50-Point Swing Against Targeted Drone Killings of U.S. Citizens

[dps]

Okay, would it be fair for the President to keep a discussion going on whether or not the GOP intends to repeal the 13th amendment or something equally absurd?

How is that relevant or equivalent?

There's no indication that anyone in a position of authority has any plans to attempt to repeal the 13th Amendment nor to use drone strikes to kill American citizens within the US and there's no reason to think that either would get much political support.

[mongers]

Anyway, I think there are scenarios where drone strikes on US citizens inside US territory may be warranted.

Tell us some.

Well it'll only be used as a last resort, like when people have escaped the FEMA death camps.

[derspiess]

Anyway, I think there are scenarios where drone strikes on US citizens inside US territory may be warranted.

Tell us some.

A war or insurrection on US soil where US citizens are fighting with or as the bad guys.  Armed terrorists posing an immediate threat that can't be neutralized by other means.

[derspiess]

There's no indication that anyone in a position of authority has any plans to attempt to repeal the 13th Amendment nor to use drone strikes to kill American citizens within the US and there's no reason to think that either would get much political support.

Still not seeing it.  If they were attempting to repeal an amendment, so what?  That's a constitutional process.

[Admiral Yi]

But it's not really an issue.  The government says it does not intend to do it, and nobody wants it.

In the hearings footage I saw Holder was dancing around the question.  If you've seen or read an unequivocal no, perhaps you could share the source.

And "nobody wants it" is a strange argument to use against conducting a poll. 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/07/us-usa-congress-holder-idUSBRE92614B20130307

In a two-sentence letter to Kentucky Republican Senator Rand Paul, Holder said he had heard Paul wanted to know if the president could use a drone to kill an American outside of an emergency situation.


"The answer to that question is no," Holder wrote.

Okay, would it be fair for the President to keep a discussion going on whether or not the GOP intends to repeal the 13th amendment or something equally absurd?

It would be monumentally fair to keep the discussion going if significant numbers of GOP legislators had said "we will not repeal the 13th amendment outside of an emergency situation."  Assuming of course, the person who kept the discussion going was opposed to repeal of the amendment *inside* an emergency situation as well.

[Razgovory]

Have a number of Democratic legislators indicated they wanted to launch drone strikes on US soil?

[Razgovory]

There's no indication that anyone in a position of authority has any plans to attempt to repeal the 13th Amendment nor to use drone strikes to kill American citizens within the US and there's no reason to think that either would get much political support.

Still not seeing it.  If they were attempting to repeal an amendment, so what?  That's a constitutional process.

And putting down a rebellion is legal.  So we have two legal things, but nobody has said they wish to do either one of them.  Why would you harp on one or the other?

[MadImmortalMan]

http://markey.house.gov/press-release/markey-drone-privacy-legislation-prevent-flying-robots-becoming-spying-robots

Commercial drone licenses.

I can see where they'd be useful for search and rescue ops. Reporters using drones for information gathering? Do paparazzi count as reporters? The traffic copter will be a thing of the past if it isn't already.

[Admiral Yi]

Not to the best of my knowledge.

In my example no one indicated they wanted to repeal the 13th either.

By your logic Raz, we should be unconcerned if the president were to say "I will absolutely not drop a nuclear bomb on a US city in a nonemergency situation."  Because, you know, that's not actually proposing it.

[derspiess]

And putting down a rebellion is legal.  So we have two legal things, but nobody has said they wish to do either one of them.  Why would you harp on one or the other?

Because our current president has ordered or approved drone strikes on US citizens outside of US borders.  I have no problem with that (and from what I hear neither does Rand Paul) but I think it's worth discussing what the rules are inside US borders.  The administration gave its answer after some prodding and as far as I'm concerned the discussion is over & we can move on.

[Razgovory]

Not to the best of my knowledge.

In my example no one indicated they wanted to repeal the 13th either.

By your logic Raz, we should be unconcerned if the president were to say "I will absolutely not drop a nuclear bomb on a US city in a nonemergency situation."  Because, you know, that's not actually proposing it.

And?

[Razgovory]

And putting down a rebellion is legal.  So we have two legal things, but nobody has said they wish to do either one of them.  Why would you harp on one or the other?

Because our current president has ordered or approved drone strikes on US citizens outside of US borders.  I have no problem with that (and from what I hear neither does Rand Paul) but I think it's worth discussing what the rules are inside US borders.  The administration gave its answer after some prodding and as far as I'm concerned the discussion is over & we can move on.

Should we question every possible situation in which policy would change in an emergency situation?  Can the President order a threshing machine to run over someone in an emergency situation?  Can the President order someone frozen in ice as an emergency measure?  It does seem odd that you and other Republicans are suddenly so interested in this.  I mean, a drone was used to kill an American citizen 10 years ago.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamal_Derwish

[derspiess]

Should we question every possible situation in which policy would change in an emergency situation?  Can the President order a threshing machine to run over someone in an emergency situation?  Can the President order someone frozen in ice as an emergency measure? 

Your partisanship knows no bounds.

It does seem odd that you and other Republicans are suddenly so interested in this.  I mean, a drone was used to kill an American citizen 10 years ago.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamal_Derwish

And it would have been worth discussing back then.  Let it go, Raz.  Rand Paul scores a small political victory at the expense of the administration and you go nuts.  You guys still won big last fall.  Doesn't that still make you happy?

[Admiral Yi]

And?

And some people might want some clarification on what would constitute an emergency situation if the executive is reserving the right to do so.

[Razgovory]

Should we question every possible situation in which policy would change in an emergency situation?  Can the President order a threshing machine to run over someone in an emergency situation?  Can the President order someone frozen in ice as an emergency measure? 

Your partisanship knows no bounds.

It does seem odd that you and other Republicans are suddenly so interested in this.  I mean, a drone was used to kill an American citizen 10 years ago.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamal_Derwish

And it would have been worth discussing back then.  Let it go, Raz.  Rand Paul scores a small political victory at the expense of the administration and you go nuts.  You guys still won big last fall.  Doesn't that still make you happy?

Did you ever work in a theater, cause you seem to be projecting a lot.  I'm not sure what "victory" Rand Paul achieved.  It looks to me that he's pandering to the paranoid wing of the GOP.  Did any Republicans demand answers from the Bush administration about drone strikes in 2002?  If not, why?