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

[Valmy]

The drones are irrelevant. Killings are justified or not regardless of the tools used to accomplish them.

Well it is not a question of justifying, I am sure anytime somebody needs killing there is good justification, the question is the process.  The drones seem to be game changer in this area abroad.  I am not crazy about that to say the least, but I am even less crazy about the idea of them being a game changer at home.

[fhdz]

The other question about strikes in the US is even less relevant.  I don't think it's ever happened.

This, by the way, is why risk prediction is essentially bullshit.

"But there's never been a forest fire in THIS forest before!" "But that teacup on the table has NEVER BROKEN BEFORE"

[Martinus]

The other question about strikes in the US is even less relevant.  I don't think it's ever happened.

So it's best not to think about it at all, then?

Not more than thinking about F15 strikes.

[Razgovory]

The other question about strikes in the US is even less relevant.  I don't think it's ever happened.

So it's best not to think about it at all, then?

I suppose we could put it up there with Martian attack and Dinosaur stampedes in our risk assessments.  Don't worry, the UN isn't going to blow up your bunker.

[Razgovory]

Hmm, 79% are against targeted killings in the US?     That's a very scary number.  Hopefully the other 21% just didn't understand the question.

I bet you can cut that number in half if you ask "do you think the US should be able to use drone strikes in the US against Muslim terrorists plotting to attack American targets."

[derspiess]

The other question about strikes in the US is even less relevant.  I don't think it's ever happened.

So it's best not to think about it at all, then?

I suppose we could put it up there with Martian attack and Dinosaur stampedes in our risk assessments.  Don't worry, the UN isn't going to blow up your bunker.

[Razgovory]

Obama isn't going to kill you Derspeiss.

[dps]

Obama isn't going to kill you Derspeiss.

Of course not--that's what the drones are for.

[Admiral Yi]

But it's not that relevant a question.  Exactly how many Americans have been killed by drone strikes?  I doubt very many.  The other question about strikes in the US is even less relevant.  I don't think it's ever happened.

This is like saying it's not relevant to discuss human cloning until after a human has been cloned.

I agree with Max.  If the state kills a citizen the weapon used is meaningless.

[Razgovory]

But it's not that relevant a question.  Exactly how many Americans have been killed by drone strikes?  I doubt very many.  The other question about strikes in the US is even less relevant.  I don't think it's ever happened.

This is like saying it's not relevant to discuss human cloning until after a human has been cloned.

I agree with Max.  If the state kills a citizen the weapon used is meaningless.

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

[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. 

[Razgovory]

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?

[derspiess]

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

  You know there's such a thing as too much trust.

Anyway, I think there are scenarios where drone strikes on US citizens inside US territory may be warranted.  I just don't see what was so horrible about asking the administration to state its policy.

[derspiess]

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?

[CountDeMoney]

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

Tell us some.