dagblog - Comments for "Filibuster Open Thread! Updated"

Wow I "think think" that I

rmrd0000 — Sat, 09 Mar 2013 03:45:14 +0000

Wow I "think think" that I must have much more tired than I thought when I posted.

I have a suspicion that Congress has not pushed the administration very hard on this issue because there are some Congress critters who see themselves as Presidential material and would love the idea of having control of a "kill list".

Yes, Congress has to have

Aaron Carine — Sat, 09 Mar 2013 01:20:52 +0000

In reply to I think Rand Paul's

Yes, Congress has to have some say in who the President can kill and when. That doesn't mean drones should never be used in a war, but the executive branch can't have unlimited authority when it comes to bloodshed.

I think Rand Paul's

rmrd0000 — Fri, 08 Mar 2013 22:16:43 +0000

In reply to I understand completely; what

I think Rand Paul's suggestion that the Obama administration will kill San Francisans at Starbuck's is ridiculous. I think Senator Wyden demanding that the "kill list" be open to Congressional review is correct and likely required Constitutionally (hedging because I'm not a lawyer).

Think think that Democrats didn't show up en masse to support Rand Paul is because Rand Paul is a nut job. There is no requirement to follow at nut job on any particular issue. Since Paul was dealing was dealing with hypothetical scenarios, let me propose one. If Louis Farrakhan said that he favored a two-state solution for the Palestine-Israel situation, how many people would give him kudos for taking a bold stand, especially if he made references about the Israelis being similar to dictators/murderers as part of his line of discussion?

I agree with Wyden that Obama has to make Congress aware of any potential target(s). Rand Paul is a sideshow.

Yes it is and it could help

Resistance — Fri, 08 Mar 2013 20:00:17 +0000

In reply to Googled 'rules of engagement

Yes it is and it could help alleviate the fear. As long as the rule of law is obeyed.

We don't need drones, flying over our neighbors house, looking for marijuana, so as to give the authorities a probable cause, to bust in the doors and drag their families out of bed.

In the future maybe the government can force everyone to wear an electronic device and the drone can record the daily movements and activities of multiple people.

To force the monitoring device on the public, there will be an increase in abductions, and the public will demand it

Lo and behold, it will be legal, because it wasn't war related; It was only Big Brother looking out for us....... literally.

(comment deleted)

AmericanDreamer — Fri, 08 Mar 2013 17:53:32 +0000

In reply to I feel like you do, I think

(comment deleted)

I understand completely; what

Resistance — Fri, 08 Mar 2013 09:02:41 +0000

In reply to If the US was under attack

I understand completely; what if the drones detected a mobile bio-weapons lab.

Like the ones Colin Powell told us about

Actual Text of the February 5, 2003 UN presentation

One of the most worrisome things that emerges from the thick intelligence file we have on Iraq's biological weapons is the existence of mobile production facilities used to make biological agents.

Let me take you inside that intelligence file and share with you what we know from eyewitness accounts. We have first-hand descriptions of biological weapons factories on wheels and on rails.

Some of the other slides used to show the Iraqi mobile production facilities used to make biological agents.

The trucks and train cars are easily moved and are designed to evade detection by inspectors. In a matter of months, they can produce a quantity of biological poison equal to the entire amount that Iraq claimed to have produced in the years prior to the Gulf War.

Iraqi Mobile Production Facilities - FamousPicturesMagazine

Poor Colin, he was used by an administration making up lies for one purpose.

Pity the poor victims, of an American Administration bent on War, wanting to destroy those they oppose.

J. Edgar Hoover would have liked these drones.

If the US was under attack

rmrd0000 — Fri, 08 Mar 2013 05:24:52 +0000

In reply to This all theoretical, of

If the US was under attack with Kamikaze planes flying into ships or hijackers were about to fly jets into buildings the President could order lethal force against the attackers. To make that sentence a threat of an attack on American citizens is a pretty far stretch. Holder responded today that there is no legal basis for using drone strikes against US citizens. He left open a question about Americans in direct combat against the United States.

If Timothy McVeigh was about to park a truck full of explosives in front of the Federal building in Oklahoma City, could lethal force be used?

Glad you liked it. It is well

EmmaZahn — Fri, 08 Mar 2013 00:09:46 +0000

In reply to That's a great article; she

Glad you liked it. It is well written.

I feel like you do, I think

artappraiser — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 22:13:19 +0000

In reply to What makes a weaponized drone

I feel like you do, I think assigning drones special fear is irrational and assassination outside of war is the thing. "Assassination" has, of course, has long been allowed by snipers in war if the person being assassinated is part of the enemy force. The legal article you posted upthread was interesting on what kind of lines have been drawn on the real issue here--who is a combatant, and what is what we call a war. In international law, the author points out it is not so much about declaration of war, as things like war-level weaponry and "assassination" are also allowed under undeclared "armed conflict." And even whether the parties in conflict are states doesn't matter as much as I supposed. It is more about whether it's considered a law enforcement action or not. Things like war-level weaponry and assassination are not allowed when it's a law enforcement action unless, like we have come to expect with police, they can save a life by doing so |(in a hostage situation or some such,) or self-defense from direct attack. She brings up appropriate problematic examples like pirates and minor, small insurgencies to clarify.

That's a great article; she

artappraiser — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 21:57:06 +0000

In reply to Googled 'rules of engagement

That's a great article; she clearly has real talent in translating a world of legal mumbo jumbo for those in the real world. She sets up the context very skillfully, makes the big picture clear so you can see where armed drones cause a legal problem and where they don't.

dagblog - Comments for "Filibuster Open Thread! *Updated*"

Wow I "think think" that I

Yes, Congress has to have

I think Rand Paul's

Yes it is and it could help

(comment deleted)

I understand completely; what

If the US was under attack

Glad you liked it. It is well

I feel like you do, I think

That's a great article; she

dagblog - Comments for "Filibuster Open Thread! Updated"