and a lot of fairly intelligent people also think it's valid.
The issue that brought it to light was 'is the acquiring of WMDs a cause for preemptive war? It's largely agreed that there can be circumstances where a preemptive war is justified.
Similar, but different for important reasons. A cease fire is a temporary stop for a specified period of time. There can be a lot of reason for that, but peace discussion usually isn't one of them
What? when was he killed? oh, he wasn't? wtf is your point? nothing in the quote even remotely applies to Bradley Manning. Who, for some reason is being defended for leaking military secrets and classified information.
See? you and people like you don't know what the fuck they are talking about. Just the kind of people Rand Paul likes to stir up.
Why drones? are you saying you would support artillery fire on that person and that would be ok?
If not, then stop talking about drones. Rand has to talk about drones and make it a boogyman becasue if he said "Tell me MR. President, would you ever consider using military hardware on Americans in america?" we would just be laughed at. Plus, it's a baited question where you can't win regardless of the answer. Had he said no, Rand would have been on him for not protecting america.
"The drone policy is much more like the situation where "Joe (who has a grudge against Bob) told Sally who told a mall cop, that Bob was going to shoot up the mall," no, it's nothing like that, read it.
"Drone strikes are about killing people the Government, in secret and with no oversight, has _accused_ of being dangerous people" you are mixing two issues.
My issue is with people saying drone are somehow different then any other military action. Yuio could use a f-18 or a snipe to do the same thing. My other issue is that no one seems ot realize that the drones we are talking about are military hardware and as such fall under the same military law, guidelines and policies.
You notice how Rand Paul talks about drones and not military policy? it's becasue he is grandstanding and scare mongering by using 'drones'.
Keeping it secret is a separate issue. Discuss it with general military policy not 'drones'.
You points: 1) You can't say "That guy is plotting' and they go kill him. It doesn't work that way. They would need to be actively avoiding you AND with the enemy AND the risk for sending a team in is too high AND you can't get locals to help you AND you have reason to believe that have, and are continuing to, actively work against the united states in a currently ongoing military action. That's not even going into what the legal team has to do.
Rand Paul is going on about Americans on American soil when he knows damn well their could be proper events that would warrant such action.
2) no, then you are apprehended...unless all the rules from 1 apply.
3) Deep into enemy territory surrounded by the enemy makes it too orenerous. ON american soil? well, see 1.
4) a) no, they are interpretations of the law used to vet an action.
b) Yes, I agree 100%. This is NOT the topic being discussed, and it has nothing to do with drones in and of thmeselves.
c) Murdered for free speech? maybe you should dig deeper. Plus, free speech doesn't include try to get people to murder other people.
d) yes it would be nice to defend myself. However he chose to not defend himself, instead incited people to attack the US, kidnapping, and was actively help plan attacks against the US.
"you resist drones. " NO NO NO. You are falling for it. Stop. You resist policy that supports that. You do NOT make a boogeyman man out of one piece of hardware. I do not support using military hardware for arbitrary Federal murder; which has never happened, btw. I don't care it its drone or an f18 or a sniper.
So, if they stop using drones, do you think you have one? no, it would still go on, but everybody will be like well, they stopped using drones so I guess it's all right. herp, derp.
Yuo blind hate has caused to to stop actually thinking. I cold list 200+ changes under Obama, but like I said, you are closed minds, myopic, and acting like a twit.
Drone are a very useful piece of military hardware that can save lives, and minimize unintended casualties.. I will not resist them at all. I will advocate fro them. Secret laws and them being used by the CIA I will resist.
". If you do, you are a traitor to everything the constitution stands for."
"arbitrary indefinite detention" Obama tried to stop it, the the pubs went all 'there isn't anyplace you can put them' and 'You can't let terrorist go! "and then stopped all government action.Obama to move on.
This was in his first term. Pay attention.
Arbitrary war,
What arbitrary war? Libya wasn't arbitrary. Again, pay attention.
" Fonda was viewed by many Americans as a traitor during the Vietnam War," and I can't help but not that the military didn't kill her. So why would they with drones?
Drones aren't magical, they are another tool in the military arsenal. The same laws and policy apply to drones that apply to every other piece of military equipment.
I am a fan of Wyden, and voted for him, but this subject is nonsense. A bunch of ignorant plebes are getting all worked up about drones, but if you say all thr same things in the context of an F-18 doing it they have no problems.
"that no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court." How is that different then: that no American should be killed by a police officer on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court.
also: Paul also said that he was “alarmed” at the lack of definition over who can be targeted by drone strikes. why not: Paul also said that he was “alarmed” at the lack of definition over who can be targeted by Navy Ship strikes.
“Are you going to drop a Hellfire missile on Jane Fonda?” Paul asked. “Are you going to drop a bunkerbuster bomb on Jane Fonda?” Paul asked.
seriously? It's stupid.
This is about tax votes, avoiding responsibility for they sequestration, and not wanting Brennan. This has nothing to do with the military attack american on american soil.
Drones attacks are a military attack, as such they are government be the same laws and policy's that dictate what a ship can fire at, or a plane can bomb. They use drones as a scare word.
I, and probably you, can think of several instance where stopping an american with deadly force is what needs to be done.
It's a fake debate using FUD to take the eyes off the fact that the republicans have lied and moved the goal post on the economy and budget issues.
If an American soldier decides to us military firepower on civilians, should a drone be used to stop him? I think we would agree that of a person shot him, it would be thankful, but use the scary word drone and suddenly it's all terminator.
Nothing the President has done, and no interpetatiojn the white house presented included killing Americans on American soil.
If an American is giving information, or aiding the enemy, and if it's ion hostile soil, and if the military can't get a team to the person to capture them, and we can't work out something for the local military/police to take action, then we can use a drone.
And again,l if a team was sent in that killed that person in a firefight, no one would care..add drone to the mix, ohh scary.
And if the president gave a No answer, the republican would all over him for being soft an terrorism. If he said yes they would be all over him..
Tell me, have you told anyone about the child rape you committed? You have three answer 2 mean you have done it, one mean you aren't going to talk about the issue.
Gambling odds it the reference they are using; which is correct becasue when you talk about the odds in this scenerio we are using that in a risk/reward matrix to determine is the odds are high enough that their is life for us to undertake the rick of going their.
Too swap it around, from the residents of Europe(if any), the odd we will go their just went up..again.
I'm going to preempt that with the fact that you don't want space exploration to be relegated to the same 'Overhype/Overpromise' location in the collective consciousness currently reserved for late night infomercials and miracle health products.
why not?
Of course their only influence would be getting politician to focus on in more, but I'll set that aside.
Slashdot Mirror
They US will also be doing Navel exercises around NK.
NK is largely a cult. Dear Leader and all that nonsense.
and a lot of fairly intelligent people also think it's valid.
The issue that brought it to light was 'is the acquiring of WMDs a cause for preemptive war? It's largely agreed that there can be circumstances where a preemptive war is justified.
armistice , not a cease fire.
Similar, but different for important reasons. A cease fire is a temporary stop for a specified period of time.
There can be a lot of reason for that, but peace discussion usually isn't one of them
WHOOOOSH!!!!1
Civil War.
Then maybe he should be talking about real problems.
UM, the Obama administration agreed ti the republicans budget, but they still voted against it and changed what they wanted..again.
yes, he is saying he could image an extraordinary circumstance where they could happen.
An American carrying a pony nuke, or pare military group going to blow up a damn. Some guy shooting grenades and a nuclear plant.
You know, extraordinary circumstances.
Even in most of those, the response from other forces would be faster.
What? when was he killed? oh, he wasn't? wtf is your point? nothing in the quote even remotely applies to Bradley Manning.
Who, for some reason is being defended for leaking military secrets and classified information.
The enemy of my enemy is a tool I can use.
See? you and people like you don't know what the fuck they are talking about. Just the kind of people Rand Paul likes to stir up.
Why drones? are you saying you would support artillery fire on that person and that would be ok?
If not, then stop talking about drones. Rand has to talk about drones and make it a boogyman becasue if he said "Tell me MR. President, would you ever consider using military hardware on Americans in america?" we would just be laughed at.
Plus, it's a baited question where you can't win regardless of the answer. Had he said no, Rand would have been on him for not protecting america.
"The drone policy is much more like the situation where "Joe (who has a grudge against Bob) told Sally who told a mall cop, that Bob was going to shoot up the mall,"
no, it's nothing like that, read it.
"Drone strikes are about killing people the Government, in secret and with no oversight, has _accused_ of being dangerous people"
you are mixing two issues.
My issue is with people saying drone are somehow different then any other military action. Yuio could use a f-18 or a snipe to do the same thing.
My other issue is that no one seems ot realize that the drones we are talking about are military hardware and as such fall under the same military law, guidelines and policies.
You notice how Rand Paul talks about drones and not military policy? it's becasue he is grandstanding and scare mongering by using 'drones'.
Keeping it secret is a separate issue. Discuss it with general military policy not 'drones'.
You points:
1) You can't say "That guy is plotting' and they go kill him. It doesn't work that way. They would need to be actively avoiding you AND with the enemy AND the risk for sending a team in is too high AND you can't get locals to help you AND you have reason to believe that have, and are continuing to, actively work against the united states in a currently ongoing military action. That's not even going into what the legal team has to do.
Rand Paul is going on about Americans on American soil when he knows damn well their could be proper events that would warrant such action.
2) no, then you are apprehended...unless all the rules from 1 apply.
3) Deep into enemy territory surrounded by the enemy makes it too orenerous. ON american soil? well, see 1.
4) a) no, they are interpretations of the law used to vet an action.
b) Yes, I agree 100%. This is NOT the topic being discussed, and it has nothing to do with drones in and of thmeselves.
c) Murdered for free speech? maybe you should dig deeper. Plus, free speech doesn't include try to get people to murder other people.
d) yes it would be nice to defend myself. However he chose to not defend himself, instead incited people to attack the US, kidnapping, and was actively help plan attacks against the US.
"you resist drones. "
NO NO NO. You are falling for it. Stop. You resist policy that supports that. You do NOT make a boogeyman man out of one piece of hardware.
I do not support using military hardware for arbitrary Federal murder; which has never happened, btw. I don't care it its drone or an f18 or a sniper.
So, if they stop using drones, do you think you have one? no, it would still go on, but everybody will be like well, they stopped using drones so I guess it's all right. herp, derp.
Yuo blind hate has caused to to stop actually thinking.
I cold list 200+ changes under Obama, but like I said, you are closed minds, myopic, and acting like a twit.
Drone are a very useful piece of military hardware that can save lives, and minimize unintended casualties.. I will not resist them at all. I will advocate fro them. Secret laws and them being used by the CIA I will resist.
". If you do, you are a traitor to everything the constitution stands for."
Are you an idiot? is that your problem?
"arbitrary execution"
this has never happened
"arbitrary indefinite detention"
Obama tried to stop it, the the pubs went all 'there isn't anyplace you can put them' and 'You can't let terrorist go! "and then stopped all government action.Obama to move on.
This was in his first term. Pay attention.
Arbitrary war,
What arbitrary war? Libya wasn't arbitrary. Again, pay attention.
How many bankers have been arrested?"
several, and investigation are ongoing.
" How many laws have changed?"
several.
"What impact has it had aside from a media sideshow? "
regulations are changing.
You are just to simple to understand that changes can take time.
when thousand die everyday, you will get that kind of protest.
Because you ,like fear mongering nonsense?
" Fonda was viewed by many Americans as a traitor during the Vietnam War,"
and I can't help but not that the military didn't kill her. So why would they with drones?
Drones aren't magical, they are another tool in the military arsenal. The same laws and policy apply to drones that apply to every other piece of military equipment.
I am a fan of Wyden, and voted for him, but this subject is nonsense. A bunch of ignorant plebes are getting all worked up about drones, but if you say all thr same things in the context of an F-18 doing it they have no problems.
"that no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court."
How is that different then:
that no American should be killed by a police officer on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court.
also:
Paul also said that he was “alarmed” at the lack of definition over who can be targeted by drone strikes.
why not:
Paul also said that he was “alarmed” at the lack of definition over who can be targeted by Navy Ship strikes.
“Are you going to drop a Hellfire missile on Jane Fonda?” Paul asked.
“Are you going to drop a bunkerbuster bomb on Jane Fonda?” Paul asked.
seriously? It's stupid.
This is about tax votes, avoiding responsibility for they sequestration, and not wanting Brennan.
This has nothing to do with the military attack american on american soil.
Because it's not a real issue.
Drones attacks are a military attack, as such they are government be the same laws and policy's that dictate what a ship can fire at, or a plane can bomb.
They use drones as a scare word.
I, and probably you, can think of several instance where stopping an american with deadly force is what needs to be done.
Why? what is wrong against stopping someone who is going to do harm to Americans?
Are you saying that if I was shooting up a mall, the police should kill me if they can't reasonably stop me?
It's a fake debate using FUD to take the eyes off the fact that the republicans have lied and moved the goal post on the economy and budget issues.
If an American soldier decides to us military firepower on civilians, should a drone be used to stop him? I think we would agree that of a person shot him, it would be thankful, but use the scary word drone and suddenly it's all terminator.
Nothing the President has done, and no interpetatiojn the white house presented included killing Americans on American soil.
If an American is giving information, or aiding the enemy, and if it's ion hostile soil, and if the military can't get a team to the person to capture them, and we can't work out something for the local military/police to take action, then we can use a drone.
And again,l if a team was sent in that killed that person in a firefight, no one would care..add drone to the mix, ohh scary.
And if the president gave a No answer, the republican would all over him for being soft an terrorism. If he said yes they would be all over him..
Tell me, have you told anyone about the child rape you committed?
You have three answer 2 mean you have done it, one mean you aren't going to talk about the issue.
Nope.
Gambling odds it the reference they are using; which is correct becasue when you talk about the odds in this scenerio we are using that in a risk/reward matrix to determine is the odds are high enough that their is life for us to undertake the rick of going their.
Too swap it around, from the residents of Europe(if any), the odd we will go their just went up..again.
Sometime words mean different things.
No. we don't know enough to say if that is probable or not.
I'm going to preempt that with the fact that you don't want space exploration to be relegated to the same 'Overhype/Overpromise' location in the collective consciousness currently reserved for late night infomercials and miracle health products.
why not?
Of course their only influence would be getting politician to focus on in more, but I'll set that aside.
oh boo-hoo, its hard. Good. We need to do hard things.