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.
I don't see the difference in seeding a SEAL team or sending a drone. Can you explain why the drone is so much more evil?
so you're defending an American president's authority to send in what amounts to secret police to kill citizens in there home whenever he wants, without having to present evidence before or explain what happened afterwards? so I'm guessing that you think Stalin, Pinochet, and the Duvaliers all got bum raps for doing their presidential duty?
You certainly are!
You want to bomb a nuke!!
You advocate killing millions of people just to kill one!?
If they have that kind of intel, they could simply go arrest him and allow him his constitutional rights to a trial.
Wow. People really have lost common sense....
Rand Paul 2016
Who is suggesting that a suspect shouldn't be arrested using standard law enforcement techniques. AG Holder certainly suggested that was the preferred option in his reply to Sen. Paul. But Sen. Paul asked a different question.
Sen. Paul asked:
"The question that I and many others have asked is not whether the Administration has or intends to carry out drone strikes inside the United States, but whether it believes it has the authority to do. This is an important distinction that should not be ignored."
The Obama administration and prior administrations clearly had the authority. The Obama administration is not breaking any new ground or establishing any new authority. It has been long standing U.S. Law that the AG can ask for assistance from the Defense Department to secure nuclear materials.
Note that the Obama Administration is not asserting that this is the best way to do it, but they do have the authority to do it. There are federal guidelines when deadly force can be utilized.
Who is suggesting that a suspect shouldn't be arrested using standard law enforcement techniques. AG Holder certainly suggested that was the preferred option in his reply to Sen. Paul. But Sen. Paul asked a different question.
Sen. Paul asked:
"The question that I and many others have asked is not whether the Administration has or intends to carry out drone strikes inside the United States, but whether it believes it has the authority to do. This is an important distinction that should not be ignored."
The Obama administration and prior administrations clearly had the authority. The Obama administration is not breaking any new ground or establishing any new authority. It has been long standing U.S. Law that the AG can ask for assistance from the Defense Department to secure nuclear materials.
Note that the Obama Administration is not asserting that this is the best way to do it, but they do have the authority to do it. There are federal guidelines when deadly force can be utilized.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
If you had a terrorist who you knew was trying to blow up a nuke and there was no other way to stop him than a drone, then the only two chooses you have is to either allow him to blow up the nuke, or use the drone to stop it.
Using deadly force against a person about to set off a nuclear bomb is clearly within the long standing Federal guidelines on the use of deadly force.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jean71
If they have that kind of intel, they can go arrest him.
Instead of bombing a bomb and having significantly more deaths.
Rand Paul 2016
Why are you two even arguing over a nuke? That's not the MO of drone strikes that should be alarming you.
It's the MO where someone that's been labeled a militant gets bombed driving his car home.
It's the MO where a group of guys who look like they're doing miliant-y stuff get a bomb dropped on their house.
It's the MO where Obama recognizes that even if the gov't has enough time & evidence to arrest someone and that person isn't an imminent threat, he has the power to say eff it and bomb them anyway.
Why are you two even arguing over a nuke? That's not the MO of drone strikes that should be alarming you.
It's the MO where someone that's been labeled a militant gets bombed driving his car home.
It's the MO where a group of guys who look like they're doing miliant-y stuff get a bomb dropped on their house.
It's the MO where Obama recognizes that even if the gov't has enough time & evidence to arrest someone and that person isn't an imminent threat, he has the power to say eff it and bomb them anyway.
Agreed.
But these are the silly examples that come up to defend Obama...
so you're defending an American president's authority to send in what amounts to secret police to kill citizens in there home whenever he wants, without having to present evidence before or explain what happened afterwards? so I'm guessing that you think Stalin, Pinochet, and the Duvaliers all got bum raps for doing their presidential duty?
I am nor defending anything, I am simply pointing out that this is the way it has always been. The authority has always been able to use deadly force if need be. The arrival of the new tool, the drone, doesn't make any difference to me. That's why I asked someone to explain why sending a drone is so much more evil than sending a SEAL team. Can you explain it?
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.
