Liberals: WHERE the HELL are you now?

[NYcarbineer]

After having one anuerism after another (or apparently pretending to) about the "Patriot Act" and about "enhanced interrogations" - I have yet to hear one liberal complain that both Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder believe the federal government has the authority to kill Americans without a trial.

Ted Cruz rips Eric Holder on constitutionality of domestic drone use ? Glenn Beck

Senator Mike Lee: ?Heaven help us all? if President can use drones on US soil ? Glenn Beck

WATCH: Glenn?s full interview with Senator Rand Paul ? Glenn Beck

Go to some liberal websites.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I haven't heard any rightwingers who supported the Patriot Act voice support for Obama's drone program;

that makes you people the hypocrites, doesn't it?

 

[Vast LWC]

Law enforcement personnel is supposed to work on due process and protocol. Shoot to kill is the last resort, not original intention. Original intent is to make the arrest. There are procedures to follow.

Do you even have a clue as to the current practices relating to the use of drones or drone targeted assassination? What is the procedure, then? Who decides? On what Merit? what are the ground rules? Who's authority? Who's Jurisdiction? Is checks and balances even applied? Is it under Executive Power and Executive Privilege? Who accounts to who? To what degree?

In the case of targeting Citizens domestically, who has Jurisdiction? Is the Attorney General even involved at all? Questions don't get answered, it's all round-a-bout smoke and mirrors, but that seems to be okay because a Progressive Statist is in charge? Bullshit! Flooded with answers? I'm waiting to hear some.

Explain the process.

All of your first paragraph is correct.

The matter at hand, concerning Holder and Rand Paul is that Holder stated to Paul that "in extraordinary circumstances" drones could be used to kill American Citizens.

Is a situation where a law enforcement officer shoots a suspect that is causing an imminent threat to another life or lives, not in fact "extraordinary circumstances"?

As far as the second paragraph goes, what is your point? How does it apply to the letter in question that the attorney general sent to Rand Paul?

As far as Jurisdiction goes, that would depend on the nature and location of the threat.

As far as I know, the FBI has the ability to shoot and kill imminent threat suspects, like in hostage situations. Did that change at some point?

Why would an explanation of the process be necessary?

 

[Seawytch]

I'm at the same place I've always been...use 'em but I want accountability and oversight.

 

[Vast LWC]

This whole trumped-up scare tactic is just a bunch of bullshit, as usual.

Tell me:

Does a law-enforcement employed sniper have the right to shoot a suspect that represents an imminent threat to members of the public, or not?

Because, as far as I know, members of law enforcement have always been allowed to use lethal force in the case of imminent threats.

Now:

What is the difference between a sniper shooting someone from a 1/2 mile away, and someone controlling a drone that does the exact same thing?

I understand your argument. However. My complaint when the Patriot Act was implemented was that it opened the door to a slippery slope.

Already, in just two Presidents, we have gone from being able to suspend Habeous Corpus for an American citizen if deemed a terrorist, plus a bunch of other things we Americans wouildn't have thought possible, to killing American citizens in another country who claimed they were a terrorist without trying them, to killing people with drones in countries we are not at war with, to contemplating killing Americans in America without due process.

You see a trend starting to develope here?

Yes, I see what you're saying. All that is true.

My point was simply that Sen Paul's filibuster was a waste, as he was asking the wrong question.

It is in fact legal for law enforcement to kill American Citizens in "Extraordinary Circumstances". And that is what Holder said in his initial response.

 

[Vast LWC]

I'm at the same place I've always been...use 'em but I want accountability and oversight.

Accountability and oversight are extremely important.

Whenever a cop shoots someone, there is an investigation into the shooting. It's standard procedure.

Certainly in the case of drone shootings, the same would apply.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I've supporting killing the terrorists, wherever we find them, one at a time if we have to, since 9/11/01.

My position hasn't changed.

 

[P@triot]

This whole trumped-up scare tactic is just a bunch of bullshit, as usual.

Tell me:

Does a law-enforcement employed sniper have the right to shoot a suspect that represents an imminent threat to members of the public, or not?

Because, as far as I know, members of law enforcement have always been allowed to use lethal force in the case of imminent threats.

Now:

What is the difference between a sniper shooting someone from a 1/2 mile away, and someone controlling a drone that does the exact same thing?

Are you incensed over the technological upgrade?

Surely, one would assume that a drone must be limited to a single type of ordinance.

Do you feel that the only thing a Drone can shoot is a Hellfire missile?

Two things here:

1.) The very organization you mentioned (law enforcement) is responsible for domestic issues. We have police at the city level, sheriffs at the county level, state highway patrol at the state level, and F.B.I. at the federal level. Both the military and the C.I.A. are strictly forbidden by law from domestic activities.

2.) The key word in your scenario is IMMINENT. Apparently you have no idea what the conversation has been on the national stage this week. Obviously, nobody has any issues with an immediate threat being neutralized (I can't even imagine why you would bring that up since the answer is so obvious). The issue is both Obama and Eric Holder have declared that they can kill Americans without trial and without proof (ie the discussion is not about an immediate threat).

 

[P@triot]

I've supporting killing the terrorists, wherever we find them, one at a time if we have to, since 9/11/01.

My position hasn't changed.

So then you fully support the Patriot Act, Guantanamo Bay, holding enemy combatants without trial, military tribunals, and torture - correct?

 

[BlindBoo]

This whole trumped-up scare tactic is just a bunch of bullshit, as usual.

Tell me:

Does a law-enforcement employed sniper have the right to shoot a suspect that represents an imminent threat to members of the public, or not?

Because, as far as I know, members of law enforcement have always been allowed to use lethal force in the case of imminent threats.

Now:

What is the difference between a sniper shooting someone from a 1/2 mile away, and someone controlling a drone that does the exact same thing?

Are you incensed over the technological upgrade?

Surely, one would assume that a drone must be limited to a single type of ordinance.

Do you feel that the only thing a Drone can shoot is a Hellfire missile?

Two things here:

1.) The very organization you mentioned (law enforcement) is responsible for domestic issues. We have police at the city level, sheriffs at the county level, state highway patrol at the state level, and F.B.I. at the federal level. Both the military and the C.I.A. are strictly forbidden by law from domestic activities.

2.) The key word in your scenario is IMMINENT. Apparently you have no idea what the conversation has been on the national stage this week. Obviously, nobody has any issues with an immediate threat being neutralized (I can't even imagine why you would bring that up since the answer is so obvious). The issue is both Obama and Eric Holder have declared that they can kill Americans without trial and without proof (ie the discussion is not about an immediate threat).

BS. Holder clearly responded with the facts you brought up in 1 as why the question was beyond ignorant.

 

[P@triot]

I'm at the same place I've always been...use 'em but I want accountability and oversight.

How has "accountability and oversight" worked through out U.S. history? How has that worked during the Fast & Furious scandal and subsequent cover up? How has that worked during the Benghazi scandal and subsequent cover up? How did that work during the Iran-Contra affair scandal and subsequent cover up? How did that work during the WaterGate scandal and subsequent cover up? How did "accountability and oversight" work with the MK-Ultra program? How did "accountability and oversight" work with the Gulf of Tonkin?

Could you people possibly be any more juvenile and naïve?

Seriously libs - it really is time to grow up and put your big boy pants on. This country has NEVER had "accountability and oversight" and it never will because of things called LIES and SECRETS. There will always be black-ops.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

After having one anuerism after another (or apparently pretending to) about the "Patriot Act" and about "enhanced interrogations" - I have yet to hear one liberal complain that both Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder believe the federal government has the authority to kill Americans without a trial.

Then you haven't been listening. Some of them won't shut up about it. The argument against killing people working against the United States is about as substantial as the debate over how many angels fit on the head of a pin. Few care, and all of them can safely be ignored.

But I digress...

Obama is a ReagaNUT corporate-shill president first (see, defense spending, shit-for-brains wars, bailouts, corporate welfare, etc.) and a fake-liberal corporate shill second (see, ObamaCare, illegal alien pandering, public sector union pandering, etc.).

It tickles me there are people too stupid to see that Reagan, Clinton, Junebug Bush and Obama are corporate presidents first and panderers to halfwit America second.

 

[OriginalShroom]

This whole trumped-up scare tactic is just a bunch of bullshit, as usual.

Tell me:

Does a law-enforcement employed sniper have the right to shoot a suspect that represents an imminent threat to members of the public, or not?

Because, as far as I know, members of law enforcement have always been allowed to use lethal force in the case of imminent threats.

Now:

What is the difference between a sniper shooting someone from a 1/2 mile away, and someone controlling a drone that does the exact same thing?

Are you incensed over the technological upgrade?

Surely, one would assume that a drone must be limited to a single type of ordinance.

Do you feel that the only thing a Drone can shoot is a Hellfire missile?

Two things here:

1.) The very organization you mentioned (law enforcement) is responsible for domestic issues. We have police at the city level, sheriffs at the county level, state highway patrol at the state level, and F.B.I. at the federal level. Both the military and the C.I.A. are strictly forbidden by law from domestic activities.

2.) The key word in your scenario is IMMINENT. Apparently you have no idea what the conversation has been on the national stage this week. Obviously, nobody has any issues with an immediate threat being neutralized (I can't even imagine why you would bring that up since the answer is so obvious). The issue is both Obama and Eric Holder have declared that they can kill Americans without trial and without proof (ie the discussion is not about an immediate threat).

BS. Holder clearly responded with the facts you brought up in 1 as why the question was beyond ignorant.

So you are also ignorant of the Posse Commitatus act?

 

[Seawytch]

No difference between a drone and a sniper in my book. It's just another LE tool that I'm glad we have.

 

[P@triot]

No difference between a drone and a sniper in my book. It's just another LE tool that I'm glad we have.

There is no difference between the tool. The difference is between who is controlling the tool and the due process behind the authorization of utilizing the tool.

 

[Freewill]

We're right here - letting our twice-elected President do his job to keep America safe from terrorists - domestic and foreign.

Yeah, like he did at Benghazi.

 

[Seawytch]

No difference between a drone and a sniper in my book. It's just another LE tool that I'm glad we have.

There is no difference between the tool. The difference is between who is controlling the tool and the due process behind the authorization of utilizing the tool.

So what's the difference between a sniper and a drone, military or civilian? I'm for both as long as the same rules apply to a drone that they would to a sniper. It's still a person controlling the drone.

 

[OriginalShroom]

No difference between a drone and a sniper in my book. It's just another LE tool that I'm glad we have.

There is no difference between the tool. The difference is between who is controlling the tool and the due process behind the authorization of utilizing the tool.

Let's not forget.. The quesitoning right now is over the military use of Drones on U.S. soil.

Something I would believe to be illegal under the Posse Commitatus act.

I don't beleive they were talking about FBI, Secret Service, or U.S. Marshall's use.

 

[Freewill]

I haven't heard any rightwingers who supported the Patriot Act voice support for Obama's drone program;

that makes you people the hypocrites, doesn't it?

I haven't heard any left wing liberal who opposed the Patriot Act voice concern for Obama's drone program and his expanded use of the patriot act;

that makes you people the hypocrites, doesn't it?

 

[Seawytch]

My position on drones and wiretapping remain the same for ANY president. Do it...with PRE-approval (not after the fact) and lots of over-site.