Archive

Rand Paul Filibuster of Brennan Nomination

  • Cleveland Buck
    hasbeen;1401907 wrote:Let me rephrase. Use a drone to kill americans without giving them due process.
    He's a cop. He doesn't give a fuck about due process.
  • Glory Days
    justincredible;1401911 wrote:If someone is combative and in the process of attacking Americans, yes, lethal force is justified. If the person is non-combative and not an immediate threat, no, lethal force is not justified.
    So why cant that cant be applied to drones?
  • Con_Alma
    justincredible;1401911 wrote:If someone is combative and in the process of attacking Americans, yes, lethal force is justified. If the person is non-combative and not an immediate threat, no, lethal force is not justified.
    I don't think I have heard or read that anyone disagrees with this.
  • Cleveland Buck
    Glory Days;1401925 wrote:So why cant that cant be applied to drones?
    It can. No one was debating that. Rand Paul clarified that countless times.
  • Gblock
    hasbeen;1401922 wrote:he got attention for the issue.
    is it even and issue?? who gaf to me given the other problems we are currently facing. if we ever kill someone w a drone strike i wont feel bad for whoever the POS is most likely. but even so i bet it never even happens. so its a big argument about something that has a small chance of even occuring
  • Glory Days
    hasbeen;1401912 wrote:Usually, when a citizen is killed on US soil, it is when they are putting people in danger(i.e. a police officer killing a guy pointing a gun at him).

    Not sure what immediate threat a person on the ground is to a drone in the air.
    So what if that drone was the closest option to stop someone on the ground as a threat to another person on the ground?
  • Cleveland Buck
    Gblock;1401929 wrote:is it even and issue?? who gaf to me given the other problems we are currently facing. if we ever kill someone w a drone strike i wont feel bad for whoever the POS is most likely. but even so i bet it never even happens. so its a big argument about something that has a small chance of even occuring
    So if you have lunch with a buddy from work who emailed his Muslim cousin in Egypt last night, and a drone missile blows you both away, I guess good riddance to the pieces of shit, right?
  • Glory Days
    Cleveland Buck;1401928 wrote:It can. No one was debating that. Rand Paul clarified that countless times.
    Pretty sure the obama side feels the same way. So why did he waste tax payer money standing there all day? Again....moot issue.
  • Gblock
    Cleveland Buck;1401936 wrote:So if you have lunch with a buddy from work who emailed his Muslim cousin in Egypt last night, and a drone missile blows you both away, I guess good riddance to the pieces of ****, right?
    zero chance of that happening that way
  • Glory Days
    Cleveland Buck;1401936 wrote:So if you have lunch with a buddy from work who emailed his Muslim cousin in Egypt last night, and a drone missile blows you both away, I guess good riddance to the pieces of shit, right?
    Haha you are watching cnn, he just said that in his interview....you and rand can take off your tinfoil hat.
  • Con_Alma
    Cleveland Buck;1401936 wrote:So if you have lunch with a buddy from work who emailed his Muslim cousin in Egypt last night, and a drone missile blows you both away, I guess good riddance to the pieces of ****, right?
    It's not the e-mail that would create the drone attack but if you must have an answer in your fishing attempt then yes, good riddance.
  • Terry_Tate
    Glory Days;1401933 wrote:So what if that drone was the closest option to stop someone on the ground as a threat to another person on the ground?

    Pretty sure Rand Paul gave an example of that and said he thinks that's fine. He just wants to keep the guidelines limited to that basically and they won't give him a clear answer. They want to have the power to basically kill anyone with a drone they want and decide on their own when its ok and not ok(not saying they will, they're just not completely ruling this out). The problem becomes what if someone with a quick trigger and low ethics gets that power. Someone can clarify if I'm wrong but that's basically how I understand it. This should be pretty simple.
  • Cleveland Buck
    Glory Days;1401940 wrote:Haha you are watching cnn, he just said that in his interview....you and rand can take off your tinfoil hat.
    I'm at work. Thanks for your concern though officer. I will be sure never to question our leaders again.
  • Cleveland Buck
    Gblock;1401939 wrote:zero chance of that happening that way
    How do you know? That was the question asked of the president that he refuses to answer.
  • Con_Alma
    Terry_Tate;1401947 wrote:... He just wants to keep the guidelines limited to that basically and they won't give him a clear answer. ....
    This is the issue. It's the only issue. Drones area valuable tool against enemies of the United States....even when those enemies are U.S. Citizens. The guidelines of usage are what is being sought and what should be sought.

    The extrapolations on "what ifs" steering towards an aboration of using drones to kill citizens on U.S. soil is nothing more than exaggeration for effect. I would hope we kill those on US soil who present a danger to us. I would pissed if we didn't.
  • Gblock
    Cleveland Buck;1401954 wrote:How do you know? That was the question asked of the president that he refuses to answer.
    because i have common sense something our govt is severely lacking in
  • Cleveland Buck
    Con_Alma;1401957 wrote:This is the issue. It's the only issue. Drones area valuable tool against enemies of the United States....even when those enemies are U.S. Citizens. The guidelines of usage are what is being sought and what should be sought.

    The extrapolations on "what ifs" steering towards an aboration of using drones to kill citizens on U.S. soil is nothing more than exaggeration for effect. I would hope we kill those on US soil who present a danger to us. I would pissed if we didn't.
    You realize this all came about because of leaked White House memo, right? That claimed the authority to use drones on U.S. citizens in the United States, with no mention of being a threat. The idea wasn't pulled out of his ass.
  • Cleveland Buck
    Gblock;1401959 wrote:because i have common sense something our govt is severely lacking in
    Ok, you have common sense, but they don't. So how do you know what they are going to do?
  • Con_Alma
    Cleveland Buck;1401960 wrote:You realize this all came about because of leaked White House memo, right? That claimed the authority to use drones on U.S. citizens in the United States, with no mention of being a threat. The idea wasn't pulled out of his ass.
    I do realize that, yes. It changes nothign I have posted at all. The comments in my post relate to the people chest thumping about drones killing U.S. citizens being unconstitutional.
  • justincredible
    Con_Alma;1401945 wrote:It's not the e-mail that would create the drone attack but if you must have an answer in your fishing attempt then yes, good riddance.
    You're cool killing innocent citizens because they are having lunch with someone who emailed a muslim cousin in Egypt the night before? WHAT. THE. FUCK.
  • Con_Alma
    justincredible;1401967 wrote:You're cool killing innocent citizens because they are having lunch with someone who emailed a muslim cousin in Egypt the night before? WHAT. THE. ****.
    I don't believe an e-mail would result in such a thing.

    I would expect us to kill someone who was an imminent threat and do so with concern for innocent bystanders. Sometimes that is unavoidable. I will forever say, good riddance to that threat.

    That's WHAT THE ****!
  • Glory Days
    Con_Alma;1401957 wrote: The extrapolations on "what ifs" steering towards an aboration of using drones to kill citizens on U.S. soil is nothing more than exaggeration for effect. I would hope we kill those on US soil who present a danger to us. I would pissed if we didn't.
    Well said. Now be ready to be told you hate 'merica and the çonstitution.
  • justincredible
    Con_Alma;1401973 wrote:I don't believe an e-mail would result in such a thing.

    I would expect us to kill someone who was an imminent threat and do so with concern for innocent bystanders. Sometimes that is unavoidable. I will forever say, good riddance to that threat.

    That's WHAT THE ****!
    I don't think a guy eating lunch is an imminent threat. At that point, arrest him and charge him with treason.
  • justincredible
  • Con_Alma
    justincredible;1401975 wrote:I don't think a guy eating lunch is an imminent threat. At that point, arrest him and charge him with treason.
    Hmmmm...I thought I stated I didn't think such a scenario would result in a strike.

    I thought I used the words immenent threat would be necessary.

    That's WHAT THE ****! I guess I have to speak you lingo to try and be more clear.