Liberals: WHERE the HELL are you now?

[P@triot]

Two things here:

1.) The very organization you mentioned (law enforcement) is responsible for domestic issues. We have police at the city level, sheriffs at the county level, state highway patrol at the state level, and F.B.I. at the federal level. Both the military and the C.I.A. are strictly forbidden by law from domestic activities.

2.) The key word in your scenario is IMMINENT. Apparently you have no idea what the conversation has been on the national stage this week. Obviously, nobody has any issues with an immediate threat being neutralized (I can't even imagine why you would bring that up since the answer is so obvious). The issue is both Obama and Eric Holder have declared that they can kill Americans without trial and without proof (ie the discussion is not about an immediate threat).

BS. Holder clearly responded with the facts you brought up in 1 as why the question was beyond ignorant.

So you are also ignorant of the Posse Commitatus act?

Anybody who has been listening to the debate this week is 100% aware of the Posse Commitatus Act (Sean Hannity and Rand Paul have been talking about it 24x7.

The Posse Comitatus Act is the United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152) that was passed on June 18, 1878, after the end of Reconstruction and was updated in 1981. Its intent (in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807) was to limit the powers of Federal government in using federal military personnel to enforce the State laws.

Sec. 15. From and after the passage of this act it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress

Posse Comitatus Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In other words - it is strictly forbidden to use the military domestically unless CONGRESS (not the president) authorizes it as necessary.

You're pointing at a law designed to restrict military use domestically as evidence that the president has the right to use the military domestically

 

[LeftofLeft]

We're right here - letting our twice-elected President do his job to keep America safe from terrorists - domestic and foreign.

And how are You correct in fighting the previous twice-elected President from tapping phone calls of suspected Muslim terrorists in other countries calling into the US?? Liberals are so full of shit.

 

[P@triot]

My position on drones and wiretapping remain the same for ANY president. Do it...with PRE-approval (not after the fact) and lots of over-site.

Again, two things which have never existed. But hey, support it. I'll be safe and you'll be in grave danger when a Republican occupies the White House.

All it will take is one radical (like Ron Paul) who is a liberal hating, lesbian hating loon to make Seawytch go BOOM! Then they will explain to the media that Seawytch was an Al Qaeda sympathizer who plotted operations with them against the U.S. Navy. Among the "evidence" they will present is the fact that she ranted against conservatives on USMB with using the name "Seawytch" (an obvious reference to her radical views and operations - after all, who deems themselves a "Seawytch" unless they have ill-intent for U.S. maritime forces?).

See how easy that is? Sleep tight (hope those blankets are thick and cushion against hellfire drone missiles)

 

[P@triot]

I haven't heard any rightwingers who supported the Patriot Act voice support for Obama's drone program;

that makes you people the hypocrites, doesn't it?

Vintage liberal "logic" here - it's ok to support killing people because many conservatives supported data mining (yeah - because those are the same thing)

 

[Bfgrn]

After having one anuerism after another (or apparently pretending to) about the "Patriot Act" and about "enhanced interrogations" - I have yet to hear one liberal complain that both Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder believe the federal government has the authority to kill Americans without a trial.

Ted Cruz rips Eric Holder on constitutionality of domestic drone use ? Glenn Beck

Senator Mike Lee: ?Heaven help us all? if President can use drones on US soil ? Glenn Beck

WATCH: Glenn?s full interview with Senator Rand Paul ? Glenn Beck

Maybe you should check out the 'Huff & Puff' Post once in a while. Liberals have been calling out Obama all along on the drone program.

This picture of innocent victims of drone strikes was the main page at Huffington Post yesterday.

Here is a great article by Bob Cesca today. I totally agree with his argument.

Bob Cesca: No, Obama Will Not Execute You With a Drone

 

[Borillar]

How is this any different from all the so-called "conservatives" who kept saying "If you're not hiding anything, you have nothing to fear" about the Patriot Act during Bush?

Well, while those conservatives were definitely wrong, there is a monumental difference between what amounts to "data mining" information of U.S. citizens and killing U.S. citizens, wouldn't you say?

I'd much rather have the federal government steal and read my emails than kill me and my family with a predator drone. The fact that you can't see a "difference" (you exact words) is truly tragic.

When has a predator drone killed an American on American soil? When is the administration planning on using drones domestically? How is being killed by a drone worse than being shot by a FBI sniper? Would it make you feel warm and fuzzy to put police in harm's way rather than take out a bad guy by remote control?

All this BS is like asking the President when he quit beating his wife. He never did and has no intention of doing so. The question is only made in order to slime him by implication.

 

[Vast LWC]

There is no difference between the tool. The difference is between who is controlling the tool and the due process behind the authorization of utilizing the tool.

As far as I know, the President runs both the military and the FBI.

Obviously there are several levels of command between, but the President is in fact the chief executive in both cases.

Therefore, if the president ordered someone killed as part of an FBI operation, due to imminent threat circumstances, but used a drone to do it, what exactly would be illegal about it?

 

[Vast LWC]

Anybody who has been listening to the debate this week is 100% aware of the Posse Commitatus Act (Sean Hannity and Rand Paul have been talking about it 24x7.

The Posse Comitatus Act is the United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152) that was passed on June 18, 1878, after the end of Reconstruction and was updated in 1981. Its intent (in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807) was to limit the powers of Federal government in using federal military personnel to enforce the State laws.

Sec. 15. From and after the passage of this act it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress

Posse Comitatus Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In other words - it is strictly forbidden to use the military domestically unless CONGRESS (not the president) authorizes it as necessary.

You're pointing at a law designed to restrict military use domestically as evidence that the president has the right to use the military domestically

If a drone is controlled by law enforcement personnel, then it would not be military...

 

[Freewill]

My position on drones and wiretapping remain the same for ANY president. Do it...with PRE-approval (not after the fact) and lots of over-site.

So since Obama did neither you are ready to call him a war criminal?

 

[Freewill]

After having one anuerism after another (or apparently pretending to) about the "Patriot Act" and about "enhanced interrogations" - I have yet to hear one liberal complain that both Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder believe the federal government has the authority to kill Americans without a trial.

Ted Cruz rips Eric Holder on constitutionality of domestic drone use ? Glenn Beck

Senator Mike Lee: ?Heaven help us all? if President can use drones on US soil ? Glenn Beck

WATCH: Glenn?s full interview with Senator Rand Paul ? Glenn Beck

Maybe you should check out the 'Huff & Puff' Post once in a while. Liberals have been calling out Obama all along on the drone program.

This picture of innocent victims of drone strikes was the main page at Huffington Post yesterday.

Here is a great article by Bob Cesca today. I totally agree with his argument.

Bob Cesca: No, Obama Will Not Execute You With a Drone

How interesting that the writer first condemns the Obama administration and the use of drones and then spends the bulk of the article defending him. So liberal.

 

[Freewill]

My position on drones and wiretapping remain the same for ANY president. Do it...with PRE-approval (not after the fact) and lots of over-site.

Again, two things which have never existed. But hey, support it. I'll be safe and you'll be in grave danger when a Republican occupies the White House.

All it will take is one radical (like Ron Paul) who is a liberal hating, lesbian hating loon to make Seawytch go BOOM! Then they will explain to the media that Seawytch was an Al Qaeda sympathizer who plotted operations with them against the U.S. Navy. Among the "evidence" they will present is the fact that she ranted against conservatives on USMB with using the name "Seawytch" (an obvious reference to her radical views and operations - after all, who deems themselves a "Seawytch" unless they have ill-intent for U.S. maritime forces?).

See how easy that is? Sleep tight (hope those blankets are thick and cushion against hellfire drone missiles)

Do members of Al Qaeda have to show a membership card before they are killed by the President?

 

[Vast LWC]

Let's not forget.. The quesitoning right now is over the military use of Drones on U.S. soil.

Something I would believe to be illegal under the Posse Commitatus act.

I don't beleive they were talking about FBI, Secret Service, or U.S. Marshall's use.

No. The original question, posed to John Brennan, was as follows:

Do you believe that the president has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil? What about the use of lethal force against a non-U.S. person on U.S. soil?

Rand Paul says he wants answers to 'drone strike' questions from John Brennan - National Rand Paul | Examiner.com

There was no distinction made as to whether said drone strike was conducted by the military, or by Law Enforcement.

There was a separate unrelated question asked by him at the time about CIA involvement in domestic law enforcement.

It was at this point that Mr Paul made this statement:

"I have asked Mr. Brennan if he believed that the President has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and my question remains unanswered. I will not allow a vote on this nomination until Mr. Brennan openly responds to the questions and concerns my colleagues and I share." Sen. Paul said.

 

[Bfgrn]

After having one anuerism after another (or apparently pretending to) about the "Patriot Act" and about "enhanced interrogations" - I have yet to hear one liberal complain that both Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder believe the federal government has the authority to kill Americans without a trial.

Ted Cruz rips Eric Holder on constitutionality of domestic drone use ? Glenn Beck

Senator Mike Lee: ?Heaven help us all? if President can use drones on US soil ? Glenn Beck

WATCH: Glenn?s full interview with Senator Rand Paul ? Glenn Beck

Maybe you should check out the 'Huff & Puff' Post once in a while. Liberals have been calling out Obama all along on the drone program.

This picture of innocent victims of drone strikes was the main page at Huffington Post yesterday.

Here is a great article by Bob Cesca today. I totally agree with his argument.

Bob Cesca: No, Obama Will Not Execute You With a Drone

How interesting that the writer first condemns the Obama administration and the use of drones and then spends the bulk of the article defending him. So liberal.

Poor reading comprehension...SO right wing.

 

[Vast LWC]

If the question is now:

"Can the military make drone strikes on American citizens?"

I would say that the answer is firmly no.

But that was not the question that Sen Paul originally asked, when he said he'd refuse to allow the nomination.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I've supporting killing the terrorists, wherever we find them, one at a time if we have to, since 9/11/01.

My position hasn't changed.

So then you fully support the Patriot Act, Guantanamo Bay, holding enemy combatants without trial, military tribunals, and torture - correct?

One does not follow the other. I support killing terrorists. If they are captured, they deserve the same humane and just treatment we would expect to be given captured Americans.

 

[P@triot]

When has a predator drone killed an American on American soil?

When has an enemy detonated a nuclear weapon on American soil? I guess that means it can't happen, uh? And since it is completely impossible (from the logic of your very twisted mind), then clearly we don't need any defense and we should immediately disband our entire military...

When is the administration planning on using drones domestically?

I don't know Borillar - when did the administration plan on illegally passing untraceable guns to the Mexican drug cartels?

When did the administration decide to smuggle deadly arms to Al Qaeda in Benghazi?

Feeling stupid yet? You seriously haven't realized that NONE of us are privy to the plans of the administration, and therefore asking what their plans are is completely nonsensical?

How is being killed by a drone worse than being shot by a FBI sniper?

Because an F.B.I. sniper will NEVER shoot me unless:

A.) I pose an immediate threat to someone (which I control)

or

B.) I've at least had some form of due process / proper legal course which has caused them to approach me (such as the case in Ruby Ridge, where people wre WRONGFULLY shot but at least warrants had been issued. That is exponentially more than Obama and Holder are claiming is required by the president.

Would it make you feel warm and fuzzy to put police in harm's way rather than take out a bad guy by remote control?

Like Andrew Wilkow says, "with liberals, it's either central planning or nihilism"

I'm sorry, our only choice in your world is put police in harm's way or use predator drones to assinate American citizens without due process? Really?

Funny, seems like we literally have thousands of ways to keep law enforcement out of harm's way without the illegal assisnation of American citizens sans due process. But if you admitted that, it would mean you wouldn't be worshipping Obama (and we can't have that now, can we)?

All this BS is like asking the President when he quit beating his wife. He never did and has no intention of doing so. The question is only made in order to slime him by implication.

Both he and Eric Holder have claimed they hold full authority to do so and us such, reserve the right. If your deep man-love of Obama blinds you from this FACT, I can't help you. God Bless and good luck my lost little friend...

 

[P@triot]

I've supporting killing the terrorists, wherever we find them, one at a time if we have to, since 9/11/01.

My position hasn't changed.

So then you fully support the Patriot Act, Guantanamo Bay, holding enemy combatants without trial, military tribunals, and torture - correct?

One does not follow the other. I support killing terrorists. If they are captured, they deserve the same humane and just treatment we would expect to be given captured Americans.

So it's ok to KILL terrorists, but it's not ok to hold them without trial?!?

This is how far off the sanity tracks the partisan idiot liberals have gone. They are so desperate to defend their hypocrisy, they will say anything, no matter how insanely stupid.

 

[P@triot]

If the question is now:

"Can the military make drone strikes on American citizens?"

I would say that the answer is firmly no.

But that was not the question that Sen Paul originally asked, when he said he'd refuse to allow the nomination.

Finally, at least someone can give a rational and reasonable response.

An American citizen (no matter how evil) - has rights (period). The president does NOT have the power to execute Americans at his own discretion.

 

[P@triot]

My position on drones and wiretapping remain the same for ANY president. Do it...with PRE-approval (not after the fact) and lots of over-site.

Again, two things which have never existed. But hey, support it. I'll be safe and you'll be in grave danger when a Republican occupies the White House.

All it will take is one radical (like Ron Paul) who is a liberal hating, lesbian hating loon to make Seawytch go BOOM! Then they will explain to the media that Seawytch was an Al Qaeda sympathizer who plotted operations with them against the U.S. Navy. Among the "evidence" they will present is the fact that she ranted against conservatives on USMB with using the name "Seawytch" (an obvious reference to her radical views and operations - after all, who deems themselves a "Seawytch" unless they have ill-intent for U.S. maritime forces?).

See how easy that is? Sleep tight (hope those blankets are thick and cushion against hellfire drone missiles)

Do members of Al Qaeda have to show a membership card before they are killed by the President?

No - I could give a fuck about ANY muslim in ANY country (good or bad). They are not American citizens, therefore they do not have ANY rights with regards to the U.S. Constitution and the limitations of government.

An American citizens has FULL rights. It really is that simple.

 

[P@triot]

There is no difference between the tool. The difference is between who is controlling the tool and the due process behind the authorization of utilizing the tool.

As far as I know, the President runs both the military and the FBI.

Obviously there are several levels of command between, but the President is in fact the chief executive in both cases.

Therefore, if the president ordered someone killed as part of an FBI operation, due to imminent threat circumstances, but used a drone to do it, what exactly would be illegal about it?

That little thing called DUE PROCESS. You are seriously unfamiliar with this concept?