Page 14 of 16 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 155

Thread: White House admits it can't kill Americans with drones in US

  1. #131
    Ayatollah of Rock n Rolla
    SgtRock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Last Seen
    11-27-17 @ 08:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,006

    Re: White House admits it can't kill Americans with drones in US

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    Using an anti-tank missile is absurd when you think about it.
    Really,absurd, you think so? Why then did the JSOC and CIA use two predator drones that fired AGM-114 Hellfire missiles to take out Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen in 2011 in fact they were siting in a cafe not traveling in armored vehicles. Last year four AGM-114 hellfire missiles were launched from a Predator drone at a compound in North Waziristan killing 15 muslim jihadist including Abu Yahya al-Libi.
    When America is strong the world is calm, When America is weak tyrants and terrorist slaughter the meek. ~ SgtRock

  2. #132
    Advisor TML's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    09-23-15 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    520

    Re: White House admits it can't kill Americans with drones in US

    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    Sorry, but even Jefferson was not averse to making war against foreign combatants without seeking Congressional approval. That they, the Barbary Pirates, were attacking us was all the authority he needed. If we are attacked or if a nation declares war on us then we are at war whether Congress thinks so or not. A military response need not wait for deliberation.

    The War Powers Act was an unconstitutional delegation of Congressional authority to the President, very much like the infamous enabling act and similar acts by the Venezuelan legislature more recently. Never has this nation gotten so close to tyranny as under FDR and Wilson. I don't know of any examples where the War Powers Act has been evoked to justify military action since WWII.

    The War Powers Resolution of 1973 was an attempt by Congress to limit the President's authority to conduct war. It was unconstitutional, and Presidents have generally ignored it.
    I believe you’re shifting the scenario from the topic of discussion, just as sangha was, from the specifics of targeting American citizens on American soil, to an ambiguously imaginary reference to being 'attacked'. The Barbary war took place not on American soil, against American citizens, it took place abroad in defense of American citizens, and was limited to true defense. It was short lived and ended with the Treaty of Tripoli.

    I agree the War Powers Act of 1941 was unconstitutional, but I do not agree that the War Powers Resolution of 1973 was unconstitutional (which was a limit to those powers unconstitutionally afforded by the War Powers Act). The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, even over-riding a presidential veto, and the fact that it has been ignored by Presidents who claim it to be unconstitutional doesn’t make it so.

    You say that you know of no example where the War Powers Act has been “evoked” to justify military action since WWII, but our history is rife with such examples, including President Reagan ingnoring the Resolution in 1981 in order to send military forces to El Salvador and later the Contras in Nicaragua and by President Clinton in 1999, during the bombing campaign in Kosovo. Which is to say nothing of the undeclared war such as Korea, Vietnam, etc.

    No one argues that the Presidents rightful role is to repel attacks against the United States, but as we can see, all such conflicts were not even specifically in defense of the United States, as they took place overseas for political ambitions and hegemonic imperialist policies. A President should not be able to commit military forces into a situation which might provoke war, especially overseas, and never against American citizens at home.
    Last edited by TML; 03-09-13 at 10:50 AM.

  3. #133
    Advisor TML's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    09-23-15 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    520

    Re: White House admits it can't kill Americans with drones in US

    Quote Originally Posted by SgtRock View Post
    Really,absurd, you think so? Why then did the JSOC and CIA use two predator drones that fired AGM-114 Hellfire missiles to take out Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen in 2011 in fact they were siting in a cafe not traveling in armored vehicles. Last year four AGM-114 hellfire missiles were launched from a Predator drone at a compound in North Waziristan killing 15 muslim jihadist including Abu Yahya al-Libi.
    Yes, that is absurd (especially as they sat in a cafe, with innocent people), and a clear violation of the constitutional powers afforded to the President, and a violation of the Article 3 Section 3 Clause 1 & 2

  4. #134
    Curmudgeon


    LowDown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Houston
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,572
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: White House admits it can't kill Americans with drones in US

    Quote Originally Posted by TML View Post
    I believe you’re shifting the scenario from the topic of discussion, just as sangha was, from the specifics of targeting American citizens on American soil, to an ambiguously imaginary reference to being 'attacked'. The Barbary war took place not on American soil, against American citizens, it took place abroad in defense of American citizens, and was limited to true defense. It was short lived and ended with the Treaty of Tripoli.

    I agree the War Powers Act of 1941 was unconstitutional, but I do not agree that the War Powers Resolution of 1973 was unconstitutional (which was a limit to those powers unconstitutionally afforded by the War Powers Act). The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, even over-riding a presidential veto, and the fact that it has been ignored by Presidents who claim it to be unconstitutional doesn’t make it so.

    You say that you know of no example where the War Powers Act has been “evoked” to justify military action since WWII, but our history is rife with such examples, including President Reagan ingnoring the Resolution in 1981 in order to send military forces to El Salvador and later the Contras in Nicaragua and by President Clinton in 1999, during the bombing campaign in Kosovo. Which is to say nothing of the undeclared war such as Korea, Vietnam, etc.

    No one argues that the Presidents rightful role is to repel attacks against the United States, but as we can see, all such conflicts were not even specifically in defense of the United States, as they took place overseas for political ambitions and hegemonic imperialist policies. A President should not be able to commit military forces into a situation which might provoke war, especially overseas, and never against American citizens at home.
    The War Powers Resolution was unconstitutional because it overstepped Congress' authority to restrict the President's war making powers. Specifically, it sets a time limit on how long a military action can run and it requires reporting by the President to Congress. There is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes Congress to restrict the President's war time authority that way. Regardless of what Congress may think is a national emergency, if a state of war exists between the US and some group of foreign combatants (a state of war which exists because they are determined to make war on us) then the appropriate military response, it's type, tone, duration, and every other particular, including whether or not a state of war in fact exists, is determined by the President and the President alone. Congress may not dictate these details to the President. All that Congress can do if it disapproves is cut off funds.

    As to targeting Americans, if an American joins with a group of foreign combatants at war with the US then that person is also at war with us and his disposition becomes a military matter to be determined by the President. Combatants can be dealt with a number of ways -- by sniper, howitzer, drone strike, what have you. Often they are taken out at a distance and by surprise. Or they may be captured and detained for interrogation, depending on the military's needs. This has always been the way war is conducted. It is not a result of Obama overreaching his authority.

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --HL Mencken

  5. #135
    Advisor TML's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    09-23-15 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    520

    Re: White House admits it can't kill Americans with drones in US

    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    The War Powers Resolution was unconstitutional because it overstepped Congress' authority to restrict the President's war making powers. Specifically, it sets a time limit on how long a military action can run and it requires reporting by the President to Congress. There is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes Congress to restrict the President's war time authority that way. Regardless of what Congress may think is a national emergency, if a state of war exists between the US and some group of foreign combatants (a state of war which exists because they are determined to make war on us) then the appropriate military response, it's type, tone, duration, and every other particular, including whether or not a state of war in fact exists, is determined by the President and the President alone. Congress may not dictate these details to the President. All that Congress can do if it disapproves is cut off funds.
    The error in your claim is that, as even you agreed, the War Powers Act which gave that power to the president in the first place was unconstitutional, thus, the resolution was to remedy that over extension of power, and because it was meant to return the power unconstitutionally afforded to the President, and back to Congress, the resolution was therefore pursuant to the Constitution and valid only in the face of the War Powers Act. Had the War Powers Act never existed, then yes, the Resolution would be unconstitutional... indeed, in fact, it would have never even been needed.

    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    As to targeting Americans, if an American joins with a group of foreign combatants at war with the US then that person is also at war with us and his disposition becomes a military matter to be determined by the President. Combatants can be dealt with a number of ways -- by sniper, howitzer, drone strike, what have you. Often they are taken out at a distance and by surprise. Or they may be captured and detained for interrogation, depending on the military's needs. This has always been the way war is conducted. It is not a result of Obama overreaching his authority.
    Then I will, as above, point you to Article 3 Section 3.

  6. #136
    Curmudgeon


    LowDown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Houston
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,572
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: White House admits it can't kill Americans with drones in US

    Quote Originally Posted by TML View Post
    The error in your claim is that, as even you agreed, the War Powers Act which gave that power to the president in the first place was unconstitutional, thus, the resolution was to remedy that over extension of power, and because it was meant to return the power unconstitutionally afforded to the President, and back to Congress, the resolution was therefore pursuant to the Constitution and valid only in the face of the War Powers Act. Had the War Powers Act never existed, then yes, the Resolution would be unconstitutional... indeed, in fact, it would have never even been needed.
    The War Powers Act erred in the other way, ceding authority that should have remained in Congress, authority to restructure spending and federal departments, to the President. Presidents have not used that authority since FDR in WWII as far as I know.

    Then I will, as above, point you to Article 3 Section 3.
    Ok, here it is:

    Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

    The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
    My understanding is that if foreign combatants are detained then they need not be criminally charged. They are simply detained and then usually are repatriated when hostilities cease. There are things which they might be charged with, though, including, in the case of a former American citizen, treason.

    The point is, though, that disposition is entirely up to the President and his ideas about what is in the best interests of the country. He may appoint a tribunal to try a detainee, he might decide to have him tried in civil courts, or he might have that person summarily executed. In the interests of fair play and because of American sensibilities and values, the latter solution is probably not going to be used much, and certainly not without secrecy.

    Hence we have a situation in which the President finds it preferable to kill terrorists outright rather than capture them and have to deal with the repercussions of having a detainee on their hands. The Obama administration hasn't come up with a way to deal with these people that doesn't completely vindicate George Bush's way of doing it, which was to just hold them indefinitely at GITMO, and they don't like how using tribunals looks. It's entirely within the President's prerogative to splash water in terrorists' faces or kill them with a missile, whatever he decides is best. Such is war.

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --HL Mencken

  7. #137
    Advisor TML's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    09-23-15 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    520

    Re: White House admits it can't kill Americans with drones in US

    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    The War Powers Act erred in the other way, ceding authority that should have remained in Congress, authority to restructure spending and federal departments, to the President. Presidents have not used that authority since FDR in WWII as far as I know.
    In effect, it afforded the President war making powers without a declaration of war. Which is why we haven’t had a declaration of war since WWII

    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    My understanding is that if foreign combatants are detained then they need not be criminally charged. They are simply detained and then usually are repatriated when hostilities cease. There are things which they might be charged with, though, including, in the case of a former American citizen, treason.

    The point is, though, that disposition is entirely up to the President and his ideas about what is in the best interests of the country. He may appoint a tribunal to try a detainee, he might decide to have him tried in civil courts, or he might have that person summarily executed. In the interests of fair play and because of American sensibilities and values, the latter solution is probably not going to be used much, and certainly not without secrecy.

    Hence we have a situation in which the President finds it preferable to kill terrorists outright rather than capture them and have to deal with the repercussions of having a detainee on their hands. The Obama administration hasn't come up with a way to deal with these people that doesn't completely vindicate George Bush's way of doing it, which was to just hold them indefinitely at GITMO, and they don't like how using tribunals looks. It's entirely within the President's prerogative to splash water in terrorists' faces or kill them with a missile, whatever he decides is best. Such is war.
    Yet, no war has been rightly declared. Acceptance of an undeclared so-called war against a tactic (terrorism), in which the whole world is considered a battlefield, is invalid in every way. You seem to be supporting the idea that it’s ok for the President to convict, and subsequently kill, an American citizen abroad (or even on American soil?) accused of treason, even if they just sitting in a café not engaged in combat, merely because it’s politically easier than disposition of detainees. This is inconsistent with the rule of law, Article 3 Section 3, and quite frankly, unacceptable arbitrary action.
    Last edited by TML; 03-09-13 at 01:22 PM.

  8. #138
    Light△Bender

    grip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    ☚ ☛
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 02:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,224
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: White House admits it can't kill Americans with drones in US

    The authorities (FBI, ATF, DHS, USMS) don't need the Presidents approval to use whatever force they deem necessary to capture, arrest or detain a suspect of a terrorist group affiliation or even someone suspected of criminal activity. Soon most LEO will probably start using drone technology for aerial surveillance and lethal delivery systems. There are any number of scenarios the gov can use as an excuse to eliminate someone.

    I applaud Rand for his attempt to stop gov overreach but if his purpose was to prevent the FEDs from targeting citizens with summary execution, without due process it was more of a show than any real accomplishment by making a politician promise.
    Einstein, "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

  9. #139
    Curmudgeon


    LowDown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Houston
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,572
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: White House admits it can't kill Americans with drones in US

    Quote Originally Posted by TML View Post
    In effect, it afforded the President war making powers without a declaration of war. Which is why we haven’t had a declaration of war since WWII



    Yet, no war has been rightly declared. Acceptance of an undeclared so-called war against a tactic (terrorism), in which the whole world is considered a battlefield, is invalid in every way. You seem to be supporting the idea that it’s ok for the President to convict, and subsequently kill, an American citizen abroad (or even on American soil?) accused of treason, even if they just sitting in a café not engaged in combat, merely because it’s politically easier than disposition of detainees. This is inconsistent with the rule of law, Article 3 Section 3, and quite frankly, unacceptable arbitrary action.
    If the USA is attacked, that is to say, if there is an act of war against the USA, then a state of war exists. It is difficult to think of circumstances under which the President would fail to act regardless of what Congress did. I suppose Congress could refuse to fund the defense effort if it was hell bent on not mounting a defense.

    The Constitution vests the President with the powers of Commander in Chief of the armed forces and places no limits on those powers beyond having to go to Congress for funding. Article 3 Section 3 does not in any way prevent the President from using his authority in war making, including in dealing with foreign combatants who used to be American citizens. Unless such a person is criminally charged he is not to be convicted as a criminal or a traitor but rather is a combatant and will not be hung but rather sent back to his adopted country or some such when hostilities have ceased.

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --HL Mencken

  10. #140
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    10-30-14 @ 12:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,908

    Re: White House admits it can't kill Americans with drones in US

    We, shouldn't even be having this debate.

    The real question that needs to be addressed is why there are drones and what are their purpose?

    Anyone who believes it's for our own "protection" is misguided. Protection from whom exactly? These weapons exist to destroy you and preserve government superiority over the people.

    Our government isn't a government made up by the people for the people - our government is a gang and their only concern is self-preservation. The notion the government is benevolent is a joke, especially when they're flying armed drones over our heads.

Page 14 of 16 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •