85 replies to this topic

[stirs]

haha stirs taking imaginary shots at libs again

As a liberal, I dont support all the drone strikes, and I think the program has grown far bigger than it needs to be. Unfortunately most people dont seem to agree with me

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/cbs-poll-broad-bipartisan-support-for-drone-program

Do you always wait for a poll to be released so that you know what you think?

Screw a bunch of polls. There is a difference in taking our enemy tanks, vehicles, leaders in Afghanistan than knocking out a cabin in Idaho. We can find the folks in Idaho, we know them. Arrest them. Again, what has changed in the US to make this a needful thing.

Kudos to Wyden, who unlike the libs here, seem to be satisfied to make fun of Pubs and support their President on ANYTHING he proposes. I could only imagine the vitriol if Bush or someone from the right for instance, was in the White House.

If the Press won't hold a leader accountable, but turns into it's chief supporter, then what stops a leader from proposing any story as to why someone was blown away? It has happened in the past, just not here, yet.

[rodeo]

Rand Paul should read the constitution during his filibuster. It seems as though King Barack and the majority of our leaders in DC never have.

Yeah I bet ol' King Barack never read the constitution when he was teaching constitutional law.

[thatlookseasy]

Do you always wait for a poll to be released so that you know what you think?

Screw a bunch of polls. There is a difference in taking our enemy tanks, vehicles, leaders in Afghanistan than knocking out a cabin in Idaho. We can find the folks in Idaho, we know them. Arrest them. Again, what has changed in the US to make this a needful thing.

Kudos to Wyden, who unlike the libs here, seem to be satisfied to make fun of Pubs and support their President on ANYTHING he proposes. I could only imagine the vitriol if Bush or someone from the right for instance, was in the White House.

If the Press won't hold a leader accountable, but turns into it's chief supporter, then what stops a leader from proposing any story as to why someone was blown away? It has happened in the past, just not here, yet.

Wow that was a lot of rambling. As to the bolded point- just because you keep saying it doesnt make it true

[Davidson Deac II]

So libs are for shooting Americans with drones? Or cannot say anything positive about a Pub?

Or, is it the ole, "anything Obama does is okay with me" deal? Any Dem lawmakers upset with it?

If said american is working with Al Qaeda, and is in a country or region in which it is dangerous or impossible for us to arrest that american, then I have no problem with hitting him or her with a drone, a tomahawk missile, a bomb from an B52, or a sniper's bullet. No different imo than shooting american citizens serving with the German army in WWII.

[stirs]

If said american is working with Al Qaeda, and is in a country or region in which it is dangerous or impossible for us to arrest that american, then I have no problem with hitting him or her with a drone, a tomahawk missile, a bomb from an B52, or a sniper's bullet. No different imo than shooting american citizens serving with the German army in WWII.

Then we disagree. American soil is the big difference. I mentioned the foreign thing in a later post

[Davidson Deac II]

Then we disagree. American soil is the big difference. I mentioned the foreign thing in a later post

I am assuming we will arrest them if they are in the US. Or for that matter, any nation in Europe, and several other regions. There may be some extreme circumstances in which we might use drones on US soil, but then that is really not a change from the way we have done things in the past. A drone is just another military weapon, and we have used military weapons against US citizens in extreme circumstances throughout our history.

But in remote regions of Africa, the Arabian peninsula, etc..., I don't have a problem with it. If an arrest warrant makes people feel better, then tape it to the nose of the Hellfire missile.

[cookinwithgas]

There you go - you just said there could be extreme circumstances where it would be prudent to use this method. You also mentioned we have done these actions (no drones though) in the past so it's not like some scary new way to grab power is being developed. Thats all I said as well.

[AR-15 Panther]

F*ck due process... Hellfires are easier...

This is about using drones to kill Americans on US soil without a trial, not bum f*cking Africa.

Where are all these d*mn terrorists we are supposed to be so fearful of to give up our liberties? Nothing has happened since 911, why now do we need this new measure?

What about posse comitatus or will they be giving the fbi predators?

Things that may make you a terrorist:
stains on your shirt
missing fingers
owning multiple firearms
having 7 days worth of food

Keep your heads low.

[cookinwithgas]

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.

[stirs]

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.

I would bet all I own that if Bush or Romney were president, your answers would be the exact opposite. Enable on.

[gospodin shuttlesworth]

i wonder how many people who are currently panicking over obummer's drone policy supported, and continue to support, the "war on terror"

[AR-15 Panther]

Rand is not talking about an immediate threat, but of an imminent threat.

What Obama wants is to use drone strikes on NON combative US citizens on US soil without a trial, this shouldn't even be up for debate...

Rand the man

[Kral]

I would bet all I own that if Bush or Romney were president, your answers would be the exact opposite. Enable on.

I agree with you.

[gospodin shuttlesworth]

Rand is not talking about an immediate threat, but of an imminent threat.

What Obama wants is to use drone strikes on NON combative US citizens on US soil without a trial, this shouldn't even be up for debate...

Rand the man

we've been killing noncombatants for years. it sucks when you could feasibly end up being the victim of an unwarranted drone strike, eh?

[Kral]

we've been killing noncombatants for years. it sucks when you could feasibly end up being the victim of an unwarranted drone strike, eh?

No matter what this is an unacceptable method of operation due to it's abusive potential.