorism" I must've been dreaming that that is what they've been calling it all these years.

[MR2-Sooner86]

You sure do like to put words in my mouth. I guess I'll have to say it one more time. I'm not in favor of using drone strikes to take out people on US territories. Neither is Holder. Please read this paragraph about 10 times so maybe I won't have to repeat it 10 more times.

Except...you are.

I thought you just said it wasn't a war zone. Is it or isn't it?

My neighborhood isn't a war zone but if drones start dropping bombs on it, it'll start to resemble one pretty quickly.

I'm not spinning anything. If the American takes up arms in a foreign land with a group that is a sworn enemy of the US and has attacked or attempted to attack US interests then the rules of the game have changed. He is just as much an enemy as a guy who took up arms to fight for the Germans.

We had a declaration of war against Germany. We don't here. Even then, all people who sided with during WWII were granted due process.

Again, it's sad you're wringing your hands eager to kill Americans you disagree with.

[MR2-Sooner86]

We are at war with al-queda, its affiliates, and any government who supports them.

Really? Where were the declarations made by the Congress?

[FaninAma]

Kanto, the difference is that my concern is about giving one person the decision of life and death over another human being as opposed to culpability in an accident. The scenarios are not comparable. There is certain authority and power that should not be given to just one person without appropriate safeguards.

[Blue]

And like we have already established, they care about waterboarding terrorists, but not blowing up their 16 year old kids. Bwahahaha!

[StoopTroup]

Vet was right, we're way beyond any rational discussion. Did someone pass out double meds after lunch, today?

I'm watching "Weed Country" on Discovery Channel. By the looks of things....I can tell why some folks are laughing all day. My God that's a lot of pot. Even Humbolt County looks like a guy selling joints compared to some of these guys.

[Midtowner]

So you stretch the notion of service to the country by mentoring people in health care, education and saving the planet, whatever that means, into being the same as a "National Civilian SECURITY Force"? Is the mission of the Americorps or Peace Corps in any way connected to any kind of security? I thought they involved themslves in how to dig water wells, providing shelter and growing crops?

Reading in context, how do any of those things in context in the paragraph have anything to do with what might be an armed force like you're apparently assuming? And since that time, what steps have been taken in that direction?

[Fraggle145]

I'm sorry this whole thread just makes me think...

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/files/2009/04/tinfoil-hat.jpg

[Midtowner]

Yeah, pretty much.

Tomorrow's forecast... partly cloudy, WITH A CHANCE OF HELLFIRE MISSILES SHOT OUT OF MOTHER EFFIN DRONES!!11one!

[Blue]

I'm sorry this whole thread just makes me think...

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/files/2009/04/tinfoil-hat.jpg

Then you are right in line with the DOJ, the Huff Post, and this administration.

[MR2-Sooner86]

I'm sorry this whole thread just makes me think...

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/files/2009/04/tinfoil-hat.jpg

Yeah, pretty much.

Tomorrow's forecast... partly cloudy, WITH A CHANCE OF HELLFIRE MISSILES SHOT OUT OF MOTHER EFFIN DRONES!!11one!

Ad hominems, for use when your arguments make a five year old rubbing boogers on the carpet look intelligent.

Let's not forget that next month is the 20th anniversary of the government murdering women and children in cold blood.

I also see Pearl Harbor has been brought up. Yeah, it was no big deal when our government threw several hundred thousand American citizens in concentration camps.

Let's also not forget this administration has already assassinated an American citizen simply for giving speeches.

Meh, I wouldn't expect less from authoritarian anti-liberty advocates.

Statist gonna state.

[diverdog]

And like we have already established, they care about waterboarding terrorists, but not blowing up their 16 year old kids. Bwahahaha!

I could care less about waterboarding. They could use thumb screws for all I care if it were effective.

As far as blowing up 16 year old kids lets not pretend hat does not happen during war. We burned Dresden for Gods sake. War is an ugly business and if this nation does not have the stomach for it then we should quit the GWOT.

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2003/12/afgh-d08.html

[diverdog]

Ad hominems, for use when your arguments make a five year old rubbing boogers on the carpet look intelligent.

Let's not forget that next month is the 20th anniversary of the government murdering women and children in cold blood.

I also see Pearl Harbor has been brought up. Yeah, it was no big deal when our government threw several hundred thousand American citizens in concentration camps.

Let's also not forget this administration has already assassinated an American citizen simply for giving speeches.

Meh, I wouldn't expect less from authoritarian anti-liberty advocates.

Statist gonna state.

The man was not simply giving speeches. That is a gross distortion on your part.

You left all this out:

http://abcnews.go.com/politics/t/blogEntry?id=14640131&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.yahoo.com%2Ftablet%2Fs%3Fp %3DThe%2Bcase%2Bagainst%2BAnwar%2Bal-Awlaki%26fr%3Dyfp-hrtab-901%26fr2%3Dsfp

[MR2-Sooner86]

The man was not simply giving speeches. That is a gross distortion on your part.

You left all this out:

http://abcnews.go.com/politics/t/blogEntry?id=14640131&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.yahoo.com%2Ftablet%2Fs%3Fp %3DThe%2Bcase%2Bagainst%2BAnwar%2Bal-Awlaki%26fr%3Dyfp-hrtab-901%26fr2%3Dsfp

From the story:

"The Governemnt has not presented evidence against Awlaki."

So now we can assassinated Americans from rumors and word of mouth and don't need facts to back up our claims? Got it.

[FaninAma]

From the story:

"The Governemnt has not presented evidence against Awlaki."

So now we can assassinated Americans from rumors and word of mouth and don't need facts to back up our claims? Got it.

BTW, who was Obama after when he killed Awlaki's 16 year old son? I still don't understand the premise of that attack.

[KantoSooner]

Kanto, the difference is that my concern is about giving one person the decision of life and death over another human being as opposed to culpability in an accident. The scenarios are not comparable. There is certain authority and power that should not be given to just one person without appropriate safeguards.

My point is that I can continue tormenting a fact pattern until anything, at anytime is either inescapably the right thing to do....or the wrong thing to do. Keep twisting the facts and you can ultimately justify any position.

In the instant discussion, let me assure you that many people in our government are given pretty broad personal powers that are only reviewable ex post facto. Local beat cops are given the authority to shoot people. They might get disciplined for it later. They might get jailed for it later, but they most assuredly have the authority to shoot a citizen without empanelling a Grand Jury first. We trust them, and their training, to reduce mistakes or malfeasance to an acceptable level.

That's really all that we're talking about here. And, yes, a President has waaaaaaaaay more powerful things he can do than a beat cop. It's why we're more careful selecting the one than the other.

You really want to get up in arms, look at the powers of a judge in a criminal trial. Yes, they can be reviewed, but, if you assume evil intent, they can pretty easily put the outcome of a case beyond judicial review. And we've been peachy with that for a coupla centuries now.

[jkjsooner]

"The War on Terrorism" I must've been dreaming that that is what they've been calling it all these years.

That's why I said, "despite what you have been told."

There are terrorist organizations all around the world that we are not concerned with. Mostly because they do not threaten us.

We're not even directly concerned with those Islamic Palestenian terrorists groups that primarily target Israel.

Our government used the simple "war on terror" because it was more politically acceptable to the international community. We tried very hard to make it appear that we were not directing our war against Islamic terrorists. But of course we are.

[jkjsooner]

You sure do like to put words in my mouth. I guess I'll have to say it one more time. I'm not in favor of using drone strikes to take out people on US territories. Neither is Holder. Please read this paragraph about 10 times so maybe I won't have to repeat it 10 more times.

Except...you are.


No, I am not. You can try to put words in my mouth over and over but that doesn't change what I am saying or what I have said.

I am not in favor of using drone strikes on US soil. I am not in favor of using drone strikes on US soil. I am not in favor of using drone strikes on US soil. I am not in favor of using drone strikes on US soil.

I can conceive of strange and dire circumstances where such a strike could be legal. I can conceive of strange and dire circumstances where such a strike could be legal. I can conceive of strange and dire circumstances where such a strike could be legal. I can conceive of strange and dire circumstances where such a strike could be legal.


If you don't see how those two paragraphs are not contradictory then I can't help you. Here's a hint. Just because something might possibly be legal doesn't mean I'm in favor of it. Just because Holder believes it might be legal doesn't mean he's in favor of it. Got it?

[jkjsooner]

Really? Where were the declarations made by the Congress?

A declared war and a war are two different things. One is a term that has meaning within our constitution. The other is a general term.

We have not had a formal declaration of war since WW2. That doesn't mean Korea, Vietnam, either war with Iraq, or the war on terror were not wars.

If you want to argue about whether those wars were illegal then you're getting way off topic. The courts have not ruled that a formal declaration needs to be made before we take military action. With that in mind I stand by what I said earlier.

[Turd_Ferguson]

No, I am not. You can try to put words in my mouth over and over but that doesn't change what I am saying or what I have said.

I am not in favor of using drone strikes on US soil. I am not in favor of using drone strikes on US soil. I am not in favor of using drone strikes on US soil. I am not in favor of using drone strikes on US soil.

I can conceive of strange and dire circumstances where such a strike could be legal. I can conceive of strange and dire circumstances where such a strike could be legal. I can conceive of strange and dire circumstances where such a strike could be legal. I can conceive of strange and dire circumstances where such a strike could be legal.


If you don't see how those two paragraphs are not contradictory then I can't help you. Here's a hint. Just because something might possibly be legal doesn't mean I'm in favor of it. Just because Holder believes it might be legal doesn't mean he's in favor of it. Got it?

http://ct.fra.bz/ol/fz/sw/i56/5/5/19/frabz-bitch-ive-got-sand-in-my-vagina-9160a0.jpg

[FaninAma]

Kanto I understand your point. The primary difference is the finality of the decision to execute a person and the lack of oversight the President has in these situations. The beat cop has a lot of oversight and any police shooting gets a lot of scrutiny both within and outside the police department. Judicial power has always frightened me but they are still reviewed by appellate courts and while I am well aware that judges can use loopholes to prevent review on certain matters, I do not think death sentences are one of those matters that can avoid review.

I am personally opposed to the death penalty for the reason that human judgement is rife with errors in addition to the fact that I do not feel it is the perogative of one human to end the life of another except in direct self defense.

[StoopTroup]

I wonder what Christopher Dorner would think about drone strikes?

[KantoSooner]

Kanto I understand your point. The primary difference is the finality of the decision to execute a person and the lack of oversight the President has in these situations. The beat cop has a lot of oversight and any police shooting gets a lot of scrutiny both within and outside the police department. Judicial power has always frightened me but they are still reviewed by appellate courts and while I am well aware that judges can use loopholes to prevent review on certain matters, I do not think death sentences are one of those matters that can avoid review.

I am personally opposed to the death penalty for the reason that human judgement is rife with errors in addition to the fact that I do not feel it is the perogative of one human to end the life of another except in direct self defense.



And I'm prepared to let our President 'off' some errant protoplasma that's decided that putting their shoulder to the wheel alongside jihadi's who kill Americans is cool.
If he gets too far out of line, he'll get impeached for it. Meantime, less 'looks-like-human' filth walking the planet, using my air.

[Midtowner]

BTW, who was Obama after when he killed Awlaki's 16 year old son? I still don't understand the premise of that attack.

Both of those attacks were likely unconstitutional. Anwar al-Aulaqi was a bad dude, but he still deserved due process and there were no exigent circumstances whatsoever. At the time he was killed, he was a threat to no one at all. People on his behalf did sue the government regarding the kill order, but were dismissed for lack of standing. It would seem the government's position is that if you're on a kill list, you have to personally show up in federal court to show cause why you shouldn't be killed without any due process. That's absurd.

Now, if al Aulaqi was locked in the cabin of an airliner and it was pointed in the general direction of the Superbowl and all we had was an air to air drone able to intercept, I'd say go for it.

[StoopTroup]

Rand just said that he felt a drone strike on the Times Square Bomber who had a SUV full of weapons would be a situation he would think it OK to light the guy up.

[KantoSooner]

Mid, how on earth can you state so baldly that Aulaki was not a threat to anyone? That is absurd on its face. The man had participated in planning and execution of operations resulting in the death of Americans, from what I understand. He was hiding out in a place from which no legal process could winkle him and was promsing to do more harm to the US everytime he got within grabbing distance of a microphone.
When you have people like that, taking actions against the US and you get a shot, you take it.

[Midtowner]

Mid, how on earth can you state so baldly that Aulaki was not a threat to anyone?

Bad choice of words then, not an immediate threat with which we had no choice but to off before he did something which would kill Americans. At the time he was killed, the only threat was that he was going to arrive at his destination in tact. Other than that? Another internet speech? No real 'gun to the head' type of situation. Further, he could have been given some sort of notice and an opportunity for a hearing. He was denied that. Am I under any sort of illusion that he would have appeared at federal court to defend himself? No way in hell. I just want a bandaid of due process. Going through the motions matters.


That is absurd on its face. The man had participated in planning and execution of operations resulting in the death of Americans, from what I understand. He was hiding out in a place from which no legal process could winkle him and was promsing to do more harm to the US everytime he got within grabbing distance of a microphone.
When you have people like that, taking actions against the US and you get a shot, you take it.

By the time they had that shot, his family had already attempted to sue in federal court and got dismissed for lack of standing. If the family had it figured out and had the time to hire an attorney and file a federal case, the DOJ sure as hell could have prepared some sort of application for a federal judge to read and sign and provided some reasonable best available notice via email or whatever best possible means of communication were available that there was going to be a hearing wherein if he didn't show up, he'd get blown up.

If the feds don't have time to at least go through the motions, then they don't have enough time to know whether they're killing someone who needs killing.

[StoopTroup]

I am personally opposed to the death penalty for the reason that human judgement is rife with errors in addition to the fact that I do not feel it is the perogative of one human to end the life of another except in direct self defense.

Good point of view IMHO.

[Curly Bill]

I'm ready for the first time we blow up a black mini-van travelling down I-40 with a load of jihadis, and it's actually the wrong black mini-van with a soccer mom and a load soccer brats. That should be fun!

[Midtowner]

Since we could be doing that right now with the Air Force, what exactly would be different?

[StoopTroup]

It might actually help the road surface on I-40.

[SicEmBaylor]

I'm ready for the first time we blow up a black mini-van travelling down I-40 with a load of jihadis, and it's actually the wrong black mini-van with a soccer mom and a load soccer brats. That should be fun!

Soccer people instead of jihadists? Eh...win-win.

[jkjsooner]

Since we could be doing that right now with the Air Force, what exactly would be different?

Exactly, there is no plan to ever use a drone to attack US citizens on US soil just as there is no plan to use a manned Air Force plane to do the same.

If you asked the same question about a manned Air Force plane to attack or kill a US citizen, most people who remember 9/11 would answer that yes there are dire scenarios where that could be legal. That wouldn't mean the Air Force is going to go out and start blowing up SUV's. It just means that some idiot asked an extremely open ended question and another idiot answered the question.

This is a lot to do about nothing. If we end up going down the route of having armed drones patrolling our skies then I think we'll all be in agreement.

[jkjsooner]

I'm ready for the first time we blow up a black mini-van travelling down I-40 with a load of jihadis, and it's actually the wrong black mini-van with a soccer mom and a load soccer brats. That should be fun!

We would have to actual start a program of armed drones executing jihadis on US soil before that could ever happen. I'm leaving my tin foil hat in the closet and won't bring it out until we actually begin to make a move in that direction ... or at least talk about making a move in that direction.

[jkjsooner]

Bad choice of words then, not an immediate threat with which we had no choice but to off before he did something which would kill Americans. At the time he was killed, the only threat was that he was going to arrive at his destination in tact. Other than that? Another internet speech? No real 'gun to the head' type of situation. Further, he could have been given some sort of notice and an opportunity for a hearing. He was denied that. Am I under any sort of illusion that he would have appeared at federal court to defend himself? No way in hell. I just want a bandaid of due process. Going through the motions matters.

I want to be clear about what you're saying. You want some type of charge and trial and then it's okay if we blow him away with a drone strike. Is that right?

That seems a little odd since a drone strike is not a legitimate form of punishment on our books. If you go the route that this is a form of criminal punishment then I think you're opening a can of worms.

I don't think this is a criminal punishment. It is operations in an ongoing war. Nobody in war is given due process. If you're the enemy and you don't surrender you get killed. If my grandpa joined the German army and was defending a german oil field, he's a fair target. I don't care if he put up a sign that could be read from 40,000 feet claiming he is a US citizen and that he wants due process. Sorry, it's a war, you're defending our vital enemy's interests, and we'll take you out.

Now, if you say that the war on terror can't be compared with other wars then you're opening up a different question altogether. But our government has asserted that this war is comparable to other wars and if so my analogy about my grandpa holds.



All of that said, there are plenty of debates about whether targeted killings in any war is against international law. But, again, that argument goes well beyond this one.

[StoopTroup]

We would have to actual start a program of armed drones executing jihadis on US soil before that could ever happen. I'm leaving my tin foil hat in the closet and won't bring it out until we actually begin to make a move in that direction.

Deal of the Century?

http://i56.tinypic.com/wrmcyr.jpg

[KantoSooner]

Mid, I am relatively certain that, if you had proper clearance, you would find a FISA court judge's signature on a death warrant. If you are not convinced, then pressure your congresspeople to pressure intelligence committee members to opine on whether or not proper protocol was followed. If they are not baying to impeach Obama, then I think we can assume that enough due process was followed to permit the action.

You simply can't pretend that people involved in international terrorism are effectively dealt with through application of the same rules and procedures that you use to shut down penny ante pot dealers in suburbia. They are very evil people who have placed themselves outside the purview of normal legal proceedings for a reason - they are guilty as hell and don't wish to be shut down. I note for historical interest that Stephen Decatur did not attempt to weave palm fronds together and fashion a US Travelling Court when it came time to deal with the Barbary Pirates. The current generation of filth is due no more.

[TUSooner]

I guess. Everybody on this thread is a paranoid schizo.....

Finally you get it! Oh wait, you were being sarcastic. Never mind.

[StoopTroup]

Finally you get it! Oh wait, you were being sarcastic. Never mind.

LMAO

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Given this debate, where is due process? If there is none, it is clearly UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The Socialist again wipes his *** with the constitution...

[StoopTroup]

Given this debate, where is due process? If there is none, it is clearly UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The Socialist again wipes his *** with the constitution...

Louie Gohmert is all over it right now on C-SPAN3.

[StoopTroup]

Louie: What if there were Americans that aren't as patriotic as me and they get whacked without testifying once caught on US Soil?

Answer: I think they and Congress should impeach them.

Louie: What if folks in the Justice Department refused to participate in any Impeachment?

Before there was an answer Louie just tossed off his question with an....Is anyone else with me? Come on! Let's write a spy novel!

[StoopTroup]

Rep. Doug Collins (R-GA) is upset Justice didn't show up today. He continues to want a true definition of Eminent Threat. The administrations Vale of Secrecy is going on and he's upset that they are asking him to just trust them.

IMO if these guys had been around during the Bush Administration...I wonder if he would have asked questions like he's doing now that would have stopped us from going to War in Iraq? I mean....why should we have trusted the Bush Administration anymore than he's being required to trust the Obama Administration today?

[Midtowner]

I want to be clear about what you're saying. You want some type of charge and trial and then it's okay if we blow him away with a drone strike. Is that right?

If the state can prove that they are involved with a group actively plotting war against the United States and that they have waged war against the U.S. (or whatever list of requirements DOJ would come up with) and that there is no other feasible way to bring them in, then we give them some sort of feasible notice and an opportunity for a hearing, then they go boom.


That seems a little odd since a drone strike is not a legitimate form of punishment on our books. If you go the route that this is a form of criminal punishment then I think you're opening a can of worms.

It wouldn't be criminal. I think something like the FISA Court would probably work.


I don't think this is a criminal punishment. It is operations in an ongoing war. Nobody in war is given due process. If you're the enemy and you don't surrender you get killed. If my grandpa joined the German army and was defending a german oil field, he's a fair target. I don't care if he put up a sign that could be read from 40,000 feet claiming he is a US citizen and that he wants due process. Sorry, it's a war, you're defending our vital enemy's interests, and we'll take you out.

Bad example. The U.S. didn't have drones flying around actively targeting Americans who had defected to Germany. And Godwin.


Now, if you say that the war on terror can't be compared with other wars then you're opening up a different question altogether. But our government has asserted that this war is comparable to other wars and if so my analogy about my grandpa holds.

They've also asserted that it isn't.


All of that said, there are plenty of debates about whether targeted killings in any war is against international law. But, again, that argument goes well beyond this one.

International law where the U.S. is concerned is kind of a mythical beast unless we've ratified a relevant treaty.

[KantoSooner]

International law where the U.S. is concerned is kind of a mythical beast unless we've ratified a relevant treaty.

Isn't that sort of definitional? There is no superior authority to command obedience and outside of treaties, we have not agreed to be bound. Thus, nuttin's there. No?

[Midtowner]

International law where the U.S. is concerned is kind of a mythical beast unless we've ratified a relevant treaty.

Isn't that sort of definitional? There is no superior authority to command obedience and outside of treaties, we have not agreed to be bound. Thus, nuttin's there. No?

Purdy much. What... is the U.N. gonna tell us what to do? I know tinfoilhatters are all wackadoo about Agenda 21 or whatever, but we built the U.N. as a way for us to stack the deck in favor of the winners of WWII on the international stage and that stacked deck really can't work against us without our full cooperation.

[jkjsooner]

Bad example. The U.S. didn't have drones flying around actively targeting Americans who had defected to Germany. And Godwin.

Depends on what the role of what's his name was. If he was an active terrorist then the WW2 example is perfectly valid.

If he was just a guy who sympathized with al-Qaeda then it was a bad example. I don't know enough about him to say so I'm not getting involved in that part of the discussion.

My argument is that if he's a legitimate combatant then any action taken against him is no different than any action taken against any enemy in any war. His status as a US citizen does not change the rules of war.

Again, if you want to say the war on terror is not the same as other wars then that's fine but that is a much larger argument.

[jkjsooner]

Rep. Doug Collins (R-GA) is upset Justice didn't show up today. He continues to want a true definition of Eminent Threat. The administrations Vale of Secrecy is going on and he's upset that they are asking him to just trust them.

By all means let's waste a lot of time discussing the operational rules behind a program that only exists in Rand Paul's imagination.

If we start towards the process of deploying armed drones around the US we'll have plenty of time to discuss what an eminent threat means and plenty of opportunities to shut the program down before it becomes operational.

But of course that is not as much fun as getting hysterical over some hypothetical situation dreamed up by Rand Paul.

[FaninAma]

Rep. Doug Collins (R-GA) is upset Justice didn't show up today. He continues to want a true definition of Eminent Threat. The administrations Vale of Secrecy is going on and he's upset that they are asking him to just trust them.

IMO if these guys had been around during the Bush Administration...I wonder if he would have asked questions like he's doing now that would have stopped us from going to War in Iraq? I mean....why should we have trusted the Bush Administration anymore than he's being required to trust the Obama Administration today?

Some of us didn't. That's why we supported Ron Paul.

[FaninAma]

By all means let's waste a lot of time discussing the operational rules behind a program that only exists in Rand Paul's imagination.

If we start towards the process of deploying armed drones around the US we'll have plenty of time to discuss what an eminent threat means and plenty of opportunities to shut the program down before it becomes operational.



No we won't have time. It will be too late by that time. I find it interesting that your favorite debate tactic is to throw out the charge of paranoia against those you disagree with. I assume you are willing to call the Founding Fathers paranoid also because they had about the same distrust of a strong central government as those you are ridiculing.

[FaninAma]

And I'm prepared to let our President 'off' some errant protoplasma that's decided that putting their shoulder to the wheel alongside jihadi's who kill Americans is cool.
If he gets too far out of line, he'll get impeached for it. Meantime, less 'looks-like-human' filth walking the planet, using my air.

Again, how about the jihadist's 16 year old son? How about the 9:1 ratio of innocent lives lost for every suspected jihadist killed? I am suprised you would sign off on this.

[FaninAma]

International law where the U.S. is concerned is kind of a mythical beast unless we've ratified a relevant treaty.

Isn't that sort of definitional? There is no superior authority to command obedience and outside of treaties, we have not agreed to be bound. Thus, nuttin's there. No?

Would the Geneva Convention's statute about minimizing innocent civilian casualties qualify as pertinent?

[FaninAma]

Finally you get it! Oh wait, you were being sarcastic. Never mind.

Now you can run along TU. You've contributed your usual ad hominem attack to this topic that you contribute to every other topic on the board. Your work is done here.

[8timechamps]

If the state can prove that they are involved with a group actively plotting war against the United States and that they have waged war against the U.S. (or whatever list of requirements DOJ would come up with) and that there is no other feasible way to bring them in, then we give them some sort of feasible notice and an opportunity for a hearing, then they go boom.


Ahahahahaha.

I can't tell you how hard I laughed at this.

[Midtowner]

Some due process > no due process. That's all I'm saying. As to getting to specifics, I'll leave that to people whose opinions matter.

[TUSooner]

"The president has not and would not use drone strikes against Americans citizens on American soil," [press sec'y] said. "The legal authorities that exist to use lethal force are bound by, constrained by, the law and the Constitution. The issue here isn't the technology .... Whether it's a drone strike or a gun shot, the law and the Constitution apply in the same way."

Like nobody EVER would have guessed that.


"Hooray!" Paul said on Fox News, where he learned of the letter and its contents. "For 13 hours yesterday, we asked him that question. So there is a result and a victory. Under duress, and under public humiliation, the White House will respond and do the right thing."

Translation: My crowing made the Sun come up!! (apologies to roosters everywhere)

Bottom line: Masturbation fodder for all the usual suspects.

[diverdog]

This speech was nothing more than posturing for Paul to run for his parties nomination for POTUS. Did anyone notice he spoke for an hour without getting a drink of water? I mean anyone other than Mark Rubio who felt that direct sting from Paul's bitch slap to his face. Of course Rubio came out swinging like a little girl. It is going to be so much fun watching these two out crazy each other. And so the show goes on.

[MR2-Sooner86]

I like how the Democrat majority was forced not just to occupy, but to visibly hold and defend, the moral low ground. I really do. They had to stand against a request to issue a very simple statement that comports with every reasonable view of rights and the constitution.

When the time came to stand up for the people, or stand up for their party, the Democrat majority made their choice . . . and it wasn't to stand up for the people.

This was good politics, and well-played.

The ACLU backs Rand on this and many Republicans think they're an anti-American democrat group if that tells you anything. (Fun Fact: Rand's daddy got a higher score for defending civil liberties than Obama. You blew that one GOP.)

I have no love for either party, but I do love specific events and moments, and this was one of those moments. I do wish he'd made it till morning, though.

Democrats are now on record as rejecting this:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BEuiQ1YCYAEv_nT.jpg:large


No, I am not. You can try to put words in my mouth over and over but that doesn't change what I am saying or what I have said.

I am not in favor of using drone strikes on US soil. I am not in favor of using drone strikes on US soil. I am not in favor of using drone strikes on US soil. I am not in favor of using drone strikes on US soil.

I can conceive of strange and dire circumstances where such a strike could be legal. I can conceive of strange and dire circumstances where such a strike could be legal. I can conceive of strange and dire circumstances where such a strike could be legal. I can conceive of strange and dire circumstances where such a strike could be legal.

If you don't see how those two paragraphs are not contradictory then I can't help you. Here's a hint. Just because something might possibly be legal doesn't mean I'm in favor of it. Just because Holder believes it might be legal doesn't mean he's in favor of it. Got it?

You've been saying it's alright to use drones here like we have overseas. So you support illegal and unconstitutional use of drones.


A declared war and a war are two different things. One is a term that has meaning within our constitution. The other is a general term.

We have not had a formal declaration of war since WW2. That doesn't mean Korea, Vietnam, either war with Iraq, or the war on terror were not wars.

If you want to argue about whether those wars were illegal then you're getting way off topic. The courts have not ruled that a formal declaration needs to be made before we take military action. With that in mind I stand by what I said earlier.

You really have no idea what you're talking about.

I can go have consensual sex with a 15 year old. I can consented to it, she consented to it, but it doesn't make it legal consensual sex.

I know, you don't believe in the Constitution but that whole "declaration of war" was put in there for a reason.

The war on terror is not a legal or constitutional war. You can call it a war but it doesn't make it a legal war.

And to say it's off topic, it's not.

11 Years Later, Senate Wakes Up to War on Terror’s ‘Battlefield America’ (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/03/rand-paul-filibuster/)

When the state gets to decide what the war is, where it is, and how it's conducted that's a bad, bad thing.

Remember, the government fired into a country we had no declaration of war on and assassinated an American citizen in cold blood, twice, without giving him due process.


Both of those attacks were likely unconstitutional.

jkjsoomer, read that. They did it once, they can do it again.

So if the government ignore the constitution (no declaration of war on Yemen/due process ignored) what's to say they won't do it over here?


Exactly, there is no plan to ever use a drone to attack US citizens on US soil just as there is no plan to use a manned Air Force plane to do the same.

Then why didn't the Obama administration just come out and say it?


I want to be clear about what you're saying. You want some type of charge and trial and then it's okay if we blow him away with a drone strike. Is that right?

That seems a little odd since a drone strike is not a legitimate form of punishment on our books. If you go the route that this is a form of criminal punishment then I think you're opening a can of worms.

I don't think this is a criminal punishment. It is operations in an ongoing war. Nobody in war is given due process. If you're the enemy and you don't surrender you get killed. If my grandpa joined the German army and was defending a german oil field, he's a fair target. I don't care if he put up a sign that could be read from 40,000 feet claiming he is a US citizen and that he wants due process. Sorry, it's a war, you're defending our vital enemy's interests, and we'll take you out.

Now, if you say that the war on terror can't be compared with other wars then you're opening up a different question altogether. But our government has asserted that this war is comparable to other wars and if so my analogy about my grandpa holds.

All of that said, there are plenty of debates about whether targeted killings in any war is against international law. But, again, that argument goes well beyond this one.

You continue to show how clueless you are.

Every person convicted of treason during WW2 was given a trial. None of them were executed.

Also, you just helped support Paul's concerns with "battlefield" because according to the state, and you, everywhere is a battlefield in this "war."

So...you just now, again, supported the assassination of Americans on American soil.

TL;DR
When it comes to the use of drones, statist will continue to state.

[picasso]

This speech was nothing more than posturing for Paul to run for his parties nomination for POTUS. Did anyone notice he spoke for an hour without getting a drink of water? I mean anyone other than Mark Rubio who felt that direct sting from Paul's bitch slap to his face. Of course Rubio came out swinging like a little girl. It is going to be so much fun watching these two out crazy each other. And so the show goes on.
Or he could really honestly be trying to get the message out about what a cluster**** of a policy this is.
Since the mainstream media and the peace lovin' bull**** zealots won't say anything.

[TUSooner]

In fairness to Rand Paul, whether or not he was needlessly grandstanding, he did it the right way. Anybody, left or right, who thinks the Senate is off the rails with bogus and anonymous filibusters-by-phone has to give him due credit for his straight-up approach.

[jkjsooner]

You've been saying it's alright to use drones here like we have overseas. So you support illegal and unconstitutional use of drones.

I have never once said that. You aren't listening to what I have said. I can only guess that you are willfully ignoring my actual words so that you can keep believing I am saying what you think I am saying.

Holder was asked if there was any circumstance where the use of a drone would be legal. He wasn't asked if there is a plan to do so nor if it was the right thing to do. Holder answered yes and clarified that answer by saying under a situation that is similar to 9/11. That means, if we had a plane flying towards a large building and the only option was to use a drone to take it out, it would be legal to do so.

The only thing I've ever done is defend Holder's remark because I think what he said was correct. I'll also point out that such a use of a drone would be nothing "like we have overseas."

It's not even close. I would never support assassinations on US soil using drones. You can re-read this thread if you like and you will not find one place where I have said that. In fact, I don't think you will find one post where anyone has said that.

You're looking for a fight and you're manafacturing your own ideas about what others are saying so that you have someone to fight with. I'm tired of playing that game.



And, by the way, the fact that Paul had to reword his question to emphasize a situation where we were not under attack just shows how ridiculous his original question was. Once he asked the question in a rational way he got the answer he wanted. I don't think that was by accident as I think this was all a grandstanding play to score political points.

[jkjsooner]

You really have no idea what you're talking about.

I can go have consensual sex with a 15 year old. I can consented to it, she consented to it, but it doesn't make it legal consensual sex.

Fine, we agree. I don't see how this has anything to do with whether Vietnam or the Iraq or whatever was a war. The analogy is ridiculous because minors are not deemed mature enough to give consent. In that sense you could argue that legal considerations or not, there was no consent.


I know, you don't believe in the Constitution but that whole "declaration of war" was put in there for a reason.

The war on terror is not a legal or constitutional war. You can call it a war but it doesn't make it a legal war.

Just because I have different views/interpretations than you doesn't mean I don't believe in the Constitution. That is insulting and I would never say such a thing about you.

We can debate whether these military actions are legal in another thread. If they're illegal then everything we've done is wrong - including killing Taliban and al-Queda leaders.

The fact is that the courts have rules that these military actions are legal. And that brings me back to the main point. If you are fighting a military battle overseas and an American citizen has joined your enemy, he is not given the right of due process. One major reason is any action taken is not a criminal punishment but is instead part of a military battle. We kill lots of nice people who have never been charged or suspected of a crime while in battle simply because they happen to be part of the enemy.

Let me ask you a question. Let's assume these are legal wars or military conflicts or whatever word you want to use. Let's say we're fighting in Vietnam. Would you really argue that some American citizen who has taken up arms with the Viet Cong should be given some sort of due process? Would we say, "We can't bomb you because you happen to have one American citizen among your ranks?"

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Rep. Doug Collins (R-GA) is upset Justice didn't show up today. He continues to want a true definition of Eminent Threat. The administrations Vale of Secrecy is going on and he's upset that they are asking him to just trust them.

IMO if these guys had been around during the Bush Administration...I wonder if he would have asked questions like he's doing now that would have stopped us from going to War in Iraq? I mean....why should we have trusted the Bush Administration anymore than he's being required to trust the Obama Administration today?

Because Bush was a patriot, Obama, not so much, in fact a Socialist/Commie...

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Some due process > no due process. That's all I'm saying. As to getting to specifics, I'll leave that to people whose opinions matter.

That is just sick! But it is some of the tactics and self-justification I would expect from a "Progressive"...

[jkjsooner]

And if you want to argue that these targeted killing can't be compared to the killing of soldiers in a conventional war then you have a point. I'm not a 100% sure I would disagree with that. But it we go with that premise, all the drone strikes (especially those outside of Afghanistan and and not just the ones against US citizens) are wrong.

If you argue that these targeted killings are no different than any military battle, then I think the fact that your enemy is a US citizen becomes just as immaterial as it would be if he was part of the Viet Cong or North Vietnamese army. We didn't kill him because he committed a crime. We killed him because he is part of the enemy. Due process does not exist in military conflicts.

[olevetonahill]

A serious question for Both sides here.
How dayum many ways can each of ya say you think the Other is full of ****?

[KantoSooner]

Again, how about the jihadist's 16 year old son? How about the 9:1 ratio of innocent lives lost for every suspected jihadist killed? I am suprised you would sign off on this.

And we'll add in the comment about the Geneva Convention, but the above quote had more emotional content.

One word reply: Bombing

Every issue you bring up has been asked and answered in the case of aerial bombing both tactical and strategic. Is a ball bearing plant worth the lives of the people working inside it? And those living nearby? (let's set aside the mental image of the Jewish slave laborers in the Peenemunde (sp?) V2 rocket plants who according to accounts given by their German guards rose from their benches and began singing the Star Spangled Banner when the bombs started dropping on them.)
Such considerations are what war is about. Was Awlaki worth the live of his minor son? I would argue, 'yes'. Is the loss of innocents to peg bad actors 'worth it'? I feel pretty confident that it is considered. Why do I feel confident? Because in every instance in the past when such calculations have been made by our government, such things have been considered. I find it difficult to logically posit that today's targetters or death panelists are somehow morally distinct from the previous generations of people placed in such positions.

[Midtowner]

A serious question for Both sides here.
How dayum many ways can each of ya say you think the Other is full of ****?

Every time I think I've counted 'em all, you come up with another.

[olevetonahill]

Every time I think I've counted 'em all, you come up with another.

You are just Oh so clever.

[jkjsooner]

To get off topic for a moment. Well, it's somewhat on-topic for those of us who believe what Holder was saying in his first response was in line with this scenario...

Has it ever been determined if it would have be legal to shoot down the planes on 9/11? If there hasn't been a public debate about this there should be one as you can't have that debate while the planes are flying towards a building.

Is it legal to kill a few innocent Americans who are almost certaintly heading for death anyway to save the lives of hundreds more on the ground?

I'm pretty sure flight 93 would have been shot down.

[StoopTroup]

You are just Oh so clever.

Lighten up Francis? HeH.

[olevetonahill]

Lighten up Francis? HeH.

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSgT9ne77rM6f4Cs9ppI9LPfcVceCD9h cGzV67dD5x7N6-zKzC-FQ

[StoopTroup]

http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showthread.php?140137-Politics-Forum&p=3594894&viewfull=1#post3594894