As you all know Senator Rand Paul Stood over 13 hours to speak against Barrack Obama's drone Policy. This was a complete waste of time in my personal Opinion. Being an American Citizen should not be a cover or protection from being targeted on or off american soil if you pose an "Imminent" threat to the people of the United States. If the police, FBI and Drug enforcement officers are able to shoot down american citizens who pose an immediate threat to the public why should this be Limited to Local enforcement agencies. Rand Paul began his Argument by stating "I rise today to begin to filibuster John Brennan’s nomination for the CIA," Senator Paul began. "I will speak until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important, that your rights to trial by jury are precious, that no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court." In my opinion the president has the constitutional power to use all resources including the Military or Local forces to Protect the people of the Home Land against both foreign or Domestic threats. Rand Paul seems to back peddle and Later states that does the president have the authority to kill an american citizen sitting in a Cafe'? the answer is clearly NO! and is the same ask asking does the president have the power to kill Americans who pose no direct threat to the state? Was Rand Paul trying to get some attention? Is the threat of being killed in a Cafe by Obama Real? Should drones ever be used on American soil in any Scenario? if an american poses an immediate threat to the USA should the Government only pursue arrest on american soil and leave it up to the courts to decide? John McCain and Lindsay Graham have a Valid point Limiting presidential powers can set a dangerous precedent on the war on Terror and there are no Geographical Limits to war, The enemy will not abide by these limits! The USA has and can again be attacked on American soil make no mistake Why should we limit our response? I agree if the threat can be detained so be it if not and the person poses an immediate threat then eliminate it with all means necessary. . Lets be real no president is going to order F16's or Drones on Cafe's in America! I have never even seen this in Movies Let alone Reality. Do you agree with Rand Paul?
I agree with your sentiments actually. If the US is fighting a war, really all things must support and help that war conflict. However by the US' own claims, the Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and other places where US Drones are deployed are not war otherwise they would require congressional approval. So what are they? What is the killing of people extra-judicially by a US institution, without trial, without oversight? If the US recieved legal authorization by congress to conduct war within its own orders that would be one thing, but when it circumvents its own law and constitution via crafty redefinition of words and outlet-talk, we all must question WTF is the American State.
Not with this: "I will speak until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important, that your rights to trial by jury are precious, that no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court." (Rand Paul) That was a stupid comment not in compliance with the Constitution: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;" "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence." "does the president have the authority to kill an american citizen sitting in a Cafe'?" The answer is clearly YES! If the American Al Quacka is sitting there with a suitcase NUKE, intelligence says he is going to set off at 10:00PM and it is 9:40PM, and ground troop police action of George Clooney or the "liberal" courts cannot deal with it, and there is a drone in the air, and the legislature cannot be convened, it might be stupid to wait for the courts or George Clooney to stop Darfur. "Lets be real no president is going to order F16's or Drones on Cafe's in America! I have never even seen this in Movies" So, what if the American Al Quacka with a nuke is in a Church and George Clooney cannot get to him in time? Uh, see "The Peacemaker," guy with Nuke in backpack: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119874/
Except history has shown that this administration has no problems with assassinating American citizens who do not pose an immediate threat.
Occupy is labelled as terrorist org by the feds Drones can now kill occupy people in NY's central park This will be fun! Obama's (potential) purges can sit in history books next to Stalin's?
Tyranny creates terrorism. Terrorism creates tyranny. The Pentagon is creating a wonderful world for itself.
No it didn't. The congress authorized war in Iraq and Afghanistan. They then expressed dismay that the Pentagon began fighting in Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, and other places. None of this should be a problem. Why should anyone care where you fight? I believe you should kill the terrorists everywhere. However what's wrong is the Pentagon's labeling of those actions "not war", "not part of the war", etc. as a way to circumvent US Congressional authority. It should not be the Pentagon's authority to say what's war or not, but it is the US Congress's authority. The Congress is the real Government of the United States, not the Pentagon.
Is it time you Yanx took a chill-pill and consider sending a cop to the apartment of a terrorist* rather than sending a Hellfire through his picture window? Kill a bad guy in Yemen...kill a bad guy in a coffee bar in Gary, Indiana...it's all looking the same to the rest of the World...one more dreary indication of your decline. Well, another view is that this shiny new toy only has another six months of shelf-life before All God's Chillin' got themselves their own drones. Better to get it out of your systems, maybe. * - Increasingly defined as any bloke who walks past your cross-hairs. For this particular oversight, the debt will take a century to pay off.
You probably would want to send in the ground troops. Particularly the bomb squad. If there were a suitcase nuke in your cafe, shooting a drone missile at it would likely set off the nuke. Plus, why hasn't the terrorist already set off the nuke? Why's he just sitting there with a live nuke? What's he finishing his mocha latte crappaccinno first before he flips the switch on his detonator? Needs a caffeine boost before he goes to bang his 72 virgins? I have yet to see an example of any realistic "extreme circumstances" that could possibly necessitate bombing a cafe in America. If anyone has one please share! People's paranoia seems to be on overdrive these days. Stop listening to the politicians. They're TRYING to scare you. Same job as the terrorists.
Americans, be afraid, be very afraid! Obama's intention is to use drones to kill Americans who don't like him while sitting in cafes. The last sound before you die will be the buzz of the propellors on the drone overhead. This is how Obama is going to take over your country and turn it into a socialist/communist/ worker's paradise! But if you are a black person then don't worry because only white people will be killed by his drones. And outlawing Christianity in favour of his Muslim beliefs is soon to follow!
1) Doesnt that kind of fly in the face of various SDI Star Wars proposals using high impact collisions? I dont know why more nations havent set one off already, lack of enough enriched stuff, or it could also involve the answer to number one. It is a windy day, and Dr. Gregor Hoffman (Richard Basehart) is in a café with the Satan Bug, and the best minds tell the president that the firebombing of the café will destroy the Satan Bug, but if the guy feels cornered or caught he will release it. I guess the paranoid are all afraid of Obama and the The Crazies, thinking Homeland Security will get all upward and horizontal on the Secessionist long necks from Cabbage Town, using tanks to take out the religious nuts, and assault weapons to steal Cuban kids in a closet, or they like shooting women because her husband sawed off a Biden shotgun for someone. Just because the Obamanation is scary does not mean there is no reasoning that might justify bombing a café.
That is the authorization to go after the groups responsible for 9/11. Arguably, the 112,000 civillians killed were not responsible for 9/11. Tariq Aziz the boy journalist who was following and I unending drone strikes on his people, whose car was hit by a hellfire missile was not responsible for 9/11. Now I am all for killing terrorists whether or not they're responsible for 9/11. Somehow you are confusing my opposition to the killing and targeting of innocent people outside of the war utgorizations act, with tacit opposition to the war.
In the case of 9/11, drones were successfully used to kill 3000+ people. I know you don't agree that and you believe the BS story (at least to some extent), but consider this., 9/11 was used as the premise for going into Iraq/Afghanistan to begin with so, it shouldn't be all that surprising that drones are in play today. See the PNAC agenda for the particulars. 9/11 gave the corrupt administration at the time, the perfect excuse to invade and kill anyone at their leisure. It's been established now that anyone, anywhere can be tracked, their rights abandoned and subject to anything at anytime...al in the name of fighting "terrorism". The point being distinguishing combatants from non combatants is irrelevant, so long as the accusation is serious enough. Killing is killing is killing. You shouldn't approve of killing anybody. It's a slippery slope.
You're best not bringing up the PNAC plan. If people were to look into that then they might notice that the USA actions ever since are fitting the plan the agenda calls for to a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing T. They might wake up then. People think that accusations heinous enough preclude the need for rights. What they don't understand is, the more heinous the allegation, the MORE important your rights. I would be much happier if instead it were shoplifters not getting a fair trial. With terror suspects, the stakes are too high. They wind up not necessarily just locked up to rot away the rest of their life with no trial and most likely tortured, if not just killed outright (along with whatever innocents get in the way) but they have their memory and their reputation destroyed for their families and for the rest of history. All because of something NOBODY EVER PROVED WAS TRUE. It's (*)(*)(*)(*)ing sick that people support this (*)(*)(*)(*). If terrorists hate you for your freedoms then you're letting them win!
This is why nukes are stored in bunkers deep underground and launched from missile silos deep underground, or from submarines deep under the ocean whose surfacing locations are top secret. Their main vulnerability is in transport, which is kept to a minimum, and of course the route of which is top secret. Even the drivers won't be told what it is they are transporting. Besides, a national weapon will more likely have a verified trigger and/or controllable activation parameters. A suitcase nuke configured by terrorists who want it to go off no matter what will likely have foolproof, more guaranteed detonation parameters. In this case likely a dead man's switch. I've brainstormed the (*)(*)(*)(*) out of this one and can't think of anything. The worst I can think of that a terrorist can do is kill everyone in the cafe, which is basically what you'll be doing when you demolish the cafe. If you fear an attack in the area, local evacuation is the most important thing you should be doing. Like I said, I'm soliciting everyone, especially proponents of the extreme circumstances scenario, to come up with an example about it. I've not heard one that makes any sense yet. I doubt the overseas strikes are really even necessary. If they were accomplishing anything you wouldn't need to keep ramping them up. When are they going to win this war on terror anyway? Seems now they're getting their ass kicked more than ever if they need to continuously enact these new policies and attacks. Meaning their strategy is NOT working!
Without critical mass, and a controlled explosion, it is most likely just a dirty bomb with an uncontrolled explosion of a drone strike. And the potential of a terrorist's deadman switch elevates the necessity for the unanounced drone strike. The lack of conventional reasons to use a drone on a cafe is why I brought up WMD. Drone strikes have little use except in lawless zones, there is little reason to use them over London. The only reason to ramp them up is the locals are using the same book as Al Quacka and not policing their swamp. The overseas strikes is what the "liberals" screamed about when Bush was not fast enough in arming the drones to do it, remember the Clinton thing where they thought they saw OBL, had video, but there was a Saudi plane there with another Special Saudi? ***** A little trivia of a timeline in response to "I doubt the overseas strikes are really even necessary": August, 1996: "More than 600,000 Iraqi children have died due to lack of food and medicine and as a result of the unjustifiable aggression (sanction) imposed on Iraq and its nation. The children of Iraq are our children. You, the USA, together with the Saudi regime are responsible for the shedding of the blood of these innocent children. Due to all of that, what ever treaty you have with our country is now null and void. The treaty of Hudaybiyyah was cancelled by the messenger of Allah (Allah's Blessings and Salutations may be on him) once Quraysh had assisted Bani Bakr against Khusa'ah, the allies of the prophet (Allah's Blessings and Salutations may be on him). The prophet (Allah's Blessings and Salutations may be on him) fought Quraysh and concurred Makka. He (Allah's Blessings and Salutations may be on him) considered the treaty with Bani Qainuqa' void because one of their Jews publicly hurt one Muslim woman, one single woman, at the market." (Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places.) March 1997: "Though Bin Ladin had promised Taliban leaders that he would be circumspect, he broke this promise almost immediately, giving an inflammatory interview to CNN in March 1997. The Taliban leader Mullah Omar promptly "invited" Bin Ladin to move to Kandahar, ostensibly in the interests of Bin Ladin's own security but more likely to situate him where he might be easier to control.73 There is also evidence that around this time Bin Ladin sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported to have received a significant response. According to one report, Saddam Hussein's efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin.74" (The 9/11 commission report, page 65-66) http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch2.htm http://www.peterbergen.com/bergen/gallery/details.aspx?id=1188 July 1997, South Movement, "the path of Jihad and proper action": "Those who desire to face up to the Zionists conspiracies, intransigence, and aggressiveness must proceed towards the advance centers of capabilities in the greater Arab homeland and to the centers of the knowledge, honesty and sincerity with whole heartiness if the aim was to implement a serious plan to save others from their dilemma or to rely on those capable centers; well-known for their positions regarding the enemy, to gain precise concessions from it with justified maneuvers even if such centers including Baghdad not in agreement with those concerned, over the objectives and aims of the required maneuvers." (On the 29th anniversary of Iraq's national day (the 17th of July 1968 revolution). President Saddam Hussein made an important comprehensive and nation wide address) http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/countries/Iraq/speech.htm December 1997, South Movement: "'If the United Nations fails to respond to the Organization of the Islamic Conference (meeting in Tehran) then the Muslim world must act and defy these sanctions,' Farrakhan told an audience of union representatives in the Iraqi capital." (Louis Farrakhan) http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/southnews/Dec12.htm 12/12/1997: "UN sanctions against Iraq were denounced as terrorism by Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan during a visit to Iraq, CNN reported." http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/971212/1997121240.html In the case of Iraq, for the last 10 years the U.S. and Britain have been devastating the civilian society. Madeleine Albright's famous statement about how maybe half a million children have died, and it's a high price but we're willing to pay it, that doesn't sound too good among people who think that maybe it matters if half a million children are killed by the U.S. and Britain. And meanwhile [the sanctions are] strengthening Saddam Hussein. (On the Attacks on New York and Washington, Noam Chomsky interviewed by David Barsamian, International Socialist Review, Issue 20, November-December, 2001) One Iraq, Two Iraq, Three Iraq! {The "protracted blockade" of terrorism} "Some voices have risen on the part of some peoples, journalists, writers, and, in a very restricted way, the voices of those who are preparing themselves, in the shadow, to replace the rulers there. Nevertheless, the latter are still hesitant voices that deal with the situation in the light of the balance of interests of the posts they expect to occupy, and of the influence of the centers of power." (Saddam Hussein Shabban 13, 1422 H. October 29, 2001.) September 2001: "Ramsey Clark, former U.S. Attorney General...David Muller, South Movement, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia" http://www.workers.org/ww/2001/call1004.php September, 16th, 2001: "Whenever a nation becomes great and powerful by Gods Permission, as America has; whenever a nation becomes the undisputed ruler of the world, as America has, by Allahs Permission; when a nation becomes the only remaining superpower, having the power to destroy other nations and people by the tens of thousands and millions, as Allah has permitted America the power to do, and that nation then has a spiritual lapse and begins to sink into moral decline, the Quran teaches that Allah (God) raises a messenger, but he raises that messenger from among the poor and the abject to guide and to warn the great and the powerful. Allah (God) knows that the powerful will not heed a warning coming from their ex-slave or from the weak or from the abject, so the Quran teaches that Allah (God) then seizes that nation with distress and affliction, that it might humble itself. For only in humility can the proud and the powerful heed the Guidance of God, which is mercy and grace from Himself. Allah (God) used this tragedy, hopefully, to bring a great nation to Himself." (Louis Farrakhan) In the 21st century, white America got a wake-up call after 9/11/01. White America and the Western world came to realize that people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just disappeared as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring Black concerns. http://www.cmaucc.org/EMRJeremiahWright2.pdf Sunday, 30 September, 2001, 16:54 GMT 17:54 UK: "'We do not accept the presence in our country of a single soldier at war with Muslims or Arabs,' Prince Sultan said in comments published on Saudi Arabia's official Okaz newspaper on Sunday." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1571689.stm "Saudi Arabia said what? 'You cant kill an Arab or Moslem;' No matter the murderous plot, We respect them?" (Sun 30 Sep 2001 09:03:18 PM EDT) "But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history." http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/02/remarks_of_illinois_state_sen.php ***** War will be necessary as long as there are people of power who will say, "We do not accept the presence in our country of a single soldier at war with" Al Quacka, or of Al Quacka will say, "They should, rather, be reassured and helped to save themselves, and their surroundings." (Saddam Hussein Shabban 13, 1422 H. October 29, 2001.) The Ron Pods think WWII and Pearl Harbor was our fault--just as Obama's Million Man marching buddy blamed it on Clinton's terrorism--as if those measuring peoples skulls with calipers would stop and be all friendly, or somehow Al Quacka's "black concerns" will just disappear into the woodwork with Obama's containment. Delusion is the idea that anyone reaffirmed the spirit that has triumphed over war," and that the killing of Al Quacks with drones (or other means) is not necessary. Certainly though Rand Paul clarifying that the president can only use drones against our people when they are at war is a plus. "It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: 'Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?' The answer to that question is no." Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blo...-a-letter-from-eric-holder.html#ixzz2N3gyAmO9 The question is, were the Al Quacka wearing civilian clothes prior to and on 9/11/2001 engaged in combat? If "yes" the Ron Pod got nothing, if "no" we are defenseless until the American Al Quacka whips out their box cutter and starts slitting throats of cute chicks. When an American I just ask that the evidence they are Al Quacka be presented to Congress or the Courts, other nations protect their people's rights to due process, and when they refuse to police their lawless swamps our drone strikes are just and justified as the only way to get justice. Like maybe if the local Bible Thumpers are sympathizing and maybe protecting an Eric Robert Rudolph, and a drone sees him in the woods, like the drone got video of OBL during Clinton? Just wait for another bomb, right? Or hope he gets caught rummaging in the trash? So if the local cafe of Bible Thumpers in the woods of North Carolina (Tora Bora) of is having a party for an Eric Robert Rudolph, and the "black helicopter" drone spies that he shows up, exactly why do those traitors deserve to live? Jane Fonda was a legitimate target in North Vietnam, why not an Eric Robert Rudolph among his supporters?
Yes. It has already happened. An American citizen was killed by a hellfire missile while eating breakfast. Is this news to you?
What about the Earth Liberation Front, Animal Liberation Front, Child Liberation Front... (to a lesser extent) Green Peace. Those over-zealous protest groups applied tactics arguably of terrorism, fire bombing logging trucks, animal experiment laboratories, and abortion clinics. The US Tyranny now wants to deny its people ALL avenues of dissent from effective petitioning, lobbying, court system, protesting, fact leaking, whistle blowing, civil disobedience, and civil destruction. Arguably EVERY SINGLE ONE of those avenues for release of societal pressure is being rendered impotent by the US state. Will they use a drone against the protestor who barricaded and firebombed a logging road with himself chained to the equipment? Will they use a drone on a Green Peace vessel that uses burning tow line to harass an illegal whaling ship? Arguably these US citizens are terrorists, and "pirates" as one US court recently decided. However their existence, like the existence of terrorists, is because the totalitarian tyranist United States has closed all other avenues of dissent.
Thanks for quoting me, but i should have been clear, i meant to say under the scenario that Rand Paul described, an American sitting in a cafe on a pc posing no imminent threat, i do not think any president will send drones or f16s to eliminate the threat. If there was a nuke in a cafe! Then off course even jimmy carter would send planes ,
Marshal, collateral damage occurs in any war! World war 1, 2 and in any modern conflicts! The terrorists and affiliates are all enemy of the state. The president has the right to target them. Off course we always regret the loss of innocent life but i do not think its the policy of the United States to target innocent people.
