Holder: Drone Strike To Kill US Citizen On American Soil Legal

Quote from Rebound : I agree. And I think that there's something to be said for the President telling the CIA and military that no person in the entire government, not even James Bond, has the authority to approve except the President. If you're an Obama hater, at least consider the fact that the guy's basically a pacifist. I mean, if they told me that the final decision maker was Dick Cheney, I'd be in fear for my life.

But thankfully, as long as there's that 'D' after their name, there's nothing to worry about.....

I couldn't watch the whole filibuster, but every time I tuned in Rand Paul was nailing it on the head.

every time i tuned in, rand was rambling incoherently.

delete

Quote from thikthird : every time i tuned in, rand was rambling incoherently.

You don't strike me as the type that approves of killing US citizens on US soil or foreign soil with no oversight.

Some good questions you must have missed:

Can we kill all the terrorists especially when every drone strike creates a new terrorist?
Should we kill people for driving between two points where terrorist live (aka signature strikes)?
Should we kill people for being related to terrorists?
When we kill a 16 year old boy should we say flippantly that he should have had better parents?
Why does the federal government need a warrant to wiretap a US citizen's phone call overseas, but the federal government can kill that same citizen without without a warrant or speaking to a judge?

Quote from Xygonn : You don't strike me as the type that approves of killing US citizens on US soil or foreign soil with no oversight. Some good questions you must have missed: Can we kill all the terrorists especially when every drone strike creates a new terrorist? Should we kill people for driving between two points where terrorist live (aka signature strikes)? Should we kill people for being related to terrorists? When we kill a 16 year old boy should we say flippantly that he should have had better parents? Why does the federal government need a warrant to wiretap a US citizen's phone call overseas, but the federal government can kill that same citizen without without a warrant or speaking to a judge?

i'm the type who doesn't make a distinction between killing us citizens and non-citizens.

and none of those are good questions, they're all rhetorical.

the whole thing was stupid anyway. people should be against brennan over torture, not over drone strikes.

Quote from thikthird : every time i tuned in, rand was rambling incoherently.

Considering your political leanings, I find your bashing of Rand's points perplexing. I get that you hate libertarians but he brings up a very reasonable arguments

Quote from rrc06 : Considering your political leanings, I find your bashing of Rand's points perplexing. I get that you hate libertarians but he brings up a very reasonable arguments

i must have missed every single one of them.

Quote from thikthird : i'm the type who doesn't make a distinction between killing us citizens and non-citizens. and none of those are good questions, they're all rhetorical.

Interestingly he spent a good deal of time bashing strikes against foreigners as well. You must have missed that part.

Rhetorical questions can still be good questions. Especially when they make good points.

Rhetorical questions like "Why are you such a failure?" and "How many angels can dance on the head of a needle?" are useless.

Specifically, the wiretapping requiring a warrant vs. killing not requiring a warrant is a great question. Why is that allowed? It is allowed, on that we can all agree. Why? Seriously. I'd like an answer to that one. How does that make sense? Why do we tolerate such a clearly awful policy?

Quote from Xygonn : Interestingly he spent a good deal of time bashing strikes against foreigners as well. You must have missed that part. Rhetorical questions can still be good questions. Especially when they make good points. Rhetorical questions like "Why are you such a failure?" and "How many angels can dance on the head of a needle?" are useless. Specifically, the wiretapping requiring a warrant vs. killing not requiring a warrant is a great question. Why is that allowed? It is allowed, on that we can all agree. Why? Seriously. I'd like an answer to that one. How does that make sense? Why do we tolerate such a clearly awful policy?

why is it allowed? because it's been rationalized to be necessary. eventually, the same will go for wiretapping.

it's clever how you start your post off with rhetorical questions, and then end on a loaded question.

let's look at your loaded question though, let's humor you. do we tolerate it? no, most people seem not to tolerate the policy. so right there your premise is flawed. is it clearly awful? that's awfully subjective.

Quote from Xygonn : You don't strike me as the type that approves of killing US citizens on US soil or foreign soil with no oversight.

Would a FISA court make this all ok with you, then?

Quote from thikthird : why is it allowed? because it's been rationalized to be necessary. eventually, the same will go for wiretapping. it's clever how you start your post off with rhetorical questions, and then end on a loaded question. let's look at your loaded question though, let's humor you. do we tolerate it? no, most people seem not to tolerate the policy. so right there your premise is flawed. is it clearly awful? that's awfully subjective.

Most people do tolerate the policy (or most people are ignorant of it). They re-elected Obama and others that implemented and continue support this policy. Even if they disagree with this one policy, they tolerate it for the sake of some other policy objective.

Quote from Rebound : Would a FISA court make this all ok with you, then?

I was only further pointing out how bad the policy was. If I were to say, "I can't stand all the serial rapists." Your question would be like "But if they were one time rapists, you would be ok with it?"

I will still answer the question.

No it would not. I would feel a little bit better about it if they followed the constitution and stripped those found guilty of treason (using the constitutional standards of treason) of their citizenship. Well publicized court proceeding for all accused of treason, as some may attempt to flee the court to prevent being tried. I think that a highly public trial in absentia could potentially be constitutional.

Quote from Xygonn : I was only further pointing out how bad the policy was. If I were to say, "I can't stand all the serial rapists." Your question would be like "But if they were one time rapists, you would be ok with it?" I will still answer the question. No it would not. I would feel a little bit better about it if they followed the constitution and stripped those found guilty of treason (using the constitutional standards of treason) of their citizenship. Well publicized court proceeding for all accused of treason, as some may attempt to flee the court to prevent being tried. I think that a highly public trial in absentia could potentially be constitutional.

So you can't conceive of any possible situation where that wouldn't work?