Why does everyone say Rand Paul's question was fictional?

[The2ndAmendment]

The overwhelming majority of drone strikes are used against NON-COMBATANT targets either eating dinner in their house or in a cafe or walking down the street.

So how is this fictional or hypothetical? If we're going to start using drones WITHIN the United States, we should be able to ask whether or not we're going to use them the same way we use them in foreign territory, since that's the only historical model of drone use that we can base on observations on.

Also, the amount of time and pressure it took to release this answer, implies that they originally intended to use drones in the United States the exact same way they use them overseas.

Paul and Wyden drew so much public attention to the issue, that it forced them to deny themselves the authority to carry out such strikes. Now if they dare to carry out such a strike, they would be impeached and removed from Office, since they themselves have declared it unconstitutional and the same will apply to EVERY FUTURE PRESIDENT.

Now let's not stop here, and get to the NDAA and the Patriot Act and draw the same amount of attention. I'd rather be dead than jailed for life without due process, because I was declared a terrorist for helping organize Occupy Wall Street.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/23/fbi-occupy-wall-street_n_2355883.html

 

[JakeStarkey]

The term was "unarmed" American citizens, correct, not non combatants?

Any American citizen who is resisting arrest or is an imminent threat or is squirreled away where normal LEO efforts can't get to him: these are fair game.

Yes, the question was illegitimate, and your defense of it is illegitimate as well.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

EDIT: Changing the OP again back to the original. Non-Combatant is the proper term. It means not currently engaged in combat or not intending to engage in combat if arrested.

 

[Avatar4321]

Everyone doesnt. After all, I don't. And even if I was the only one who didn't, that would mean everyone doesn't.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

The term was "unarmed" American citizens, correct, not non combatants?

Any American citizen who is resisting arrest or is an imminent threat or is squirreled away where normal LEO efforts can't get to him: these are fair game.

Yes, the question was illegitimate, and your defense of it is illegitimate as well.

Read the letter. At no point, during the entire Filibuster, did Rand Paul EVER contest the authority of the Federal Government to use lethal force against someone is currently engaged in lethal force as well.

Stop lying, stop twisting, stop spinning. READ THE LETTER.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The overwhelming majority of drone strikes are used against UNARMED targets either eating dinner in their house or in a cafe or walking down the street.

What do you base that dubious claim on?

So how is this fictional or hypothetical? If we're going to start using drones WITHIN the United States, we should be able to ask whether or not we're going to use them the same way we use them in foreign territory, since that's the only historical model of drone use that we can base on observations on.

Ummm. You know that the term "drone" includes a whole lot more than Predators, right?

In fact, the biggest "historical use" of drones is for surveillance, not assassination.

Also, the amount of time and pressure it took to release this answer, implies that they originally intended to use drones in the United States the exact same way they use them overseas.

There is NO reason to make that assumption.

Paul and Wyden drew so much public attention to the issue, that it forced them to deny themselves the authority to carry out such strikes. Now if they dare to carry out such a strike, they would be impeached and removed from Office, since they themselves have declared it unconstitutional and the same will apply to EVERY FUTURE PRESIDENT.

This is the Catch-22 about nonsensical things like this.

You guys scream and yell that Obama is going to kill us with drones, and then when he says "No, I won't", you guys scream and yell that you stopped him.

Now let's not stop here, and get to the NDAA and the Patriot Act and draw the same amount of attention. I'd rather be dead than jailed for life without due process, because I was declared a terrorist for helping organize Occupy Wall Street.

FBI Investigated 'Occupy' As Possible 'Terrorism' Threat, Internal Documents Show

Well, I'll get outraged when anything like that actually happens, rather than getting outraged because you think it could happen.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The term was "unarmed" American citizens, correct, not non combatants?

Any American citizen who is resisting arrest or is an imminent threat or is squirreled away where normal LEO efforts can't get to him: these are fair game.

Yes, the question was illegitimate, and your defense of it is illegitimate as well.

Read the letter. At no point, during the entire Filibuster, did Rand Paul EVER contest the authority of the Federal Government to use lethal force against someone is currently engaged in lethal force as well.

Stop lying, stop twisting, stop spinning. READ THE LETTER.

Not the letter but Rand's interp of the letter. I agree that all should read the letter.

Rand was illegitimate in his recap of it and lost whatever chance he had for 2016.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Paul and Wyden drew so much public attention to the issue, that it forced them to deny themselves the authority to carry out such strikes. Now if they dare to carry out such a strike, they would be impeached and removed from Office, since they themselves have declared it unconstitutional and the same will apply to EVERY FUTURE PRESIDENT.

This is the Catch-22 about nonsensical things like this.

You guys scream and yell that Obama is going to kill us with drones, and then when he says "No, I won't", you guys scream and yell that you stopped him.

Actually, I don't think the Obama Administration was ever going to kill American citizens with drones. What I feared was FUTURE President's, like King George the Decider.

I voted for Obama twice, did you? I'd vote for him a third time if possible. Would you?

What happened last night night was NOT a Left vs Right issue. It was an Authoritarian vs Libertarian issue. Authoritarians and Libertarians exist equally on both sides.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Paul and Wyden drew so much public attention to the issue, that it forced them to deny themselves the authority to carry out such strikes. Now if they dare to carry out such a strike, they would be impeached and removed from Office, since they themselves have declared it unconstitutional and the same will apply to EVERY FUTURE PRESIDENT.

This is the Catch-22 about nonsensical things like this.

You guys scream and yell that Obama is going to kill us with drones, and then when he says "No, I won't", you guys scream and yell that you stopped him.

Actually, I don't think the Obama Administration was ever going to kill American citizens with drones. What I feared was FUTURE President's, like King George the Decider.

I voted for Obama twice, did you? I'd vote for him a third time if possible. Would you?

I did NOT vote for Obama either time. And he's not going to run for a third term, so that's a moot point.

Fixed your quotes, too.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why does everyone say Rand Paul's question was fictional?

Because it is.

No drone strikes have been ‘authorized’ on US soil.

Even the likes of John McCain and Lindsey Graham know that.

The sad fact is that conservatives make it impossible to have a meaningful, substantive discussion of the issue, a consequence of their partisan desire to contrive a controversy where none exists for some perceived political gain; not all important matters need to be political.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Why does everyone say Rand Paul's question was fictional?

Because it is.

The point was to make the government take a stance on the issue before they even tried to attempt it on US soil, since they have no problem doing it on foreign soil.

Now the government has denied themselves this ability, we need not worry about posterity on this particular issue.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

I'd vote for him a third time if possible. Would you?

And he's not going to run for a third term, so that's a moot point.

???

He obviously cannot run a third time due to the Amended Constitution.

I'd = I would

if possible

I would VERB if possible = If it was possible (which it is not) I would VERB.

Since it is not possible, I can not VERB

Want me to break it down further?

 

[JakeStarkey]

That is not what the government said, kiddo, try again. You reactionaries do not get a free pass any more than do the NBPP.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

That is not what the government said, kiddo, try again. You reactionaries do not get a free pass any more than do the NBPP.

 

[S.J.]

Out of 300 million people, how many American citizens are an imminent threat to this country?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I'd vote for him a third time if possible. Would you?

And he's not going to run for a third term, so that's a moot point.

???

He obviously cannot run a third time due to the Amended Constitution.

I'd = I would

if possible

I would VERB if possible = If it was possible (which it is not) I would VERB.

Since it is not possible, I can not VERB

Want me to break it down further?

How about you get to the point, rather than parse words?

 

[ABikerSailor]

Why does everyone say Rand Paul's question was fictional?

Because it is.

The point was to make the government take a stance on the issue before they even tried to attempt it on US soil, since they have no problem doing it on foreign soil.

Now the government has denied themselves this ability, we need not worry about posterity on this particular issue.

You want to know why we have no problem doing it on foreign soil? BECAUSE WE'RE IN A FUCKING WAR OVER THERE..................AND..................there is no way in hell that we could have sent our own cops over there to a foreign land to pick up that American who was WORKING WITH AND FOR THE ENEMY, FULLY INTENT ON KILLING AMERICANS, and, who also, by the way, had renounced his U.S. citizenship, stating that he didn't want it anymore.

I've got a hunch that it would take a long time for INTERPOL to get their stuff together to let us go get him.

Do I support surveillance drones over U.S. skies? You bet. Would be cheaper (and in many cases more effective) for a police department to have a surveillance drone than a helicopter. No lives would be put at risk if the bad guys decided to shoot back, and you'd be able to get better surveillance.

Do I support armed drones over U.S. skies? Fuck no. We've got police departments and SWAT teams, getting the bad guys is what they get paid for.

 

[Darkwind]

Why does everyone say Rand Paul's question was fictional?

Because it is.

No drone strikes have been ‘authorized’ on US soil.

Even the likes of John McCain and Lindsey Graham know that.

The sad fact is that conservatives make it impossible to have a meaningful, substantive discussion of the issue, a consequence of their partisan desire to contrive a controversy where none exists for some perceived political gain; not all important matters need to be political.

Keep misleading nancy.

That wasn't the question.

But you knew that.

 

[Darkwind]

Out of 300 million people, how many American citizens are an imminent threat to this country?

According to the gun grabbing wingnuts, every gun owning citizen.

 

[S.J.]

Fucking idiots willing to voluntarily give up their constitutional rights for the promise of security. Benjamin Franklin was right. "Anyone willing to give up essential freedom for a little temporary security deserve neither freedom nor security". You people are fools!