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

Why would you use a drone if you could just go save the hostages, having been left alone by the bungling bad guys.
 
tinfoil said:
Why would you use a drone if you could just go save the hostages, having been left alone by the bungling bad guys.
Click to expand...

Lets just pretend you cant. Say, the drone makes it less likely one of the terrorists could kill one of the Agents. Its the safest way to minimize the loss of innocent human life.
 
tinfoil said:
You laid out your imaginary scenario and it was ridiculously inept since it relies on stupid criminals in order for it to even be plausible.
Click to expand...

One thing I learned from my years as a prosecutor, 99% of criminals are stupid. If they were not, we would be introuble.
 
Jarod said:
Lets just pretend you cant. Say, the drone makes it less likely one of the terrorists could kill one of the Agents. Its the safest way to minimize the loss of innocent human life.
Click to expand...

I'm trying to figure out how a drone would only kill the terrorists? Some sort of 'terrorist' exempt EMP?
 
Lowaicue said:
Of course we have violence. People are people. But not a lot and mostly confined to the occasional triad chopping trip. Although I was stopped on the pavement in an old part of town a few years ago because an old woman was beating her equally aged spouse with an umbrella.
Click to expand...
Occasional triad chopping trip?

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/09/12/world/violence-grips-hong-kong-and-triads-are-blamed.html

Looks like things are picking up in your beloved pearl of the orient.
 
Annie said:
I'm trying to figure out how a drone would only kill the terrorists? Some sort of 'terrorist' exempt EMP?
Click to expand...

Because the terrorists are dumb and seperated themselves from the hostages by 300 yards.
 
tinfoil said:
Jarod, you have yet to explain how a strike would not be premeditated?
Click to expand...

I have no problem with it being premeditated. The feds have always been allowed to premeditate a killing, why should the use of a drone change that?
 
Jarod said:
Because the terrorists are dumb and seperated themselves from the hostages by 300 yards.
Click to expand...

Right, that happens all the time with hostage takers. While the topic is really quite surrealistic, can we keep the scenarios a bit more grounded.
 
Annie said:
Right, that happens all the time with hostage takers. While the topic is really quite surrealistic, can we keep the scenarios a bit more grounded.
Click to expand...


Let's pretend terrorists have hijacked and have taken control of four planes, two crashed into the World Trade Center, one crashed into the Pentagon and the fourth is in the air, heading towards Washington D.C. .
 
Dungheap said:
Let's pretend terrorists have hijacked and have taken control of four planes, two crashed into the World Trade Center, one crashed into the Pentagon and the fourth is in the air, heading towards Washington D.C. .
Click to expand...

Once again I've searched for drones taking out planes, I've not found one. If you provide for the real possibility, perhaps there would be something to discuss.
 
Annie,

You have missed the point. What Holder said was that he could IMAGINE a senario. Do you understand what IMAGINE means?
 
Jarod said:
Annie,

You have missed the point. What Holder said was that he could IMAGINE a senario. Do you understand what IMAGINE means?
Click to expand...

Did you ever imagine that you'd hold in regard sworn officials contemplating taking out US citizens on US soil without due process? Remember, he wasn't speaking of unarmed drones, but drones capable of attack.
 
Annie said:
Did you ever imagine that you'd hold in regard sworn officials contemplating taking out US citizens on US soil without due process? Remember, he wasn't speaking of unarmed drones, but drones capable of attack.
Click to expand...

Actually, he wasn't speaking about drones at all, but the President's authority as a general matter. The reality is that Holder's letter is utterly unremarkable because Rand Paul asked a stupid hypothetical question. But (and that but is important), that doesn't mean there aren't important and unasnwered questions about the scope the President claims to have under specific factual circumstances that are not hypothetical at all.
 
Superfreak said:
F16/F22 over a drone anyday...
Click to expand...


You and I discussed this yesterday. I don't see the weapon used as relevant to the question of whether the President has the authority to authoirze the use of force under any plausible scenario. You seemed to concede that using the military to respond might be necessary under some limited circumstances. What I don't understand in the principled basis where you draw the line with respect to what resources the military may use. I mean, if you're OK with a missile strike, I don't see why you'd be opposed to drones under any and all circumstances.
 
Dungheap said:
Actually, he wasn't speaking about drones at all, but the President's authority as a general matter. The reality is that Holder's letter is utterly unremarkable because Rand Paul asked a stupid hypothetical question. But (and that but is important), that doesn't mean there aren't important and unasnwered questions about the scope the President claims to have under specific factual circumstances that are not hypothetical at all.
Click to expand...

You win the reading comprehension award for the day. All these other fools could not figure out that simple point.
 
Jarod said:
I have no problem with it being premeditated. The feds have always been allowed to premeditate a killing, why should the use of a drone change that?
Click to expand...

Because the person being targeted, presuming they're a US citizen (which is what we're talking about), is afforded due process in this country.
Why can't you follow the thread? All this is upthread already.

This country sucks because people like you are such idiots
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top