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.
Why would this be the only option? What happened to all the other law enforcement options? Are we assuming they have all been vaporized?
The government can protect our borders from attack. They can not simply decide to target an American citizen.
Immaterial to the point Sen. Paul raises and the parameters Sen Paul established.
AG Holder already wrote the administration preferred to utilize standard law enforcement techniques, which he said could handle the situation.
Sen Paul rejects that answer. He demands to know if the President and the Administration believe they are authorized. Based on long standing U.S. Laws Federal Agents and Military personnel have rules of when they can use deadly force within the United States. So clearly the President and the Administration have the authority.
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.
Immaterial to the point Sen. Paul raises and the parameters Sen Paul established.
AG Holder already wrote the administration preferred to utilize standard law enforcement techniques, which he said could handle the situation.
Sen Paul rejects that answer. He demands to know if the President and the Administration believe they are authorized. Based on long standing U.S. Laws Federal Agents and Military personnel have rules of when they can use deadly force within the United States. So clearly the President and the Administration have the authority.
No, because that would never be the case. "Well what do you think in this case that will never ever present itself" is a fools argument to address.
Of course it can be the case.
I don't care if they eliminate a terrorist by a sniper or a drone. To you a drone is more evil, and so be it. It is silly to argue which method is more "humane", or more "fair" for the terrorist. I do not care. If they are in process of blowing up a nuke, they should be killed by any means possible.
I don't care if they eliminate a terrorist by a sniper or a drone. To you a drone is more evil, and so be it. It is silly to argue which method is more "humane", or more "fair" for the terrorist. I do not care. If they are in process of blowing up a nuke, they should be killed by any means possible.
It's irrelevant if you believe it's O.K. It has nothing to do with the scenario posted or the problem with the scenario.
The scenario is non existent. What difference does it matter what someone thinks about a situation that will never present itself?
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.
