I think our ability to give fair trials to every terrorist is non-existent; that said, if we had the ability to do so, I'd be all for it. With the lack of capability, i'd like to make sure that we're at least giving Americans trials. (Another problem might be jurisdiction... their home country might claim them, and then decide not to prosecute them.)
Bull . I'm sure the British thought our guerilla tactics were lacking in moral character. How about when we started using tanks? Do you think people thought that we were lacking in moral character then, hiding behind a giant wall of armor?
I'm fine with you disagreeing with me, but don't prance around on your "moral" soapbox. Unless you feel like telling the wives and parents and kids of all those extra dead soldiers that you think drones are immoral.
Preach on, flaglot.
Wow. Overwhelming support for the drone program, even when the suspected terrorist is a US citizen:
Overall, 74 percent of voters approve of using drones to kill a suspected terrorist overseas. That includes majorities of Republicans (80 percent), independents (71 percent) and Democrats (69 percent), as well as both men (78 percent) and women (71 percent).
The level of approval drops from 74 percent to 60 percent, however, if the suspected terrorist is a U.S. citizen.
Even when it comes to drone use on U.S. soil, a 56-percent majority of voters approves of such strikes on a suspected foreign terrorist.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...#ixzz2MgSV2Mxb
don't believe I did. that might be a hostile inference.
So you're saying the old world's immorality was not as big a deal as this brand new immorality. I guess.
actually, forget it. I'm too lazy to try to dissect Winehole-speak today.
So, they finally answer
Obama Administration Says President Can Use Lethal Force Against Americans on US Soil
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013...ricans-us-soil
Yes, the president does have the authority to use military force against American citizens on US soil—but only in "an extraordinary cir stance," Attorney General Eric Holder said in a letter to Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) Tuesday.
"The U.S. Attorney General's refusal to rule out the possibility of drone strikes on American citizens and on American soil is more than frightening," Paul said Tuesday. "It is an affront the cons utional due process rights of all Americans."
Last month, Paul threatened to filibuster the nomination of John Brennan, Obama's pick to head the CIA, "until he answers the question of whether or not the President can kill American citizens through the drone strike program on U.S. soil." Tuesday, Brennan told Paul that "the agency I have been nominated to lead does not conduct lethal operations inside the United States—nor does it have any authority to do so." Brennan said that the Justice Department would answer Paul's question about whether Americans could be targeted for lethal strikes on US soil.
Holder's answer was more detailed, however, stating that under certain cir stances, the president would have the authority to order lethal attacks on American citizens. The two possible examples of such "extraordinary" cir stances were the attack on Pearl Harbor and the 9/11 terrorist attacks. An American president order the use of lethal military force inside the US is "entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no president will ever have to confront," Holder wrote. Here's the bulk of the letter:
As members of this administration have previously indicated, the US government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so. As a policy matter moreover, we reject the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat. We have a long history of using the criminal justice system to incapacitate individuals located in our country who pose a threat to the United States and its interests abroad. Hundreds of individuals have been arrested and convicted of terrorism-related offenses in our federal courts.In a Google+ Hangout last month, President Obama refused to say directly if he had the authority to use lethal force against US citizens. As Mother Jones reported at the time, the reason the president was being so coy is that the answer was likely yes. Now we know that's exactly what was happening. "Any use of drone strikes or other pre-meditated lethal force inside the United States would raise grave legal and ethical concerns," says Raha Wala, an attorney with Human Rights First. "There should be equal concern about using force overseas."
The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no president will ever have to confront. It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary cir stance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Cons ution 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. 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 cir stances like a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001.
This post has been edited to include Paul's statement.
I feel you are taking it out of context, but I do believe B. Hoprah O. would do just that.
The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no president will ever have to confront. It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary cir stance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Cons ution 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. 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 cir stances like a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001.
What we do and how we do it matter. I get that you're completely jaded as to the world's wickedness and feign that it's no big deal.
The last eleven years weren't just more of the same -- the results for the economy, war, rule of law and due process were radical.
Last edited by Winehole23; 03-06-2013 at 09:50 AM.
accordingly, public esteem of government bodies has diminished.
approval of Congress is what, 10 or 15 percent?
it has never been so cool to hate government as it is right now. something about that is deeply uncool.
That's the le of the article, however, they never said no.. and that headline sums it up. The administration has lied so much and they are filled with so much corruption, I believe that they will/could make any particular event seem like an "extraordinary" cir stance. Not saying no, says a lot. And that should be what's taking over mainstream news worse than all other scandals and non stories they waste their time on, but of course, they won't.
Rand Paul actively Filibustering Brennan right now.
CSPAN live feed: http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN2/
Rand Paul: "I Will Speak As Long As It Takes" To Stop Brennan Nomination
The Kentucky senator is filibustering John Brennan, the Obama administration's nominee to be CIA director, over the administration's drone policy.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczyn...stop-brennan-n
Glad to see someone speaking out at least. among both warmongering parties.
it's probably too little too late. Once drones are equiped with the Tesla type rays that disintegrate ppl, it will be even more commonplace. Wonder if housing contractors will start offering bunker options.
Rand asked the wrong guy about domestic drone attacks. Either he's ignorant or grandstanding.
And seriously, what is the difference between a drone strike and any other missile strike?
apples and oranges. A drone can have missiles. It's just a vehicle that can fly over any airspace and get closer to the targets.
the whole argument is they are issuing execution of humans without a chance of fair trial. That violates both US cons ution and International Human Rights conventions.
lol @ "asked the wrong guy"
Considering the mission of the CIA, definitely.
I never said the bombing itself doesn't matter. I'm saying the way we do it doesn't matter.
And to be further clear, i never said the killing of terrorists doesn't matter. I'm saying the killing an American born terrorist the same way we kill a middle eastern born terrorist should absolutely not matter one bit.
I still don't get why you and others do except for some type of cons utional nostalgia.
and how do we know they really are terrorists if they had no fair trial? do we take the CIA/WH word for it? I feel sorry for you if you take CIA/WH/Military words as fact.
I'm sure many Nazi party speeches of the 1930s went something like that ^I still don't get why you and others do except for some type of cons utional nostalgia.
You're either for taking out suspected terrorists or you're not.
Oh noes. A Godwin drone strike.I'm sure many Nazi party speeches of the 1930s went something like that ^
the moment you start executing on su ion you become a fascist/dictator state. History proves this.
IMO we are now closer to Minority Report than people think.
So you're against us taking out any suspected terrorists until they get a trial.
I won't disagree.
It's not about me. The US Cons ution and International Human Rights Laws are against it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
