Ontopic We The Sheeple - Rand Paul creates a scenario

Duke

. . first name's "Daisy" boys
May 12, 2008
55,859
18,144
41
Brandon, FL
Marklar
₥36,196
The fact that Holder "supposes" anything about the constitutionality of using military force against U.S. citizens suggests that he hasn't given the question much thought — an alarming admission for the government's chief lawyer.

“To allow one man to accuse you in secret -- you never get notified you've been accused,” Paul said on the floor. “Your notification is the buzz of propellers on the drone as it flies overhead in the seconds before you're killed. Is that what we really want from our government?”

The outrage! The Audacity! The Obama Socialist Regime Run Amok!

and people are buying it. On both sides of the Aisle.

Because, you know, people are stupid. First off, adding in 'Drone Strikes' to the issue is strictly something to inflame the public. First by politicians on the right, who are adept at using such hot button rhetoric to inflame the masses, and second by politicians on the left, who are too stupid to know better.

All in regards to this statement -

The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no president will ever have to confront. It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States. For example, the president could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances like a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001.


In short, William Holder acknowledged that it could happen.

Except, it's been a standing policy for ages. The fact that he says the President could make the decision actually adds in a level that doesn't exist in many scenarios in the US today, scenarios that have existed for decades. It is fact that if you fly over Groom Lake Nevada, and do not acknowledge communication attempts, or divert your course, that you can be shot down. In fact, there are signs all over the facility that 'lethal force can and will be used' against trespassers. And those actions don't even necessitate a presidential order.

That is just one example of how this policy is a long standing one in the US. Yet, now, it's an 'Obama issue', because Drones were used in the wording. But how is a drone any different than dispatching F-16s to potentially shoot down a co-opted airliner that could fly into a building, or a soldier with a M16 looking to shoot a trespasser on a top secret facility on American soil?

It isn't. There is still a human finger on the trigger, and another human ordering that trigger to be pulled.

However, Holder said the question was "entirely hypothetical" and "unlikely to occur." So here Rand Paul is, along with a lot of uneducated politicians, using this issues to inflame the public on something, and using the press to do so, simply for political grandstanding.

Ignoring the fact that this is all to keep a guy out of the CIA, even though the CIA mandate keeps them from actually being involved in a decision like this over American soil.


 

Amstel

The Hoarse Whisperer
Jul 12, 2009
28,172
12,439
473
you're a whore, but in a good way. Kindof.
Marklar
₥43,497
First off, adding in 'Drone Strikes' to the issue is strictly something to inflame the public. First by politicians on the right, who are adept at using such hot button rhetoric to inflame the masses, and second by politicians on the left, who are too stupid to know better.

bullshit on two counts.

1) The Left are rhetoric mensa members, see:

Obie Wan & every one of his minions, THE SEQUESTER IS FALLING, THE SEQUESTER IS FALLING!!
another administration email that seemed to show at least one agency has been instructed to make sure the cuts are as painful as President Obama promised they would be.
SEE RELATED: Democrats pull out race card in sequester game

In the internal email, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service official Charles Brown said he asked if he could try to spread out the sequester cuts in his region to minimize the impact, and he said he was told not to do anything that would lessen the dire impacts Congress had been warned of.
We have gone on record with a notification to Congress and whoever else that ‘APHIS would eliminate assistance to producers in 24 states in managing wildlife damage to the aquaculture industry, unless they provide funding to cover the costs.’ So it is our opinion that however you manage that reduction, you need to make sure you are not contradicting what we said the impact would be,Mr. Brown, in the internal email, said his superiors told him.


2nd) the drone strike issue has nothing to do with any of your long standing claims.


Except, it's been a standing policy for ages.
FALSE!!!


blablabla dukes irrelevant post below.
The fact that he says the President could make the decision actually adds in a level that doesn't exist in many scenarios in the US today, scenarios that have existed for decades. It is fact that if you fly over Groom Lake Nevada, and do not acknowledge communication attempts, or divert your course, that you can be shot down. In fact, there are signs all over the facility that 'lethal force can and will be used' against trespassers. And those actions don't even necessitate a presidential order.

That is just one example of how this policy is a long standing one in the US. Yet, now, it's an 'Obama issue', because Drones were used in the wording. But how is a drone any different than dispatching F-16s to potentially shoot down a co-opted airliner that could fly into a building, or a soldier with a M16 looking to shoot a trespasser on a top secret facility on American soil?
]

The drone strike issue at hand is popping a cap in some dudes ass that is eating his sammich at a picnic table, - no gun, no immediate threat, no problem- but just because someone else somewhere in the gov't claims - without any judgement or judges order or subpoena - he's a threat to society & needs to be taken out.

Your bizarre example poses "lethal force" which has always been defensible.

The simple situation you miss is that if the drone strike is OK. anyone for any made up reason can kill you without due process.

The cop that arrests you has no need to establish guilt or innocence. That's for the courts. You get your day in court - but not if it's a drone strike as Holder outlined.
 
Last edited:

Duke

. . first name's "Daisy" boys
May 12, 2008
55,859
18,144
41
Brandon, FL
Marklar
₥36,196
bullshit on two counts.

1) The Left are rhetoric mensa members, see:

Pretty sure I actually said the same thing about the left, but we already know your ready capabilities blind you to that. Point denied.

2nd) the drone strike issue has nothing to do with any of your long standing claims.
The drone strike issue at hand is popping a cap in some dudes ass that is eating his sammich at a picnic table, - no gun, no immediate threat, no problem- but just because someone else somewhere in the gov't claims - without any judgement or judges order or subpoena - he's a threat to society & needs to be taken out.

Feel free to actually point out where, in the actual text, of William Holders response that was said.

Oh right, it wasn't. You know who is saying that. Tin foil hat types who can't read.


Your bizarre example poses "lethal force" which has always been defensible.

So, trespassing on government land that is labeled as top secret is different how?

The cop that arrests you has no need to establish guilt or innocence. That's for the courts. You get your day in court

How do you get your day in court if the cop shoots you dead?

Your logic. It's astounding.
 

thintoast

Mayosapien
Dec 4, 2012
17,191
7,937
273
up your butt and around the corner
Marklar
₥10,725
An attack on the american people without due process of law up to and including acting without judicial permission granted to a government agency via a warrant is a violation of two amendments protected to us by the bill of rights. 1, illegal search and seizure and 2, trial by jury of peers. It is my opinion that the carrying out of such an act should be considered an act of war against the american people and should be handled with equal resistance.
 

Duke

. . first name's "Daisy" boys
May 12, 2008
55,859
18,144
41
Brandon, FL
Marklar
₥36,196
An attack on the american people without due process of law up to and including acting without judicial permission granted to a government agency via a warrant is a violation of two amendments protected to us by the bill of rights. 1, illegal search and seizure and 2, trial by jury of peers. It is my opinion that the carrying out of such an act should be considered an act of war against the american people and should be handled with equal resistance.

So, we should consider the amount of cases where police have shot and killed unarmed citizens acts of war?
 

Duke

. . first name's "Daisy" boys
May 12, 2008
55,859
18,144
41
Brandon, FL
Marklar
₥36,196
That is a police officer, not the President.
And those police officers usually get a trial where they are determined innocent or guilty.

So, you're okay with just an average everyday cop doing it, but not the president doing so when he establishes a clear danger to the public?
 

Duke

. . first name's "Daisy" boys
May 12, 2008
55,859
18,144
41
Brandon, FL
Marklar
₥36,196
Thinking that they would just pick people at random and kill them outright is what has made this an issue, when that isn't even what Holder stated. And it's not something that every president long before Obama wouldn't do as well.
 

thintoast

Mayosapien
Dec 4, 2012
17,191
7,937
273
up your butt and around the corner
Marklar
₥10,725
So, you're okay with just an average everyday cop doing it, but not the president doing so when he establishes a clear danger to the public?

That's the thing. Technically speaking, the president doesnt have the authority to take action on the american people. He is constitutionally allowed to speak for the people in international affairs and discuss applications of law with congress, but does not have the authority to create law or use lethal force against american citizens.
 

Duke

. . first name's "Daisy" boys
May 12, 2008
55,859
18,144
41
Brandon, FL
Marklar
₥36,196
That's the thing. Technically speaking, the president doesnt have the authority to take action on the american people. He is constitutionally allowed to speak for the people in international affairs and discuss applications of law with congress, but does not have the authority to create law or use lethal force against american citizens.

But he does. The president can order an f-16 to shoot down an aircraft if he suspects it will be used in a 9/11 style attack. It's his call.
 

JAXvillain

Curly_Sue
Oct 13, 2004
68,732
1,999
923
Marklar
₥0
But he does. The president can order an f-16 to shoot down an aircraft if he suspects it will be used in a 9/11 style attack. It's his call.

I have it from very good sources we shot down Payne Stewart's plane when everyone on board went unresponsive.