Bucky wrote:OJ's white bronco was another.

Why do you feel the need to mention the color of the car?

Werthless wrote:

swishnicholson wrote:

“I will speak until I can no longer speak. I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important, that your rights to trial by jury are precious, that no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court.”

So are we going to extend this to all law enforcement? No one gets shot without first being found guilty by court?

Does anyone have a response to this? I'm struggling to see how drones are different, from the perspective of habeas corpus and the rights of the killed, from other killings of American citizens on US soil. Is it more fair if the presumed criminal has an opportunity to fight back?

yeah, like, how is this any worse than the stand your ground law in FL and some other states?

CalvinBall wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Rand wrapping it up nearing the 13 hour mark

Yields the floor, basically saying he needs to pee

He did leave at other times. He passed being Cruz when the tweets were being read.

He didn't leave the floor

anyhow, since this is my only source for news, what is the story with domestic drones anyway? Have we really used them?? Or is this just a red herring tactic??

Bucky wrote:I think the law enforcement standard is the threat of imminent danger to themselves or others. "Imminent" being the word subject to loose interpretations. Of course, if a burglar is brandishing a firearm and aims it at someone, that's a no-brainer. But is "intelligence" that someone has a bomb and is targeting a building "imminent danger" so we can justify taking them out with a drone???

Werthless wrote:But Paul is saying that there can never be a threat so imminent that a drone can be used on a US citizen, and so the US govt should not have the ability to use one under any circumstances.

RichmondPhilsFan or someone else more concerned about this than I am/with more legal training than I have could probably do a better job, but I think Bucky is closer to the mark here than my dear friend Werthless. Paul was not saying there can never be a threat so imminent, and repeatedly said he agreed with military responses to 9/11 and Pearl Harbor type attacks, and if something was in progress, killing everyone involved was A-OK with him. I think the administration can envision some unlikely scenario where the threat is imminent but not exactly in progress but capture is not feasible - maybe when terrorists are working with/providing support for those in the field from some base of operations or something else. They don't want to completely forswear the usage of drones or get boxed in by explicitly defining how extreme/imminent the threat would need to be before using them.

Personally I think the current safeguards in place are fine, and no administration would just blow some target up in the US - especially if they were a citizen - rather than arrest them. If they're used, they would truly be the last resort option, not like how they're being used overseas at all.

Bucky wrote:anyhow, since this is my only source for news, what is the story with domestic drones anyway? Have we really used them?? Or is this just a red herring tactic??

The EPA uses drone technology, IIRC. I doubt it is an armed drone, though.

we're all corporate drones

maybe we'll be outlawed

If they're used, they would truly be the last resort option, not like how they're being used overseas at all.

that's a huge issue as well. plus, i'm not sure we should just entrust all this power to the executive, regardless of who's in there or if i voted for them.

in the rare event that we need to blow people or a place up on American soil, why should they be the last option instead of things that are more dangerous? I just don't get why putting good people in the line of fire is somehow more moral

Americans are killed on American soil without due process by the govt everyday

jerseyhoya wrote:

Bucky wrote:I think the law enforcement standard is the threat of imminent danger to themselves or others. "Imminent" being the word subject to loose interpretations. Of course, if a burglar is brandishing a firearm and aims it at someone, that's a no-brainer. But is "intelligence" that someone has a bomb and is targeting a building "imminent danger" so we can justify taking them out with a drone???

Werthless wrote:But Paul is saying that there can never be a threat so imminent that a drone can be used on a US citizen, and so the US govt should not have the ability to use one under any circumstances.

RichmondPhilsFan or someone else more concerned about this than I am/with more legal training than I have could probably do a better job, but I think Bucky is closer to the mark here than my dear friend Werthless. Paul was not saying there can never be a threat so imminent, and repeatedly said he agreed with military responses to 9/11 and Pearl Harbor type attacks, and if something was in progress, killing everyone involved was A-OK with him. I think the administration can envision some unlikely scenario where the threat is imminent but not exactly in progress but capture is not feasible - maybe when terrorists are working with/providing support for those in the field from some base of operations or something else. They don't want to completely forswear the usage of drones or get boxed in by explicitly defining how extreme/imminent the threat would need to be before using them.

Actually I think you got the point across well. The problem is the expansion of the phrase "imminent threat" to situations that far exceed that phrase as it has been defined by courts. Law enforcement absolutely has the right to protect themselves or third parties through the use of deadly force... no one is disputing that.

The other enormous problem is that traditional law enforcement is subject to review by the courts. The drone program is not. So we have no one else who independently verifies whether the government official exceeded the scope of his/her powers and violated the rights of a US citizen.

Houshphandzadeh wrote:in the rare event that we need to blow people or a place up on American soil, why should they be the last option instead of things that are more dangerous? I just don't get why putting good people in the line of fire is somehow more moral

But you wouldn't need to blow the people/place up unless they were an imminent threat to others, and the hypothetical scenarios for how that would be the case are pretty farfetched. Otherwise you can just have a good old fashioned standoff and try and wait them out. You don't need to put law enforcement in too great of danger by sending them in.

Houshphandzadeh wrote:in the rare event that we need to blow people or a place up on American soil, why should they be the last option instead of things that are more dangerous? I just don't get why putting good people in the line of fire is somehow more moral

Setting aside the lack of judicial review, give me a hypothetical where it should be utilized on American soil. Personally, I can't think of a single one. Every 24-ish scenario that I theorize wouldn't be conducive to an explosion (nukes, dirty bomb, hostages). Maybe some type of biological warfare, but I don't know if Hollywood's science is correct that those things burn up in explosions (or how perfect the strike would need to be to ensure that).

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

Houshphandzadeh wrote:in the rare event that we need to blow people or a place up on American soil, why should they be the last option instead of things that are more dangerous? I just don't get why putting good people in the line of fire is somehow more moral

Setting aside the lack of judicial review, give me a hypothetical where it should be utilized on American soil. Personally, I can't think of a single one. Every 24-ish scenario that I theorize wouldn't be conducive to an explosion (nukes, dirty bomb, hostages). Maybe some type of biological warfare, but I don't know if Hollywood's science is correct that those things burn up in explosions (or how perfect the strike would need to be to ensure that).

Dorner?

it just seems like wanting a ban on something that will never happen is weirder than wanting... I don't know, the status quo that in an extreme situation the government is going to do whatever it has to do?

no way (re: dorner)

93 is about the only one

Bucky wrote:no way (re: dorner)

93 is about the only one

Game 6 of the world series was in Toronto. Doesn't apply.

Werthless wrote:

Bucky wrote:no way (re: dorner)

93 is about the only one

Game 6 of the world series was in Toronto. Doesn't apply.

This is my favorite Werthless post

Houshphandzadeh wrote:it just seems like wanting a ban on something that will never happen is weirder than wanting... I don't know, the status quo that in an extreme situation the government is going to do whatever it has to do?

I really don't know what to say to that.