Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
It's really pretty simple.
We are in a war with Al Qaida terrorists. That means that no Al Qaida terrorist or unlawful combatant, is entitled to "due process" no matter where they are.
They may be shot on sight.
If there was something in the drone law that was unconstitutional, Rand Paul would be filing a case in court.
Since he hasn't, that should be a dead giveaway he is manufacturing fear for his personal aggrandizement.
It's really pretty simple.
We are in a war with Al Qaida terrorists. That means that no Al Qaida terrorist or unlawful combatant, is entitled to "due process" no matter where they are.
They may be shot on sight.
Suddenly the same folks that are in favor of draconian gun laws are getting off on scenarios of right wing extremists gaining control of tanks and the police coming to the rescue with drone attacks.
Time really is moving at breakneck speed nowadays.
You are one of the most illogical people on this forum, and that is really saying something.
I am opposed to "draconian gun laws". And I am opposed to Rand Paul's pandering.
And that is because I am all about logic and the truth.
If there was something in the drone law that was unconstitutional, Rand Paul would be filing a case in court.
Since he hasn't, that should be a dead giveaway he is manufacturing fear for his personal aggrandizement.
It's really pretty simple.
We are in a war with Al Qaida terrorists. That means that no Al Qaida terrorist or unlawful combatant, is entitled to "due process" no matter where they are.
They may be shot on sight.
Nope. If they are a US citizen on US soil, and do not present an immediate danger, they cannot be shot on sight.
How funny is it that some people on the Right are now trying to frighten people into believing that terrorists might not be treated as criminals with the same rights as criminals? BWA-HA-HA-HA!
A hilarious side effect of Obama Derangement Syndrome.
Jeezus f Krist. Even Graham has just said it was never a question or problem when Bush was doing it.
wow.
Turn on cspan.
You're an idiot. The DoJ memos and legal framework to kill Americans on our soil didn't exist under Bush. Obama set the precedent by killing a 16 y/o American. Did Bush do that?
.
No? Then how did President W. Bush ordered Air Force jets to intercept and possibly be prepared to shoot down planes over US soil on 9-11-2001? Let me guess, if a submarine surfaced in the Baltimore Harbor, and starting firing missiles, then Obama would have to call Congress up and request a vote to give permission to attack that sub? Til then, lets just hope the Baltimore PD harbor unit boats can take on the sub????
Do you not understand the difference between a foreign invasion and unprovoked attacks on American citizens? Is that at the bottom of your inability to understand?
To answer your question, yes, if a submarine surfaced in Baltimore Harbor, obama would have to call up Congress and request permission. Just like the president had to do when Pearl Harbor was attacked. The president does have certain Emergency Powers which was what Bush used because those powers were exercised during an attack. IF a sub surfaced in Baltimore Harbor, the governor of Maryland would and should act long before the president. There is NOTHING whatsoever that gives the president, or presidebt in this case, the power to order the execution of an American citizen who is not engaged in an attack of some kind or where an attack is imminent. It has nothing to do with foreign invasion.
You may want to create some kind of circumstance where the president has no choice but to seize these kinds of powers but those are different questions from the one that is the issue.
The question is Does the president have the power under the Constitution to order the execution of an American citizen who does not pose an imminent threat?
That's the question that Eric Holder refuses to answer.
Hold that thought for one damn second.
SO, you're saying.......if a Chinese or Russian sub surfaced in New York Harbor.....and began firing missiles into Brooklyn and Jersey.........that instead of immediate action, Obama would have to get Congress together, take a vote, and get permission to act while Americans were dying by the tens of thousands per minute????? REALLY?
And people wonder why no one trusts the GOP to govern.
Whoa, hold on. We already had the OP (who you seem to agree with) telling us that the Police should be armed with air to ground missiles. And you're calling everyone else an idiot?
I will try to use very small words for you.
You seem to be hung up on the types of weapons instead of the law.
The law.
The law.
Got it?
The law dictates when lethal (that means deadly) force can be used against someone.
The law. That means "the rules".
The rules for the military = Apples.
The rules for domestic law enforcement (cops) = Oranges.
The rules that allow a cop to shoot a bad guy are far more restrictive than the ones that allow a soldier to shoot a bad guy.
The cop has to obey centuries of domestic case law. He cannot just shoot a bad guy if there is no immediate danger. Every cop knows this.
And this has been common knowledge to EVERYONE for a long time.
Then one day, someone said the FAA was approved to start regulating the use of drones in the United States.
Right away, some really stupid people thought that meant all those centuries of case law no longer applied.
They clearly did not read the legislation (the law). They just made some big ass assumptions (pretended to know what they were talking about when they really did not).
And not one idiot has ever produced evidence (shown proof) that cops with drones will not have to follow all those rules they have been following all along.
Not one.
Care to give it a shot?
I really don't care about Rand Paul's argument, or the drone legislation. It's the people who want to arm cops with missiles that I'm far more concerned about.
I really don't care about Rand Paul's argument, or the drone legislation. It's the people who want to arm cops with missiles that I'm far more concerned about.
Good freakin' Lord how stupid are people.
Show me where anyone, me included, said we want to "arm cops with missiles"????????? For one, thats such a simplistic mindset it is hard to have a real discussion.
But, lets say LAPD, NYPD and Miami PD get a drone. It's about 100% certain to NOT have missiles. Im no expert, but Im quite sure there is law that limits "missiles" to the military anyway.
But lets say LAPD, NYPD, Miami PD, the CIA, the FBI, Border Patrol and....say...the Coast Guard....all have drones.
They aren't gonna give the 2 year rookie fresh from armed robbery detail the sticks.
They'll hire from outside, a former military drone operator with expertise and high experience level. So dont worry, it wont be Deputy Bubba from the corner barber shop flying a drone in one hand, holding a cigar in the other, and launching Hellfire missiles into the trailor park.
You know what, fuck it. Its too frustrating trying to discuss this with people so determined to remain ignorant.
It's really pretty simple.
We are in a war with Al Qaida terrorists. That means that no Al Qaida terrorist or unlawful combatant, is entitled to "due process" no matter where they are.
They may be shot on sight.
Nope. If they are a US citizen on US soil, and do not present an immediate danger, they cannot be shot on sight.
How funny is it that some people on the Right are now trying to frighten people into believing that terrorists might not be treated as criminals with the same rights as criminals? BWA-HA-HA-HA!
A hilarious side effect of Obama Derangement Syndrome.
Have you heard of the civil war? American's were shot on sight without "due process". Why? Because we were in a war.
We are in a war with Al Qaida. I don't care if the US citizen was a US Senator. If that person was an Al Qaida terrorist and he can't be captured, kill him.
I really don't care about Rand Paul's argument, or the drone legislation. It's the people who want to arm cops with missiles that I'm far more concerned about.
One day after the very first detainee from Guantanamo Bay was transferred to New York City to stand trial, we are now learning some shocking news thanks to The Weekly Standard.
According to Congressman Mike Rogers — who serves on the House Intelligence Committee — the Obama administration is now requiring FBI agents to read Miranda rights to captured terrorists.
Do you not understand the difference between a foreign invasion and unprovoked attacks on American citizens? Is that at the bottom of your inability to understand?
To answer your question, yes, if a submarine surfaced in Baltimore Harbor, obama would have to call up Congress and request permission. Just like the president had to do when Pearl Harbor was attacked. The president does have certain Emergency Powers which was what Bush used because those powers were exercised during an attack. IF a sub surfaced in Baltimore Harbor, the governor of Maryland would and should act long before the president. There is NOTHING whatsoever that gives the president, or presidebt in this case, the power to order the execution of an American citizen who is not engaged in an attack of some kind or where an attack is imminent. It has nothing to do with foreign invasion.
You may want to create some kind of circumstance where the president has no choice but to seize these kinds of powers but those are different questions from the one that is the issue.
The question is Does the president have the power under the Constitution to order the execution of an American citizen who does not pose an imminent threat?
That's the question that Eric Holder refuses to answer.
Hold that thought for one damn second.
SO, you're saying.......if a Chinese or Russian sub surfaced in New York Harbor.....and began firing missiles into Brooklyn and Jersey.........that instead of immediate action, Obama would have to get Congress together, take a vote, and get permission to act while Americans were dying by the tens of thousands per minute????? REALLY?
And people wonder why no one trusts the GOP to govern.
Look, you are talking about a foreign invasion. Not an attack on Americans, by the American military a foreign invasion. Do you not see a difference? What happened when Pearl Harbor was attacked? Roosevelt could not convene Congress until the next day. On December 8, Roosevelt gave his "Day of Infamy" speech where he had to ask for authority.
Response to the attack as ineffective as it was, was a result of individuals exercising their own authority to man the guns, or commanders on the ground at the scene. So, IF a submarine surfaced at in New York Harbor and started firing missiles into Brooklyn, the first action would come from military installations along the eastern seaboard, assuming battlefield authority, NOT the president.
Of course a foreign invasion has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the president exercising authority to order the execution of American citizens, on US soil with nothing more than a presidebtial order.
Do you really not see the difference? Honestly? You don't understand the difference between a foreign invasion and the ordered execution of American citizens having a vente at Starbucks?
Good freakin' Lord how stupid are people.
Show me where anyone, me included, said we want to "arm cops with missiles"????????? For one, thats such a simplistic mindset it is hard to have a real discussion.
But, lets say LAPD, NYPD and Miami PD get a drone. It's about 100% certain to NOT have missiles. Im no expert, but Im quite sure there is law that limits "missiles" to the military anyway.
But lets say LAPD, NYPD, Miami PD, the CIA, the FBI, Border Patrol and....say...the Coast Guard....all have drones.
They aren't gonna give the 2 year rookie fresh from armed robbery detail the sticks.
They'll hire from outside, a former military drone operator with expertise and high experience level. So dont worry, it wont be Deputy Bubba from the corner barber shop flying a drone in one hand, holding a cigar in the other, and launching Hellfire missiles into the trailor park.
You know what, fuck it. Its too frustrating trying to discuss this with people so determined to remain ignorant.
That would be you.
IF the police had surveillance drones, or drones with missiles, such technology could not be used without a court order. That order would be based on information from a credible source, an affiant signing an affidavit and signed by a judge.
Even so, sometimes the affiant lies, the judge is wrong, they get the wrong house, or person. Imagine taking the judge out. It is by order of the president only.
There's no problem with that?
And now, a Fox News flashback:
One day after the very first detainee from Guantanamo Bay was transferred to New York City to stand trial, we are now learning some shocking news thanks to The Weekly Standard.
According to Congressman Mike Rogers who serves on the House Intelligence Committee the Obama administration is now requiring FBI agents to read Miranda rights to captured terrorists.
The italics were Fox News' emphasis.
That BASTARD OBAMA is reading MIRANDA RIGHTS TO TERRORISTS!!!!!
SHOCKING NEWS!
That fucker read them their RIGHTS? And brought them to TRIAL? Are you fucking KIDDING ME?!?!
Yeah, I can see how you guys think Obama is going to start strafing American citizens any day now.
Truly deranged. Mad that Obama is Mirandizing and trying terrorists as criminals one moment, manufacturing fear he is going to start whacking people without due process the next.
I swear, you people have the memory retention of a goldfish. This is right out of the hate rally scene in Orwell's 1984.
Obama Derangement Syndrome in full bloom.
Drones aren't designed to perform the function of police, chasing a fleeing felon-even then the rules are quite tight.
Drones are for 'taking out' those 'identified' through intelligence to be a threat. While there are justifiable reasons for using in countries aiding our enemies, even then there the 'collateral damage' has been high, with innocents often killed, while the 'target' manages to get away.
Now come the Obama supporters that were against the foreign use of drones that began late in the Bush presidency, now trying to OK the use of such without due process, claiming it's a 'tool' for the police. Really?
That would be you.
IF the police had surveillance drones, or drones with missiles, such technology could not be used without a court order. That order would be based on information from a credible source, an affiant signing an affidavit and signed by a judge.
Even so, sometimes the affiant lies, the judge is wrong, they get the wrong house, or person. Imagine taking the judge out. It is by order of the president only.
There's no problem with that?
(BUZZER SOUND EFFECT) That would be wrong.
Police use helicopters all the time to "crop spot" for weed grows. The mandate is:
- Cops are in a place they are legally allowed to be (in this case in open air space)
- Cops can see in plain sight any contraband
Police also use helicopters all the time to fly over suspected "extremist" camps. The mandate is:
- Cops are in a place they are legally allowed to be
- Cops can see in plain sight any contraband
A search warrant is only required when:
A) The cop needs to get access to a place he cannot otherwise legally be
or
B) The cop needs to see something that is not in plain view (with a car exception if probable cause for a search exists- Carroll Doctrine)
Using drones for intell gathering would be perfectly legaly. In fact, cops routinely use thermal imagers on helicopters to scan homes, and the ones with extreme heat signatures signal possible weed grows, because the lamps used to heat the room. WHen they note those houses, then undercover agents can do a "trash pull", and pull the trash cans that are left on the side of the road of the house to search for signs of drug growth/use (Trash pulls have been upheld be the court, as "trash" is considered discarded property on the street side).
So....yeah. Its legal.
I really don't care about Rand Paul's argument, or the drone legislation. It's the people who want to arm cops with missiles that I'm far more concerned about.
Who wants to arm cops with missiles?
Stop listening to the voices in your head.
