• 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!

Cruz, Paul Introduce Bill to Prohibit Drone Killings of U.S. Citizens

joko104 said:
The government is never going to convict itself of murder, or anything else, when it comes to the "war on terror."
Click to expand...

Maybe not in the current climate, but it would at least embarrass them.

The BEST way to avoid abuse is to outlaw the means to do so. I also oppose ever increasing technology to spy on Americans to being with. However, I also think there are inherently better safeguards in having to take off a fighter aircraft with a pilot than someone in Omaha operating a computer in this mythical senario the government is preparing for.
Click to expand...

I don't think trying to ban the means would be effective. If you look at historical precedent, the state doesn't need anything more complicated a spear to murder its citizens. Focusing on the separation of powers and legal justification has less loopholes.

There are essentially no circumstances where assasination of an American in the USA should be done, though historically it was done such as against organized crime members etc. Bonnie and Clyde were essentially assasinated.
Click to expand...

From a practical perspective Bonnie and Clyde were assassinated, but there was still an attempt to pretend the shot was preceding by a warning. The thing that is so dangerous about the current situation is that the government isn't merely violating citizens rights, its declaring that the rights don't exist. That is a far more dangerous precedent.
 
I've kind of been all over the place when it comes to how I feel about this issue. I guess now that I've had a little time to digest it, it comes down to this. If there is currently a situation where the President could give an order to "shoot to kill" then it shouldn't really matter if the shot comes from a sniper's rifle or from an unmanned drone.

If there is no such situation currently where the President could legally issue a "shoot to kill" order then what the hell are we talking about?
 
rathi said:
Maybe not in the current climate, but it would at least embarrass them.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah because that is correct. People got murdered and they are a little red faced with a whoopsie!
 
AreteCourage said:
Oh yeah because that is correct. People got murdered and they are a little red faced with a whoopsie!
Click to expand...

Of course its not correct. Its simply is the unfortunate reality we live in. When congress and the judiciary refuse to check abuse of power by the executive, causing political embarrassment is probably the most effective tactic left. I don't consider throwing a pie in somebodies face to be the appropriate consequence for murder, but a little banana cream deterrent is better than nothing if justice fails.
 
tererun said:
So it wasn't legal for the US to launch military attacks on US soil. Paultard got a statement saying it was not legal unless there was an eminent threat. So now he found a dimwitted friend and they are introducing a bill to waste more time and ban something that is already banned, and making an issue out of nothing with a law that no one really opposes. Thank you Paultard because I used to think all congresspeople wasted time in the same useless fashion, and now i realize that you are the king **** of useless, pointless, redundant crap, and grandstanding victories over nothing.

Someone needs to tell the paultard that if he wants to do something about rights and violations of the constitutional freedoms of americans there is this little thing called the patriot act that he needs to put all this effort into killing. No one but a paranoid delusional should be afraid that obama is going to order a drone attack on their house because they watched faux news. however, the patriot act is actually a problem, and it is a problem the Paultard is actually giving a relative pass to while he makes up laws that already exist.
Click to expand...

Rand Paul, the Patriot Act and the Fourth Amendment - Baltimore Sun

Paul might succeed in causing the Patriot Act to lapse, but Reid will likely win in the end.
But win or lose, Rand Paul has emerged as our country's face of Fourth Amendment advocacy. The First Amendment has the ACLU. The Second Amendment has the NRA. And the Fourth Amendment has Rand Paul.
 
While we are at it lets make some extra laws about sneaking human meat into the nation's food supply. :p

Can never hurt to have some of those "oh ****" laws.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom