Holder finally admits it, drone strikes on US soil can be legal

[waggy]

Ahh yes, good catch. I posted it late and read it too quickly. Ill take my beating for over reacting.

LoL

yeah Holder did a "what if" and said that odds are it wouldn't happen. I find that good to hear.

 

[nehalem256]

You guys do realize there has already been a case where the Military has been called to take action on US soil right?

It was called the Civil War. I think Lincoln got his face in Mount Rushmore for that.

 

[zsdersw]

FYI.. the Posse Comitatus Act doesn't apply.

 

[sportage]

More of a chance you'll be bitten by a mosquito than a drone.
Lets not get paranoidal here...
What was it the bible said about drones?
Revelations ??
Flying things compared to demon locusts?
I always thought it meant high tech helicopters.
Just wait till the new drone versions come off the line this Spring.
Antenni as a locust.
Same buggy color.
They were told not to harm the grass of the earth or any green plant or any tree, but only torment people who do not have the seal of God on their foreheads, or people who might vote in elections i.e. minorities.
That should keep a few viewers up at night.

 

[Nebor]

You guys do realize there has already been a case where the Military has been called to take action on US soil right?

It was called the Civil War. I think Lincoln got his face in Mount Rushmore for that.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-lucey/obama-mount-rushmore_b_2161089.html

That would be sweet.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Instead of rattling off hypothetical use cases I would have preferred to have him explain the controls in place to prevent its misuse.

 

[michal1980]

You're such a tool. Take your mouth off of Republican cocks for a second and join the rest of us in the real world.

please explain to me where I was wrong on my list?

 

[zsdersw]

please explain to me where I was wrong on my list?

Saying that Democrats (and, presumably, only Democrats.. in your partisan mind) think drone attacks on Americans is good.

Your dumbing-down of the issue in that post succeeds only in making you look dumb.

 

[thraashman]

Ahh yes, good catch. I posted it late and read it too quickly. Ill take my beating for over reacting.

I can't stop reading this post. It's so unheard of it's fascinating. Someone in P&N being reasonable. No one EVER is willing to back down and take their licks in P&N. If you've caught some kind of new and rare "reasonable disease" go spread it throughout P&N as it's something we are at a serious lack of around here.

 

[DrPizza]

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?

 

[Bowfinger]

Ahh yes, good catch. I posted it late and read it too quickly. Ill take my beating for over reacting.

:thumbsup:

Kudos. We disagree more often than not, but I very much respect those with the integrity to admit error.

 

[Bowfinger]

Instead of rattling off hypothetical use cases I would have preferred to have him explain the controls in place to prevent its misuse.

Agreed. It's a pity Paul didn't ask that question instead.

 

[Bowfinger]

Saying that Democrats (and, presumably, only Democrats.. in your partisan mind) think drone attacks on Americans is good.

Your dumbing-down of the issue in that post succeeds only in making you look dumb.

Plus he also ignores that a great many (most?) Republicans also believe torture to be bad, e.g., John McCain, and he totally misrepresented the issues around warrant-less wiretaps. It was, as you suggest, empty partisan noise.

 

[michal1980]

Saying that Democrats (and, presumably, only Democrats.. in your partisan mind) think drone attacks on Americans is good.

Your dumbing-down of the issue in that post succeeds only in making you look dumb.

Everything I pointed out was correct.

When bush was in charge, the democrats protested everything I stated (torture, wiretaping, g.bay prison), now with Obama in charge, the protests seemed to have been silenced, and they (the dem's) are now ok with killing Americans).

I didn't know that pointing out facts, is some how partisan.

 

[cubby1223]

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?

There is always a difference based on which political party is making the strike decision. If Bush were still in the White House, the tone would be completely different on this story than Obama because a lot of people do not trust Bush to make competent decisions, and they sure as shit believed Cheney was pure evil.

 

[Jaskalas]

I do not like the frame of reference the OP started us off with.

Let's make something clear. If you could go back to September 11th and shoot those planes out of the air - would you? If September 11th repeated - would you?

The answer is yes. Our government under Bush was preparing such an action but they responded too slow and too late. Our government always has and always would respond to an act of war with the use of force. That would include drone strikes / etc.

• In a moment of crisis, they will move to act. That's not new.
• We must be careful to define a crisis.
• We must never allow encroachment of broadening of that definition.

 

[nageov3t]

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?

the police use the more common definition of imminent threat (eg: someone is threatening them, imminently) and there's generally some form of accountability in the event of gross misconduct.

the administration's definition of imminent threat seems to encompass anyone, anywhere, at any time, that they think may possibly someday in the future maybe pose a threat.

I generally do trust the Obama admin with this, but who's to say that the next President won't be the reincarnation of Nixon?

 

[KDOG]

Lets just shoot them down. Oh wait, they are trying to ban firearms too..... Hmmmmmm....coincidence, I'm sure.....

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I swear some of you get stupider and more hysterical by the day. What Holder said is simply and obviously true, and always has been.
First, look at what he actually said there. There's not a word about drones; that's just nutter fear mongering. He said there are imaginable cases where the military might be called to use lethal force within the U.S. He didn't specify what form that force might take.

Second, every single one of you can imagine such circumstances, and you're lying if you say otherwise. For example, what if North Korea invaded with an armored attack force? Can you honestly say you'd demand our military sit on its thumbs and do nothing? Let civilian law enforcement handle it so the NK soldiers got due process? If you said yes you're a liar. But, if you said no, that you'd expect the military to act ... congratulations, you and Holder have something in common. You have imagined 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 authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States. I guess that means you're out of control too, huh?

Or let's focus on the one scenario Holder mentions, a September 11 style attack. Imagine that we know we have a hijacked jumbo jet that's going to fly into a large building. Can you truly not imagine the military possibly shooting the plane down? Really? You're lying unless you were stranded on a deserted island on 9/11/2001, because that exact possibility was discussed. Once again, you have now imagined 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 authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States.

With all due respect guys, you need to pull your heads out of your asses. You really look like idiots when you turn off your brains and dance like good little puppets every time the right wing propaganda machine tells you to dance. Yes, I agree the use of drones within the U.S. is a serious issue, even when used only for surveillance (let alone armed drones). The problem is Holder didn't refer to drones, but you're too wrapped up in knee-jerk outrage to notice. By ignoring what he actually said and going off like fools, you've now undermined the legitimate discussion about abuse of drones. You encourage fence-sitters to dismiss the issue as just another example of crazy Obama haters screeching about everything he does. In short, stop guzzling the propaganda and start thinking for yourselves.

Problem is the context of the question. It's not repelling foreign invaders, it's striking an American citizen on US soil. What are the "extraordinary circumstances"? They are whatever the administration says they are. If you disagree, what limits actually exist?

 

[IceBergSLiM]

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?

Are you asking if there is a difference between a human actor and a machine actor?

 

[Sonikku]

This issue has reached it's boiling point. I'm afraid of just opening the blinds on my windows in the mornings at this point from fear that a drone will be hovering outside.

Waiting to blow up my house.

 

[blankslate]

I generally do trust the Obama admin with this, but who's to say that the next President won't be the reincarnation of Nixon?

I don't trust any administration with this power.

This issue has reached it's boiling point. I'm afraid of just opening the blinds on my windows in the mornings at this point from fear that a drone will be hovering outside.

Waiting to blow up my house.

So you're admitting your an enemy of the State?

That could be...

Explosive.

*yyyyeeeeeeeeeoooooooowwwww*

 

[Jaskalas]

This issue has reached it's boiling point. I'm afraid of just opening the blinds on my windows in the mornings at this point from fear that a drone will be hovering outside.

Waiting to blow up my house.

Keep the blinds closed, they'll save you.

 

[Nebor]

This issue has reached it's boiling point. I'm afraid of just opening the blinds on my windows in the mornings at this point from fear that a drone will be hovering outside.

Waiting to blow up my house.

The upside? Everyone in Eastern Afghanistan, Western Pakistan, Yemen and the Horn of Africa has been living like that for a couple years now.

 

[ivwshane]

Lol so this thread was about another made up story?