• 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!

Barack Obama 'has authority to use drone strikes to kill Americans on US soil'

It has been known for many years that the govt has deployed anti-aircraft missiles to be used to defend the White House from an attack by air. If attacked by air, this form of military defense would be used even if the attacker were a US citizen.

Drones are just a different form of military defense which can be used to thwart an attack, by a citizen or non-citizen, on domestic soil. I don't see why the anti-aircraft defenses bothers no one but the potential use of drones get so many in a tizzy.

Those anti-aircraft missiles are defensive in nature,a missile fired from a drone is offensive.....Huge difference in the use of the two.
 
Those anti-aircraft missiles are defensive in nature,a missile fired from a drone is offensive.....Huge difference in the use of the two.

When a missile is fired to end an attack, then that is a defensive action.

Our military has a large # of defensive missile. Ground based anti-aircraft missiles are all meant to be used as a defense against attack. The first sentence of your response proves that I am correct
 
When a missile is fired to end an attack, then that is a defensive action.

Our military has a large # of defensive missile. Ground based anti-aircraft missiles are all meant to be used as a defense against attack. The first sentence of your response proves that I am correct

No you are trying to justify your position by saying every missile fired is defensive when that is simply not true.A missile fired from a drone or any other kind of aircraft at a ground based target is not defending....That is attacking.
 
No you are trying to justify your position by saying every missile fired is defensive when that is simply not true.A missile fired from a drone or any other kind of aircraft at a ground based target is not defending....That is attacking.

Now you're so desperate for an argument, you have to make crap up and pretend I said it

If the ground based target is attacking us, the blowing it up is a defensive measure
 
Apparently Mr. Holder never heard of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.

That was passed by a bunch of rich, white, slaveowners; he don't pay that no nevermind.
 
Those anti-aircraft missiles are defensive in nature,a missile fired from a drone is offensive.....Huge difference in the use of the two.
So a terrorist using an anti-aircraft missile to shoot down a passenger plane would be defensive but a drone used to kill him before he can fire would be offensive (by both definitions of the word)?
 
Now you're so desperate for an argument, you have to make crap up and pretend I said it

If the ground based target is attacking us, the blowing it up is a defensive measure

Like I said,you are saying every missile fired is a defensive act so that it fits into your argument lol
 
So a terrorist using an anti-aircraft missile to shoot down a passenger plane would be defensive but a drone used to kill him before he can fire would be offensive (by both definitions of the word)?

No, it depends on how they are applied.Hitting an airliner with an anti-aircraft missile is an offensive act,hitting an incoming aircraft being used as a missile with anti-aircraft missile is clearly defensive.

Most if not all of our current armed drone uses have been offensive in nature like killing terrorists overseas while they are NOT in the act of firing anti-aircraft missiles at passenger planes.It is highly unlikely you would need drones operating here in the US for the sole purpose of lobbing missiles at terrorists that will most likely be hiding in a populated area.
 
In my experience, MaggieD is no fan of the Obama administration. Just saying.

In this instance where she put the "qualifiers" for drone strikes on US soil ahead of what the Constitution guarantees she is defending the actions of the Administration. I know she doesnt normally agree with this administration, but in this instance she is.
 
In this instance where she put the "qualifiers" for drone strikes on US soil ahead of what the Constitution guarantees she is defending the actions of the Administration. I know she doesnt normally agree with this administration, but in this instance she is.

Your dismissal of her argument on the basis that she will do anything to defend the Obama administration was asinine to begin with. Your use of it when you supposedly knew that she isn't an Obama fan is just a stupid statement.
 
This is much ado about nothing. Rand Paul grandstanding to what supposed end? He says it's until President Obama assures the American public that he would never authorize a drone strike against an American citizen on American soil.

Well. That's not going to happen. The President will never say never. Nor should he.

Don't know if this has already been posted, but from the OP article:

Yet "it is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the president to authorise the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States," he wrote.

Appearing in front the Senate judiciary committee on Wednesday, Mr Holder reiterated that "the government has no intention to carry out any drone strikes in the United States".

'Nuff said.
 
Your dismissal of her argument on the basis that she will do anything to defend the Obama administration was asinine to begin with. Your use of it when you supposedly knew that she isn't an Obama fan is just a stupid statement.

We are talking about this one specific thing here....using drones to attack & kill Americans on American soil....she defended it.

I have no care what her stance on other issues are because we are speaking of one thing specifically, all I cared about was her defense of this issue.

And yes, it was a dismissal of her argument because it clearly allows our guaranteed Constitutional rights to be violated....qualifiers or not....why give credence to an argument that allows for the violation of rights? Most of us out here are not willing to trade any more rights away in exchange for more security and here this administration is just taking rights away and giving you their version of security....

You can think it is a stupid statement all you want, but she defended the ability to use drone strikes on American soil.
 
We are talking about this one specific thing here....using drones to attack & kill Americans on American soil....she defended it.

I have no care what her stance on other issues are because we are speaking of one thing specifically, all I cared about was her defense of this issue.

And yes, it was a dismissal of her argument because it clearly allows our guaranteed Constitutional rights to be violated....qualifiers or not....why give credence to an argument that allows for the violation of rights? Most of us out here are not willing to trade any more rights away in exchange for more security and here this administration is just taking rights away and giving you their version of security....

You can think it is a stupid statement all you want, but she defended the ability to use drone strikes on American soil.

No one is convinced by your "clarification". But, if it makes you feel better.
 
This is much ado about nothing. Rand Paul grandstanding to what supposed end? He says it's until President Obama assures the American public that he would never authorize a drone strike against an American citizen on American soil.

Well. That's not going to happen. The President will never say never. Nor should he.

No it isn't 'much ado about nothing' people gave their lives so that the government would not have the right to say 'off with your head.' This is a BIG deal. So far, it is the biggest deal of this millennium. Whether or not you like Rand Paul is not the issue. I don't really care who you like or don't like. I have a law degree and I know the gravity of this issue. The president has already ordered a hit on an American citizen without due process of law. Don't think for a minute he wouldn't do it here. He would. Never in the history of the world has a leader not used a power he/she possessed.
 
No it isn't 'much ado about nothing' people gave their lives so that the government would not have the right to say 'off with your head.' This is a BIG deal. So far, it is the biggest deal of this millennium. Whether or not you like Rand Paul is not the issue. I don't really care who you like or don't like. I have a law degree and I know the gravity of this issue. The president has already ordered a hit on an American citizen without due process of law. Don't think for a minute he wouldn't do it here. He would. Never in the history of the world has a leader not used a power he/she possessed.

Do you honestly think this is the first time our government has ever "ordered a hit" on someone? I don't. And I'm not naive enough to believe that it won't happen again. It doesn't take a law degree to understand the gravity, Maenad. Our government has been, in essence, murdering people throughout its history. It will continue to do so.

If you think our government is going to start putting drones in the air and targeting American citizens for the helluvit, I don't know what to say.

As for your comments about my thoughts about Rand Paul, I didn't express any. So calm down.
 
Do you honestly think this is the first time our government has ever "ordered a hit" on someone? I don't. And I'm not naive enough to believe that it won't happen again. It doesn't take a law degree to understand the gravity, Maenad. Our government has been, in essence, murdering people throughout its history. It will continue to do so.

If you think our government is going to start putting drones in the air and targeting American citizens for the helluvit, I don't know what to say.

As for your comments about my thoughts about Rand Paul, I didn't express any. So calm down.

Who on our soil has it ordered a hit on? And what other Americans has it ordered hits on anywhere without due process of law? Links please.

No ruler has ever let their power go unused. So, yes, if given the power to do so they will order hits on Americans on our own soil. That is what we came here to get away from.
 
Who on our soil has it ordered a hit on? And what other Americans has it ordered hits on anywhere without due process of law? Links please.

Sorry. I don't expect to see that information on the internet. Perhaps you could email the CIA.
 
Sorry. I don't expect to see that information on the internet. Perhaps you could email the CIA.

You watch too much TV. Our government doesn't have the authority to order hits on anyone, particularly American citizens. If the Revolution had gone differently all the signers of the Declaration of Independence would have been killed by the crown, just like all those who signed the Irish Declaration of Independence were. THAT is what America is about. Doing away with feudal kings and lords who can end your life because you piss them off.
 
You watch too much TV. Our government doesn't have the authority to order hits on anyone, particularly American citizens. If the Revolution had gone differently all the signers of the Declaration of Independence would have been killed by the crown, just like all those who signed the Irish Declaration of Independence were.

You are naive. Our "war on terror" has brought this into the light of day. Why would you doubt it? What do you think those drone strikes are? And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
 
Don't know what got your panties in an uproar, but please re-read what I said again. Here, I'll even quote it for you since you didn't bother to read what I said:

That better sweeheart?

How about the whole context? Not speaking for Maggie, she does a good job all by her little sweeheart self. But I understood your comments the same way.

On the surface, I also don't have a problem with the killing of a known American terrorist that aligned themselves with Al-Qaeda.

The main problem I have is how this can end up being abused by another president down the road. I don't think Obama would use this against the "common" protestor but I do believe down the road another president could. That's the dangerous part and why I think this would set a deadly precedence and shouldn't be allowed.
 
You are naive. Our "war on terror" has brought this into the light of day. Why would you doubt it? What do you think those drone strikes are? And that's just the tip of the iceberg.


Let's see now, I have been a nurse for 25 years. I've seen death and dying, run codes, cleansed bodies of the dead, worked with mental patients, and worked in prisons, and dealt with the violence wrought by those populations. I have traveled to the islamic middle east, and communist Orient. I have studied the law and know the limitations of the powers the US govenment has, and have closely followed the power grab that has been going on last 10 years. I actually know that Bush can't leave this country because he is a war criminal. Yet you think the US president will not use the power to order a hit on Americans on American soil if given the power to do so. And I am naive? O come now. You hve given me a fabulous laugh this morning. Thank you so much, I needed a good one.
 
Let's see now, I have been a nurse for 25 years. I've seen death and dying, run codes, cleansed bodies of the dead, worked with mental patients, and worked in prisons, and dealt with the violence wrought by those populations. I have traveled to the islamic middle east, and communist Orient. I have studied the law and know the limitations of the powers the US govenment has, and have closely followed the power grab that has been going on last 10 years. I actually know that Bush can't leave this country because he is a war criminal. Yet you think the US president will not use the power to order a hit on Americans on American soil if given the power to do so. And I am naive? O come now. You given me a fabulous laugh this morning. Thank you so much, I needed a good one.

Why are you listing all of your supposed qualifications? Where did I say a US President will never use his power to order a hit on Americans on American soil? Glad I gave you a fabulous laugh. You have a strange sense of humor though.
 
Amy Goodman and the other liberal shows will be spouting pro-NATO dogma when Obomber invades Syria, so the last 'Progressive' illusions will dissipate.

Looks like your ivy league credentials served you well as a State Dept. mouthpiece, aye Maddow?

What bloody fascists.:thumbdown
 
I see 2 issues here: One - how much can you really trust our govt to tell the truth? I voted for Obama in 2008 but was soon disappointed when he started appointing so many corporate shills/Monsanto people and realized he lied to us. So, there's that. Second, I've followed this whole question for 1 year, 2.5 months since it first started. On Dec. 31, 2011, Obama signed the NDAA bill, which I read. There is a section which authorizes Obama to assasinate Americans with drones. Left out, was whether or not Obama could do this on home soil or not. That has been the question ever since and he never would answer it. So, what does that tell us? That is the reason why Rand Paul, who I never liked but do applaud him for taking this action, filibustered the CIA appointment - he wasn't doing anything until he got his question answered. I read the NDAA bill that was signed. It is, as is most bills these days, stated in such vague terms that I don't think even a lawyer could honestly figure out what it's really saying. This makes me distrust Obama and the govt even more. Not only that, but our due process of law should be enough to convict or clear a person and doesn't need to be abridged NOT ONCE, NOT EVER. Once you start down that slippery slope, it's hard, if not impossible, to turn back. No American should ever be killed without due process and no oversight. Holder says this is constitutional, but he's lying or a complete imbecile. This is probably one of the worst, if not the worst, piece of legislation to come down since 9/11. Ask yourself this: why would a president or govt want to be able to disregard habeas corpus and kill their own citizens without due process? Why bother to pass such a law?



 
Last edited:
d135e5e72e215411.jpg.jpg



CIA Allegedly Overseeing Arms Into Syria

"Syrian opposition officials claim the CIA is controlling weapons flow to Syrian insurgents.Not one bullet enters Syria without U.S. approval," a Syrian opposition, speaking in Istanbul, told The Australian newspaper."

 CIA Allegedly Overseeing Arms Into Syria :    Information Clearing House: ICH

Terrorism as an Instrument of US Foreign Policy UN-Backed Rogue States Plan Syria’s Slaughter

"On the 3rd of August, the Times of India and others confirmed an open secret: “President Obama has signed a secret order authorizing US support for rebels seeking to depose Syrian President Assad's government ... Obama's order, approved earlier this year and known as an intelligence ‘finding’, permits CIA and other US agencies provide support that could help the rebels oust President Assad.”

  Terrorism as an Instrument of US Foreign Policy: UN-Backed Rogue States Plan Syria’s Slaughter  :    Information Clearing House: ICH

hold-banner-protest-drone.jpg
Nossel_DifferentPodium_SameLies.jpg

image:executive director of Amnesty International USA. Her primary function of dressing up aspirations of corporate-financier global hegemony as "human rights advocacy" has not changed.
Amnesty International is US State Department Propaganda
     Amnesty International is US State Department Propaganda    :    Information Clearing House: ICH
 
Back
Top Bottom