- Joined
- Jul 1, 2011
- Messages
- 67,218
- Reaction score
- 28,530
- Location
- Lower Hudson Valley, NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Give an example, using history if you like, in which a drone strike would have ended (not prevented) a terrorist attack in progress, and not result in the deaths of innocents.
Sure it is. Such as the “terrorist” attack you posit.
I like the trigger words (no pun of course) but I own and live in a house.
Well, I also live in a house and my confession was for philosophical purposes.
Will you answer my question?
Does the word "exceptional" mean anything to you?
I'm glad that you admit that the word combat is clearly defined
It amazes me that people are hung up on two irrelevant items.
DRONES and US SOIL.
The murder weapon nor the location make an assassination of a citizen by the government any more acceptable.
The media has painted a picture of there invisible robot planes flying autonomously, killing by a computer program and it has everyone scared to death. The root of the matter has nothing to do with the aircraft.
The title of this thread does not match the content of the OP
According to the OP, the US can use a drone to kill american citizens on american soil........but only if they are engaged in an attack.
No, you are right....This is about the administration taking the authority to label, and destroy their enemies without any oversight at all. You know who else does that sort of thing? Communist countries.
You didn't ask a question you just spewed a bunch of nonsense.
If you have a question I would be glad to answer it.
There are a few American citizens that I wish we could vaporize with a predator launched hellfire missile.
That's why the character and ability of the people we elect to that office are all important.
"In questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." - Thomas Jefferson
Not when it comes to the use of armed drones to assassinate American citizens, no… there is nothing exceptional about that, and there are no exceptions.
It was sarcasm, because you’re talking from both sides of your mouth to say combat is clearly defined, while speaking of justified drone attacks for a “terrorist” attack in progress. By your measure, it could be said that Dorner was an American citizen on American soil engaged in combat, and you would agree with firing a missile at him? If you agree with such measure then there is virtually no difference in that and intentionally setting the place on fire, which would have been an insidious vigilante crime by police to completely disregard the rule of law.
Additionally, if the American government can, by mere suspicion, label you an enemy “combatant” and thereby claim the Constitution no longer applies to you in order to justify indefinite detention without charge or trial, there is clearly not much incentive for the federal government to abide by the clear definition you espouse.
Most of the time that applies to the President, but in the matter of war the President has a relatively free hand. What limits him is that Congress can refuse to pay for it and unless there is an imminent threat Congress must authorize military actions, i.e., declare war.
Sorry, but I chose to place faith in the Constitution rather than in a President who claims that he, and any future president, will definitely be as virtuous as he assures us he is.
So if there's a terrorist attack in progress and a drone can stop it, you're on record as thinking the attack should not be stopped..
No drone was used against Dorner.
Again... define, "terrorist attack", and give an example. I can make no assumption from imagination that would justify the use of such a weapon which would/could kill the innocent people being attacked, as much as the target... especially on American soil. We have seen already the death's of innocent people by the use of such weapons. But I will be so bold as to continue, there are no exceptions.
Indeed... although that avoids the point. Yet, that isn't to say it wasn't considered.
You have faith in the constitution except the part that makes POTUS the commander in chief of the military
Yes I do... especially the part the places the power to declare war with the people [Congress]. Only once that is done does the President have the consitutional power to command the military acts of agression.
Defending us against an attack is not an act of aggression
You have yet to even give a realistic justification while you now shift from the specifics of targeting American citizens on American soil, to an ambiguously imaginary reference to being 'attacked', or how that use could even be effective.
WHich is why the use of drones on US soil is purely hypothetical, as Holder noted.
Then I will continue to err on the side of reason and the rule of law, rather than support for such use based only on fears and hypothetical scenarios which are not even clearly defined.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?