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.
It looks like we've got a gang of three in the US Senate that is determined to keep liberty alive. Very good news!
What Paul is whining about is the hypothetical case of the President using a drone to kill terrorists in the U.S., a right the President already has in defense of Americans.
In every state, police sharpshooters train to kill suspects without benefit of trial. Using a drone is legally not different. If a drone destroyed the rented van before the first WTC attack, who would say that wouldn't have been justifiable?
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.
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 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. 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 like a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001.
The first paragraph states, clearly, that the administration rejects the use of drones, or any other military force, on US soil where law enforcement fits better. In the second paragraph, he discusses hypothetical situations where the president could authorize the use on military force (drones or otherwise), and comes up with the 9/11 attack, and the attack on Pearl Harbor by Japanese forces - two major attacks, on US territory, by foreign countries or para-military groups.
ETA: Actualy, the Obama administration is more committed to the trial process than much of the US is - examples include the closing of Guantanamo Bay (Which Paul's one branch of the government routinely blocks), and the gaggle of politicians who claimed that holding Khalid Shaikh Mohammed's trial in NYC would terrify people (on this one, Obama caved).
The first paragraph states, clearly, that the administration rejects the use of drones, or any other military force, on US soil where law enforcement fits better. In the second paragraph, he discusses hypothetical situations where the president could authorize the use on military force (drones or otherwise), and comes up with the 9/11 attack, and the attack on Pearl Harbor by Japanese forces - two major attacks, on US territory, by foreign countries or para-military groups.
He was asked point blank if he thought it was constitutional. Except he kept avoiding the direct question until he was asked over and over and called out on it.
What Paul is whining about is the hypothetical case of the President using a drone to kill terrorists in the U.S., a right the President already has in defense of Americans.
In every state, police sharpshooters train to kill suspects without benefit of trial. Using a drone is legally not different. If a drone destroyed the rented van before the first WTC attack who would say that wouldn't have been justifiable?
No. We are not talking about kills under those scenario where suspect is armed, firing back, threatening to kill hostages.
How hard is this?
We are talking about the President coming up with a secret kill list. Deciding it's too much trouble to apprehend the suspect, and sending out his forces to kill him while he sleeps.
The first paragraph states, clearly, that the administration rejects the use of drones, or any other military force, on US soil where law enforcement fits better. In the second paragraph, he discusses hypothetical situations where the president could authorize the use on military force (drones or otherwise), and comes up with the 9/11 attack, and the attack on Pearl Harbor by Japanese forces - two major attacks, on US territory, by foreign countries or para-military groups.
Correct. So you were wrong. Holder was not answering the question. The issue IS NOT federal drone use as a replacement for local police, legal, policy. Nor is it a question of if Holder can kill a us citizen carrying out an attack on the US.
So you just added a bunch of BS in your first post.
Again!
A secret assassination list of US citizens, who can be killed in their sleep, after President alone decides it's too much trouble to apprehend them.
He was asked point blank if he thought it was constitutional. Except he kept avoiding the direct question until he was asked over and over and called out on it.
If a police sniper can legally pick off a hostage taker, a drone can pick off a terrorist who is imminently about to do violence. The principle is the same.
I can't see anyone faulting the government for using a drone to kill terrorists perched on an inaccessible mountain bent on shooting a missile at a commercial airliner.
No. We are not talking about kills under those scenario where suspect is armed, firing back, threatening to kill hostages.
How hard is this?
We are talking about the President coming up with a secret kill list. Deciding it's too much trouble to apprehend the suspect, and sending out his forces to kill him while he sleeps.
Exactly. And the bottom line is, there better be a set of strictly followed rules in place on how, when, where drones can be used. Court orders, warrants, wire taps, etc.
This new technology gives the government more power and the people less privacy and less power. It better and needs to be handled the right way according to the Constitution and our laws.
If a police sniper can legally pick off a hostage taker, a drone can pick off a terrorist who is imminently about to do violence. The principle is the same.
I can't see anyone faulting the government for using a drone to kill terrorists perched on an inaccessible mountain bent on shooting a missile at a commercial airliner.
If a police sniper can legally pick off a hostage taker, a drone can pick off a terrorist who is imminently about to do violence. The principle is the same.
I can't see anyone faulting the government for using a drone to kill terrorists perched on an inaccessible mountain bent on shooting a missile at a commercial airliner.
Of course, it may violate Posse Comitatus.
No a police sniper cannot kill a a hostage taker while he sleeps, or while he walks down the street with no hostage, and him being no immediate threat to the hostage.
Try again.
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.
