[TheRealThing]

For fear of getting off topic, as a conservative and Republican, that is not what the party is about anymore. They are just as guilty of shredding the constitution as the Dems. They are just as guilty as the Dems of backing the interests of their financial donors and corporate sponsors. They are just as guilty of overspending as the Dems. The two parties just go about it in different ways. Today's Republican party is far from conservative.

You're in the medical field, right? Once one gets the diagnosis of cancer his treatment options are somewhat restricted, are they not? It's chemotherapy and or surgery or give up and die. Yes, the republicans have spent money. Have they ever managed to spend 10 trillion over budget in 8 years? Hardly. And, you can deny it all you want. During the Bush years we had to eat a 3 trillion dollar bullet as the result of 911. The real aftermath of the incident involved much more in loss due to investment fears resultant to the attacks.

If today's republican is far from conservative, today's democrat is out of solar system, LOL.

[vundy33]

Far as I'm concerned every last one of them should get a hellfire missile down his shorts. But, I thought the argument was whether that could happen on American soil? You have to admit, we shouldn't have much trouble in at least getting a swat team together to go pop a cap on somebody if need be whose plotting to kill innocent citizens in country.

I definitely don't agree with armed drones being used on American soil unless like Hoot said, a large group of Americans were under a direct threat and it is our only option.

I just wanted to throw in my opinion on killing American terrorists over seas since I've seen alot of disagreement with it.

[vundy33]

I can't even believe drone strikes are being considered for use on American soil. The only use for drones would be unarmed drones patrolling the borders.

It is basically the same thing as agreeing that it is okay for F16's or other bombers to drop bombs on American citizens, while the payload is smaller, is it really that big of a difference. The American military and intelligence agencies have killed thousands of innocent people to try and eliminate terrorists around the globe.

Not only should it not even be an option to use preemptively on Americans in America, it should not be used anywhere.

As we all know, our intelligence agencies are not always correct or have the best info. They do a lot of great things, but often times their "evidence" is extremely circumstantial, and to think our govt can just issue a kill order on a citizen, whether on American soil or abroad is just crazy to me.

Let's look at Anwar Al Awlaki (sp?) an American citizen (renounced though I believe) who had contact with multiple known terrorists. The CIA carried out a drone strike killing him, his 16 year old son (who also is an American citizen) as well as 9 other people on their way or at a BBQ. The WH response was that the son should have had a "more responsible father". Also, if they had so much evidence again Awlaki why did they not bring him up on charges? It has even come out now that the CIA had assets nearby who were ready to grab him, but instead the order came to carry out the drone strike.

I can not think of one instance or scenario where a drone would be more capable than a pilot being deployed in a fighter. They aren't fast, they definitely couldn't catch a 747 or any other type of fast moving plane.

They serve one purpose, surveillance, and delivering ordinance on that target if needed. There has never been a time when we have needed to put fighters/bombers in the air to hit a target on US soil, why do we need hundreds/thousands of drones patrolling our skies? If some unforeseen circumstance arose in which it was necessary you could easily get a fighter there quicker than you could a drone.

The President does not have the authority to preemptively issue a kill order on an American citizen because intelligence agencies "think" they may be "planning" to do something.

In what scenario could this possibly happen and not be a complete disaster? Let's assume that they have undeniable evidence that specific person or group of people are going to carry out an attack, or are in the process of carrying out that plan.. ala TImothy Mcveigh driving his Ryder truck down the highway. Are they going to hit him with a missile, what about the innocent people nearby?

Would it not be more reasonable to put the LE agencies into action to stop/confront and attempt to arrest/kill the targets? Isn't that why we have put billions into training and supplying them? I mean for what other reason could these agencies possibly have to be buying up billions of rounds of ammo as well as LAV's?

There is not one possible scenario where having drones in our skies is the solution over any other type of law enforcement/military action.

Now if a LE agency gets a warrant to use a drone for surveillance of a target, I have no problem with that, it's no different than wire tapping, or guys hanging out in a van monitoring hidden microphones and cameras. At least in that case they have followed the rule of law.

I agree with your first paragraph, I can't even believe we're discussing the use of armed drones on American soil either.

But drones have HUGE advantages over piloted aircraft in certain cases, especially in a country like Yemen. For one, they are quiet and alot of times our targets don't even know they're about to die until they're already dead. Two, it obviously takes the American life out of the aircraft.

And even if we had CIA assets that "could've" snatched up al-Awlaki, we would've almost certainly taken casualties. I'd rather hit him and whoever is with him than lose non-terrorist American lives. We didn't think he was involved in things, it was clear, not to mention he was a top guy in the most dangerous and most capable Al-Qaeda group on earth.

[Beetle01]

I agree with your first paragraph, I can't even believe we're discussing the use of armed drones on American soil either.

But drones have HUGE advantages over piloted aircraft in certain cases, especially in a country like Yemen. For one, they are quiet and alot of times our targets don't even know they're about to die until they're already dead. Two, it obviously takes the American life out of the aircraft.

And even if we had CIA assets that "could've" snatched up al-Awlaki, we would've almost certainly taken casualties. I'd rather hit him and whoever is with him than lose non-terrorist American lives. We didn't think he was involved in things, it was clear, not to mention he was a top guy in the most dangerous and most capable Al-Qaeda group on earth.

Don't disagree at all, but this is about having hundreds/thousands of drones patrolling American skies, and the use of those drones to kill American citizens on American soil, not only to kill them, but to do so by order of the President, without regard to their constitutional rights.

It is important to protect all Americans rights, even if they are suspected of plotting terrorist acts. Protecting other Americans rights, also protects our rights.

I don't think one person who backs the use of drones can come up with any scenario where a drone would be of better use than the already existing safeguards in place.

[PaintsvilleTigerfan]

Rand Paul stood up for what is right and the rest of the crooks in DC will hate him for it.

[RunItUpTheGut]

^
True, but luckily it aint up to them who votes for him.
He'll never loses a race in KY as long as his records clean.

[TheRealThing]

Don't disagree at all, but this is about having hundreds/thousands of drones patrolling American skies, and the use of those drones to kill American citizens on American soil, not only to kill them, but to do so by order of the President, without regard to their constitutional rights.

It is important to protect all Americans rights, even if they are suspected of plotting terrorist acts. Protecting other Americans rights, also protects our rights.

I don't think one person who backs the use of drones can come up with any scenario where a drone would be of better use than the already existing safeguards in place.

I wouldn't have any problem with using those bug sized surveilence drones to gather intel prior to law enforcement actually going in to take down a home grown Al Qaeda cell. We already do things like that in hostage situations where precise info is required to avoid harm to innocents and police. If drone strikes were allowed to take place on US soil, administration officials would gain automatic plausible deniability. As in the case of the Benghazi scandals. Supposedly we still don't know who pulled or failed to pull strings in that one.

I don't see the need for drone strikes on American soil in any scenario. I am just as concerned however, about the left loon's obsessions to extend letter of the law civil "rights" to non-American war criminals. These two sides of the same coin seem to be rationalized in different ways. If I'm a terrorist, I'm hoping for the civil rights treatment over the drone strike treatment. To me, terrorsists and those otherwise classified as enemy combatants, deserve justice as is determined by military tribunal, in a place like Guantanamo Bay. To demonstrate the point, Obama said he didn't want to enflame terrorist reprisals and therefore ordered the suppression of all video evidence of the military operation in which Bin Laden was killed. But, in direct contradiction to that rationale, would allow the rants of Jihadists on trial in civilian courts to inspire adherents, having been glorified in martyrdom, in what would surely be a media circus in a place like New York City.

[TheRealThing]

FTR, I saw no water boarding during the Bush administration - but we know that it happened because the Bush administration testified to Congressional committees and disclosed its use. Neither of us can say for certain whether drones have been used legally or illegally on American soil because the Obama administration has resisted Congressional oversight on a wide array of covert operations.

If you meant that you see no need to use drones on American soil, then I agree except I could probably support very limited use with a court order. I could even support their use in an extreme national emergency, provided that the president was required to explain to Congress and the American people why drone use was authorized - and not six months later. Law enforcement has no need for drones - especially without court orders.

And, in disclosing that little piece of history, you have defined one of the major differences between the two administrations. We could get the truth from the Bush administration. However, no Obama administration official has yet proffered a straight forward answer to a congressional committee on anything. How many straight answers did we get on Fast and Furious? (unless you want to call the document dump and invoking executive priviledge to cover Eric Holder being straight forward) And Benghazi? Hillary Clinton or maybe Susan Rice? Lisa Jackson and the EPA? How about Mr Obama himself with regard to ObamaCare or all the things he said during his two campaigns which will be inshrined in the library of congress? Or the real immigration policy? Can we take anything Janet Napolitano has said to the bank?

[vundy33]

No way that armed drones or any other military weapon against Americans...can't believe this is an issue. Only to save the lives of a large amount of people, but I don't see a y scenario where other means couldn't be used to get the same results.

[Old School]

No way that armed drones or any other military weapon against Americans...can't believe this is an issue. Only to save the lives of a large amount of people, but I don't see a y scenario where other means couldn't be used to get the same results.

Usually, I agree statements like yours, and I hope you are right. However, lately I have seen things come about in this country that 30 years ago I thought would never happen.

If there is one thing I have learned over the years is never say never.

[TheRealThing]

A top Al Qaeda spokesman, who is the son-in-law of Usama bin Laden, pleaded not guilty Friday in federal court to charges of conspiracy to kill Americans, touching off what could be lengthy legal proceedings as Republicans complained that such terror suspects don't belong in the civilian judicial system.

Sulaiman Abu Ghaith was hit with the charges in an indictment unsealed by the Justice Department late Thursday. The terror suspect's capture and prosecution in federal court -- all of which was first revealed to the public Thursday -- caught lawmakers by surprise.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/...z2NEmDA68N


In other words, in order to circumvent another public outcry from the very citizens they are sworn to protect, Eric Holder, kept the administration's intentions hidden until it was too late for any kind of preemptive actions. Remember this? "Protesters have gathered outside a federal courthouse in New York City to denounce the Obama administration's decision to try the five alleged plotters of the 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States in the civilian court system. Both survivors of Sept. 11 attacks and concerned New Yorkers at the rally say the terror suspects are war criminals and their trials should be held in military court." http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/l...-voa01.htm

These guys aren't here to serve the public or ensure the common good. They're here to ram through an agenda and are determined to prove what a boat load of geniuses they are. Sulaiman Abu Ghaith has already pled not guilty in this case. Now that he has been duly Mirandized, there are two ways this thing can go. First, IF he wants to get off, all he needs to do is sit there and decline to testify, citing his 5th amendment rights. The state will have their hands full in proving anything. So say he has a 50/50 chance in getting off scott free. Once he is released from custody he can then request asylum. And guess what? He would be entitled to housing, medical care and the full gambit of welfare goodies, including a tax payer provided cell phone on which, to do his business with Al Qaeda.

Second, as I have mentioned in another post, he could use the courts as a pulpit to encourage jihad.

The US economy has been a mere ghost of it's pre 911 days, having lost trillions as the direct result of two jets flying through the World Trade Towers. Now, with sequester fired fears as an impetus, we have seen the ill advised furlough of 60,000 border agents, along with the release of thousands of criminal illegals onto US streets. LOL, we can't afford fuel to get an aircraft carrier over to the Persian Gulf but, we can sure afford to pay benefits to all the gay sailor's live-ins. So, here we are. Supposedly with the destinies of families with retarded kids hanging by a thread and old people ready to be shoved out the back door of nursing homes. Spending millions to try Bin Laden's son-in-law in New York City, instead of handling things by mililtary tribunal down in Guantanamo Bay where he should be, with the rest of the terrorists. His father in-law gets a bullet to the head, and he gets Madison Square Garden. One has to be wilfully ignorant to believe anything this administration is shoveling.

[vundy33]

^^That is ridiculous. No way he should be tried as a civilian, he's a war criminal! Smh..

[TheRealThing]

^^That is ridiculous. No way he should be tried as a civilian, he's a war criminal! Smh..

That's how our Attorney General operates. Wait until Thursday afternoon to announce to the public that Bin Laden's son-in-law had to appear in court the very next morning to face charges.

[nky]

Release the DRONES bring hell fire from the skies and burn all of IS or ISIS, or ISIL or what every they are