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.
Actually, that's a ridiculous assumption, particularly to level towards an administration that has pushed for terrorists to be tried in civilian courts, often over the objections of members of Congress.
His push for terrorists to be tried in civilian courts is of no relevance when you consider his use of drone strikes to kill an American citizen without trial in a foreign nation while that citizen was not involved in any imminent attack upon the United States. It's just a matter of transferring something he's already done somewhere else to doing it here.
Quote:
"We, sure, the President could, in theory, use military force in the US, if an event like 9/11 or the Attack on Pearl Harbor happened."
"Oh my God, you think you can drone strike/cruise missile/nuke me while I'm walking down the street!"
This, again, is a strawman fallacy.Yes, the President can order a military strike on you if you're walking down the street...if you're with fifty other people, and assisting in Bane's takeover of Gotham. Other than that, you'll be arrested by the FBI.
No, it isn't. A strawman fallacy is making up something and attributing it to him. What you are describing is not a strawman fallacy.
Rand Paul:
Quote:
If there's a gentleman or a woman with a grenade launcher attacking our buildings or our Capitol, we use lethal force. You don't get due process if you're involved with actively attacking us, our soldiers or our government. You don't get due process if you're overseas in a battle shooting at our soldiers. But that's not what we're talking about. The Wall Street Journal reported and said that the bulk of the drone attacks are signature attacks. They don't even know the name of the person. A line or a caravan is going from a place where we think there are bad people to a place where we think they might commit harm and we kill the caravan, not the person. Is that the standard that we will now use in America? Will we use a standard for killing Americans to be that we thought - killing Americans to be that we thought you were bad, we thought you were coming from a meeting of bad people and you were in a line of traffic and so, therefore, you were fine for the killing? That is the standard we're using overseas. Is that the standard we're going to use here?
I will speak today until the President responds and says no, we won't kill Americans in cafes; no, we won't kill you at home in your bed at night; no, we won't drop bombs on restaurants.
There he states his intention and says he wants Obama to say he will not kill Americans on American soil who aren't actively engaged in an attack. He does not say that Obama is going to do that or claimed he would do that or wants the authority to do that. He says he wants Obama to make an unequivocal denial that he would do that. There is no strawman. He might've made a strawman argument some other place in the filibuster or in his remarks about the issue but the whole "getting blown up while eating dinner" thing wasn't a strawman. It was hyperbole but not a strawman.
Every man & woman, should have the right to a trial, no matter what nation they are from, if they have broken our laws here on our soil or conspired against the USA.
It's one small part of a much larger question that politicians from both sides are trying to get answered.
I agree that the global use of drones is a wider issue, but in this thread concerning Sen. Paul's filibuster that issue was narrowed, by Sen. Paul, to the use of drones inside the borders of the United States.
Which encompasses more than one small aspect. All the same, you do not grant a president a right to kill citizens when you can't even explain why that right is needed.
Which encompasses more than one small aspect. All the same, you do not grant a president a right to kill citizens when you can't even explain why that right is needed.
Neither AG Holder or the President have claimed any new right to kill Americans within the borders of the United States.
To claim the right without oversight is indeed a new right.
AG Holder and the President have not claimed the right to kill Americans in the United States borders without oversight other then in the case of an imminent threat. The imminent threat standard is not new to the Obama Administration. The imminent threat standard and legality was even acknowledged by Sen. Paul in his filibuster.
AG Holder and the President have not claimed the right to kill Americans in the United States borders without oversight other then in the case of an imminent threat. The imminent threat standard is not new to the Obama Administration. The imminent threat standard and legality was even acknowledged by Sen. Paul in his filibuster.
Even if there is imminent threat there needs to be oversight. An iiminent threat is not something you target beforehand. While the problems isn't restricted to drones, there is no reason for there use here at all.
You can continue trying to present this as something that always has been, but it's not.
Even if there is imminent threat there needs to be oversight. An iiminent threat is not something you target beforehand. While the problems isn't restricted to drones, there is no reason for there use here at all.
You can continue trying to present this as something that always has been, but it's not.
I agree an imminent threat is not something that would tend to lend itself to oversight prior to the event. Which is why there could be a scenario were deadly force is used by people under Presidents command.
The Obama Administration agrees with you that "there is no reason for there use here at all", if by "here" you mean within the borders of the United States and by "there" you are referring to drones.
However Sen. Paul's issue was not whether or not drones have any "use", but whether or not the Administration had authority to use them.
"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 only difference from prior situations, within the borders of the United States, is the technology potentially or hypothetically being used.
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.
