GOODBYE 6th Amendment!

[Quantum Windbag]

"with China or Russia, Mexico, or Syria flying drones here?"

(1) they are not and if they were

(2) shoot em down

This is not a constitutional issue, merely one of the use of a tool to get bad guys and bad girls where the normal American LEO or military forces cannot get to them. If Pakistan can shoot the drones down, let them. The USA will not go to war with Pakistan over the issue: only send more drones.

Thanks for proving how brilliant you are at ignoring the point.

 

[JakeStarkey]

". . . unless Rand had actually united both sides of the aisle with that little stunt you thought was a complete waste of time."

Yes, it was a stunt and no it did not unite both sides of the aisle.

The libertarian approach on this issue is wrong, period.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If the guy won't surrender and is waging war or aiding and abetting those who are waging war, the issue is only the means to get him.

No constitutional issue exists.

If the guy was waging war you should be able to point to all the people he killed, or at least shot at. The only war he was engaged in as far as we know is one of words, and you are giving the government carte blanche to kill people who have a different point of view. Where does that stop? Should the president be able to use drones on environmental activists who refuse to surrender if he can argue that they are endangering lives? Because I can quite easily prove that the positions that some environmentalists hold will result in the deaths of billions of people.

 

[BlindBoo]

So you think the Consitution should protect a sniper shooting down on an innocent crowd from a SWAT team?

You're right it's not left or right, as I said I would expect even a Republcian president to take the same measure to protect Americans."

Of course not. Innocent until proven guilty. If a person is in the act of shooting people in the face, shoot him in the face. Guilty. But if we THINK he is GOING to shoot people in the face....not guilty yet, at least not until it is proven...in a Court of law. Thats why the Court of law is there in the first place. right?

If a SWAT team find a guy with a rifle pointed at a crowd they will shoot him. If someone moves to a remote part of Yemen, joins al Queda, broadcasts propaganda and personally inspires attacks on Americans, they should and will be killed.

Now if someone is caught with a rifle in a car fleeing a murder scene and gives up, he will have his day in court. ......See the difference?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If the guy won't surrender and is waging war or aiding and abetting those who are waging war, the issue is only the means to get him.

No constitutional issue exists.

And yet NOT ONE of the murdered Americans was ever charged with a crime. NOT ONE. So technically no one except the Military was looking for them and the Military is NOT law enforcement.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Progressive Statist Utopian-ism. 2+2=5 for as long as we say it does.

Really?I don't see conservative groups protesting drone strikes, It was progressive group code pink that was protesting at Obama's speech yesterday.

Is that a defense of Obama, or a delusional belief that Code Pink is a progressive group?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Oh, for crap's sake, no constitutional issue exists. Wage war on America, hide where LEO can't get to you, then expect a drone. No different than a bullet.

IF someone commits murder, and then hides, law enforcement is not allowed to shoot them on site simply because they didn't stand over the body and wait for them to show up.

 

[Murhy]

"But all the same, we crossed the line."

No one has crossed any line with the use of drones. None. Not even a little bit.

This is an issue of technology, not constitutionality

When was the last time that Americans killed Americans?

Probably two minutes ago. But if you mean in time of war, your question is immaterial.

If a person wages war against the USA, then s/he is treated as an enemy combatant. No special authorization is required. That is a liberal namby pamby argument.

This American Citizen was planning to do things that he wasnt SUPPOSED to be able to do....but we were afraid that he might...even though we have defenses in place that SHOULD prevent that....so we took him out. So even though North Korea has made direct nuclear threats to America, since they arent SUPPOSED to be able to harm us...its cool....or should we just take Kim Jung out too?

 

[JakeStarkey]

If the guy won't surrender and is waging war or aiding and abetting those who are waging war, the issue is only the means to get him.

No constitutional issue exists.

If the guy was waging war you should be able to point to all the people he killed, or at least shot at. The only war he was engaged in as far as we know is one of words, and you are giving the government carte blanche to kill people who have a different point of view. Where does that stop? Should the president be able to use drones on environmental activists who refuse to surrender if he can argue that they are endangering lives? Because I can quite easily prove that the positions that some environmentalists hold will result in the deaths of billions of people.

False criteria, podjo. Waging war involves other means than shooting at people.

You shifted grounds to American terrorists here in America who refuse to surrender. Sure, if they are holed up and it will cost LEO lives to get them and they won't come out. Sure, light them up.

 

[JakeStarkey]

When was the last time that Americans killed Americans?

Probably two minutes ago. But if you mean in time of war, your question is immaterial.

If a person wages war against the USA, then s/he is treated as an enemy combatant. No special authorization is required. That is a liberal namby pamby argument.

This American Citizen was planning to do things that he wasnt SUPPOSED to be able to do....but we were afraid that he might...even though we have defenses in place that SHOULD prevent that....so we took him out. So even though North Korea has made direct nuclear threats to America, since they arent SUPPOSED to be able to harm us...its cool....or should we just take Kim Jung out too?

Derivative analogy based on false comparison.

However, if we could take out the NK dictator without retaliation, sure, drone him.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Our PRESIDENT just said that our Constitution only applies most of the time.The real problem with using drone strikes on American citizens was carefully avoided in the President's speech. The issue is not, "This guy was using his American citizenship as a shield." The real issue is where does it stop? Your PRESIDENT just said that your Constitution only applies most of the time. What about the sixth amendment? Laws only apply when they are convienent, and when they arent any more, no big deal. CHANGE.

First thing you need to get your head around is the 6th Amendment does not apply in the cases you mentioned. These were people actively engaged in acts of war against the US and other allied nations. There are very few things this administration have done that I agree with, this is one of them. Any American that publicly engages in acts of war from a another country deserves no better than these two got.

It is funny that the only places where you agree with Obama are the ones where you are wrong. Unless you can show me a trail of bodies on a battlefield somewhere those people were not engaged in a war with anyone, they were merely saying things Obama did not like.

If, on the other hand, Obama has actual evidence, and can prove that he actually tried to arrest them and that they resisted with deadly force, then you have a point.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If the guy won't surrender and is waging war or aiding and abetting those who are waging war, the issue is only the means to get him.

No constitutional issue exists.

And yet NOT ONE of the murdered Americans was ever charged with a crime. NOT ONE. So technically no one except the Military was looking for them and the Military is NOT law enforcement.

Immaterial, RGS. Once identified as an enemy noncombatant, the individual can surrender or take the chances.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If the guy won't surrender and is waging war or aiding and abetting those who are waging war, the issue is only the means to get him.

No constitutional issue exists.

And yet NOT ONE of the murdered Americans was ever charged with a crime. NOT ONE. So technically no one except the Military was looking for them and the Military is NOT law enforcement.

Since you seem to have missed it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's funny how much these alleged "conservatives" are sounding like liberals these days.

Where were all these concerns over drones and sovereignty during Bush's regime? I guess they were too busy trying to prove waterboarding isn't torture, and that habeas corpus isn't for everybody at the time.

It is sad that statists remain statists no matter how bad the state gets.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Unless you can show me a trail of bodies on a battlefield somewhere those people were not engaged in a war with anyone, they were merely saying things Obama did not like."

False.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If the guy won't surrender and is waging war or aiding and abetting those who are waging war, the issue is only the means to get him.

No constitutional issue exists.

And yet NOT ONE of the murdered Americans was ever charged with a crime. NOT ONE. So technically no one except the Military was looking for them and the Military is NOT law enforcement.

Immaterial, RGS. Once identified as an enemy noncombatant, the individual can surrender or take the chances.

You are beyond an idiot. Using your criteria we could murder anyone we want and then after the fact claim they were enemy combatants.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Seems to me he was awful clear about it. Furthermore, I would expect the same from any president.

"But when a U.S. citizen goes abroad to wage war against America and is actively plotting to kill U.S. citizens, and when neither the United States, nor our partners are in a position to capture him before he carries out a plot, his citizenship should no more serve as a shield than a sniper shooting down on an innocent crowd should be protected from a SWAT team."

As Delivered: Obama?s Speech on Terrorism - Washington Wire - WSJ

That is not the issue, at least not in part. Flying drones over Sovereign Airspace without consent, targeting for assassination, causing collateral damage, is. You would be okay with China or Russia, Mexico, or Syria flying drones here?

Yeman's government gave the USA permission.

"and when neither the United States, nor our partners are in a position to capture"

Is Yemen the only place where we have used drones? How does not being able to capture someone justify deadly force? Can the police shoot an unarmed person simply because they are not able to capture him?

 

[JakeStarkey]

"It is sad that statists remain statists no matter how bad the state gets."

There is a reason why libertarianism is either ignored or disdained by the overwhelming number of Americans: it is as worthless as communism.

 

[Murhy]

Probably two minutes ago. But if you mean in time of war, your question is immaterial.

If a person wages war against the USA, then s/he is treated as an enemy combatant. No special authorization is required. That is a liberal namby pamby argument.

This American Citizen was planning to do things that he wasnt SUPPOSED to be able to do....but we were afraid that he might...even though we have defenses in place that SHOULD prevent that....so we took him out. So even though North Korea has made direct nuclear threats to America, since they arent SUPPOSED to be able to harm us...its cool....or should we just take Kim Jung out too?

Derivative analogy based on false comparison.

However, if we could take out the NK dictator without retaliation, sure, drone him.

BIG WORDS THAT SOUND SMART. Its the same thing. We are told that we shouldnt be afraid of Korea because the "cant get to us." We are told to be afraid of the guys we droned because they "can."

 

[Murhy]

That is not the issue, at least not in part. Flying drones over Sovereign Airspace without consent, targeting for assassination, causing collateral damage, is. You would be okay with China or Russia, Mexico, or Syria flying drones here?

Yeman's government gave the USA permission.

"and when neither the United States, nor our partners are in a position to capture"

Is Yemen the only place where we have used drones? How does not being able to capture someone justify deadly force? Can the police shoot an unarmed person simply because they are not able to capture him?

Yeah. And they do. And they get away with it. America.