• 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

It's seems hacks and partisans are turning a complicated legal hypothetical into another weak anti-Obama attack.
 
It's seems hacks and partisans are turning a complicated legal hypothetical into another weak anti-Obama attack.

this is standard procedure for a Black democrat in the WH.
 
I stand corrected. However, that doesn't change the fact that he can kill you if you are not on American soil.



Take that up with RT. I didn't write the article.

Actually, the article, unlike the title of this thread, phrases it as a question. Your title makes it a statement
 
Props to you, for real, Mr. I, for your consistency. You don't have to be right wing to have problems with the way this question was answered. In fact, everyone should be a little nervous about the response. There will always be some though, *cough*Tererun*cough* that will put partisanship above all else.

Thanks. :) I've gotten to the point where I just hate 99.99% of politicians and am tired of all these games being played with the American people and the world. I'm just about a couple things now: truth, freedom, liberty, justice, love, peace, and understanding.
 
It's seems hacks and partisans are turning a complicated legal hypothetical into another weak anti-Obama attack.

One could say it seems like hacks and partisans are neglecting their duty to the people in order to avoid political inconvenient issues that deserve addressing.
 
Actually, the article, unlike the title of this thread, phrases it as a question. Your title makes it a statement

No, I just copied and pasted what was in the article. If you look, the title of the article on the actual page has a statement "White House admits it can't kill Americans with drones in US," while the link adds a question mark. More dishonesty from you it seems.
 
No, I just copied and pasted what was in the article. If you look, the title of the article on the actual page has a statement "White House admits it can't kill Americans with drones in US," while the link adds a question mark. More dishonesty from you it seems.

Yes, you're right about the lack of question mark

However, as I originally stated, the title is not supported by the content of your OP (or the content of the article). The article shows that Holder said we could kill americans with drones in the US
 
That memo refers to the use of drones outside of US soil

And yet that still doesn't change tessa's point about the existence of an imminent or proven threat, nor the idea that assassinating American citizens in general without due process, whether on or off US soil, is problematic.

EDIT:

Yes, you're right about the lack of question mark

However, as I originally stated, the title is not supported by the content of your OP (or the content of the article). The article shows that Holder said we could kill americans with drones in the US


And like I said, take that up with RT. I did not write the article.
 
And yet that still doesn't change tessa's point about the existence of an imminent or proven threat, nor the idea that assassinating American citizens in general without due process, whether on or off US soil, is problematic.

It makes tessa's point dishonest because she said the memo justifies the use of drones against americans on american soil, which is just untrue
EDIT:




And like I said, take that up with RT. I did not write the article.

You wrote the OP, but I'm glad to see you admit that the US did not admit that it can't use drones against americans on american soil
 
It makes tessa's point dishonest because she said the memo justifies the use of drones against americans on american soil, which is just untrue


You wrote the OP, but I'm glad to see you admit that the US did not admit that it can't use drones against americans on american soil


I did write the OP and it states "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."

The "on American soil" was a quote from the letter sent to Rand Paul.

EDIT: When did I ever say the US admitted that it could use drones on US soil?
 
I did write the OP and it states "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."

The "on American soil" was a quote from the letter sent to Rand Paul.

EDIT: When did I ever say the US admitted that it could use drones on US soil?

Your "so Obama can still kill you if you leave the country" clearly implies that he can't use drones to kill americans on american soil, which is untrue.

And you can deny that was your intent, but you corroborate it here when you ask "When did I ever say the US admitted that it could use drones on US soil?"

And if you're still clinging to notion that US can't use drones on american soil, then there's no hope of facts ever changing your mind because the article makes it clear that they can
 
It makes tessa's point dishonest because she said the memo justifies the use of drones against americans on american soil, which is just untrue


You wrote the OP, but I'm glad to see you admit that the US did not admit that it can't use drones against americans on american soil


Actually, if you read the memo, you'll understand how what I said is correct. It would take higher level thinking skills, I know...but it's certainly possible.

But I'm not here to enlighten those who refuse to enlighten themselves, so I resort to my last response.
 
Your "so Obama can still kill you if you leave the country" clearly implies that he can't use drones to kill americans on american soil, which is untrue.

And you can deny that was your intent, but you corroborate it here when you ask "When did I ever say the US admitted that it could use drones on US soil?"

And if you're still clinging to notion that US can't use drones on american soil, then there's no hope of facts ever changing your mind because the article makes it clear that they can

So you're saying that Obama CAN kill ppl on US soil?? Based upon what evidence?
 
Actually, if you read the memo, you'll understand how what I said is correct. It would take higher level thinking skills, I know...but it's certainly possible.

But I'm not here to enlighten those who refuse to enlighten themselves, so I resort to my last response.

I see you still cant post any facts; just dishonest claims
 
Your "so Obama can still kill you if you leave the country" clearly implies that he can't use drones to kill americans on american soil, which is untrue.

And you can deny that was your intent, but you corroborate it here when you ask "When did I ever say the US admitted that it could use drones on US soil?"

And if you're still clinging to notion that US can't use drones on american soil, then there's no hope of facts ever changing your mind because the article makes it clear that they can

Did you read what you wrote?

You said "'so Obama can still kill you if you leave the country' clearly implies that he can't use drones to kill americans on american soil, which is untrue."

It is true that he can kill US citizens if they have left the country. I never said that he couldn't kill US citizens on US soil. You are really trying to grasp at straws and twists words here.

EDIT: Spacing and quotations
 
Did you read what you wrote?

You said "'so Obama can still kill you if you leave the country' clearly implies that he can't use drones to kill americans on american soil, which is untrue."

It is true that he can kill US citizens if they have left the country. I never said that he couldn't kill US citizens on US soil. You are really trying to grasp at straws and twists words here.

EDIT: Spacing and quotations

This thread is about whether or not drones can be used to kill americans on american soil. It is absurd to ask anyone to believe that you have not taken any position on the issue
 
You mean the letter that was released prior to the letter released today that refutes it?

The lack of comprehension re: time is almost amusing.

Todays letter does not refute anything in the first letter. It only refutes your loony claim
 
This thread is about whether or not drones can be used to kill americans on american soil. It is absurd to ask anyone to believe that you have not taken any position on the issue

I have taken a position on the issue: I don't think that drones should be used to kill US citizens on US soil.
 
I have taken a position on the issue: I don't think that drones should be used to kill US citizens on US soil.

Do you think that the govt, as the title claims, has admitted that it can't kill americans with drones in the US?
 
Do you think that the govt, as the title claims, has admitted that it can't kill americans with drones in the US?

The government has stated that it can kill US citizens on US soil via drones if those citizens are "engaged in combat," which is a phrase that needs to be defined.
 
Back
Top Bottom