BunnysBastatrds 2,557 Posted March 6, 2013 How do all of you ant-death penalty and ant-torture supporters feel about Eric Holder stating that he can see a scenario in which using drone air strikes on Americans inside the US would be legal in his opinion? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IGotWorms 4,060 Posted March 6, 2013 I think he should be removed as Attorney General and Obama should renounce all of this garbage. Seriously. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MDC 7,737 Posted March 6, 2013 I think he should be removed as Attorney General and Obama should renounce all of this garbage. Seriously. Yeah this. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BunnysBastatrds 2,557 Posted March 6, 2013 I think he should be removed as Attorney General and Obama should renounce all of this garbage. Seriously. What do you believe is Obama's motovation for allowing this? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Voltaire 5,429 Posted March 6, 2013 I hate Holder anyways and have wanted him gone for a long time, but can you link to where he said this? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JTB 52 Posted March 6, 2013 How do all of you ant-death penalty and ant-torture supporters feel about Eric Holder stating that he can see a scenario in which using drone air strikes on Americans inside the US would be legal in his opinion? I am for the death penalty therefor I will not comment. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Voltaire 5,429 Posted March 6, 2013 What do you believe is Obama's motovation for allowing this? It would be insane but for the time being we're going with the "bunny is pulling this sh*t out of his ass" theory. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BunnysBastatrds 2,557 Posted March 6, 2013 I am for the death penalty therefor I will not comment. I'm for the death penalty and torture. As long as a court signs onto it, it's legal in my opinion. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BunnysBastatrds 2,557 Posted March 6, 2013 It would be insane but for the time being we're going with the "bunny is pulling this sh*t out of his ass" theory. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IGotWorms 4,060 Posted March 6, 2013 What do you believe is Obama's motovation for allowing this? That's a fine question. I honestly don't know. For a while I thought the motivation was to guard against attacks from the right that he is "weak on defense." This is a common tactic against Dems and it seems to play well with moderates and independents. So I can see why Obama might go a little overboard in undercutting this stuff. But he won re-election, so I don't see why he'd continue with this when basically everyone is questioning it. Maybe it's not political at all. Perhaps he's got intel regarding a huge threat that most aren't privvy too. I doubt it though. And I wouldn't give a Republican president that benefit of the doubt so to be consistent I won't extend it to Obama either. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MDC 7,737 Posted March 6, 2013 I think it's mostly that the genie is now out of the bottle and there's no putting it back in. I don't think any administration or AG is going to roll back the executive overreach that's happened since 9/11 and expanded under Obummer. This is the new America get used to it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IGotWorms 4,060 Posted March 6, 2013 I hate Holder anyways and have wanted him gone for a long time, but can you link to where he said this? Holder was testifying before Congress and refused to rule out targeted killings on American soil in the name of the war on terror. It would probably be an unfair question in isolation but he opened himself up to it with those absurd memos about drone strikes on American citizens. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JTB 52 Posted March 6, 2013 I'm for the death penalty and torture. As long as a court signs onto it, it's legal in my opinion. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IGotWorms 4,060 Posted March 6, 2013 I think it's mostly that the genie is now out of the bottle and there's no putting it back in. I don't think any administration or AG is going to roll back the executive overreach that's happened since 9/11 and expanded under Obummer. This is the new America get used to it. Truth. Obama said he was going to reverse some of that but he really hasn't. Yeah he stopped torture but ramping up the drone strike program is arguably worse. He really has been a dissappointment in this area and I think it really does go to show that we're living under a new paradigm in executive power. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vikings4ever 568 Posted March 6, 2013 I hate Holder anyways and have wanted him gone for a long time, but can you link to where he said this? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/05/us-drone-strike_n_2813857.html The Obama administration believes it could technically use military force to kill an American on U.S. soil in an "extraordinary circumstance" but has "no intention of doing so," U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said in a letter disclosed Tuesday. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Voltaire 5,429 Posted March 6, 2013 Is he talking about like a civil war or something? I'd have blown up Jefferson Davis in a heartbeat with a big smile on my face. Of course, he withdrew his citizenship so maybe that doesn't count. But that would be an extraordinary circumstance. Benedict Arnold, another. Some dude responsible for the Zombie Apocolypse, a war governor of California appointed by North Korea... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Me_2006 14 Posted March 6, 2013 We've been voluntarily giving the government more power "to keep us safe" my entire lifetime. You can't let it go this far and freak out. You kinda asked for it. It's creepy to know that the only thing stopping the government from destroying its own people is intent (as the White House statement on drones said), but to be honest, it's been that way for a long time. If they just wanted to go crazy and start killing people, they could. They don't need drones. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hoytdwow 202 Posted March 6, 2013 It doesn't change the fact that I'm still anti-death penalty and anti-torture. Finding new ways to kill and torture people doesn't make me suddenly support it. That being said, as others have pointed out, the use of drones here to kill a US citizen would be despicable and the president should emphatically disavow the practice. I'm actually pretty sketchy on the whole drone thing, period. A lot of focking innocent people are getting killed by them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
drobeski 3,061 Posted March 7, 2013 rand paul taking a stand http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN2/ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wiffleball 4,795 Posted March 7, 2013 PRettty sure I started a thread on this under more intelligent guises, but whatever: I support it. It makes a lot more sense to ramp up the drone program internationally than to invade entire countries.It's targeted, efficient and far more effective. Domestically, how is this any different than Darth Cheney wanting to shoot down a 9/11 plane filled with civilians - is it just because it would be done WITH a pilot? What I harken this to is something most American idiots who have no concept beyond their own imaginations can't wrap their minds around - the 7/7 attacks. At one point, all of the bombers were in the same car. If you knew that, wouldn't YOU take out the damn car with a drone if you could? Having said all that, I go back to my original query- I'm not sure how this doesn't violate Posse Commitatus. - But at the end of the day, I don't f'ing care. We have no problem droning some fock looking to take out our embassy in another country - which is US soil for all intents and purposes, but suddenly, we wouldn't do the same thing for some fock hell-bent on blowing up Americans in their own country? Fock that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BunnysBastatrds 2,557 Posted March 7, 2013 PRettty sure I started a thread on this under more intelligent guises, but whatever: I support it. It makes a lot more sense to ramp up the drone program internationally than to invade entire countries.It's targeted, efficient and far more effective. Domestically, how is this any different than Darth Cheney wanting to shoot down a 9/11 plane filled with civilians - is it just because it would be done WITH a pilot? What I harken this to is something most American idiots who have no concept beyond their own imaginations can't wrap their minds around - the 7/7 attacks. At one point, all of the bombers were in the same car. If you knew that, wouldn't YOU take out the damn car with a drone if you could? Having said all that, I go back to my original query- I'm not sure how this doesn't violate Posse Commitatus. - But at the end of the day, I don't f'ing care. We have no problem droning some fock looking to take out our embassy in another country - which is US soil for all intents and purposes, but suddenly, we wouldn't do the same thing for some fock hell-bent on blowing up Americans in their own country? Fock that. An attack already occurred. Intent and capability were proven then. There was a clear and present danger. If the FBI hears a wire tap that confirms an immediate threat about to be carried out, but the threat hasn't occurred yet, do they have the authority to strike even though no acts of terrorism have been commited? If your spouse has threatend to kil you, do the police have the authority to arrest you for crimes not committed up until that point? You can be arrested and charged for making threats. But you can't be arrested and charged with physical harm or any other crime until the acts you threatened to carry out have been carried out and a crime has been committed. is it just because it would be done WITH a pilot? Last time I checked, drones don't fly themselves. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wiffleball 4,795 Posted March 7, 2013 An attack already occurred. Intent and capability were proven then. There was a clear and present danger. If the FBI hears a wire tap that confirms an immediate threat about to be carried out, but the threat hasn't occurred yet, do they have the authority to strike even though no acts of terrorism have been commited? If your spouse has threatend to kil you, do the police have the authority to arrest you for crimes not committed up until that point? You can be arrested and charged for making threats. But you can't be arrested and charged with physical harm or any other crime until the acts you threatened to carry out have been carried out and a crime has been committed. The WH already has SAM's on the WH roof. Armed fighters are scrambled if a plane gets too close to certain restricted areas - with shoot-down a possibility. Still don't see the difference between that and a theoretical possibility of using drones instead. - The question nor the answer said nothing about whether an attack had already begun, casualties alread incurred, etc. Cops routinely shoot guys who have knives or other weapons and get too close to the cops or other people - no crime occurred there - and cops are trained to shoot to kill. - Really not seeing like this is some huge paradigm shift. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IGotWorms 4,060 Posted March 7, 2013 The WH already has SAM's on the WH roof. Armed fighters are scrambled if a plane gets too close to certain restricted areas - with shoot-down a possibility. Still don't see the difference between that and a theoretical possibility of using drones instead. - The question nor the answer said nothing about whether an attack had already begun, casualties alread incurred, etc. Cops routinely shoot guys who have knives or other weapons and get too close to the cops or other people - no crime occurred there - and cops are trained to shoot to kill. - Really not seeing like this is some huge paradigm shift. That's a terrible analogy. A better analogy would be if the cops learned that somebody was perhaps planning a crime, so they go to their house at night and kill them while they're sleeping, without any oversight or due process afforded. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745 Posted March 8, 2013 Is he talking about like a civil war or something? I'd have blown up Jefferson Davis in a heartbeat with a big smile on my face. Of course, he withdrew his citizenship so maybe that doesn't count. But that would be an extraordinary circumstance. Benedict Arnold, another. Some dude responsible for the Zombie Apocolypse, a war governor of California appointed by North Korea... I could see it in some crazy my militia armed to the teeth in a compound situation.if your choices are ordering agents to they death, our fringe striking the bunker into a charred hole, I'd be inclined to go with the latter. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ZeroTolerance 584 Posted March 8, 2013 Last time I checked, drones don't fly themselves. Yeah, that is what Skynet is for. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wiffleball 4,795 Posted March 8, 2013 That's a terrible analogy. A better analogy would be if the cops learned that somebody was perhaps planning a crime, so they go to their house at night and kill them while they're sleeping, without any oversight or due process afforded. wow. are you trying to be obtuse? What's the diff between the terrorists spooning each other at 615 am. or riding in the same car (all intelligence being equal) an hour later? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Recliner Pilot 61 Posted March 8, 2013 Is it weird that Obama will not say he has no right to kill Americans in America without charges, trial, or convictions........yet he instructed the FBI to read terrorists their Miranda rights when we capture them? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wiffleball 4,795 Posted March 9, 2013 Is it weird that Obama will not say he has no right to kill Americans in America without charges, trial, or convictions........yet he instructed the FBI to read terrorists their Miranda rights when we capture them? Not to me. Remember, the question was asked and answered in the abstratct. If someone has a gun to a toddler's head and you have shot, you're not going to start off with "you have the right to remain silent...." But, once someone's in custody, you do. No difference to me. Do you honestly think Darth Cheney would have mirandized the guys who ended up in a PA field? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
frank 2,331 Posted March 9, 2013 wow. are you trying to be obtuse? The hole. A month. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Voltaire 5,429 Posted March 9, 2013 Is it weird that Obama will not say he has no right to kill Americans in America without charges, trial, or convictions........yet he instructed the FBI to read terrorists their Miranda rights when we capture them? Ask yourself how many federal agents are you risking getting blown up in any given instance. In the case of unarmed fockheads detained at the airport, the answer is zero. And that's the prefered method 100 times out of 100. Mmm....beer would rather be in the field busting heads but it's better to have guys like him live long enough to push papers, attend snoozefest meetings, and contemplate retirement than serve as red splatter decoration on the wall of some drug den. There's a fine line somewhere to be (literally) fleshed out. God forbid he's ever in a situtation where he may have to risk losing half his guys, in his current position the day may come where he'd have to ask them to do so. That's his and their jobs. On that day, I'd like to think he'd have drones available and would defend his right to use them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Recliner Pilot 61 Posted March 9, 2013 Ask yourself how many federal agents are you risking getting blown up in any given instance. In the case of unarmed fockheads detained at the airport, the answer is zero. And that's the prefered method 100 times out of 100. Mmm....beer would rather be in the field busting heads but it's better to have guys like him live long enough to push papers, attend snoozefest meetings, and contemplate retirement than serve as red splatter decoration on the wall of some drug den. There's a fine line somewhere to be (literally) fleshed out. God forbid he's ever in a situtation where he may have to risk losing half his guys, in his current position the day may come where he'd have to ask them to do so. That's his and their jobs. On that day, I'd like to think he'd have drones available and would defend his right to use them. That's all cool and all....I guess. Not sure WTF you are babbling about, but who said anything about not using drones overseas? :wacko: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IGotWorms 4,060 Posted March 9, 2013 Not sure WTF you are babbling about, but who said anything about not using drones overseas? :wacko: You did. Numerous times. http://www.fftodayforums.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=391002 http://www.fftodayforums.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=416484 http://www.fftodayforums.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=416380 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Voltaire 5,429 Posted March 9, 2013 That's all cool and all....I guess. Not sure WTF you are babbling about, but who said anything about not using drones overseas? :wacko: That's not the discussion in this thread. We're talking about domestic drone usage. But now that you bring it up, since you whine like an ACLU lawyer whenever we use drones to blow terrorists up in thier enclaves in Sh*tholeistan, it's not hard to see how you'd be upset if we went to Waco and blew up David Koresh with them. That would be a tougher call to make. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Recliner Pilot 61 Posted March 9, 2013 You did. Numerous times. http://www.fftodayforums.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=391002 http://www.fftodayforums.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=416484 http://www.fftodayforums.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=416380 Please show in any of your research where I said drones shouldn't be used overseas. Thanks in advance. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Recliner Pilot 61 Posted March 9, 2013 But now that you bring it up, since you whine like an ACLU lawyer whenever we use drones to blow terrorists up in thier enclaves in Sh*tholeistan, Once again, where did I say that? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Voltaire 5,429 Posted March 9, 2013 Once again, where did I say that? Worms already did the work for me. Say/spin what you want, the links are there for anyone curious enough to see your denial is full of sh*t. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Recliner Pilot 61 Posted March 9, 2013 Worms already did the work for me. Say/spin what you want, the links are there for anyone curious enough to see your denial is full of sh*t. Never said drones should not be used overseas. Never said drones should not blow up terrorist in "sh!tholistan". You, and Worms, are full of shiot. HTH Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Voltaire 5,429 Posted March 9, 2013 Never said drones should not be used overseas. Never said drones should not blow up terrorist in "sh!tholistan". You, and Worms, are full of shiot. HTH We know you are, you claim we are. I happen to remember this argument clearly because it was a new low even for you and you actually surprised me. You were low enough to side with terroists over Obama. I couldn't believe it. The links are there for anybody who gives a rats' ass enough to judge. Your position is crystal clear and spelled out by you. Your only hope is nobody bothers to click them. Or -hold on- have you come to your senses? are you recanting anything you've said previously? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Recliner Pilot 61 Posted March 9, 2013 We know you are, you claim we are. I happen to remember this argument clearly because it was a new low even for you and you actually surprised me. You were low enough to side with terroists over Obama. I couldn't believe it. The links are there for anybody who gives a rats' ass enough to judge. Your position is crystal clear and spelled out by you. Your only hope is nobody bothers to click them. Or -hold on- have you come to your senses? are you recanting anything you've said previously? Click away folks. Nowhere have I said drones should not be used overseas. Put up, or STFU. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MDC 7,737 Posted March 9, 2013 RP hasn't taken a beating like this one since he deleted the FBI surveillance van thread in shame. Maybe not even since he bet Sharon Angle would win a Senate seat, made a big hot air speech about how he honors bets, then welched and said he never intended to honor his bet in the first place. Maybe even since he came home to a house with empty hangers in the closet, no kids and a Dear John letter on the mantelpiece. Ouch. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites