Drones - its a method - who cares?

[JakeStarkey]

kondor and NYcarbineer have the right of it, and dblack is hopelessly confused about the constitution.

No due process exists for identified terrorists overseas who cannot be captured.

To insist there is reveals a mind swiss cheesed by inconsistencies.

 

[dblack]

The Congress need only repeal the AUMF.

Agreed. But that doesn't answer my question. Do you think they should? Or are you defending the continued state of perpetual war powers?

The AUMF limits the president's power to going after al qaeda, supporters of al qaeda, nations that harbor al qaeda, etc. As long as those entities continue to exist, the justification to use force to defeat them continues.

Exactly. Perpetual war powers.

Remember how Benghazi was, and is held up as proof that Obama had not defeated Al Qaeda? All the propaganda put out against the president that claimed he had declared victory over Al Qaeda - which he hadn't - and yet Al Qaeda was still around attacking American interests?

Which is it? Is the war over and thus the president's war powers have become unnecessary and need to be repealed, or, is the war still ongoing and the president needs the means to continue the fight?

It's never been a real war to begin with. That's the conceit of the entire neo-con agenda.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"...Everyone on the planet has the exact same rights you do. The fact that you want to pretend otherwise does not change that simple truth."

When a known terrorist is targeted to be killed by drone because he cannot be neutralized by any other means before he kills or harms Americans, whose rights are being violated when he is killed by drone-strike?

Mine.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No they don't. There are millions who through their own actions have lost their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Our prisons, for example, are full of people who have lost their right to liberty.

They haven't lost a fucking thing because it is impossible to lose your rights. What happens is that the government has decreed that, in order to protect the idiots of the world from themselves, some people who do certain things are going to be punished for doing things idiots do not like.

You're mentally retarded. Nothing you just said makes any sense to any normal person.

How would you know?

 

[Papageorgio]

"...Everyone on the planet has the exact same rights you do. The fact that you want to pretend otherwise does not change that simple truth."

When a known terrorist is targeted to be killed by drone because he cannot be neutralized by any other means before he kills or harms Americans, whose rights are being violated when he is killed by drone-strike?

Mine.

As long as dimwits don't think their rights are being violated, then I guess it is all okay. They seem to forget the government doesn't care who is being targeted, the government doesn't care if US citizens, or anyone else is killed. They only care about targeting terrorist, who this administrations tells us doesn't exist.

No one seems to realize, they can easily target us in the name of terrorism.

Sad how we are so easily will give up our rights without even realizing that we gave them away.

 

[Kondor3]

"...Mine."

Doubtful, in a practical sense, anyway, other than in a metaphorical fashion.

And, frankly, if it's a toss-up between killing a known Terrorist overseas before he can kill Americans, or letting him live in order to give you your metaphor, at the cost of American lives, my vote is to kill the Bad Guy and let you sort your disappointment as best you can.

Although I, like many who support the concept in-theory, think our Vetting Process and Controls and Accountability suck, and need one helluva lot more work, before I, or many, I suspect, can support such activities without a liberal sprinkling of caveats.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"...Mine."

Doubtful, in a practical sense, anyway, other than in a metaphorical fashion.

And, frankly, if it's a toss-up between killing a known Terrorist overseas before he can kill Americans, or letting him live in order to give you your metaphor, at the cost of American lives, my vote is to kill the Bad Guy and let you sort your disappointment as best you can.

Although I, like many who support the concept in-theory, think our Vetting Process and Controls and Accountability suck, and need one helluva lot more work, before I, or many, I suspect, can support such activities without a liberal sprinkling of caveats.

Simple concepts to complicated for you?

There is nothing metaphorical about the government killing people being a violation of people's rights. This is so fundamental that our entire body of law is based on it, and a specific process designed to minimize the ability of the government was written into the Constitution. When this process is ignored it violates everyone's rights.

 

[Kondor3]

"...Simple concepts to complicated for you?..."

Sometimes... sometimes... like anybody else on the face of the planet, I can be as dumb as a box-o-rocks sometimes, but this is not one of those times.

"...There is nothing metaphorical about the government killing people being a violation of people's rights..."

What part of the word "war" is giving you trouble today?

 

[Kondor3]

"...Simple concepts to complicated for you?..."

Let's turn the tables a bit and have some fun and put you to the test, in this very context.

1. You are the Drone Firing Authorization Person (President, General, whatever).

2. A known terrorist surfaces who has killed your countrymen and who is going to kill more.

3. He is overseas and out of your reach and the reach of the host-country police, except for your Drone technology.

4. This is the first time he's surfaced since he last killed Americans.

5. If you do not hit him now he will surely kill more Americans - many more - and soon.

6. If you do not hit him now he will go-to-ground and may never be accessible again.

7. Your Drone-Operating Command is asking you for permission to fire.

8. What is your decision? (a) "Fire", or (b) "Hold Fire"?

 

[Indofred]

"...Simple concepts to complicated for you?..."

Let's turn the tables a bit and have some fun and put you to the test, in this very context.

1. You are the Drone Firing Authorization Person (President, General, whatever).

2. A known terrorist surfaces who has killed your countrymen and who is going to kill more.

3. He is overseas and out of your reach and the reach of the host-country police, except for your Drone technology.

4. This is the first time he's surfaced since he last killed Americans.

5. If you do not hit him now he will surely kill more Americans - many more - and soon.

6. If you do not hit him now he will go-to-ground and may never be accessible again.

7. Your Drone-Operating Command is asking you for permission to fire.

8. What is your decision? (a) "Fire", or (b) "Hold Fire"?

Depends on a few things.
First would be; are the Americans civilians or armed forces who have invaded another country.
If it's the latter, the terrorists may well be freedom fighters.

 

[ScienceRocks]

As long as they're used within the field of war. I don't have any problem with them. They make sure we don't have to send teams of special forces or manned jets into harms way.

I think they're a good idea.

 

[NYcarbineer]

They haven't lost a fucking thing because it is impossible to lose your rights. What happens is that the government has decreed that, in order to protect the idiots of the world from themselves, some people who do certain things are going to be punished for doing things idiots do not like.

You're mentally retarded. Nothing you just said makes any sense to any normal person.

How would you know?

Because what you said is nonsense, and you are not even capable of making an attempt to explain why it isn't nonsense. You're a classic head case. Things in your head that seem to be brilliant are simply looney to normal people.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
They haven't lost a fucking thing because it is impossible to lose your rights. .

What exactly do you think a right is?

If I have the right to possess a gun in the US, but I move to a foreign country where I no longer have the right to possess that gun,

and could in fact be jailed for doing so,

how is it possible that I have the same exact rights in both countries?

What do you think a right is?

 

[NYcarbineer]

"...Mine."

Doubtful, in a practical sense, anyway, other than in a metaphorical fashion.

And, frankly, if it's a toss-up between killing a known Terrorist overseas before he can kill Americans, or letting him live in order to give you your metaphor, at the cost of American lives, my vote is to kill the Bad Guy and let you sort your disappointment as best you can.

Although I, like many who support the concept in-theory, think our Vetting Process and Controls and Accountability suck, and need one helluva lot more work, before I, or many, I suspect, can support such activities without a liberal sprinkling of caveats.

Simple concepts to complicated for you?

There is nothing metaphorical about the government killing people being a violation of people's rights. This is so fundamental that our entire body of law is based on it, and a specific process designed to minimize the ability of the government was written into the Constitution. When this process is ignored it violates everyone's rights.

Really? You're arguing that there is no constitutionally sound course available for the government to make war against an enemy of the US? All war is unconstitutional?

 

[NYcarbineer]

[There is nothing metaphorical about the government killing people being a violation of people's rights. This is so fundamental that our entire body of law is based on it, and a specific process designed to minimize the ability of the government was written into the Constitution. When this process is ignored it violates everyone's rights.

It's interesting you say that when the post before you said this:

They haven't lost a fucking thing because it is impossible to lose your rights.

lol

 

[CrusaderFrank]

kondor and NYcarbineer have the right of it, and dblack is hopelessly confused about the constitution.

No due process exists for identified terrorists overseas who cannot be captured.

To insist there is reveals a mind swiss cheesed by inconsistencies.

Jake comes to the aid of his Progressive brothers

 

[exomni]

Gee, a US President is now able to assassinate anyone he doesn't like (US citizens included) without that pesky thing called "due process" getting in his way. What's there not to like?

 

[tinydancer]

Gee, a US President is now able to assassinate anyone he doesn't like (US citizens included) without that pesky thing called "due process" getting in his way. What's there not to like?

It's a progressives dream come true!

 

[NYcarbineer]

Gee, a US President is now able to assassinate anyone he doesn't like (US citizens included) without that pesky thing called "due process" getting in his way. What's there not to like?

No, he can't. Turn off your radio.

 

[Freewill]

"...Simple concepts to complicated for you?..."

Let's turn the tables a bit and have some fun and put you to the test, in this very context.

1. You are the Drone Firing Authorization Person (President, General, whatever).

2. A known terrorist surfaces who has killed your countrymen and who is going to kill more.

3. He is overseas and out of your reach and the reach of the host-country police, except for your Drone technology.

4. This is the first time he's surfaced since he last killed Americans.

5. If you do not hit him now he will surely kill more Americans - many more - and soon.

6. If you do not hit him now he will go-to-ground and may never be accessible again.

7. Your Drone-Operating Command is asking you for permission to fire.

8. What is your decision? (a) "Fire", or (b) "Hold Fire"?

Need to add,

9. He is in a ally country to which we are not at war.

10. If he were such a bad guy then a trial or at least a grand jury was formed indicating the person. The decision was not made by the CIA alone who has made lots of bad decisions.

11. The man is targeted by a known and well trusted informant, not just anyone who places a targeting chip for money.

12. He is not an American.