Because the CIA doesn't operate actual strike aircraft?
Actually, MMM makes a very good point about drone pilots being more likely to carry out such an order. Personally, I think unless it's a shooting situation beyond the capability of LEOs, no such strike should be carried out in any country where we have reasonable accommodation in extradition, much less on American soil.
Still, I can't get too excited. It bothers me that anyone even thought to ask the question, but maybe it's like the military studying and planning for every possibility, no matter how remote.
I thought the CIA can't operate on US soil?
http://washingtonexaminer.com/eric-...ricans-on-u.s.-soil-are-legal/article/2523319
Sure it is hypothetical. But if these warmongers are acknowledging it then it has been discussed and sure they would use it.
Time finally admit this admin is out of control for the die hards?
This one and the one before it. This just reminds me of the torture memos. I don't understand how an administration can just right a memo and then say "See it is legal" and the "Oh by the way, no one has legal standing to sue us so we can never be questioned on this."
It would just be really nice if the republicans were as concerned about our loss of liberty to the fight on terrorism when Bush was in office as the now claim to be. And it would be just as nice if democrats were as concerned about our loss liberty due to fight against terrorism now as they were when Bush was in office. But as long as it is my guy doing it, it must be great.
this issue is bigger than drones.Perhaps my imagination is lacking, but why would a drone be preferable to a manned aircraft in taking out a target on US soil?
This one and the one before it. This just reminds me of the torture memos. I don't understand how an administration can just right a memo and then say "See it is legal" and the "Oh by the way, no one has legal standing to sue us so we can never be questioned on this."
It would just be really nice if the republicans were as concerned about our loss of liberty to the fight on terrorism when Bush was in office as the now claim to be. And it would be just as nice if democrats were as concerned about our loss liberty due to fight against terrorism now as they were when Bush was in office. But as long as it is my guy doing it, it must be great.
Keep the blinds closed, they'll save you.
Because the CIA doesn't operate actual strike aircraft?
Actually, MMM makes a very good point about drone pilots being more likely to carry out such an order. Personally, I think unless it's a shooting situation beyond the capability of LEOs, no such strike should be carried out in any country where we have reasonable accommodation in extradition, much less on American soil.
Still, I can't get too excited. It bothers me that anyone even thought to ask the question, but maybe it's like the military studying and planning for every possibility, no matter how remote.
Jeepers creepers, some of you aren't thinking.
It is possible that the police can use lethal force to stop you without you having a trial? YES. If you're are engaged in certain activities, the police can shoot you. (Like, if you're holding a gun pointed at the police officer.)
If a someone is flying a small commuter plane loaded with explosives and there's clear evidence that the person intends to fly that plane into a building, should we be allowed to shoot that person down? Is there a difference between that scenario & pointing a gun at a police officer?
http://washingtonexaminer.com/eric-...ricans-on-u.s.-soil-are-legal/article/2523319
Sure it is hypothetical. But if these warmongers are acknowledging it then it has been discussed and sure they would use it.
Time finally admit this admin is out of control for the die hards?
Absolutely in agreement with you. I mailed my Congress-critter with such a sentiment...
\if any President undertakes such an action such as a drone-strike on U.S. soil - they'd betterready to justify itduck...
I don't have any problem with what Holder said. As has already been noted, the US military has already used deadly force in the USA against 'citizens' in the civil war, an action most of you seem to support.
If you pose an extreme enough scenario, you can justify an equally extreme reaction/response.
Fern
Fixed that
Second amendment works both ways.
On one hand I completely disagree with the previous drone strike(s?) against US citizens and I think it is absurdly unconstitutional. OTOH, the example that Holder gave was reasonable. In his example there is a clear and immediate threat to the US and her citizens so the use of deadly force to prevent it is a given regardless if that deadly force comes from a F-15 or a drone.
Some asshole driving in a jeep in the middle of bumfuck nowhere smoking a cigarette is not a clear and immediate threat to the US or her citizens.
PAUL: First aspect of the question is, what is the president thinking? Why would the president not respond to us? Why would the president not answer an easy question and say that non-combatants will not be killed with drones? I think the reason is complicated and its conjecture because I cant get in his mind but I would say it is sort of a contagion that affects Republicans and Democrats when they get into the White House. They see the power of the presidency is enormous. They see themselves as good people and they say I cant give up any power because Im going to do good with that power. The problem they dont see is that the power is intoxicating and that the power some day may be in the hands of someone else who is less inclined to use it in a good way and I think thats why the power grows and grows because everybody believes themselves to be doing the right thing.
What's going to happen is that the definition of "a clear and immediate threat to the US" will slowly change over time.
Well Rand Paul is filibustering some douchebag nomination for CIA.
The Obama Administrations Reluctance to Say Drone Strikes on US Soil Against US Citizens Are Illegal
4:59 p.m. | Updated Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, began an old-school, speak-until-you-can-speak-no-more filibuster on Wednesday just before noon, and was still going strong hours later.
Mr. Paul, who opposes the nomination of John O. Brennan to lead the Central Intelligence Agency, had previously said he would filibuster President Obamas nominee after receiving a letter this month from Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. that refused to rule out the use of drone strikes within the United States in extraordinary circumstances like the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
Well Rand Paul is filibustering some douchebag nomination for CIA.
The Obama Administrations Reluctance to Say Drone Strikes on US Soil Against US Citizens Are Illegal
This is the concern I have and for the same reasons as allowing torturing. It's not always about how it's being used now but how it will be used in the future.
Lol. Does this idiot have any idea how war is fought, casualties are pretty much a given. Another out of touch with reality politician. He wants Obama to promise that non combatants wont be killed?
Wow. Doing a filibuster the *right* way...
Mad props to Rand.
Yeah that was his intention. Unfortunately his intentions are backed by stupidity. I'm sure he still wants to know if we are selling are to Turkey.