• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Henrin said:
Yes, well, regardless of how unlikely it might be the president didn't deny that he can kill us if we leave the country and that is a problem. The government does have the authority to kill me neither here nor there or anywhere. Period.
Click to expand...

I don't fully grasp this. the government has the power to do it, but you think them saying the won't is far more solid than them actually not doing it? this is just the pumping up of an issue that has always existed. really, the only real prevention that the government will not use it's power is the soldier being willing to not follow orders if they feel they are wrong.

I swear Vince McMahon has created this insanity. I cannot believe people are distracted by all of this given the economy and the sequester, and every other stupid thing going on. This is pure grandstanding over absolutely nothing. The government said it won't kill you with the many weapons at it's disposal. Why does that make you feel accomplished? Oh yeah because some senator went on some babbling rant and started talking crap and pretended you won something. It is amazing how people can be fooled into caring so much about a problem that has existed as long as there were armies. Our government is sitting down together and breaking bread while planning what to do next with the sequester and how they can funnel more money into their hands and their friends hands, and people cared more about the bibbling idiot on the house floor and his stupid prize for doing it? What should scare you is that the dems and republicans sat down together to laugh at us and how they have managed to get you all so distracted in a pointless fight you miss when they are showing their true colors. At least the WWF is a voluntary entertainment thing, government is not voluntary for the people in the country.

really, why the hell is the US going to send a drone to kill you? They simply do not have to go that far. It is a huge waste of money to kill some no one with a drone. Could you please explain to me the thought process where you get a scenario where the US government is flying drones all over the world to kill regular people on vacation? Talk about making up an issue to be afraid of out of nothing. Do you check under your bed to make sure monsters are not there before you go to sleep? What if monsters exist under your bed and want to eat you? Just because they have never eaten you up until now doesn't mean they won't eat you tonight. The US government might have snipers waiting to shoot you on Obama's command right now, so you better ask the president to tell you he isn't going to shoot you while taking out the garbage. You guys have to take a break from the paranoid delusional crap that is coming from the media if you are scared the government is just waiting for you to leave the country so it can launch a drone strike against you. In all honesty, they need you. Without regular people to rule over they would have to do their own work and survive on their own.
 
tl;dr

Honestly, get to the point.
 
sangha said:
The OP shows that the govt does not consider the use of drones on US soil against people who are merely suspected of being terrorists. It is dishonest to suggest otherwise.
Click to expand...

The problem with that logic is that until one is convicted in a court of law, the citizen is by definition only suspected, or accused. While the Attorney General did answer Rand Paul’s question as stated, it does not answer or define what constitutes “combat”, and even then, to say the government has the authority to execute a citizen based only on allegation or suspicion or being in “combat”, or by simply classifying someone as an enemy combatant prior to capture thereby claiming the Constitution no longer applies to them (which removes the accused ability to prove they are innocent), is a complete disregard for the heart of the rule of law.

There have been casualties of innocent people even in the use of drones to kill American citizen on foreign soil who were only alleged or suspected of so-called “terrorist” activity, which is an absolute breech of Article 3 Section 3 “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.”. Notice it does not say “Citizen” but rather “persons” which by human nature possess rights no matter where they are, or if they are considered criminals, terrorists, or not. This coincides which the 5th Amendment “No person… …shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”

It is unwise, illogical, and against all Principles on which the Constitution was based to think armed drones in the use of assassination, especially on American soil, is the least bit acceptable… and would never be so by any rational mind.
 
Last edited:
tererun said:
What is the problem, i mean aside from the false idea that the US government behaves the same on foreign soil? It is not a surprise considering it is not our land. So yes, if you run off to some terrorist training grounds in a foreign country you might just find yourself whacked by a US drone without a trial. Especially if you are in some place considered a foreign warzone by the US government. really, do you expect the US military to cease it's drone strikes if an american citizen happens to be present voluntarily supporting those who we are at war with? That seems a little absurd to me. I would also happen to think that if obama and holder were not the ones talking about this you might consider a person who leaves america to join a fight against it's military in a foreign war as an enemy combatant and getting what they deserve. You are claiming that it makes you very nervous that the US would use a drone to kill a person who is technically a US citizen while they are fighting against them in a place like afganistan.

No no, don't let me stop you from running with that. It is wrong in your mind for obama and the US military to act against a US citizen who has joined opposing forces in a war according to you. i am perfectly fine with them using a drone strike to kill that sort of person in a war, but if you think our military should endanger itself and its safety in a warzone I welcome you to your opinion.
Click to expand...

What false idea are you talking about? The US government assassinated Anwar Alawlaki who was a US citizen at the time of his death without due process. (American drone deaths highlight controversy - U.S. News) They also killed his son as well (How Team Obama Justifies the Killing of a 16-Year-Old American - Conor Friedersdorf - The Atlantic).

In doing this they violated the US constitution. (After Protracted Questioning: Holder Admits It's Unconstitutional for Gov't to Kill U.S. Citizen Sitting Peacefully in U.S. in Cafe | CNS News)

So yeah, this is not a false idea.
 
Mr. Invisible said:
What false idea are you talking about? The US government assassinated Anwar Alawlaki who was a US citizen at the time of his death without due process. (American drone deaths highlight controversy - U.S. News) They also killed his son as well (How Team Obama Justifies the Killing of a 16-Year-Old American - Conor Friedersdorf - The Atlantic).

In doing this they violated the US constitution. (After Protracted Questioning: Holder Admits It's Unconstitutional for Gov't to Kill U.S. Citizen Sitting Peacefully in U.S. in Cafe | CNS News)

So yeah, this is not a false idea.
Click to expand...

Omg. Those people were killed on foreign soil, not on American soil. You are being duped into making a fool out of yourself.
 
Dezaad said:
Omg. Those people were killed on foreign soil, not on American soil. You are being duped into making a fool out of yourself.
Click to expand...

I know they were killed on foreign soil. Try reading what the other person wrote.
 
Mr. Invisible said:
I know they were killed on foreign soil. Try reading what the other person wrote.
Click to expand...

I did. She is saying that it is false that we should or even that we should expect to treat Americans on foreign soil the same as Americans on our own soil. She is saying she supports treating them differently (to which I heartily agree). You responded by showing that Americans are in fact treated differently on foreign soil than they are here. Which makes me wonder what the hell your point was.
 
Dezaad said:
I did. She is saying that it is false that we should or even that we should expect to treat Americans on foreign soil the same as Americans on our own soil. She is saying she supports treating them differently (to which I heartily agree). You responded by shoeing that Americans are in fact treated differently on foreign soil than they are here. Which makes me wonder what the hell your point was.
Click to expand...

Actually, if you had read what I wrote, you would have seen that my point was that Americans are treated differently on foreign soil and that doing so is unconstitutional. Killing US citizens without due process is unconstitutional.
 
Mr. Invisible said:
You obviously don't know me well. I am not a "right-winger" or a "Republican." I just noted some of the problems with what Holder said. That was all.
Click to expand...

Tererun typically speaks without thinking. He's too busy hacking away. I wonder if he believes that the White House have made that statement had Rand Paul not filibustered the Senate.
 
Mr. Invisible said:
Actually, if you had read what I wrote, you would have seen that my point was that Americans are treated differently on foreign soil and that doing so is unconstitutional. Killing US citizens without due process is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

It is difficult to tell what your point is when you aren't addressing the point that the person you are responding to has made, and yet you seem to think you are.

In any case there are two issues here. Killing of American citizens who are on American soil and killing American citizens who are on Foreign soil. The administration says the first is wrong except in cases of imminent threat, and it says the second is permissible when the person has become by their actions an enemy who merely threatens the US. I agree with the administration on both counts.
 
sangha said:
I never said the title was by you. I said it was wrong

And you agree
Click to expand...

AND YOU COMMENTS ARE COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.

Now do you have something relevant to state about this idiot icon of yours, Eric Holder?
 
Dezaad said:
It is difficult to tell what your point is when you aren't addressing the point that the person you are responding to has made, and yet you seem to think you are.

In any case there are two issues here. Killing of American citizens who are on American soil and killing American citizens who are on Foreign soil. The administration says the first is wrong except in cases of imminent threat, and it says the second is permissible when the person has become by their actions an enemy who merely threatens the US. I agree with the administration on both counts.
Click to expand...

Actually, I did address the point that the person was making, I even bolded the sentence.
 
TML said:
The problem with that logic is that until one is convicted in a court of law, the citizen is by definition only suspected, or accused.
Click to expand...

When someone is killed while they are commiting acts which endanger others (ex shooting other people), it has never been considered a "problem"

While the Attorney General did answer Rand Paul’s question as stated, it does not answer or define what constitutes “combat”, and even then, to say the government has the authority to execute a citizen based only on allegation or suspicion or being in “combat”, or by simply classifying someone as an enemy combatant prior to capture thereby claiming the Constitution no longer applies to them (which removes the accused ability to prove they are innocent), is a complete disregard for the heart of the rule of law.

There have been casualties of innocent people even in the use of drones to kill American citizen on foreign soil who were only alleged or suspected of so-called “terrorist” activity, which is an absolute breech of Article 3 Section 3 “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.”. Notice it does not say “Citizen” but rather “persons” which by human nature possess rights no matter where they are, or if they are considered criminals, terrorists, or not. This coincides which the 5th Amendment “No person… …shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”

It is unwise, illogical, and against all Principles on which the Constitution was based to think armed drones in the use of assassination, especially on American soil, is the least bit acceptable… and would never be so by any rational mind.
Click to expand...

The word combat has a well known and well understood definition.
 
Mr. Invisible said:
Actually, if you had read what I wrote, you would have seen that my point was that Americans are treated differently on foreign soil and that doing so is unconstitutional. Killing US citizens without due process is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Nonsense

When the police encounter an american killing people, they kill them without due process. They don't wait for a trial. They just shoot

Now, the military can use a drone to do something similar
 
Dezaad said:
It is difficult to tell what your point is when you aren't addressing the point that the person you are responding to has made, and yet you seem to think you are.

In any case there are two issues here. Killing of American citizens who are on American soil and killing American citizens who are on Foreign soil. The administration says the first is wrong except in cases of imminent threat, and it says the second is permissible when the person has become by their actions an enemy who merely threatens the US. I agree with the administration on both counts.
Click to expand...

So, by this logic, every enemy combatant in Gitmo should be executed. No jury, no trial, no muss, no fuss.

I believe there is only One issue. Killing of Americans by the US Government. The location is completely immaterial.
 
sangha said:
When someone is killed while they are commiting acts which endanger others (ex shooting other people), it has never been considered a "problem"
Click to expand...

But in the context of drones, it could never be acceptable to fire a missile to kill the person who is killing others.

sangha said:
The word combat has a well known and well understood definition.
Click to expand...

In a time when the government has claimed the whole world as a battle field in the war against a tactic (terrorism), and who constitutes the vague and elastic definition of “terrorist”, the definition of combat becomes ambiguous.
 
TML said:
But in the context of drones, it could never be acceptable to fire a missile to kill the person who is killing others.
Click to expand...

Au contraire

If a drone strike stops or ends a terrorist attack, it would be more than acceptable



In a time when the government has claimed the whole world as a battle field in the war against a tactic (terrorism), and who constitutes the vague and elastic definition of “terrorist”, the definition of combat becomes ambiguous.
Click to expand...

The definition of the word combat is clear and well known
 
sangha said:
If a drone strike stops or ends a terrorist attack, it would be more than acceptable
Click to expand...

Give an example, using history if you like, in which a drone strike would have ended (not prevented) a terrorist attack in progress, and not result in the deaths of innocents.

sangha said:
The definition of the word combat is clear and well known
Click to expand...

Sure it is. Such as the “terrorist” attack you posit.
 
There are a few American citizens that I wish we could vaporize with a predator launched hellfire missile.
 
Mr. Invisible said:
More can be seen here: White House admits it can't kill Americans with drones in US ? RT USA


I must say that while this comes as a surprise, the words "can't" and "won't" are two different things. In addition to this, it states clearly "on American soil" so Obama can still kill you if you leave the country.
Click to expand...

Hell, the SPLC labels patriots as "terrorists" and presently union thug teachers are teaching kids patriotism is "terrorism."

The flipping government is setting precedent and manufacturing a new breed that will accept the destruction of patriots.

As far as the drones - If I can see it I will shoot it down and recover it, posting pictures while making a vid to put on youtube.
 
I am the worlds most notorious serial killer and child rapist. I have killed hundreds and kidnapped babies, which I roasted and ate. I also happen to be able to teleport, not easily, but I can.

Your snitch tells you that I am in apartment building. Its a big building and there are dozens of people living there. You can't alert them without alerting me. If I get away again, I'll kill many more people.

Is it OK to bomb the building?







(I'm now retired from cereal killing and I prefer Sushi to babies)
 
specklebang said:
I am the worlds most notorious serial killer and child rapist. I have killed hundreds and kidnapped babies, which I roasted and ate. I also happen to be able to teleport, not easily, but I can.

Your snitch tells you that I am in apartment building. Its a big building and there are dozens of people living there. You can't alert them without alerting me. If I get away again, I'll kill many more people.

Is it OK to bomb the building?







(I'm now retired from cereal killing and I prefer Sushi to babies)
Click to expand...

I like the trigger words (no pun of course) but I own and live in a house.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom