OT Land of the free?

Page 2 of 4  


He did give up because Holder didn't tell him anything different than he did when he first answered Rand's question. In answering the question, Holder said that under extraordinary circumstances, like another 911 perhaps, it might be necessary and legal to use a drone missle against a US citizen on US soil.
After Rands little rant and tantrum, Holder simply said that they would not use a drone missle against a US citizen on US soil if that person was not engaged in combat. Nothing there inconsistent with his first answer. On the order authorizing the firing, the president just declares the person an enemy combatant. That's consistent with the vision Holder conveyed in his testimony. Consistent with the vision of most reasonable people. It's the paranoid Rand that's choosing for his own political purposes to turn that into Obama firing drone missles into cafes in various cities around the USA. How loony is that?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

what happens if someone like Al-awaki comes back to the US, but doesn't actually engage in combat? He's still an American enemy combatant. Not to mention how easy it will be to declare some sad sack as an enemy combatant

Justice is what happens when you capture someone alive. McVeigh by any definition of the word was a domestic terrorist and as such could easily be considered an armed enemy combatant...legal target

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mar 9, 6:49 pm, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" <atlas-

an

But only guilty after the crime. Too late by then.
It's the hammer to crack a peanut thinking. Thin edge of the wedge. First drones. Then armed drones. Then the gov. kills anyone they (don't) like by remote control.
I expect they'll be giving out medals to the operators too. Fascists.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

# # But only guilty after the crime. # Too late by then.
You mean like riding the subway and getting shot for it ?? Why don't you clean up your own backyard first. ?.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

at

a

y

An illegal immigrant. Nobody knew who he was. He looked muslim (brown)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

http://www.ledburycarnival.co.uk/carnival03d.asp Your legal system is base on ours. Of late your system is becoming more fascist. Eg Guantanamo Bay. Drones. etc
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Quite wrong.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mar 9, 2:49 pm, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" <atlas-

an

Now you've done it. Better hope Rand Paul doesn't see that or he'll have another earth shattering hypothetical constitutional crisis question that's worthy of a filibuster.
But I think you'd agree this whole thing is much ado about nothing. The reason drones are being used to take out terrorists overseas is that we don't have the means to capture those terrorists and bring them to justice. We don't have FBI agents or police on a dirt road in the middle of nowhere in Sudan or Pakistan. And in many cases if we tried to go through the process of using the local authorities, the terrorist would be long gone, very possibly tipped off by those same authorities. Still, we have clearly used the capture route, when possible. We've captured a whole host of terrorists and brought them to justice when it was possible.
Any terrorists in the USA, domestic or foreign, have been dealt with via the legal system. Not one has been taken out by say a sharp shooter, shot on sight, etc. I can't even think of one that was killed while being apprehended, or anything of the sort. And a very good reason we want them alive is that clearly it's far better to then interrogate them and get valuable information. Everyone knows this, except apparently for Rand Paul....

I agree, yet we didn't do it. But now, because it's Obama, the loons want to think the rules have suddenly changed. If any president had info that someone like McVeigh was in the process of working on another attack, to kill more people, and we had a drone and no other assets in the area, it was likely he could get away, you can damn well bet they'd use the drone to take him out, enemy combatant or not.
If you want to get your shorts all up in a knot over issues like this, there are far more relevant ones that are actually occuring. For example, when the police in CA had Dorner cornered in a house, there is videotape evidence of the police discussing early on setting the house on fire. Ultimately they apparently did that by launching tear gas cansisters into the house. Tear gas canisters that are known to frequently result in fires. You could make the case that it was unjustified. I mean it's hard for me to believe that a tear gas canister can't be made today that won't set a house on fire, right? Isn't that taking the suspects life needlessly when he could be brought to justice?
Or just a couple weeks ago, there was a story in the news about a police dept potentially using unnecessary lethal force. They had a depressed guy that was threatening to kill himself with a gun and someone called the police. He never pointed the guy at anyone, including the police. After a standoff with the police, he announced he was leaving. As he tried to walk off, the cops shot and killed him. The justification was that they didn't know what he would later do and he might be a threat to others..... Now that is real and sure seems to me like a far more serious issue than conjuring up images of Obama firing drone missles into cafes in US cities.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In article

at least, that's what they want you to believe
And a very good reason we want them alive

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
a.. Home b.. News c.. Sport d.. Finance e.. Lifestyle f.. Comment g.. Travel h.. Culture i.. Technology j.. Fashion a.. Jobs b.. Dating c.. Offers Sorry We cannot find the page you are looking for. a.. The page may have been moved, updated or deleted. b.. There might be a problem with the website. c.. You may have typed the web address incorrectly. Please check the address and spelling. Please also try the following:
--

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

...

But I thought most Americans WERE armed? (& hence legitamate targets.)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday, March 8, 2013 7:28:56 AM UTC-8, harry wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/9913615/Barack-Obama-has-authority-to-use-drone-strikes-to-kill-Americans-on-US-soil.html

You hypocritical Republican idiots will be quiet as a dormouse again like you were with Bushy as soon as another Republican is elected president. I will be here to remind you when it happens.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

.

e you were with Bushy as soon as another Republican is elected president. I will be here to remind you when it happens.

A battle field? Both Bush and Obama have used drones against targets in any number of countries that were not battlefieds. In Pakistan, in particular, they've used drones as well as other aircraft, to bomb cars or houses in civilian neighborhoods where there were terrorist individuals. Also, they've already used them against Amercian citizens, Al-Alawaki being a case in point. Yet now, because Holder answering a hypothetical question says that someday under the most extraordinary circumstances, we might need to do it here in the USA, that's suddenly some, big, new thing?

How is an armed drone different from all the armed fighter aircraft that have been routinely flying over parts of the USA for half a century?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 9 Mar 2013 05:33:46 -0800 (PST), " snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net"

you were with Bushy as soon as another Republican is elected president. I will be here to remind you when it happens.

The purpose of fighters is to defend (offend) against other aircraft. The purpose of drones is to offend (attack, but more importantly spy on) people on the ground. Big difference.
Amazingly, lefties hated Bush for tracking phone numbers but *love* Obama for reading your email, watching your banking transactions, and peeping into your back yard.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 3/15/2013 10:33 PM, snipped-for-privacy@attt.bizz wrote:

you were with Bushy as soon as another Republican is elected president. I will be here to remind you when it happens.

Messiah Obama could rape an infant on national TV and The Commiecrats would give him a pass and just blow it off as nothing. Like the time Clinton committed perjury and his worshipers said "He was only lying about sex, big deal." o_O
TDD
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mar 16, 5:23 am, The Daring Dufas <the-daring-du...@stinky- finger.net> wrote:

-...

like you were with Bushy as soon as another Republican is elected presiden t. I will be here to remind you when it happens.

Tch, you exaggerate Duf. Obama is nowhere near as bad as Bliar. Our present incumbent is turning out to be a bad egg too I suspect.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 3/16/2013 2:32 AM, harry wrote:

you were with Bushy as soon as another Republican is elected president. I will be here to remind you when it happens.

Let's get rid of all the scoundrels and start over. ^_^
TDD
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mar 16, 12:33 am, snipped-for-privacy@attt.bizz wrote:

-...

like you were with Bushy as soon as another Republican is elected president . I will be here to remind you when it happens.

They are not limited to engaging other fighters. They are used for tactical strikes against targets on the ground too.

Then how is the drone different than an SR71, U2, satellites, etc? Or any manned aircraft that I could charter to take aerial photos?
The whole Rand Paul thing was over whether a drone could be used at some point in a hypothetical case, to kill a US citizien, on US soil. Holder had already told Paul that under extraordinary circumstances, like another Pearl Harbor or 911, it might be. Under those conditions, if a fighter aircraft was better situated at the moment, it could and would be used, just like the drone. And I think we all know that any president would do it, if it were necessary, under extraordinary circumstances.
And what's the difference with a drone flying over someone's house and taking pictures with the FBI or local police using the house across the street to take photos with long range cameras? They have been doing that for years, with no special authorization, as part of investigations.

I'm not sure they love it, but they aren't very openly bitching about much of it, ie Gitmo, drones, etc either.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 05:27:07 -0700 (PDT), " snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net"

you were with Bushy as soon as another Republican is elected president. I will be here to remind you when it happens.

Not when patrolling US airspace.

SR71s, U2s, and satellites are too expensive for the local sheriff's Fife to peek over our privacy fence.

See above.

No, he hadn't clarified the circumstances.

Any President worth shit would violate the law under those circumstances. Take the heat for saving lives later.

Good grief. There is some expectation of privacy for all of the other people who are under the flight path, who have *not* had that removed by some judge in the cops' pocket.

Sure they do. They love him and will at least excuse everything he does.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 3/17/2013 4:55 PM, snipped-for-privacy@attt.bizz wrote:

you were with Bushy as soon as another Republican is elected president. I will be here to remind you when it happens.

I'm wondering if the feds are going to outlaw privately owned drones so we can keep tabs on government activities? I seem to remember someplace like Californiastan passing a law prohibiting privately owned drones in order to keep paparazzi from harassing Hollywood elite. O_o
TDD
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.