• 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

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.

Does the word "exceptional" mean anything to you?


Sure it is. Such as the “terrorist” attack you posit.

I'm glad that you admit that the word combat is clearly defined
 
Well, I also live in a house and my confession was for philosophical purposes.

Will you answer my question?

I like the trigger words (no pun of course) but I own and live in a house.
 
Well, I also live in a house and my confession was for philosophical purposes.

Will you answer my question?

You didn't ask a question you just spewed a bunch of nonsense.

If you have a question I would be glad to answer it.
 
Does the word "exceptional" mean anything to you?

Not when it comes to the use of armed drones to assassinate American citizens, no… there is nothing exceptional about that, and there are no exceptions.

I'm glad that you admit that the word combat is clearly defined

It was sarcasm, because you’re talking from both sides of your mouth to say combat is clearly defined, while speaking of justified drone attacks for a “terrorist” attack in progress. By your measure, it could be said that Dorner was an American citizen on American soil engaged in combat, and you would agree with firing a missile at him? If you agree with such measure then there is virtually no difference in that and intentionally setting the place on fire, which would have been an insidious vigilante crime by police to completely disregard the rule of law.

Additionally, if the American government can, by mere suspicion, label you an enemy “combatant” and thereby claim the Constitution no longer applies to you in order to justify indefinite detention without charge or trial, there is clearly not much incentive for the federal government to abide by the clear definition you espouse.
 
We already see this starting to take place in terms of labeling American's like Tea Party members. The SPLC labels them "terrorists"..... A horrible label for little more than an activist group protesting, merely because they don't agree with them politically.
 
It amazes me that people are hung up on two irrelevant items.

DRONES and US SOIL.

The murder weapon nor the location make an assassination of a citizen by the government any more acceptable.

The media has painted a picture of there invisible robot planes flying autonomously, killing by a computer program and it has everyone scared to death. The root of the matter has nothing to do with the aircraft.
 
It amazes me that people are hung up on two irrelevant items.

DRONES and US SOIL.

The murder weapon nor the location make an assassination of a citizen by the government any more acceptable.

The media has painted a picture of there invisible robot planes flying autonomously, killing by a computer program and it has everyone scared to death. The root of the matter has nothing to do with the aircraft.

No, you are right....This is about the administration taking the authority to label, and destroy their enemies without any oversight at all. You know who else does that sort of thing? Communist countries.
 
The title of this thread does not match the content of the OP

According to the OP, the US can use a drone to kill american citizens on american soil........but only if they are engaged in an attack.

That's exactly what Rand Paul was asking, i.e., can the President use drones against noncombatant citizens on US soil?

Holder muddled his reponse by trying to invoke due process. Due process is not required to defend the US against attack whether that defense is done with a missile, a sniper, a howitzer, or whatever. Due process doesn't enter into it; combatants are often taken out without warning. And it doesn't matter what passport the attacker carries. It is a military matter. And of course the President can direct military force against attackers even if they are attacking on US soil. If China invades the West coast of the US then the President won't be calling the cops on them, he won't be reading them their Miranda rights, he will be striking at them with overwhelming military force.

In order to provide the USA with an effective military defense the founders made the President the supreme commander of the military, an authority that no other branch of government can infringe upon. This is what that means.
 
No, you are right....This is about the administration taking the authority to label, and destroy their enemies without any oversight at all. You know who else does that sort of thing? Communist countries.

Yes, the President has the authority on his own to determine who is a foreign combatant and to provide for an effective military response. It's all about what it means to be the Commander in Chief of the military. Yes, this is a lot of power, but it is the price paid in order to have the capability of a rapid and effective response to a military threat. That's why the character and ability of the people we elect to that office are all important.
 
Spewed a bunch of nonsense? I posited a philosophical question. There was nothing disrespectful or incoherent about it.

I hoped for a little more intellect to be exhibited but apparently not.



You didn't ask a question you just spewed a bunch of nonsense.

If you have a question I would be glad to answer it.
 
Could a US citizen drone kill government people on US soil maybe in extreme circumstances?
 
There are a few American citizens that I wish we could vaporize with a predator launched hellfire missile.

Using an anti-tank missile is absurd when you think about it.
 
That's why the character and ability of the people we elect to that office are all important.

"In questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." - Thomas Jefferson
 
"In questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." - Thomas Jefferson

Most of the time that applies to the President, but in the matter of war the President has a relatively free hand. What limits him is that Congress can refuse to pay for it and unless there is an imminent threat Congress must authorize military actions, i.e., declare war.
 
Not when it comes to the use of armed drones to assassinate American citizens, no… there is nothing exceptional about that, and there are no exceptions.

So if there's a terrorist attack in progress and a drone can stop it, you're on record as thinking the attack should not be stopped.

It was sarcasm, because you’re talking from both sides of your mouth to say combat is clearly defined, while speaking of justified drone attacks for a “terrorist” attack in progress. By your measure, it could be said that Dorner was an American citizen on American soil engaged in combat, and you would agree with firing a missile at him? If you agree with such measure then there is virtually no difference in that and intentionally setting the place on fire, which would have been an insidious vigilante crime by police to completely disregard the rule of law.

Additionally, if the American government can, by mere suspicion, label you an enemy “combatant” and thereby claim the Constitution no longer applies to you in order to justify indefinite detention without charge or trial, there is clearly not much incentive for the federal government to abide by the clear definition you espouse.

No drone was used against Dorner.
 
Most of the time that applies to the President, but in the matter of war the President has a relatively free hand. What limits him is that Congress can refuse to pay for it and unless there is an imminent threat Congress must authorize military actions, i.e., declare war.

Sorry, but I chose to place faith in the Constitution rather than in a President who claims that he, and any future president, will definitely be as virtuous as he assures us he is.

As it is, congress gave away its Constitutional power under the War Powers Act, which was rationalized by the same rhetoric you gave saying “Yes, this is a lot of power, but it is the price paid in order to have the capability of a rapid and effective response to a military threat.”. By this, it is no coincidence that the country is in a state of perpetual undeclared wars, ever since post WWII, up to today’s war against a tactic (terrorism).

“The leader of genius must have the ability to make different opponents appear as if they belong to one category” – “Terrorism is the best political weapon, for nothing drives people harder than the fear of sudden death” – Adolf Hitler

“If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. The loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or imagined, from abroad.” – James Madison
 
Sorry, but I chose to place faith in the Constitution rather than in a President who claims that he, and any future president, will definitely be as virtuous as he assures us he is.

You have faith in the constitution except the part that makes POTUS the commander in chief of the military
 
So if there's a terrorist attack in progress and a drone can stop it, you're on record as thinking the attack should not be stopped..

Again... define, "terrorist attack", and give an example. I can make no assumption from imagination that would justify the use of such a weapon which would/could kill the innocent people being attacked, as much as the target... especially on American soil. We have seen already the death's of innocent people by the use of such weapons. But I will be so bold as to continue, there are no exceptions.


No drone was used against Dorner.

Indeed... although that avoids the point. Yet, that isn't to say it wasn't considered.
No, Christopher Dorner Is Not the First Target for Drones on U.S. Soil
 
Again... define, "terrorist attack", and give an example. I can make no assumption from imagination that would justify the use of such a weapon which would/could kill the innocent people being attacked, as much as the target... especially on American soil. We have seen already the death's of innocent people by the use of such weapons. But I will be so bold as to continue, there are no exceptions.

So you won't support the commander in chiefs use of drones in the event that we are attacked.

So noted




Indeed... although that avoids the point. Yet, that isn't to say it wasn't considered.

And, obviously, rejected
 
You have faith in the constitution except the part that makes POTUS the commander in chief of the military

Yes I do... especially the part the places the power to declare war with the people [Congress]. Only once that is done does the President have the consitutional power to command the military acts of agression.
 
Yes I do... especially the part the places the power to declare war with the people [Congress]. Only once that is done does the President have the consitutional power to command the military acts of agression.

Defending us against an attack is not an act of aggression
 
Defending us against an attack is not an act of aggression

You have yet to even give a realistic justification while you now shift from the specifics of targeting American citizens on American soil, to an ambiguously imaginary reference to being 'attacked', or how that use could even be effective.
 
You have yet to even give a realistic justification while you now shift from the specifics of targeting American citizens on American soil, to an ambiguously imaginary reference to being 'attacked', or how that use could even be effective.

WHich is why the use of drones on US soil is purely hypothetical, as Holder noted.
 
WHich is why the use of drones on US soil is purely hypothetical, as Holder noted.

Then I will continue to err on the side of reason and the rule of law, rather than support for such use based only on fears and hypothetical scenarios which are not even clearly defined.
 
Then I will continue to err on the side of reason and the rule of law, rather than support for such use based only on fears and hypothetical scenarios which are not even clearly defined.

Why stop there?

Maybe Rand should filibuster every appt to the military on the grounds that the constitutionally delegated powers might be abused POTUS?
 
Back
Top Bottom