Seems Paul has shifted the narrative on this. :)
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/03/25/a_50_point_swing_against_targeted_drone_killings_of_u_s_citizens.html
QuoteA 50-Point Swing Against Targeted Drone Killings of U.S. Citizens
By David Weigel
Posted Monday, March 25, 2013, at 10:08 AM
A year ago, as the presidential race was taking shape, The Washington Post's pollster asked voters whether they favored the use of drones to kill terrorists or terror suspects if they were "American citizens living in other countries." The net rating at the time was positive: 65 percent for, 26 percent against.
Today, after a month of Rand Paul-driven discussion of drone warfare, Gallup asks basically the same question: Should the U.S. "use drones to launch airstrikes in other countries against U.S. citizens living abroad who are suspected terrorists?" The new numbers: 41 percent for, 52 percent against.
The lede of the poll is even kinder to Paul, finding as high as 79 percent opposition to targeted killing in the United States. But that's a new question. On the old question, we've seen a real queasy swing of public opinion.
Hmm, 79% are against targeted killings in the US? :wacko: That's a very scary number. Hopefully the other 21% just didn't understand the question.
Quote from: DGuller on March 25, 2013, 06:01:30 PM
Hmm, 79% are against targeted killings in the US? :wacko: That's a very scary number. Hopefully the other 21% just didn't understand the question.
The other 21% are keeping an Enemies List.
This might just be an illustration of how the way you phrase a question affects the answer.
If you ask, "Do you favor the use of drones to kill terrorists or suspected terrorists in foreign countries, even if they are American citizens?", people are going to focus on the "kill terrorists" part, and that will lead a lot of people to answer "yes".
If you ask, "Should the U.S. use drones to launch airstrikes in other countries against U.S. citizens living abroad who are suspected terrorists?", people are going to focus more on the "suspected" part, which might lead even people who would answer "yes" to the earlier question to say, "no". (There would also be more focus on the "U.S. citizens" part, which would likely have the same affect.)
This might be an example of why you shouldn't post shit from Slate.
Often a legitimate criticism, but not in this case. Any criticisms you have should be aimed at the respective polsters.
Why on Earth would poll results be relevant to national security? :huh:
Quote from: Martinus on March 26, 2013, 01:53:56 AM
Why on Earth would poll results be relevant to national security? :huh:
...because people here vote?
Quote from: fahdiz on March 26, 2013, 02:18:28 AM
...because people here vote?
Well....some of us anyway.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 25, 2013, 05:58:09 PM
Seems Paul has shifted the narrative on this. :)
This is the exact sort of thing I was hoping Rand would do. Glad to see it.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 26, 2013, 01:44:08 AM
Often a legitimate criticism, but not in this case. Any criticisms you have should be aimed at the respective polsters.
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.
The drones are irrelevant. Killings are justified or not regardless of the tools used to accomplish them.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2013, 09:49:33 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 26, 2013, 01:44:08 AM
Often a legitimate criticism, but not in this case. Any criticisms you have should be aimed at the respective polsters.
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.
So therefore we should set policies now before allowing precedent to do so for us.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2013, 09:49:33 AM
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?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2013, 09:49:33 AM
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.
It hasn't. In fact, Eric Holder gave one of his rare, definite, no-strings-attached "no" answers when asked whether that could happen. Clearly, Rand Paul should have been an Italian prosecutor- he won't stop until he tricks somebody into giving the answer he suspects.
Quote from: Maximus on March 26, 2013, 10:27:46 AM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2013, 09:49:33 AM
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"
Quote from: derspiess on March 26, 2013, 11:12:58 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2013, 09:49:33 AM
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.
Quote from: derspiess on March 26, 2013, 11:12:58 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2013, 09:49:33 AM
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.
Quote from: DGuller on March 25, 2013, 06:01:30 PM
Hmm, 79% are against targeted killings in the US? :wacko: 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."
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2013, 11:35:19 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 26, 2013, 11:12:58 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2013, 09:49:33 AM
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.
:rolleyes:
Obama isn't going to kill you Derspeiss.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2013, 12:02:18 PM
Obama isn't going to kill you Derspeiss.
Of course not--that's what the drones are for.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2013, 09:49:33 AM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 26, 2013, 12:11:48 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2013, 09:49:33 AM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2013, 12:29:44 PM
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. :hmm:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 26, 2013, 12:42:13 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2013, 12:29:44 PM
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. :hmm:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/07/us-usa-congress-holder-idUSBRE92614B20130307
QuoteIn 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?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2013, 12:29:44 PM
But it's not really an issue. The government says it does not intend to do it, and nobody wants it.
:lol: 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.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2013, 01:01:07 PM
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?
Quote from: derspiess on March 26, 2013, 01:10:57 PM
Anyway, I think there are scenarios where drone strikes on US citizens inside US territory may be warranted.
Tell us some.
Quote from: derspiess on March 26, 2013, 01:12:10 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2013, 01:01:07 PM
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.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 26, 2013, 01:18:01 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 26, 2013, 01:10:57 PM
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.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 26, 2013, 01:18:01 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 26, 2013, 01:10:57 PM
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.
Quote from: dps on March 26, 2013, 01:20:47 PM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2013, 01:01:07 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 26, 2013, 12:42:13 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2013, 12:29:44 PM
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. :hmm:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/07/us-usa-congress-holder-idUSBRE92614B20130307
QuoteIn 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.
Have a number of Democratic legislators indicated they wanted to launch drone strikes on US soil?
Quote from: derspiess on March 26, 2013, 01:29:21 PM
Quote from: dps on March 26, 2013, 01:20:47 PM
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?
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.
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2013, 01:54:26 PM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 26, 2013, 01:58:22 PM
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?
Quote from: derspiess on March 26, 2013, 01:58:38 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2013, 01:54:26 PM
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
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2013, 02:07:40 PM
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.
QuoteIt 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?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2013, 01:59:29 PM
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.
Quote from: derspiess on March 26, 2013, 02:11:49 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2013, 02:07:40 PM
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.
QuoteIt 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?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 26, 2013, 02:18:16 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2013, 01:59:29 PM
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.
Presumably there are thousands of acts that the executive reserves the right to do in an emergency. Should we go over each one?
Raz, can you honestly say you'd be defending the Administration's lack of clarity on this issue to the same degree if we were in the midst of a Bush presidency?
Likewise, I am sure spiess would be leading the "don't give a shit" charge under those circumstances.
On this issue? Yeah. Since nobody has shown any interest in actually doing it. Yi used nuclear weapons as an example. I imagine that in extreme emergencies every President since Truman reserves the right to use a nuclear weapon on an American city (for instance, if that city fell to an outside invader and could not be dislodged any other way).
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2013, 02:18:25 PM
Did you ever work in a theater, cause you seem to be projecting a lot.
How? I'm not nearly as partisan as you are.
QuoteI'm not sure what "victory" Rand Paul achieved. It looks to me that he's pandering to the paranoid wing of the GOP.
It was a victory for him in terms of internal GOP politics (he made McCain & Graham look foolish, stole their spotlight), he got a lot of positive press for himself, he swung public opinion pretty dramatically toward his point of view, and he forced the administration to do something it didn't want to do. Still small in the larger scheme of things, but a victory nonetheless.
QuoteDid any Republicans demand answers from the Bush administration about drone strikes in 2002? If not, why?
Because President Obama (for better or worse-- I'm not casting any judgment here) seems to have more of an affinity for using drones.
Quote from: derspiess on March 26, 2013, 02:32:26 PM
How? I'm not nearly as partisan as you are.
:lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao:
Quote from: fahdiz on March 26, 2013, 02:25:20 PM
Raz, can you honestly say you'd be defending the Administration's lack of clarity on this issue to the same degree if we were in the midst of a Bush presidency?
Likewise, I am sure spiess would be leading the "don't give a shit" charge under those circumstances.
Oh come on now. I'm partisan, but not like Raz. When I disagreed with the Bush Administration I wasn't quiet about it.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2013, 02:33:24 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 26, 2013, 02:32:26 PM
How? I'm not nearly as partisan as you are.
:lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao:
Only a true ueberpartisan would use 11 smileys like that ;)
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2013, 02:22:38 PM
Presumably there are thousands of acts that the executive reserves the right to do in an emergency. Should we go over each one?
If you feel the need to clarify what would constitute a compelling emergency to justify each action, sure, knock yourself out.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 26, 2013, 02:36:54 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2013, 02:22:38 PM
Presumably there are thousands of acts that the executive reserves the right to do in an emergency. Should we go over each one?
If you feel the need to clarify what would constitute a compelling emergency to justify each action, sure, knock yourself out.
I do not. Nor do I see a reason to demand clarification for executive actions in unlikely situations.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2013, 02:33:24 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 26, 2013, 02:32:26 PM
How? I'm not nearly as partisan as you are.
:lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao:
Channeling Strix? Poor show.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2013, 02:30:08 PM
On this issue? Yeah. Since nobody has shown any interest in actually doing it.
Well they have been used overseas without due process and against American citizens. There is a context here Raz and there are precedents being set, precendents which are establishing the international standards of drone use. But that does not seem to concern anybody so I will just move on and say this:
I have no reason to believe Obama, or any other President, would use Drones except if they truly felt the security of the US was at stake. I have no reason to believe any of us have anything to fear. But that is not the point. The point is our system was designed to be one of good laws, not good people. That arbitrary power, even in the hands of the best...blah blah and all the rest. I know the Executive wants to have as much flexibility as possible in dealing with any situation but in the years since 9/11 they have gone way too far. Obama had promised to roll this stuff back but instead he has gone double down on it. In these circumstances it does not seem like an unreasonable request to simply clarify what the processes are for using Drones inside the US.
Besides, it is not like the Executive Branch is fighting some sort of law about to be passed severley limiting their authority they are just being asked a simple question and it seems even answering questions about its authority is off limits. Don't you think it is getting a tad ridiculous?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2013, 02:30:08 PM
On this issue? Yeah. Since nobody has shown any interest in actually doing it.
That's simply not true. It's not so much that people are publicly expressing interest; it's that it
already has occurred. Now you may or may not think it's justified - or was in that case but wouldn't be in others, etc - but that's a different matter.
Quote from: Valmy on March 26, 2013, 02:54:28 PM
Well they have been used overseas without due process and against American citizens. There is a context here Raz and there are precedents being set, precendents which are establishing the international standards of drone use.
:yes:
Quote from: derspiess on March 26, 2013, 02:32:26 PM
How? I'm not nearly as partisan as you are.
:yeahright: :hmm: From my moderate centrist POV, it looks like you may be lacking in self-awareness.
Speesh is a tribal Republican IMO (the only one Languish) as Raz is a tribal Democrat (one of several).
The difference is that Raz gets emotionally invested (i.e. turns into a dickhead) on partisan issues in a way that Speesh does not.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 26, 2013, 03:51:13 PM
Speesh is a tribal Republican IMO (the only one Languish) as Raz is a tribal Democrat (one of several).
The difference is that Raz gets emotionally invested (i.e. turns into a dickhead) on partisan issues in a way that Speesh does not.
This seems accurate
Quote from: fahdiz on March 26, 2013, 03:01:54 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2013, 02:30:08 PM
On this issue? Yeah. Since nobody has shown any interest in actually doing it.
That's simply not true. It's not so much that people are publicly expressing interest; it's that it already has occurred. Now you may or may not think it's justified - or was in that case but wouldn't be in others, etc - but that's a different matter.
Wait, wait, wait, wait! Drone strikes have been used to kill American citizens inside the US? I've missed that some how. When, where, why and who?
Quote from: DGuller on March 26, 2013, 03:48:56 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 26, 2013, 02:32:26 PM
How? I'm not nearly as partisan as you are.
:yeahright: :hmm: From my moderate centrist POV, it looks like you may be lacking in self-awareness.
Stop stalking me.
:P :hug:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 26, 2013, 03:51:13 PM
The difference is that Raz gets emotionally invested (i.e. turns into a dickhead) on partisan issues in a way that Speesh does not.
Unless the drone starts thinking about non-traditional drone roles, like being a doctor.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2013, 02:18:25 PM
Did you ever work in a theater, cause you seem to be projecting a lot.
:lmfao:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 26, 2013, 03:51:13 PM
Speesh is a tribal Republican IMO (the only one Languish) as Raz is a tribal Democrat (one of several).
The difference is that Raz gets emotionally invested (i.e. turns into a dickhead) on partisan issues in a way that Speesh does not.
And yourself? You've been pretty dickish this last week, and not just at me.
Quote from: Habbaku on March 26, 2013, 02:46:51 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2013, 02:33:24 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 26, 2013, 02:32:26 PM
How? I'm not nearly as partisan as you are.
:lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao:
Channeling Strix? Poor show.
Grumbler.
Quote from: dps on March 26, 2013, 03:53:14 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on March 26, 2013, 03:01:54 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2013, 02:30:08 PM
On this issue? Yeah. Since nobody has shown any interest in actually doing it.
That's simply not true. It's not so much that people are publicly expressing interest; it's that it already has occurred. Now you may or may not think it's justified - or was in that case but wouldn't be in others, etc - but that's a different matter.
Wait, wait, wait, wait! Drone strikes have been used to kill American citizens inside the US? I've missed that some how. When, where, why and who?
Yeah, I'm really interested in how Fahdiz is going to respond here. I'd like to know about these incidents as well.
Quote from: dps on March 26, 2013, 03:53:14 PM
Wait, wait, wait, wait! Drone strikes have been used to kill American citizens inside the US? I've missed that some how. When, where, why and who?
No, outside the US, without due process of law.
What is the material difference between the assassination of a US citizen outside the US without due process and the assassination of a US citizen inside the US without due process? This is an honest question, not a leading question.
Drones give me a murder boner.
Quote from: fahdiz on March 26, 2013, 07:22:31 PM
No, outside the US, without due process of law.
Define "due process of law." The administration's position, as I understand it, is that "due process of law" is context-sensitive. Intuitively, I think we all agree that the "due process" necessary before killing a person found armed on a battlefield and attacking United States personnel is relatively low.
Similarly, although Osama Bin Laden was never present in the United States before a jury of his peers, I think most of us would agree he received all "due process" before being killed by Seals.
The stickier questions, of course, arise when there appears to be more time for sober consideration, and the application of more process.
Quote from: fahdiz on March 26, 2013, 07:22:31 PM
Quote from: dps on March 26, 2013, 03:53:14 PM
Wait, wait, wait, wait! Drone strikes have been used to kill American citizens inside the US? I've missed that some how. When, where, why and who?
No, outside the US, without due process of law.
What is the material difference between the assassination of a US citizen outside the US without due process and the assassination of a US citizen inside the US without due process? This is an honest question, not a leading question.
Jurisdiction. For one thing I don't think the CIA even has the power to do things on US soil. Second, in the US you can just arrest a person and charge him with a crime. Not so easy in Pakistan or Yemen hence using military weapons to kill a target.
Quote from: ulmont on March 26, 2013, 07:34:41 PM
Similarly, although Osama Bin Laden was never present in the United States before a jury of his peers, I think most of us would agree he received all "due process" before being killed by Seals.
Bin Laden was a US citizen? :unsure:
Quote from: Habbaku on March 26, 2013, 08:03:14 PM
Quote from: ulmont on March 26, 2013, 07:34:41 PM
Similarly, although Osama Bin Laden was never present in the United States before a jury of his peers, I think most of us would agree he received all "due process" before being killed by Seals.
Bin Laden was a US citizen? :unsure:
Didn't we already go over this bit? The 5th amendment says "persons," and applies to aliens as well as US citizens.
Quote from: ulmont on March 26, 2013, 07:34:41 PM
Define "due process of law." The administration's position, as I understand it, is that "due process of law" is context-sensitive. Intuitively, I think we all agree that the "due process" necessary before killing a person found armed on a battlefield and attacking United States personnel is relatively low.
It's probably hair-splitting by this point (or not) but the two US citizens killed by drone strike were not found armed on a battlefield attacking United States personnel but were driving a truck at the time they were killed.
Where were they driving a truck?
Quote from: fahdiz on March 26, 2013, 08:24:17 PM
It's probably hair-splitting by this point (or not) but the two US citizens killed by drone strike were not found armed on a battlefield attacking United States personnel but were driving a truck at the time they were killed.
Would probably have failed emissions anyway. They got what was comin' to 'em for what they done to Ned. Better not cut up, nor otherwise harm no whores, or there'll be more drones.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2013, 08:29:57 PM
Where were they driving a truck?
On a road, presumably.
Ah, I thought you were going somewhere with this, I guess not.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 27, 2013, 02:20:17 AM
Ah, I thought you were going somewhere with this, I guess not.
I was pointing out that the situation ulmont described was not the one in which the US citizens were actually killed.
Isn't the whole "US citizen" thing a red herring?
I believe it was Minsky who once explained at length why there is really no constitutional basis in the US Constitution to differentiate the legal status of a US citizen and a non-US citizen.
Quote from: Martinus on March 27, 2013, 02:39:17 AM
Isn't the whole "US citizen" thing a red herring?
I believe it was Minsky who once explained at length why there is really no constitutional basis in the US Constitution to differentiate the legal status of a US citizen and a non-US citizen.
Not a red herring for people who care more about US citizens than non-US citizens. :ph34r:
Quote from: fahdiz on March 26, 2013, 08:24:17 PM
Quote from: ulmont on March 26, 2013, 07:34:41 PM
Define "due process of law." The administration's position, as I understand it, is that "due process of law" is context-sensitive. Intuitively, I think we all agree that the "due process" necessary before killing a person found armed on a battlefield and attacking United States personnel is relatively low.
It's probably hair-splitting by this point (or not) but the two US citizens killed by drone strike were not found armed on a battlefield attacking United States personnel but were driving a truck at the time they were killed.
It's hair-splitting, as I was only noting the context sensitivity of "due" process.
With respect to Anwar al-Awlaki, I don't have any firsthand knowledge of the facts, but note that he was reported to have been tracked on multiple occasions and unsuccessfully engaged by American forces.
Quote from: fahdiz on March 27, 2013, 02:30:45 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 27, 2013, 02:20:17 AM
Ah, I thought you were going somewhere with this, I guess not.
I was pointing out that the situation ulmont described was not the one in which the US citizens were actually killed.
That's not exactly mutually exclusive to what Ulmont described. You can drive down a road in a battlefield.
You usually get doubled movement.
Quote from: Martinus on March 27, 2013, 02:39:17 AM
Isn't the whole "US citizen" thing a red herring?
I believe it was Minsky who once explained at length why there is really no constitutional basis in the US Constitution to differentiate the legal status of a US citizen and a non-US citizen.
That was me, actually.
And yes, the use of drones and Hellfire missiles raises a real concern about due process and the just use of lethal force by the US government. On the one hand, these strikes are carried out in territories that are not under the rule of law, by and large, and so apprehension isn't possible. On the other, there does not seem to be a published set of criteria by which the President decides who can be assassinated, so the process seems arbitrary. I am also not sure that the collateral casualties can be justified by the results (al-Alwaki's 16-year-old son was also killed by drone strike, though in this case it was targeted at someone else).
There is no clear answer. However, I think that it is clear that the US public has a right to know the conditions under which its executive branch is authorizing the assassinations. The Obama and Bush administrations have stonewalled the question, which I think is only feeding the "if the strikes are truly justified, why are they hiding the justifications" sentiment.
Quote from: Maximus on March 26, 2013, 10:27:46 AM
The drones are irrelevant. Killings are justified or not regardless of the tools used to accomplish them.
The thread has been won.
Maybe Rand Paul is worried about drones because he's afraid that they'll use hellfire missiles on his militia/domestic terrorist buddies.
Quote from: Neil on March 27, 2013, 06:48:05 PM
Quote from: Maximus on March 26, 2013, 10:27:46 AM
The drones are irrelevant. Killings are justified or not regardless of the tools used to accomplish them.
The thread has been won.
Maybe Rand Paul is worried about drones because he's afraid that they'll use hellfire missiles on his militia/domestic terrorist buddies.
That's the fear he wishes to stir up.
:lol:
He's not exactly the first high profile GOP politician to tell people that Obama is actively trying to kill them.
I'm just saying that Ruby Ridge would have been a lot better if they had put a hellfire through the window.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 27, 2013, 08:23:07 PM
He's not exactly the first high profile GOP politician to tell people that Obama is actively trying to kill them.
Clearly not, as he hasn't exactly said that.
Quote from: Neil on March 27, 2013, 08:27:35 PM
I'm just saying that Ruby Ridge would have been a lot better if they had put a hellfire through the window.
Yeah, want to make sure you kill that baby, too. Killing her unarmed mother just wasn't enough.
Quote from: derspiess on March 27, 2013, 09:27:45 PM
Quote from: Neil on March 27, 2013, 08:27:35 PM
I'm just saying that Ruby Ridge would have been a lot better if they had put a hellfire through the window.
Yeah, want to make sure you kill that baby, too. Killing her unarmed mother just wasn't enough.
Meh, she bought her own ticket. If you don't want to be shot by a sniper, don't hang out with nut jobs targeted by snipers.
Quote from: DGuller on March 27, 2013, 09:29:52 PM
Meh, she bought her own ticket. If you don't want to be shot by a sniper, don't hang out with nut jobs targeted by snipers.
Nutjobs or not, that episode was a colossal cock-up, from the questionable weapons charges to the incorrect court date given to Weaver to the rules of engagement.
Sympathy for Nazis is noted.
Quote from: derspiess on March 27, 2013, 09:27:45 PM
Quote from: Neil on March 27, 2013, 08:27:35 PM
I'm just saying that Ruby Ridge would have been a lot better if they had put a hellfire through the window.
Yeah, want to make sure you kill that baby, too. Killing her unarmed mother just wasn't enough.
Kill 'em all. When crazies are determined to make war on the United States, their support structures are legitimate targets.
Quote from: Neil on March 27, 2013, 11:19:56 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 27, 2013, 09:27:45 PM
Quote from: Neil on March 27, 2013, 08:27:35 PM
I'm just saying that Ruby Ridge would have been a lot better if they had put a hellfire through the window.
Yeah, want to make sure you kill that baby, too. Killing her unarmed mother just wasn't enough.
Kill 'em all. When crazies are determined to make war on the United States, their support structures are legitimate targets.
:yes: How many lives could've been saved if we just eliminated the whole Ruby Ridge gang quietly, before they raised the stink that drew attention to them?
I wonder if Randy Weaver would have as much sympathy amongst Conservative-Libertarian types if he was a black radical instead of an white Aryan Nations type. They can often tell exactly the crimes of the overstretching government at Ruby Ridge but are often ignorant of the MOVE debacle less then ten years previous where the police dropped a fucking bombing on a house and accidentally burned down a whole city block.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 27, 2013, 10:03:40 PM
Sympathy for Nazis is noted.
They won their court case for wrongful death didn't they, which is almost impossible to do. That means their case was incredibly strong.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 28, 2013, 03:13:38 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 27, 2013, 10:03:40 PM
Sympathy for Nazis is noted.
They won their court case for wrongful death didn't they, which is almost impossible to do. That means their case was incredibly strong.
The Nazis? I don't recall that happening. In fact a whole bunch of them were hung after the war. If you mean Weaver, that's not almost impossible to do. It's a civil case so the hurdle is much lower then a criminal one.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 28, 2013, 02:33:38 AM
I wonder if Randy Weaver would have as much sympathy amongst Conservative-Libertarian types if he was a black radical instead of an white Aryan Nations type. They can often tell exactly the crimes of the overstretching government at Ruby Ridge but are often ignorant of the MOVE debacle less then ten years previous where the police dropped a fucking bombing on a house and accidentally burned down a whole city block.
Well, I guess if he was a black radical then "other types" would have been up in arms over innocents being killed while targeting the criminal. ;)
I think it's more a debate of was it correct legal procedures of what was done, regardless of who was being targeted.
We're even having debates now on whether killing AQ affiliated Americans overseas is ok, including innocents near them, which did happen.
Quote from: grumbler on March 27, 2013, 06:13:02 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 27, 2013, 02:39:17 AM
Isn't the whole "US citizen" thing a red herring?
I believe it was Minsky who once explained at length why there is really no constitutional basis in the US Constitution to differentiate the legal status of a US citizen and a non-US citizen.
That was me, actually.
And yes, the use of drones and Hellfire missiles raises a real concern about due process and the just use of lethal force by the US government. On the one hand, these strikes are carried out in territories that are not under the rule of law, by and large, and so apprehension isn't possible. On the other, there does not seem to be a published set of criteria by which the President decides who can be assassinated, so the process seems arbitrary. I am also not sure that the collateral casualties can be justified by the results (al-Alwaki's 16-year-old son was also killed by drone strike, though in this case it was targeted at someone else).
There is no clear answer. However, I think that it is clear that the US public has a right to know the conditions under which its executive branch is authorizing the assassinations. The Obama and Bush administrations have stonewalled the question, which I think is only feeding the "if the strikes are truly justified, why are they hiding the justifications" sentiment.
Normally I would agree with you, but this is one of these cases where the public simply will not have enough data to make an informed decision.
In such case I favour letting the public elect the guy who will make an informed decision, rather than letting the public take the decision itself.
Quote from: derspiess on March 27, 2013, 09:27:45 PM
Yeah, want to make sure you kill that baby, too. Killing her unarmed mother just wasn't enough.
Nits make lice.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 28, 2013, 02:33:38 AM
I wonder if Randy Weaver would have as much sympathy amongst Conservative-Libertarian types if he was a black radical instead of an white Aryan Nations type. They can often tell exactly the crimes of the overstretching government at Ruby Ridge but are often ignorant of the MOVE debacle less then ten years previous where the police dropped a fucking bombing on a house and accidentally burned down a whole city block.
I don't think sympathy's really the right term, and I don't think he was an Aryan Nations member. He was a bit of a nutter, but even nutters have rights.
Quote from: DGuller on March 27, 2013, 11:40:29 PM
:yes: How many lives could've been saved if we just eliminated the whole Ruby Ridge gang quietly, before they raised the stink that drew attention to them?
On what grounds?
Quote from: derspiess on March 28, 2013, 10:35:11 AM
Quote from: DGuller on March 27, 2013, 11:40:29 PM
:yes: How many lives could've been saved if we just eliminated the whole Ruby Ridge gang quietly, before they raised the stink that drew attention to them?
On what grounds?
Cabin grounds.
Quote from: Martinus on March 28, 2013, 07:38:31 AM
Normally I would agree with you, but this is one of these cases where the public simply will not have enough data to make an informed decision.
In such case I favour letting the public elect the guy who will make an informed decision, rather than letting the public take the decision itself.
That's the kind of thinking that leads to dictatorships. The leadership simply has to be responsible to the public. If the leadership gets to decide what the public gets to know, those public elections are meaningless.
Quote from: grumbler on March 28, 2013, 10:51:46 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 28, 2013, 07:38:31 AM
Normally I would agree with you, but this is one of these cases where the public simply will not have enough data to make an informed decision.
In such case I favour letting the public elect the guy who will make an informed decision, rather than letting the public take the decision itself.
That's the kind of thinking that leads to dictatorships. The leadership simply has to be responsible to the public. If the leadership gets to decide what the public gets to know, those public elections are meaningless.
Are you into open government?
Quote from: The Brain on March 28, 2013, 10:53:16 AM
Quote from: grumbler on March 28, 2013, 10:51:46 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 28, 2013, 07:38:31 AM
Normally I would agree with you, but this is one of these cases where the public simply will not have enough data to make an informed decision.
In such case I favour letting the public elect the guy who will make an informed decision, rather than letting the public take the decision itself.
That's the kind of thinking that leads to dictatorships. The leadership simply has to be responsible to the public. If the leadership gets to decide what the public gets to know, those public elections are meaningless.
Are you into open government?
My dear boy, it is a contradiction in terms; you can be open or you can have government.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.yes-minister.com%2Fimages%2Fym25_humphreyarnold3.jpg&hash=9db33fcd50810e53b76c3a2678c59e231cc5742c)
Quote from: derspiess on March 28, 2013, 10:33:41 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 28, 2013, 02:33:38 AM
I wonder if Randy Weaver would have as much sympathy amongst Conservative-Libertarian types if he was a black radical instead of an white Aryan Nations type. They can often tell exactly the crimes of the overstretching government at Ruby Ridge but are often ignorant of the MOVE debacle less then ten years previous where the police dropped a fucking bombing on a house and accidentally burned down a whole city block.
I don't think sympathy's really the right term, and I don't think he was an Aryan Nations member. He was a bit of a nutter, but even nutters have rights.
He kept showing up at Aryan Nations rallies which is where he was first approached by federal agents. I think that makes him an Aryan Nations type. Of course, a lot of conservatives have defending him have tried to whitewash that aspect of the man.
It's OK for federal agents to be Aryan Nation but when a normal citizen does it it's bad?
How many more Americans have been killed by drones, since I last looked at this thread ?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 28, 2013, 01:04:51 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 28, 2013, 10:33:41 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 28, 2013, 02:33:38 AM
I wonder if Randy Weaver would have as much sympathy amongst Conservative-Libertarian types if he was a black radical instead of an white Aryan Nations type. They can often tell exactly the crimes of the overstretching government at Ruby Ridge but are often ignorant of the MOVE debacle less then ten years previous where the police dropped a fucking bombing on a house and accidentally burned down a whole city block.
I don't think sympathy's really the right term, and I don't think he was an Aryan Nations member. He was a bit of a nutter, but even nutters have rights.
He kept showing up at Aryan Nations rallies which is where he was first approached by federal agents. I think that makes him an Aryan Nations type. Of course, a lot of conservatives have defending him have tried to whitewash that aspect of the man.
You're Catholic, but we don't shoot you in the face for it :P
On atotally unrelated note - I wonder how "drone" came to mean a robotic aircraft.
I always associated it with the male bee, and it isn't a complement when directed at a person (it usually means a sort of featureless parasite, I guess from the fact that male bees do no work other than procreate).
Here's what wiki has but who knows.
QuoteIn 1931, the British developed the Fairey "Queen" radio-controlled target from the Fairey IIIF floatplane, building a small batch of three, and in 1935 followed up this experiment by producing larger numbers of another RC target, the "DH.82B Queen Bee", derived from the De Havilland Tiger Moth biplane trainer. Through some convoluted path, the name of "Queen Bee" is said to have led to the use of the term "drone" for pilotless aircraft, particularly when they are radio-controlled
There was also the Kettering Bug, but it was more of a flying bomb cruise missile type thing.
Quote from: garbon on March 28, 2013, 01:41:42 PM
Here's what wiki has but who knows.
QuoteIn 1931, the British developed the Fairey "Queen" radio-controlled target from the Fairey IIIF floatplane, building a small batch of three, and in 1935 followed up this experiment by producing larger numbers of another RC target, the "DH.82B Queen Bee", derived from the De Havilland Tiger Moth biplane trainer. Through some convoluted path, the name of "Queen Bee" is said to have led to the use of the term "drone" for pilotless aircraft, particularly when they are radio-controlled
Heh, cool. Though not, as you point out, definitive. ;)
Quote from: Razgovory on March 28, 2013, 01:04:51 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 28, 2013, 10:33:41 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 28, 2013, 02:33:38 AM
I wonder if Randy Weaver would have as much sympathy amongst Conservative-Libertarian types if he was a black radical instead of an white Aryan Nations type. They can often tell exactly the crimes of the overstretching government at Ruby Ridge but are often ignorant of the MOVE debacle less then ten years previous where the police dropped a fucking bombing on a house and accidentally burned down a whole city block.
I don't think sympathy's really the right term, and I don't think he was an Aryan Nations member. He was a bit of a nutter, but even nutters have rights.
He kept showing up at Aryan Nations rallies which is where he was first approached by federal agents. I think that makes him an Aryan Nations type. Of course, a lot of conservatives have defending him have tried to whitewash that aspect of the man.
He apparently attended some of their meetings and then at some point had a falling out with them. But my understanding is that various fringe groups/types tend to make contacts with each other. He could have been a white supremicist. Or he could have just been indifferent to it & wanted to make business contacts with them or whatever.
But I guess we're splitting hairs here-- he was a big conspiracy nutter and certainly no hero to me. I actually saw him once at a gun show in Maryland. He was there selling/signing his book. Oddly enough he wasn't getting much attention as both times I walked by his table he had nobody else there. He had a really weird (crazy weird) look in his eyes but also seemed to be a bit sad/fatalistic. Maybe because nobody was buying his book :D
Quote from: Malthus on March 28, 2013, 01:38:15 PM
On atotally unrelated note - I wonder how "drone" came to mean a robotic aircraft.
I always associated it with the male bee, and it isn't a complement when directed at a person (it usually means a sort of featureless parasite, I guess from the fact that male bees do no work other than procreate).
I guess it could be from the sound it made as well.
My guess is that it came from the verb "Drone".
Quoteto make a dull, continued, low, monotonous sound; hum; buzz.
2.
to speak in a monotonous tone.
3.
to proceed in a dull, monotonous manner (usually followed by on ): The meeting droned on for hours.
From this was derived the sense of machine-like and mindless.
QuoteOld English dran, dræn "male honeybee," from Proto-Germanic *dran- (cf. Middle Dutch drane; Old High German treno; German Drohne, which is from Middle Low German drone), probably imitative; given a figurative sense of "idler, lazy worker" (male bees make no honey) 1520s.
Meaning "pilotless aircraft" is from 1946. Meaning "deep, continuous humming sound" is early 16c., apparently imitative (cf. threnody). The verb in the sound sense is early 16c. Related: Droned; droning.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=drone&allowed_in_frame=0
Quote from: derspiess on March 28, 2013, 02:01:36 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 28, 2013, 01:38:15 PM
On atotally unrelated note - I wonder how "drone" came to mean a robotic aircraft.
I always associated it with the male bee, and it isn't a complement when directed at a person (it usually means a sort of featureless parasite, I guess from the fact that male bees do no work other than procreate).
I guess it could be from the sound it made as well.
I don't know the answer, they used to be called RPVs during Vietnam and into the 70s.
Maybe it's a nickname that stems from that time, when actually large numbers were used.
Also many were launched from aircraft, C130s and so forth, so perhaps the idea of the mother launch ship got associated with her carrying several drones, which then did her bidding ?
Quote from: grumbler on March 28, 2013, 10:51:46 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 28, 2013, 07:38:31 AM
Normally I would agree with you, but this is one of these cases where the public simply will not have enough data to make an informed decision.
In such case I favour letting the public elect the guy who will make an informed decision, rather than letting the public take the decision itself.
That's the kind of thinking that leads to dictatorships. The leadership simply has to be responsible to the public. If the leadership gets to decide what the public gets to know, those public elections are meaningless.
That kind of thinking leads to representative democracy and official secrets, which is a passable system, provided that a constitutional monarch is in the mix somehow.