Holder: Yes, Obama can kill American Citizens on American soil with no trial...

I don't know; maybe I'm weird, but this kind of stuff doesn't bother me, at all. There are much bigger fish to fry in terms of life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness right now.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
And so what? Much ado about nothing. The President it our nations chief Law Enforcement officer. Just as a police officer has the right and duty to take the life of someone who is immenantly threatening the lives of innocents the President has the same responsibility and duty. If some nut job is imminently going to kill a large number of innocent people and the President gives the order to take out said nutjob with a drone strike then he is simply doing his duty as a law enforcement officer. I don't get what you're trying to accomplish Damo by posting someone elses strawman?
Click to expand...



Do you actually know what a straw man is? You keep accusing people of it, yet not once have you been correct in its use.

This isn't a straw man. Holder actually stated that was their position.
 
Dungheap said:
I don't understand how the use of drones is relevant to the basic question. Either the President has the authority to authorize the use of deadly force against American citizens on U.S. soil (or in U.S. airspace, presumably) or he doesn't. The weapon he uses to carry out that authority, assuming he has it, is irrelevant.

I don't see how it's any better (or worse) for the President to have the authority to use drones, or guns, or missiles, or dogs, or bees, or dogs with bees in their mouths and when they bark they shoot bees at you.
Click to expand...

The weapon used does matter. A bomb is not going to limit itself to just the target... unless the target is out in the middle of nowhere all by himself. In which case, why the hell would you need to use a drone bombing?
 
Jarod said:
How so? Its an exact comparison. If someone has a gun to my head, if the FBI is around (drone or not) I hope they will use deadly force. If a drone is the most effective way to do it... GOOD.
Click to expand...

If someone had a gun to your head, would you want a law enforcement agent to fire a bazooka at the guy? Would you want them to lob a grenade at him? How about dropping a bomb on you via a guy using a joystick hundreds of miles away?
 
Superfreak said:
The weapon used does matter. A bomb is not going to limit itself to just the target... unless the target is out in the middle of nowhere all by himself. In which case, why the hell would you need to use a drone bombing?
Click to expand...

Does the possibility of this really keep you up at night?
 
Superfreak said:
The weapon used does matter. A bomb is not going to limit itself to just the target... unless the target is out in the middle of nowhere all by himself. In which case, why the hell would you need to use a drone bombing?
Click to expand...

(1) So you're cool with the President being able to order deadly force against U.S. citizens, you just don't want the President to use drones to do it?

(2) The question asked was a hypothetical about the authority of the President, not about the specific circumstances under which that authority could be exercised and carried out using drones. As such, getting your knickers in a twist about specific circumstances is silly.

(3) The problems that you're talking about with the use of drones is a problem with the use of drones generally wherever they are employed and not with the President using them on U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. If the issue is that drone strikes kill innocent people, get rid of the drones.
 
WinterBorn said:
No, the correct answer should have been "No, the President is not allowed to use drones to kill American citizens on our soil".

The nonsense about what they "intend" to do, or what they "hope" will never happen is wasted space. Every US citizen has a right to a trial.
Click to expand...

The correct answer should have been "No, the President is not allowed to use drones."
 
Darla said:
No, his hemorrhoids do.

However...giving the president power to murder US citizens should alarm every American. It will be used. This power, will be used.
Click to expand...


The question asked was a really bad one. I don't think it is outside the authority of the President to authorize the use of deadly force against U.S. citizens under any potential circumstance, which is kind of what the question asked. What he should have asked about is the specific circumsntaces under which this Administration has determined that the President can order the use of deadly force against U.S. citizens on U.S. soil and the specific legal authorites from which that authority derives, but he didn't. We know that the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel has written memos on the issue so the question shouldn't be framed as a hypothetical.
 
Dungheap said:
(1) So you're cool with the President being able to order deadly force against U.S. citizens, you just don't want the President to use drones to do it?

(2) The question asked was a hypothetical about the authority of the President, not about the specific circumstances under which that authority could be exercised and carried out using drones. As such, getting your knickers in a twist about specific circumstances is silly.

(3) The problems that you're talking about with the use of drones is a problem with the use of drones generally wherever they are employed and not with the President using them on U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. If the issue is that drone strikes kill innocent people, get rid of the drones.
Click to expand...

Pay attention Mutt... the above is the king of straw men makers... perhaps you can learn what a straw man is.

1) No, we have ample law enforcement personnel in place to handle security in the US
2) No, the question was about whether the President could use drones on Americans on US soil. My point is that there is not a circumstance that would warrant drones on US soil. The weapon is over kill for the location.

3) The difference is that if we perceive a threat on US soil, we can respond with US police/FBI (and military if it is that extreme). On foreign soil we do not have them at our disposal. That said, drone strikes should only be used in the case of an imminent threat. Not just to play a game of assassination.
 
tinfoil said:
Due process!
Click to expand...
I'm sorry but someone who is in the act of trying to kill innocents lives has abrogated their right to due process.

I mean this is just a bunch of silly assed polemics. Drones are just another weapon to fight crime and foreign enemies. If public officials exceed the limitations placed upon such power then the should and most likely will, be held to account. I'm not going to week crockadile tears about killing some thug, criminal or terrorist bent on killing innocent people.

I mean ya'll would be the first ones to bitch about what a weak bleeding heart liberal Obama was for not using a drone to kill some wacko that bombed a stadium full of people.
 
Superfreak said:
Pay attention Mutt... the above is the king of straw men makers... perhaps you can learn what a straw man is.
Click to expand...

LOL.

Superfreak said:
1) No, we have ample law enforcement personnel in place to handle security in the US
Click to expand...

OK. So the weapon used doesn't matter because you think the President doesn't have the authotiry to kill U.S. citizens on U.S. soil under any conceivable circumsnance.


Superfreak said:
2) No, the question was about whether the President could use drones on Americans on US soil. My point is that there is not a circumstance that would warrant drones on US soil. The weapon is over kill for the location.
Click to expand...

No, the question was whether "the President has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strke, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial." It was about the President's power, not about any particular weapon. The "such as . . ." clause was illustrative of one type of exercise of the power, but was not by any means limiting the question to the President's power to use drones.


Superfreak said:
3) The difference is that if we perceive a threat on US soil, we can respond with US police/FBI (and military if it is that extreme). On foreign soil we do not have them at our disposal. That said, drone strikes should only be used in the case of an imminent threat. Not just to play a game of assassination.
Click to expand...

The bold is hilarious. So you think it's OK to deploy the military against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil but don't want the military to use drones. What about an airstrike? Would that be better? Where do you draw the line on what resources the military could use?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top