• 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

Bigfoot 88

Bigfoot 88

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 16, 2011
Messages
2,027
Reaction score
1,169
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
images


Senator Ted Cruz

Paul, Cruz, and Lee are bringing back the Bill of Rights to the Senate.
 
Mr. Invisible said:
The only problem I have with this is that the phrase "imminent threat" and that it needs to be defined.
Click to expand...

I agree, especially with how the Administration has been trying to define "imminent threat":

Certain aspects of this legal framework require additional explication. First, the condition that an operational leader present an "imminent" threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons will take place in the immediate future.
Obama's Memo on Killing Americans Twists 'Imminent Threat' Like Bush - Conor Friedersdorf - The Atlantic
 
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.
 
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...

If you ever want a post to be taken seriously...stop with the idiotic name calling.

You are obviously ignorant to what they are attempting to do. Using the language they are trying to prevent any future administration from using this power on American Soil. They do need to define "imminent threat."
 
AreteCourage said:
If you ever want a post to be taken seriously...stop with the idiotic name calling.

You are obviously ignorant to what they are attempting to do. Using the language they are trying to prevent any future administration from using this power on American Soil. They do need to define "imminent threat."
Click to expand...

His name calling actually produced a small smirk on my face. However, I do agree that there requires some sort of, "hopefully not vague" definition of imminent threat.
 
It's about time some of this crap got curtailed. We've let gov go way to far with infringements on our rights for decades now.
 
So its okay if the government murders you with a good old fashioned rifle rather than a drone, or during your vacation instead of in your home? The whole bill can be ignored simply by claiming the person is an imminent threat, a vague definition that has already been manipulated into being meaningless. I am glad that Paul took a stand against the massive violation of civil rights, but this bill is utterly toothless and does almost nothing to prevent abuse.

Here is a much better bill.

No American citizen can be killed anywhere without due process. Due process means a court and a trial with the presentation of evidence. If the government can make a case for the impossibility of capturing the suspect alive, than the trial shall be held in absentia. If the person if an imminent threat, than the trial may be after the fact, with penalties to the government failing to obtain a conviction. The sole exception to these provisions are military operations conducted in accordance with a congressional declaration of war.

That would actually create judicial oversight and follow the legal guidelines of the constitution while also creating reasonable exemptions for any special circumstances.
 
Rand Paul is just playing the favor of ubber right wing organizations that praised his fillibuster and goals such as the ACLU and Amesty International. (Satire).
 
rathi said:
Here is a much better bill.

No American citizen can be killed anywhere without due process. Due process means a court and a trial with the presentation of evidence.
Click to expand...

Agreed

The next time an american decides to shoot up a school, the teachers should not call the police

They should call a judge

The judge caan throw "the book" at the shooter. I'm sure that will save the lives of many children :roll:
 
sangha said:
Agreed

The next time an american decides to shoot up a school, the teachers should not call the police

They should call a judge

The judge caan throw "the book" at the shooter. I'm sure that will save the lives of many children :roll:
Click to expand...

No first you call the police. If the police use lethal force, then you call a judge. The incident is investigated to determine if what happened was in fact lawful self defense. That is due process. Requiring that evidence be presented when the government takes a life, even if after the fact, is absolutely vital to the rule of law.
 
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 got the "DIMWITTED" and "paranod delusional" American Civil Libertiies Union (ACLU) and "DIMWITTED" and "paranoid delusional" Amesty International to agree with him.

I have always stated that Obama is the greatest shill that corporate American and the military industrial complex ever had. We have seen the "left" supporting massive increases in government survelliance, building a massive domestic military police force into the hundreds of thousands, trashing of free speech, clearing for the first time people required to given money to private corporations using the power of government to enforce and collect it, total rejection of free speech, supporting economic and racial bigotry - and over all shifting for the traditional definition of "liberal" to, instead, corporate-totalitrianism.
 
joko104 said:
Rand Paul got the "DIMWITTED" and "paranod delusional" American Civil Libertiies Union (ACLU) and "DIMWITTED" and "paranoid delusional" Amesty International to agree with him.
Click to expand...

Nice, but it doesn't change the reality that it still means nothing and was a complete waste of time and effort by the paultard to get something worthless while completely avoiding attacking things he should be like the patriot act.
joko104 said:
I have always stated that Obama is the greatest shill that corporate American and the military industrial complex ever had. We have seen the "left" supporting massive increases in government survelliance, building a massive domestic military police force into the hundreds of thousands, trashing of free speech, clearing for the first time people required to given money to private corporations using the power of government to enforce and collect it, total rejection of free speech, supporting economic and racial bigotry - and over all shifting for the traditional definition of "liberal" to, instead, corporate-totalitrianism.
Click to expand...

yeah, we know you think obama is Satan himself and completely ignore any role republicans in congress and previous republican presidents had in accomplishing all of that. It still doesn't change the fact the bill doesn't limit drone strikes in any new way, still leaves a huge hole open with undefined terms, and doesn't address any of the existing problems. Obama could be satan himself and the paultard is just a little puppet of his doing nothing and fooling gullible people into thinking he has accomplished something.
 
tererun said:
Nice, but it doesn't change the reality that it still means nothing and was a complete waste of time and effort by the paultard to get something worthless while completely avoiding attacking things he should be like the patriot act.


yeah, we know you think obama is Satan himself and completely ignore any role republicans in congress and previous republican presidents had in accomplishing all of that. It still doesn't change the fact the bill doesn't limit drone strikes in any new way, still leaves a huge hole open with undefined terms, and doesn't address any of the existing problems. Obama could be satan himself and the paultard is just a little puppet of his doing nothing and fooling gullible people into thinking he has accomplished something.
Click to expand...


Yes, everyone knows the ACLU and Amnesty International are just rightwing puppets of the Tea Party.
 
rathi said:
No first you call the police. If the police use lethal force, then you call a judge. The incident is investigated to determine if what happened was in fact lawful self defense. That is due process. Requiring that evidence be presented when the government takes a life, even if after the fact, is absolutely vital to the rule of law.
Click to expand...

So when it comes to drones, the need for due process can be satisfied after the drone blows the terrorist to kingdom come.
 
sangha said:
So when it comes to drones, the need for due process can be satisfied after the drone blows the terrorist to kingdom come.
Click to expand...


You now enter the theater of the absurd. Due process after a death penalty is executed.
 
I would like to see drones banned from domestic surveillance - period, and of course as assassination or domestic warfare weapons.

What is GREATLY lacking in federal laws is privacy protection in general.
 
joko104 said:
You now enter the theater of the absurd. Due process after a death penalty is executed.
Click to expand...

It's what you said

rathi said:
No first you call the police. If the police use lethal force, then you call a judge. The incident is investigated to determine if what happened was in fact lawful self defense. That is due process. Requiring that evidence be presented when the government takes a life, even if after the fact, is absolutely vital to the rule of law.
Click to expand...
 
sangha said:
So when it comes to drones, the need for due process can be satisfied after the drone blows the terrorist to kingdom come.
Click to expand...

In extreme circumstances that are time critical, yes. The problem is that currently there is no due process whatsoever, not even after the fact. The Obama administrations opinion is that they can kill without any kind of judicial oversight whatsoever.
 
joko104 said:
You now enter the theater of the absurd. Due process after a death penalty is executed.
Click to expand...

That may be true, but its less absurd that the death penalty with no due process whatsoever. I don't personally buy the "ticking time bomb scenarios" which never have actually happened as an excuse to violate civil liberties, but it appears bad thrillers are the basis for public policy. You can make a stronger case in the current political climate if you can defeat all the bull**** "but it lets terrorists get away" arguments in advance. Levying appropriate penalties for failing to obtain a conviction in after-the-fact, say charges for first degree murder, would provide a reasonable check on abuse.
 
The drones are primarily for spying on Americans - which I oppose. Putting weapons on them for which anyone operating it remotely like a computer video game can attack anyone anywhere is vastly worse.

I can think of NO situation where a drone could be launched and be on target faster than a F16 - which is faster and more heavily armed too - plus more versatile in usage too for more than just killing Americans in the USA on the ground.
 
rathi said:
That may be true, but its less absurd that the death penalty with no due process whatsoever. I don't personally buy the "ticking time bomb scenarios" which never have actually happened as an excuse to violate civil liberties, but it appears bad thrillers are the basis for public policy. You can make a stronger case in the current political climate if you can defeat all the bull**** "but it lets terrorists get away" arguments in advance. Levying appropriate penalties for failing to obtain a conviction in after-the-fact, say charges for first degree murder, would provide a reasonable check on abuse.
Click to expand...

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

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.

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.
 
rathi said:
In extreme circumstances that are time critical, yes. The problem is that currently there is no due process whatsoever, not even after the fact. The Obama administrations opinion is that they can kill without any kind of judicial oversight whatsoever.
Click to expand...

I agree that is a problem.

Not the use of drones, but the use of drones with no accountability or review
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom