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.
Is anyone claiming that a Federal Agent can use deadly force on someone driving for groceries? Seems to me that would not normally qualify.
That's why you can't try to compare LE use of deadly force to drone attacks. At least LE has guidelines to try to bring the person in alive and limits that don't make it the first move out of the gate. Drones don't.
Why would you want a program like drones operating when they don't even have rules for when they can be employed other than a President secretly designating that person a target?
That's why you can't try to compare LE use of deadly force to drone attacks. At least LE has guidelines to try to bring the person in alive and limits that don't make it the first move out of the gate. Drones don't.
Who does not have guidelines? Why would drone operators not have guidelines? What you are saying is same as saying "bullets don't have guidelines".
Something gets questioned and the answer is provided. A few pages later the same question gets asked again, with the answer provided. Drag something out and a few pages later the same question comes up and again, it gets answered.
It's been pointed out why police officers shooting an armed suspect is not the same as the government doing it using the military.
Who does not have guidelines? Why would drone operators not have guidelines? What you are saying is same as saying "bullets don't have guidelines".
Seeing how drone operators don't decide who gets targeted, why would you expect them to have guidelines on when drones are used? To put it as you did, that's the same as saying "why would K9s not have guidelines?"
The "who" I'm referring to is whoever's President has no guidelines for when drones are allowed to be used.
What the administration’s recent responses did make clear: Despite questions lingering for years about the increased use of drones, the flurry of attention to the issue this week caught the Obama White House by surprise. The White House appears to have misjudged the downside of its stances on transparency and how it could bend existing legal principles to justify the program — complicated by political miscalculations, fumbles by the attorney general and growing concern among some segments of the public.
That's why you can't try to compare LE use of deadly force to drone attacks. At least LE has guidelines to try to bring the person in alive and limits that don't make it the first move out of the gate. Drones don't.
Why would you want a program like drones operating when they don't even have rules for when they can be employed other than a President secretly designating that person a target?
Is there some Federal Agent or Agency that does not have rules of engagement over what they can and can't do? I'm not aware of any. Who would be operating the drones, wouldn't they be Federal Agents of some type.
The question Paul asked was not whether it made sense to use drones, but whether or not the Administration thought they had the authority to use drones. Clearly under the right circumstances they have the authority to use drones.
Something gets questioned and the answer is provided. A few pages later the same question gets asked again, with the answer provided. Drag something out and a few pages later the same question comes up and again, it gets answered.
It's been pointed out why police officers shooting an armed suspect is not the same as the government doing it using the military.
Seeing how drone operators don't decide who gets targeted, why would you expect them to have guidelines on when drones are used? To put it as you did, that's the same as saying "why would K9s not have guidelines?"
The "who" I'm referring to is whoever's President has no guidelines for when drones are allowed to be used.
K9 handlers do have guidelines. Cops, border partol and everyone else has guidelines. The whole argument "the president has no guidlines" is insane. Has any president ever had guidelines? Now that we have drones, we are suddenly concerned about guidlines, but before when we had other equipment, it was not an issue. Why not?
I have asked before, and I'll ask again: what do the drones have to do with anything? You think that president suddenly want to kill people, just because they have drones? If presidents wanted to kill people they could do it in a thousand different ways, and trying to stop it by banning drones, is even more stupid than trying stop all murders by banning "assault" rifles.
I guess it doesn't matter what Rand Paul said his goal was, when Book Lover in CD forum knows better.
Have our presidents abused their power with helicopters and cars before, or by using police officers with pistols? Who is the president going to kill, and why would he insist in using a drone, when there are much easier ways? Listen to yourself. You have fallen for a strawman BS argument.
Why? I am independent, so I am not required to repeat other people's arguments like so many others here.
Here are the opening remarks to the filibuster. It's pretty clear:
I rise today to begin to filibuster John Brennan's nomination for the CIA 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. That Americans could be killed in a cafe in San Francisco or in a restaurant in Houston or at their home in bowling green, Kentucky, is an abomination. It is something that should not and cannot be tolerated in our country. I don't rise to oppose John Brennan's nomination simply for the person. I rise today for the principle. The principle is one that as Americans we have fought long and hard for and to give up on that principle, to give up on the bill of rights, to give up on the Fifth Amendment protection that says that no person shall be held without due process, that no person shall be held for a capital offense without being indicted. This is a precious American tradition and something we should not give up on easily.
Is there some Federal Agent or Agency that does not have rules of engagement over what they can and can't do? I'm not aware of any. Who would be operating the drones, wouldn't they be Federal Agents of some type.
The question Paul asked was not whether it made sense to use drones, but whether or not the Administration thought they had the authority to use drones. Clearly under the right circumstances they have the authority to use drones.
Best case, the Army. Worst case, the CIA. And neither would be bound to Fed law since using drones would be a military operation.
And the answer to the question about whether or not the President should have the authority to use drones should be no. At the very least, it should be a committee, if not some sort of judicial/legal council.
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.
