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.
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.
Yes, if killing was the only was to stop the terrorist from detonating a nuke, then I would kill him using any means available. If a drone was the only way, I would use a drone. If arresting was possible, then arrest him
Quote:
Wow. People really have lost common sense....
That would be you, because your clearly prioritize the rights of the terrorist higher than the lives of innocent Americans, but what else is new in the minds of a pacifist?
.
Last edited by Finn_Jarber; 03-10-2013 at 07:58 AM..
Exactly. It is Brennan, whose nomination Rand Paul was trying to prevent. Paul tried, and failed, but he must have known he was not going to win this one.
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
Since we are well into hypothetical, I person in the United States is about to set off a Nuclear bomb. The only tool available to stop the person is an armed drone. Leave aside how we got into that state. Does the President have the authority to order a deadly force strike? At its core that is the question Sen. Paul asked. The answer is as AG Holder replied is yes there are scenarios that they President would be authorized.
Paul's question wasn't on the circumstances, Paul's question was on the authority. This President and prior President's have had the authority with the bounds of the Constitution and long standing U.S laws.
AG Holder also suggested more likely alternatives, but Sen. Paul insisted it was not about the alternatives or plans it was about ultimate authority.
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.
Under long standing U.S law, the AG can request assistance from the Department of Defense in cases dealing with Nuclear materials. That assistance could involve the use of deadly force.
Do you have any evidence that there have been any drone strikes inside the United States. Hard to have a MO for operations that have not even occurred.
Paul's question that AG Holder responded to.
"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."
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?
"IF NEED BE" are the operative words in your post - contrary to U.S. and international law, Obama has (secretly) rewritten the definitions related to "if need be". One example, financiers of terrorists are no longer tracked down, arrested and tried - Obama simply blows them up now.
Most troubling of all - until recently, all of Obama's rules of engagement have been written in invisible ink.
"IF NEED BE" are the operative words in your post - contrary to U.S. and international law, Obama has (secretly) rewritten the definitions related to "if need be". One example, financiers of terrorists are no longer tracked down, arrested and tried - Obama simply blows them up now.
They just arrested one this week and brought him to NYC, but in war it is not unusual to blow up the enemy. Sometimes you arrest, and sometimes you blow them up. That has always been the nature of war.
Why dont' you go to Afghanistan and protect the terrorists from the those evil US troops who are blowing them up.
Yes, if killing was the only was to stop the terrorist from detonating a nuke, then I would kill him using any means available. If a drone was the only way, I would use a drone. If arresting was possible, then arrest him
That would be you, because your clearly prioritize the rights of the terrorist higher than the lives of innocent Americans, but what else is new in the minds of a pacifist?
.
Even if it means collateral damage right!?
They still have their rights as an American on American soil!
They still have their rights as an American on American soil!
Sure, they have rights and will face court if they are captured, but not everyone is willing to surrender, and we are talking about those who will not surrender. I said it before, - cops kill US citizens every day. Why do you think cops carry a gun? Do you think the cops should be disarmed too?
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.
Rand Paul filibustering Brennan's nomination as CIA Director
