Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Sen. Rand Paul is Giving a Genuine Filibuster

86 posts in this topic

Posted

can anyone in here think of a situation conceivable in which knocking out an individual with a drone would be beneficial to the greater good of a vast number of people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

if 9-11 had been accomplished through a different mode than aircraft, and a drone killing an individual on american soil would have stopped 9-11 from happening, would you support the use of drones on american soil?

it's a weak argument, i understand, but i'm asking for the sake of determining if there is ever a time when this sort of thing would be acceptable. if there is, i'd wager that provisions like this are being made in case of scenarios like that. i don't think this means that there'll instantly be squadrons of drones patrolling the skies of suburban america waiting to zap every anarchist kid in an NOFX tshirt.

that said, i see the argument that this sets a very dangerous precedent, and i lean towards agreeing with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

“The condition that an operational leader presents an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on US persons and interests will take place in the immediate future.”

this is the problem as far as i see it. during rand's thing, durbin basically asked what you're asking (specifically saying that flight 93 would have been shot down had it not crashed, and that that would have been the correct thing to do) and that wasn't even really contested. it's the twisting of the word "imminent" that has created the weird union between aclu types and assholes like rand paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Not forgetting the fact that Rand Paul is a nutjob that feels private businesses should be able to be racist or not accommodate people with disabilities, this is an interesting discussion to have, regardless.

So what if, like in the scenario Holden gave and Paul blew up for political gain, we were faced with a hijacked place full of people speeding towards NY, Houston, Chicago, etc and we had a drone in the air nearby? I think most would agree that, horrible as it would be, you take down the plane.

The question is how do you allow for that, but still make it difficult to legally justify a more mundane killing?

It's good that the far right is starting to come around to the questions a lot of us had years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The pres should not have powers of judge jury and executioner. Brennan does not appear to believe this is so. thats what the fillibuster is about. hypotheticals do nothing for this arguement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The NSA and the DHS are not part of the military.

It would be political suicide to use a drone for anything like this unless you were sure beyond a reasonable doubt that the person being monitored was on their way to perform an attack and there was a chance conventional law enforcement would not be able to stop them. Again, chances are remote but there is a chance, so I think this was just CYA.

The NSA is part of the military. It falls under the DOD and its leader is usually a general or an admiral. Currently, its General Keith Alexander.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

can anyone in here think of a situation conceivable in which knocking out an individual with a drone would be beneficial to the greater good of a vast number of people?

If South Carolina tries the succession thing again. :) Last time, they used warships, muskets and cannon against them, this time it will be tanks and drones (to go after the leaders). A highly unlikely circumstance of course, but then thats what is meant by extreme circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

can anyone in here think of a situation conceivable in which knocking out an individual with a drone would be beneficial to the greater good of a vast number of people?

If we could nuke DC, that would be a great start in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

How is anyone with a blanket authority to kill US citizens w/o some form of due process?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Questions were posed about non combatants on American soil and no assurances given. Only, "we don't intend to". Well, what about 20 years from now? Who will be operating with this set of open rules then?

Very short sighted to put in something without looking to the future

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Questions were posed about non combatants on American soil and no assurances given. Only, "we don't intend to". Well, what about 20 years from now? Who will be operating with this set of open rules then?

Very short sighted to put in something without looking to the future

that's my problem with it, you open the door to a lot of hazy interpretation down the road. a dangerous precedent to set unless you're very specific right off the bat as far as how use of them is restricted/regulated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Lgm53y5.jpg

seems reasonable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites