0
beowulf

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

Recommended Posts

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.



Bullshit. Not on American soil and not american's.


Quote

>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?



More Bullshit. That's not what this was even about. This is about assassinating american's on US soil.


Quote

>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.



That is one huge assumption. Especially since any drone strike would covert.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Bullshit. Not on American soil and not american's.

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States."

No exceptions. He can order the US military to shoot down civilian aircraft if he feels they represent a threat. Again, you may not like the Constitution; feel free to try to change it.

(If you are still confused as to whether the President has this power google "Abraham Lincoln.")

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>Bullshit. Not on American soil and not american's.

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States."

No exceptions. He can order the US military to shoot down civilian aircraft if he feels they represent a threat. Again, you may not like the Constitution; feel free to try to change it.

(If you are still confused as to whether the President has this power google "Abraham Lincoln.")



Abraham Lincoln was the worst president this country ever had. It's illegal for the military to conduct military operations on US soil. See the Posse Comitatus Act. Any military action is to be ordered through Congress not the President.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?



Fuck yes. That's a no-brainer.

There are radical Muslims already in-country. If we are able to track what they are doing or planning, then by all means, terminate the motherfuckers. I don't want another 9/11 attack. :|
"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

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?



Fuck yes. That's a no-brainer.

There are radical Muslims already in-country. If we are able to track what they are doing or planning, then by all means, terminate the motherfuckers. I don't want another 9/11 attack. :|


That is stopping someone in the commission of a crime and isn't what this is about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>That is stopping someone in the commission of a crime and isn't what this is about.

It is exactly what the memo SAID. Did you read it? It specifically talked about stopping an attack like 9/11, and specifically said it was NOT to be used for law enforcement.

I'd really go back and read the link you posted. You'll avoid embarrassing mistakes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

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?



Fuck yes. That's a no-brainer.

There are radical Muslims already in-country. If we are able to track what they are doing or planning, then by all means, terminate the motherfuckers. I don't want another 9/11 attack. :|


That is stopping someone in the commission of a crime and isn't what this is about.


I get your point. I was GLAD to see Al-Awlaki, an American-born Muslim get his ass terminated by a drone in Yemen, because he had vowed to attack the USA and had already tried a couple of times.
"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

>Bullshit. Not on American soil and not american's.

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States."

No exceptions. He can order the US military to shoot down civilian aircraft if he feels they represent a threat. Again, you may not like the Constitution; feel free to try to change it.

(If you are still confused as to whether the President has this power google "Abraham Lincoln.")



Abraham Lincoln was the worst president this country ever had. It's illegal for the military to conduct military operations on US soil. See the Posse Comitatus Act. Any military action is to be ordered through Congress not the President.



I'm generally sympathetic to the arguments you've been making in this thread. However, you have a commonly-held, overly-broad, and therefore inaccurate, understanding of the Posse Comitatus Act (which, by the way, wasn't enacted until 13 years after Lincoln's death). Here's a pretty fair Wiki synopsis of what it does - and does not - do:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>That is stopping someone in the commission of a crime and isn't what this is about.

It is exactly what the memo SAID. Did you read it? It specifically talked about stopping an attack like 9/11, and specifically said it was NOT to be used for law enforcement.

I'd really go back and read the link you posted. You'll avoid embarrassing mistakes.



It's assuming that is how it will be used. There is no reason to think it won't be used in any other circumstance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

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?



Fuck yes. That's a no-brainer.

There are radical Muslims already in-country. If we are able to track what they are doing or planning, then by all means, terminate the motherfuckers. I don't want another 9/11 attack. :|


That is stopping someone in the commission of a crime and isn't what this is about.


I get your point. I was GLAD to see Al-Awlaki, an American-born Muslim get his ass terminated by a drone in Yemen, because he had vowed to attack the USA and had already tried a couple of times.


Vowing to attack and trying to attack American's is sufficient for an American to be arrested by the police. It isn't sufficient for a drone strike on american soil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

>Bullshit. Not on American soil and not american's.

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States."

No exceptions. He can order the US military to shoot down civilian aircraft if he feels they represent a threat. Again, you may not like the Constitution; feel free to try to change it.

(If you are still confused as to whether the President has this power google "Abraham Lincoln.")



Abraham Lincoln was the worst president this country ever had. It's illegal for the military to conduct military operations on US soil. See the Posse Comitatus Act. Any military action is to be ordered through Congress not the President.


I'm generally sympathetic to the arguments you've been making in this thread. However, you have a commonly-held, overly-broad, and therefore inaccurate, understanding of the Posse Comitatus Act (which, by the way, wasn't enacted until 13 years after Lincoln's death). Here's a pretty fair Wiki synopsis of what it does - and does not - do:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act


That reminds me of the James Garner movie "Tank".

Maj. Gen. V.E. Hubik: "Posse Comitatus, sir."
Sheriff Buelton: "Did you call me a pussy communist?"

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>It's assuming that is how it will be used. There is no reason to think it won't be used
>in any other circumstance.

Other than it hasn't been, ever. And if it IS used that way, we have a remedy (impeachment.)



You are assuming that there will be sufficient evidence for an impeachment. Considering the covert nature of drone attacks it's highly likely there won't be much evidence or any at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Considering the covert nature of drone attacks it's highly likely there won't be much
>evidence or any at all.

"Covert nature?" You mean the violent explosions that often kill bystanders? I can just see it now - "Wow, where did that bomb crater come from? Wasn't there a Starbucks there?" "Don't know, probably nothing, I'm sure the news won't be curious."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

>Bullshit. Not on American soil and not american's.

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States."

No exceptions. He can order the US military to shoot down civilian aircraft if he feels they represent a threat. Again, you may not like the Constitution; feel free to try to change it.

(If you are still confused as to whether the President has this power google "Abraham Lincoln.")



Abraham Lincoln was the worst president this country ever had. It's illegal for the military to conduct military operations on US soil. See the Posse Comitatus Act. Any military action is to be ordered through Congress not the President.



I'm generally sympathetic to the arguments you've been making in this thread. However, you have a commonly-held, overly-broad, and therefore inaccurate, understanding of the Posse Comitatus Act (which, by the way, wasn't enacted until 13 years after Lincoln's death). Here's a pretty fair Wiki synopsis of what it does - and does not - do:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act




Quote

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.



Must be approved by Congress!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>Considering the covert nature of drone attacks it's highly likely there won't be much
>evidence or any at all.

"Covert nature?" You mean the violent explosions that often kill bystanders? I can just see it now - "Wow, where did that bomb crater come from? Wasn't there a Starbucks there?" "Don't know, probably nothing, I'm sure the news won't be curious."



The President can simply claim it was to stop a 9/11 type attack and it was successful. How would anyone be able to question it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>The President can simply claim it was to stop a 9/11 type attack and it was successful.
>How would anyone be able to question it?

"I question it." Done. If done by Congress, result is impeachment.

And if there really is another 9/11 type attack attempted some day - I will bet you'll be praying that we have the power to stop it. Twelve years ago, a lot of people were wishing we had been able to stop it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>The President can simply claim it was to stop a 9/11 type attack and it was successful.
>How would anyone be able to question it?

"I question it." Done. If done by Congress, result is impeachment.

And if there really is another 9/11 type attack attempted some day - I will bet you'll be praying that we have the power to stop it. Twelve years ago, a lot of people were wishing we had been able to stop it.



Your questioning it doesn't mean anything. Congress can question it but that doesn't mean there will be sufficient evidence to impeach. They would have to prove that if the President hadn't ordered the drone strike there would have been some type of 9/11 attack. That is a very tall order.

Under the law the Attorney General is wrong. It requires Congressional approval for military action on US soil. Drone strikes ordered by the President looks to me like a military action. He should have Congressional approval before assassinating an American anywhere and especially on US soil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

And if there really is another 9/11 type attack attempted some day - I will bet you'll be praying that we have the power to stop it. Twelve years ago, a lot of people were wishing we had been able to stop it.



That could be used to justify pretty much anything, like allowing the President dictatorial powers such as assassinating US citizens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>I wouldn't send a drone to do that.

You may not have the choice. You don't get the assets you want when something like that happens; you get the assets that are close.

>Drones have been used to attack ground personnel and considering their uses in
>other countries they have caused numerous collateral fatalities. Do you really think the
>President should have that kind of power?

No, the president should definitely NOT have the authority to sign an order that says "go find John Smith and then kill him with a drone." The president definitely SHOULD have the authority to take military action against an attack against the US, even if it means killing US citizens with drones. Thus I agree with the letter:

"For example, the president could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances of a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on Dec. 7, 1941 and Sept. 11, 2001."



I thought Biden said a shotgun was good enuf for any emergency?
If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

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?



Fuck yes. That's a no-brainer.

There are radical Muslims already in-country. If we are able to track what they are doing or planning, then by all means, terminate the motherfuckers. I don't want another 9/11 attack. :|


If we see him building a bomb, shouldn't we stop him from taking it somewhere to blow up?> I mean, why would you let it get to a situation where you have to blow him up to stop him>?

Oh, yeah, I guess the potus missed the last few security briefings we held... oh, and he was flying to hollywood for some late-night talk show when timmie was building the bomb in front of our eyes....

But now the potus is available and timmie's parked the bomb in front of the school, we can blow the truck up...
If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

>I wouldn't send a drone to do that.

You may not have the choice. You don't get the assets you want when something like that happens; you get the assets that are close.

>Drones have been used to attack ground personnel and considering their uses in
>other countries they have caused numerous collateral fatalities. Do you really think the
>President should have that kind of power?

No, the president should definitely NOT have the authority to sign an order that says "go find John Smith and then kill him with a drone." The president definitely SHOULD have the authority to take military action against an attack against the US, even if it means killing US citizens with drones. Thus I agree with the letter:

"For example, the president could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances of a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on Dec. 7, 1941 and Sept. 11, 2001."



I thought Biden said a shotgun was good enuf for any emergency?



Cheney even tried it.
...

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Congress can question it but that doesn't mean there will be sufficient evidence to
>impeach.

It has been done before with far less evidence than a smoking crater in the ground.

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

Not according to the US Constitution.

>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."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0