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.

!

Would approve of a drone strike on Nancy Grace

Trent Steele wrote:Would approve of a drone strike on Nancy Grace

crone strike

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.

There's an argument to be made here I think. If you know who, and where, you have a lot of options for preventing the attack. Even the idea of shooting down a plane that has been hijacked strikes me as more hypothetical than real.

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?

This is in large measure a fear of new technology. 'It makes killing easier and doesn't put US soldiers at risk'. Isn't that the sort of thing that the Pentagon should be looking for? The critics of the drones do not limit their complaints to the kiling of American citizens or the what-ifs? of a future AMerican citizen terrorist. It is an objection to the use of drones even to kill Al Quaeda leaders in the Pakistan tribal areas and Yemen. The cry is against collateral damage, even though the drones are known to drastically reduce collateral damage, compared to say calling in a fighter bomber strike. This is basically Rand Paul plus the anti-any-military-action wing of the left, who were hoping that Obama would severely alter our foreign policy and military policy.

TenuredVulture wrote:

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.

There's an argument to be made here I think. If you know who, and where, you have a lot of options for preventing the attack. Even the idea of shooting down a plane that has been hijacked strikes me as more hypothetical than real.

How is that hypothetical? It actually happened. The F-16s were scrambled with orders to fire. The passengers caused the terrorists to crash the plane before that could happen. As I said in another post, this is just fear of new technology. FBI and police snipers kill people every year, when negotiations fail, they don't surrender, hostages are in danger, etc. Police shoot innocents because "I thought he had something in his hand." The thought that an individual beat cop should have more individual authority to shoot a suspect than the President and his national security staff, doubtless consulting with Justice Dept. in real time, have less discretion in deciding that a known terrorist thought to pose an imminent danger to civilians and police, is frankly bizarre.

he shouldn't, though. but let's give everyone the right the dumb nervous cop has

Barry Jive wrote:he shouldn't, though. but let's give everyone the right the dumb nervous cop has

I guess the difference is that cops need to justify their decisions in the court of law, and may be held accountable for their actions. The perception of the executive branch, true or not true, is that the members are untouchable. The number of torture convictions levied against folks within the Bush administration suggests the perception is pretty close to reality.

I think a lot of people have that perception about police, too. But that's another argument.

It's not all that controversial to believe the government, from the local police up to the president, shouldn't be able to exercise lethal force without due process. That's impractical in today's America, but driving farther away from that ideal and using the status quo to justify it is bullshit.

allentown wrote:

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?

This is in large measure a fear of new technology. 'It makes killing easier and doesn't put US soldiers at risk'. Isn't that the sort of thing that the Pentagon should be looking for? The critics of the drones do not limit their complaints to the kiling of American citizens or the what-ifs? of a future AMerican citizen terrorist. It is an objection to the use of drones even to kill Al Quaeda leaders in the Pakistan tribal areas and Yemen. The cry is against collateral damage, even though the drones are known to drastically reduce collateral damage, compared to say calling in a fighter bomber strike. This is basically Rand Paul plus the anti-any-military-action wing of the left, who were hoping that Obama would severely alter our foreign policy and military policy.

i'm not sure who you're responding to on this board with this line of strawman thinking. no one here has stated any of this, and it doesnt seem fair to paint it as such.

this is a military weapon. use it through the military so there can be ways to control it and ways to approve that are legal and able to be reviewed. that's all most people are asking. this CIA bullshit and running by Congress is unnecessarily secretive and makes them look bad, like there they are hiding something. just show people you're not.

ted cruz's questioning of holder was moronic, though. him being behind any issue seems to be a liability.

love that the filibuster caused more decision in the republican party. crazy conservatives on facebook now saying they hate mccain and graham. they were having dinner while paul was standing up for the constitution!!!!

mccain is not a fan of it being completely unchecked, either, fwiw. he loves him some war, but waged by the military.

so have there been instances of drone strikes on US soil?? Or is this all still hypothetical too??

jerseyhoya wrote:

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

Waddaya think Gatorade bottles are for?!

Bucky wrote:so have there been instances of drone strikes on US soil?? Or is this all still hypothetical too??

not sure that's relevant to a policy regarding them

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 gun caching anti gubmit freedom fighters are afraid we'll use drones to bomb their compounds?

i think it's relevant to the amount of hand-wringing it merits, yes

ok then

Bucky wrote:so have there been instances of drone strikes on US soil?? Or is this all still hypothetical too??

No. Yes.