OT Land of the free?

[harry]

Watch out. He's acomin' to gitcha!

[trader4]

This is one reason the Republicans find themselves on the losing side these days. Some of them, like Rand Paul, have a penchant for going off into lala land over some bizarre, hypothetical. Numb nuts is actually filibustering in the Senate over this.... With many real problems, we need this?

I think Eric Holder is a complete jerk. But on this point he's right. It's not hard to conceive of an extremely remote scenario where you could justify using an armed drone against a US citizen, on US soil. It's extremely unlikely. But under extraordinary circumstances you would think even Rand Paul would understand that it might be justified and necessary.

[Han]

" [e-mail]" wrote in news:b25ae58e- [e-mail]:

Hey, I agree. In fact, using a drone isn't different from using a sniper to kill an ex-police officer from LA. You know (I think) whom I refer to. Seems like someone went off his rocker, although he may have had reason for his anger. But it just doesn't justify his deeds.

[trader4]

Actually, I don't know who and what exactly you're referring to. Dorner? He didn't kill an ex-police officer, nor was he a sniper. And if it's Dorner, I don't see how that compares at all. There was nothing legal about what he did, in any way, shape or form, under any law or rules of engagement.

Seems like someone went off his rocker, although he may have had

[Han]

" [e-mail]" wrote in news: [e-mail]:

Yes that was who I was referring to, but more specifically to the way HE was killed (whether or not he killed himself, he was being hunted without too much chance for "mercy". I am sure that removing him from this earth was a good thing, although it didn't really follow all principles of due process. The same procedures could have been followed with a drone hunting him. And they will be used like that. Whether that will be a good thing is open to debate. Whatever, I don't think that nuts like Dorner have all that many rights. The thing is - why exactly was he fired from his job?

[trader4]

[e-mail]:

He was fired for filing a false complaint against his female superior officer. A complaint that wasn't made at the time of the alleged incident, but a couple of weeks later. She apparently had reprimanded him for some other behavior. That was the justification given, but I'll bet there was plenty more. I don't think someone like Dorner just flips out one day. You can see from his ranting, if you've read them, that he's harboring all kinds of resentment going back to when he was a kid. That kind of person isn't what you'd want on the police force and I'll bet there was plenty of other odd behavior that made them want to fire him. His being nuts got him fired. Firing didn't make him nuts.

[recyclebinned]

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.

[Malcom "Mal" Reynolds]

so exactly what is the definition of "not engaged in combat?" Rand Paul certainly got sucked into giving up big time on that. Timothy McVeigh would have been a legal target

[=]

Both Holder and Paul know that the answer today may not be the answer some other day because of "extenuating circumstances". It's political theater and we're paying for very expensive tickets.

Tomsic

[Stormin Mormon]

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:

[Han]

" [e-mail]" wrote in news: [e-mail]:

So it was an epic fail for the LAPD not to make sure he got a) mental health care and b) was without firearms.

[trader4]

[e-mail]:

I don't know if he was getting any mental healthcare or not. But if he doesn't want it, last time I checked the LAPD can't force him to get it, unless they can prove he's a danger to himself or others. No one suggested any previous behavior rose to that level, so I don't see how you can blame the LAPD. They did what every other employer would do, they terminated an employee that they didn't want around.

and b) was without firearms.

Last time I checked, the police can't make sure anyone is without firearms, unless they have proof that he is a danger to himself or others, has been convicted of a felony, etc. Again, there was no such indication in this case.

[harry]

But I thought most Americans WERE armed? (& hence legitamate targets.)

[harry]

I suppose anyone nearby would just be "co-lateral damage"

[harry]

[e-mail]:

Ah, the conundrum of American law/society!

[trader4]

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?

[trader4]

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?

[Malcom "Mal" Reynolds]

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

[Malcom "Mal" Reynolds]

Which is the NRA's take on gun control and the 2nd amendment

[harry]

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.