Can the President order an American killed on US soil with a drone?

[tkhayes 126]

you make a whole bunch of wild assumptions about wild things that are not actually the case.

'no oversight'

'his decision'

all bullshit. If you think the President is sitting with a console at his desk flying these things around and there is no chain of decision, perhaps hundreds or thousands of people involved in the collection of information, the making of a plan, the discussion of alternatives, the process of deciding what is best and the execution of a plan after discussing with many advisers, then you are smokin' too much weed.

Police make 'judge jury and executioner' decisions every day. Military soldiers in battle make 'judge jury and executioner' decisions every day. In fact it is done at many levels of law enforcement, military, national security and intelligence levels of the country every day

stop making it sound like there is only one 'boogey-man' in the system.

Want to change it? Try calling your Congressman.

[quade 3]

Quote

Consider it's not just for himself but any President in the future. Do you really think there will never be a President that would never abuse this power???

I want you to think long and hard.

Would it matter one bit if Holder hadn't left the door open?

Since when does it matter what previous President's have done if "abuse" is their goal? Do you really think some future President would have his finger hovering over the drone button and then stop himself short because nobody in the Obama Administration said he could?

Get real.

The moment the technology existed it was an open possibility.

That doesn't mean anyone is going to do it. It's just an option they will ALWAYS have simply because it exists.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

>You are trying to justify having one man have the power of judge, jury and
>executioner and assuming he will have enough information to do so with full
>justification.

Yes. That is the Constitutional power of the President as the Commander in Chief of the armed forces. If you want to start the Constitutional amendment process to strip that power from him, then go for it. Until then he has that power.

>I don't care who that one person is it's not right.

?? Do you advocate the prosecution of George Bush for murder, since he ordered the military to go to war - and consequently killed 4000 Americans - based on what was at best a lack of competence and at worst a lie?

>You are assuming that every time such a decision is made it will be to stop some sort
>of 9/11 type attack, but that only depends on one persons point of view.

No, I'm assuming that on occasion they may use that power incorrectly - and will be impeached under the Constitutional provisions for such an abuse of power.

Drones, Drones, Drones. Bla Bla Bla. With as many police there are they could just go there and get the guy before he does anything. No need to blow him up with a drone without due process.

Now for the good part. McVey said there was a man with his son at the lake where he was arming the bomb in the truck and was prepared to kill both of them should they interfere. Now, had citizens known about truck bombs, and this citizen was more observant, and had a cell phone, he might have called authorities. That never happened. McVey got away and did what he did.

[Rick 67]

Quote

It is fortunate, IMO, that our current government disagrees with your belief that the government can assassinate US citizens:

---------------------------------------------------------------
But didn't the current government do just that to Anwar al-Aulaqi?

You can't be drunk all day if you don't start early!

[regulator 0]

Quote

>You are assuming knowledge of the future in your example.

Yes, a reasonable knowledge. Say you saw him build the bomb and drive the van there, and then you saw him park it and start to arm it.

Would you kill him, if that were your one chance to stop him?

-----------------------------------------------------
So hitting a van full of fertilizer with a AGM...yeah there no chance that will detonate when further explosives are intoduced.

[BillyVance 34]

Quote

Quote

It is fortunate, IMO, that our current government disagrees with your belief that the government can assassinate US citizens:

---------------------------------------------------------------
But didn't the current government do just that to Anwar al-Awlaki?

Yep, he was riding in a vehicle in Yemen when KABOOOM!!!

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[beowulf 1]

Quote

you make a whole bunch of wild assumptions about wild things that are not actually the case.

'no oversight'

'his decision'

all bullshit. If you think the President is sitting with a console at his desk flying these things around and there is no chain of decision, perhaps hundreds or thousands of people involved in the collection of information, the making of a plan, the discussion of alternatives, the process of deciding what is best and the execution of a plan after discussing with many advisers, then you are smokin' too much weed.

Police make 'judge jury and executioner' decisions every day. Military soldiers in battle make 'judge jury and executioner' decisions every day. In fact it is done at many levels of law enforcement, military, national security and intelligence levels of the country every day

stop making it sound like there is only one 'boogey-man' in the system.

Want to change it? Try calling your Congressman.

Rand Paul is fighting this. There is a big difference between battle fields and Police actions and sending a drone kill a American on US soil with out due process.

[beowulf 1]

Quote

>Under the law the Attorney General is wrong. It requires Congressional approval for
>military action on US soil.

Not according to the US Constitution.

Quote

The Posse Comitatus Act is the United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152) that was passed on June 18, 1878, after the end of Reconstruction and was updated in 1981. Its intent (in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807) was to limit the powers of Federal government in using federal military personnel to enforce the State laws. Contrary to popular belief, the Act does not prohibit members of the United States Armed Forces from exercising Law enforcement agency powers within a State, police, or peace officer powers that maintain "law and order"; it requires that any authority to do so must exist within the United States Constitution or Act of Congress.[1] Any use of the Armed Forces under either Title 10/Active Duty or Title 10/Reserves at the direction of the President will offend the Constitutional Law also known as Public Law prohibiting such action unless declared by the President of the United States and approved by Congress. Any infringement will be problematic for political and legal reasons.

Quote

>He should have Congressional approval before assassinating an American anywhere
>and especially on US soil.

No, no one should get approval for assassinating any Americans, ever. That's what the justice system is for. Again, refer to the US Constitution.

It is fortunate, IMO, that our current government disagrees with your belief that the government can assassinate US citizens:

"we reject the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat."

The use of drones to assassinate Americans was left open to the discretion of the President. And according to them it will only be used in special circumstances. To prevent 9/11 type attack is an example. That leaves a really big door open. Who is to say any use of a drone on US soil would actually prevent a 9/11 type attack? Apparently we are supposed to trust the Presidents judgment on this and due process can be avoided. I don't think that's a good idea.

[Bignugget 0]

Well if you want anyone behind you, its Rand Paul!

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

If you had the chance to kill Timothy McVeigh just before he set the bomb that killed 168 people in Oklahoma City - would you take it? Or would you let him do it?

If you knew you'd arrest him.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

>You are assuming knowledge of the future in your example.

Yes, a reasonable knowledge. Say you saw him build the bomb and drive the van there, and then you saw him park it and start to arm it.

Would you kill him, if that were your one chance to stop him?

Seriously? Bill that argument is beneath your intellect mate. Besides that would be a straightforward Police issue.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Apparently Yes.

The question is poorly posed.

The 14th Amendment gives the same protections to all persons.

And the law doesn't seem to differentiate between offing a person by drone or by any other means.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[beowulf 1]

Quote

Quote

Apparently Yes.

The question is poorly posed.

The 14th Amendment gives the same protections to all persons.

And the law doesn't seem to differentiate between offing a person by drone or by any other means.

Apparently AG Holder thinks differently.

[champu 1]

In the cases where there have been disruptions on commerical flights and the national guard scrambled fighters to escort the plane to an emergency landing, what do you think those fighters were there for? Moral support?

I think we can all agree that an arrest and due process would be preferrable to the president ordering a drone strike on a suspected terrorist hiding in the tribal areas of Pakistan, the president ordering the national guard to shoot down an airliner that's under control of hijackers and heading towards a population center, or a cop shooting a suspect dead while serving an arrest warrent because the guy pulls a gun. But in each of those circumstances, due process doesn't really play out due to decisions made by the offender. Still, in each of those circumstances a judicial review needs to happen at the very least after the fact to make sure the action was warrented/defensible. This is particularly important considering at least one (and possibly all) of those circumstances is going to end up killing bystanders.

Now, targeted killings (by drones or any other means) of Americans on US soil? Or even targeted killings of a citizen of any country where there is a prevailing rule of law such that there is what I'll call a "reasonable expectation of due process"? I don't think that would have any trouble not holding up to the post-action review described above. And I think the president is aware of that.

[tkhayes 126]

Quote

Rand Paul is fighting this. There is a big difference between battle fields and Police actions and sending a drone kill a American on US soil with out due process.

And your whole thread is a whole bunch of 'what of' that is not actually happening, so perhaps your worries are moot.

Hey we started a war on a lie and no one went to jail for it. And we assassinated Americans in foreign countries with missile and drone strikes. And now we have drones hovering over the country. So I ask you, does anyone really give a shit? Including Rand Paul? Because nothing is changing.

And I bet that if Timothy McVeigh or Jeffrey Dalmer got taken out by a drone strike while having a coffee at Dunkin' Donuts, that you too, would likely not give a shit once you saw the 'reasons' why.

[OHCHUTE 0]

Bill S=1867 passed which made Posse Comitatus Act moot. They can do what ever the fuck they want. But before they do, they might manufacture evidence that you're a bad guy before you're taken out. Welcome to commie land. This is a grand scheme. Control the finances, the communications, and the law. Bearing down on gun ownership only plays into those objectives.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Apparently Yes.

The question is poorly posed.

The 14th Amendment gives the same protections to all persons.

And the law doesn't seem to differentiate between offing a person by drone or by any other means.

Apparently AG Holder thinks differently.

No, he just answered Rand Paul's question. Rand apparently hasn't read the 14th amendment.

The question should have been:

Can the President order a person killed on US soil?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Apparently Yes.

The question is poorly posed.

The 14th Amendment gives the same protections to all persons.

And the law doesn't seem to differentiate between offing a person by drone or by any other means.

Apparently AG Holder thinks differently.

And then again:

www.nytimes.com/2013/03/08/us/politics/mccain-and-graham-assail-paul-filibuster-over-drones.html?google_editors_picks=true

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

If you had the chance to kill Timothy McVeigh just before he set the bomb that killed 168 people in Oklahoma City - would you take it? Or would you let him do it?

I heard a conversation on the radio about this this morning

He put forth a point that made me think

He asked the question, do you not like this because of who i now president? Are you using a filter that is Obama?

My answer, even though I had to admit to myself that he had a valid question, was no

I do not think that any president, one I trust or not, should have this kind of sigular power on US soil. (over seas he IS the comader n chief)

So the question then becomes, given due process, should this be allowed to happen? I think it would be very hard for anyone to argue against

But

The very thought of all of this can chill one to the bone though

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

If you had the chance to kill Timothy McVeigh just before he set the bomb that killed 168 people in Oklahoma City - would you take it? Or would you let him do it?

I heard a conversation on the radio about this this morning

He put forth a point that made me think

He asked the question, do you not like this because of who i now president? Are you using a filter that is Obama?

My answer, even though I had to admit to myself that he had a valid question, was no

I do not think that any president, one I trust or not, should have this kind of sigular power on US soil. (over seas he IS the comader n chief)

So the question then becomes, given due process, should this be allowed to happen? I think it would be very hard for anyone to argue against

But

The very thought of all of this can chill one to the bone though

Didn't notice your whining when John Yoo, Assistant AG under GWB, was telling Bush that he had unlimited powers to go after terrorists. You surely remember John Yoo, he wrote the infamous "Torture Memos" for Bush, the memos that you defended.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

If you had the chance to kill Timothy McVeigh just before he set the bomb that killed 168 people in Oklahoma City - would you take it? Or would you let him do it?

I heard a conversation on the radio about this this morning

He put forth a point that made me think

He asked the question, do you not like this because of who i now president? Are you using a filter that is Obama?

My answer, even though I had to admit to myself that he had a valid question, was no

I do not think that any president, one I trust or not, should have this kind of sigular power on US soil. (over seas he IS the comader n chief)

So the question then becomes, given due process, should this be allowed to happen? I think it would be very hard for anyone to argue against

But

The very thought of all of this can chill one to the bone though

Didn't notice your whining when John Yoo, Assistant AG under GWB, was telling Bush that he had unlimited powers to go after terrorists. You surely remember John Yoo, he wrote the infamous "Torture Memos" for Bush, the memos that you defended.

Comprehension problems again I see

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,396]

>Rand Paul is fighting this. There is a big difference between battle fields and Police
>actions and sending a drone kill a American on US soil with out due process.

Turns out - not so much.

"I have never argued against any technology being used against having an imminent threat an act of crime going on. If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and $50 in cash, I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him." - Rand Paul, yesterday.

[Kennedy 0]

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/no-rand-paul-didnt-just-switch-his-position-on-drones/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=no-rand-paul-didnt-just-switch-his-position-on-drones

You shouldn't let the media frame the discussion for you. Rand filibustered for an answer, and it was in relation to targeted killings of folks on a secret list with no trial. I don't recall him ever saying he was opposed to drones being able to do anything an officer could do. He's opposed to murder by the state without due process and a complete surveillance society, from what I understand. There's no "I was for it before I was against it" issue here.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[billvon 2,396]

>Rand filibustered for an answer, and it was in relation to targeted killings of folks on a
>secret list with no trial.

Ah, cool. However, he still seems to disagree with Holder on the issue. No one has ever proposed targeted killings of people on a secret list, but Holder also does not think that the President has the power to use a drone to kill an n American not engaged in combat on American soil. Rand clearly does.

Who is right?

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Ah, cool. However, he still seems to disagree with Holder on the issue. No one has ever proposed targeted killings of people on a secret list,

Um, actually the current admin, including POTUS and AG Holder do support targeted killings of folks on a secret list, and have done so, and claim the right to continuing to do so.

Quote

but Holder also does not think that the President has the power to use a drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil. Rand clearly does.
Who is right?

Not sure that's entirely accurate. Holder said no, but trust him as far as you like. Rand, however, only said he supported drones being able to do what LEOs can do. I don't think it was well said, or if it was I don't agree because LEOs have to be on site and make the decision. Drone operators not so much. Suspects often surrender when uniforms show up. Drones don't offer that option. I'm not saying any action that clearly threatens deadly force against and innocent could never be stopped by applying deadly force to the suspect, just that it's a lot more complicated than a patrol putting a uniform on the spot.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*