Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
aNOTHER ISLAMIST LOVER (WHO CONVERTED TO ISLAM WHEN HE WAS STATIONED IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND CONVERTED BY AN iam THAT IS ANYTHING BUT A FRIEND TO THE USA) THAT SHOULD BE IN JAIL AND NOT RUNNING THE CIA.
So, is it official?
Have we quit beating around the bush?
Are we admitting this has been a holy war from the start?
"Some critics indiscriminately decry all drone strikes as “extrajudicial assassinations,” arguing that killing is never lawful beyond the battlefield and even comparing the practice to former president George W. Bush’s authorization of torture. But those criticisms are exaggerated and misguided. Killing and torture are fundamentally different. Governments have always killed the enemy during wars, and it is not unlawful to do so. No one accuses Abraham Lincoln or Franklin Roosevelt of “extrajudicial assassinations” because their troops killed tens of thousands of enemy soldiers without charges or trials. That the Confederate soldiers were American citizens doesn’t change that fact. And even in the absence of an existing war, and therefore outside any battlefield, states are permitted to use lethal force to respond to an imminent armed attack."
We don't use drones to foil imminent armed attacks. We use them to assassinate people. And it isn't the drone itself that the issue. The issue is whether or not the President has the authority to have an American citizen on American soil assassinated without trial. The question is about assassination. And if someone is about to conduct an attack then that is not an assassination. I think it's pretty well understood that Rand Paul wasn't talking about taking someone out who in the process of carrying out a terrorist attack. He's talking about using drones here the same way they are used elsewhere, to reach out and kill someone in a surprise attack.
We don't use drones to foil imminent armed attacks. We use them to assassinate people. And it isn't the drone itself that the issue. The issue is whether or not the President has the authority to have an American citizen on American soil assassinated without trial. The question is about assassination. And if someone is about to conduct an attack then that is not an assassination. I think it's pretty well understood that Rand Paul wasn't talking about taking someone out who in the process of carrying out a terrorist attack. He's talking about using drones here the same way they are used elsewhere, to reach out and kill someone in a surprise attack.
What's the difference using drones or FBI sharpshooters? If Timothy McVey was known to be on a road with a truck full of explosives intent upon blowing up a building, would the use of a drone to stop him been appropriate?
What's the difference using drones or FBI sharpshooters? If Timothy McVey was known to be on a road with a truck full of explosives intent upon blowing up a building, would the use of a drone to stop him been appropriate?
That's what I have been asking, but no one will answer. What makes the drones so much more evil than the other tools of death?
What's the difference using drones or FBI sharpshooters? If Timothy McVey was known to be on a road with a truck full of explosives intent upon blowing up a building, would the use of a drone to stop him been appropriate?
It would depend on how it was done. But then again, I will ask. If this is known why not simply stop and arrest him? The FBI is allowed to shoot and kill in certain instances American citizens. A president is not.
Even then the FBI has to be able to justify their actions. The presidents position so far has been that he does not.
What's the difference using drones or FBI sharpshooters? If Timothy McVey was known to be on a road with a truck full of explosives intent upon blowing up a building, would the use of a drone to stop him been appropriate?
No, that would all be speculative.
If he is driving, he is alive and it would mandate a traffic stop, with a warrant from a judge, to search the vehicle.
If he is driving, he is alive and it would mandate a traffic stop, with a warrant from a judge, to search the vehicle.
And if he is not stopping, and getting close to his target? Of couse the use of force is authorized. Paul's pacificm and willingness to defend the terrorist could have disasterous concequences.
And if he is not stopping, and getting close to his target? Of couse the use of force is authorized. Paul's pacificm and willingness to defend the terrorist could have disasterous concequences.
The use of force has always been used to stop a driver that won't stop. Nobody is against that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
