beowulf

Members
  • Content

    5,102
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Everything posted by beowulf

  1. If this was under the Bush administration would you still have the same opinion?
  2. 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.
  3. 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?
  4. 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 Must be approved by Congress!!!
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. Bullshit. Not on American soil and not american's. More Bullshit. That's not what this was even about. This is about assassinating american's on US soil. That is one huge assumption. Especially since any drone strike would covert.
  11. That's your opinion. What if the President or any future Presidents don't see it the same way as you? It's all very subjective.
  12. Your are also assuming a best case scenario. What about the scenario's that are not so clear cut and the President decides it's enough?? Who questions his decision?
  13. Is 'maybe' good enough to kill someone and risk possible collateral fatalities??? If a drone operator had a clear shot at one of the planes on 9/11/01, should he have taken it? Blues, Dave That involves huge assumptions and unknowns. Like it's future trajectory, maybe it's not going to hit a building. Just because you shoot it down doesn't mean it's going to just disappear. It will fall to the ground. Now you have to consider the casualties incurred by where it lands. Do you really want someone sitting in front of a TV with a joy stick manipulating a drone to do that? Or someone like the President getting second or third hand information making that kind of decision??
  14. Is 'maybe' good enough to kill someone and risk possible collateral fatalities???
  15. 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. I don't care who that one person is it's not right. There must be more then one person making that kind of decision. 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.
  16. 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???
  17. That is only a hypothetical scenario. There is nothing that stops the President from saying so and so is a terrorist and we need to take him out and then orders a drone strike. Claiming that it's to protect the country from a 9/11 like attack. Since a 9/11 attack doesn't happen he can claim that he thwarted the attack and therefore he was justified in the drone strike. Who will question it? How would any one say anything different?
  18. What makes this worse is there is no oversight. No judge that OK's a drone strike. It's entirely at the President's discretion. What if he is wrong? Will he then be prosecuted for murder?
  19. You are trying to find a scenario that sounds good for this type of power. This is not something the president should have or anyone. It's not right that this is done in other countries much less our country. Due process should not be circumvented at the President's will to assassinate US citizens suspected of anything. Catching someone in the act of a crime is not the same thing.
  20. I wouldn't send a drone to do that. Fighter jets would scrambled. Not the same thing as drone usage. 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?
  21. You are assuming that enough information would be had to determine guilt. Catching someone in the act is an obvious decision. You are assuming that the president will have that in any order of use of drone strikes. Considering past drone strikes its not likely.
  22. You are assuming knowledge of the future in your example. Would you kill someone you suspect of doing something like Timothy McVeigh? What if your suspicions are wrong? Is suspicion enough to make yourself judge, jury and executioner?
  23. Apparently Yes. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-03-05/dear-american-its-extraordinary-circumstance-and-drones-coming-you
  24. Yes, this and limiting the size and power of the government to identified Constitutional levels Counting on the government to act with restraint, absent adult supervision, is pointless. This piece came from last year, but the basics still apply: "If the US Government was a family, they would be making $58,000 a year, they spend $75,000 a year, & are $327,000 in credit card debt. They are currently proposing BIG spending cuts to reduce their spending to $72,000 a year. These are the actual proportions of the federal budget & debt, reduced to a level that we can understand." - Dave Ramsey The core issue is that our government has behaved like a teenager with a no-limit credit card; it is not possible to make enough to keep up with their expenditures. The problem is that we have been spending money we don't have for the past half century, and we are beyond the tipping point. It is no longer a question of 'if' so much as 'when, and how bad.' It was fun while it lasted. BSBD, Winsor That example is not very accurate. The spending cuts are not cutting what US Gov is currently spending. It's instead cutting the increase to what they are currently spending. So instead of cutting the $75,000 a year budget, the budget is increasing by $5,000 a year to $80,000 and that is being cut to $78,000 a year.