Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: The Paul Filibuster


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: The Paul Filibuster Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: The Paul Filibuster - 3/6/2013 8:00:59 PM   
muhly22222


Posts: 463
Joined: 3/25/2010
Status: offline
quote:

1- would the use of drones against non-Americans on our soil be as problematic?


I would have a problem with this, as well, although it's not as worrisome. Think of it like a scale:

U.S. citizens on U.S. soil...full due process
U.S. citizens abroad....slightly less due process
Foreign citizens on U.S. soil...slightly less due process
Foreign citizens abroad....very little, if any, due process

This is all based on an assumption that there has been some sort of wrongdoing (at least by our definition) that is enough to warrant death. Obviously, I'm very much against using drones to kill harmless children in Afghanistan, or anywhere else.

quote:

2- what if they were used against Americans initiating a terror attack of some sort? Should law enforcement be used instead?


Well, there are actually a number of law enforcement agencies that already have drones. Of course, those aren't directly under the President's control.

My answer to this depends on what you mean by initiating a terror attack. If you mean that they are actively executing it, for instance, that they are in the act of hijacking a plane, then different rules apply. At that point, they are an imminent threat to the safety of other citizens, and need to be stopped; if that means killing them, so be it.

If you mean that they are planning a terror attack, but have not done anything that currently poses a threat to others, or will do so very soon, then law enforcement authorities should be used to arrest them. If they turn violent during that attempt at an arrest, then they pose an imminent danger, and the above paragraph is back in play.

(in reply to Level)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: The Paul Filibuster - 3/6/2013 8:02:07 PM   
TheHeretic


Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Level

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/06/rand-paul-does-not-go-quietly-into-the-night/




Good article, Level. Thanks.





_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.


(in reply to Level)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: The Paul Filibuster - 3/6/2013 8:10:07 PM   
Level


Posts: 25145
Joined: 3/3/2006
Status: offline 		Yw, Rich.

Muhly, I did mean an active attack, in my 2nd hypothetical.

Let's say its a Tim Mcveigh-type situation; would the use of a drone to stop that be acceptable? What about a military sniper?

_____________________________

Fake the heat and scratch the itch
Skinned up knees and salty lips
Let go it's harder holding on
One more trip and I'll be gone

~~ Stone Temple Pilots

(in reply to TheHeretic)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: The Paul Filibuster - 3/6/2013 8:14:22 PM   
TheHeretic


Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline 		Meanwhile, in the wicked part of my brain, the question is; diaper, catheter, or, "that's why he's wearing a dark suit?"

< Message edited by TheHeretic -- 3/6/2013 8:16:00 PM >

_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.


(in reply to Level)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: The Paul Filibuster - 3/6/2013 8:30:12 PM   
Level


Posts: 25145
Joined: 3/3/2006
Status: offline



_____________________________

Fake the heat and scratch the itch
Skinned up knees and salty lips
Let go it's harder holding on
One more trip and I'll be gone

~~ Stone Temple Pilots

(in reply to TheHeretic)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: The Paul Filibuster - 3/6/2013 8:32:29 PM   
muhly22222


Posts: 463
Joined: 3/25/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Level

Yw, Rich.

Muhly, I did mean an active attack, in my 2nd hypothetical.

Let's say its a Tim Mcveigh-type situation; would the use of a drone to stop that be acceptable? What about a military sniper?


I would prefer to see it done without the need for active-duty military personnel involved, on the basis of establishing a precedent, but I'm not opposed to it in a pinch. Like I said before, if a person or group was posing an imminent threat to others, they need to be stopped. It's no different than a police officer shooting a man who is pointing a gun at his ex-wife. A person or group has broken the laws, and they cannot be stopped from hurting others without being killed. At that point, law enforcement has a duty to society to take the necessary step(s).

(in reply to Level)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: The Paul Filibuster - 3/6/2013 8:38:11 PM   
Level


Posts: 25145
Joined: 3/3/2006
Status: offline 		I'm thinking along the same lines.

One last hypothetical: if we could have scrambled fighters to shoot down the planes that hit the Twin Towers, would that be acceptable?

_____________________________

Fake the heat and scratch the itch
Skinned up knees and salty lips
Let go it's harder holding on
One more trip and I'll be gone

~~ Stone Temple Pilots

(in reply to muhly22222)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: The Paul Filibuster - 3/6/2013 8:54:12 PM   
Marini


Posts: 3629
Joined: 2/14/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Level

I'm thinking along the same lines.

One last hypothetical: if we could have scrambled fighters to shoot down the planes that hit the Twin Towers, would that be acceptable?


Of Course!

_____________________________

As always, To EACH their Own.
"And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. "
Nelson Mandela
Life-long Democrat, not happy at all with Democratic Party.
NOT a Republican/Moderate and free agent

(in reply to Level)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: The Paul Filibuster - 3/6/2013 8:55:26 PM   
Level


Posts: 25145
Joined: 3/3/2006
Status: offline 		I wonder how Rand Paul would answer that.

_____________________________

Fake the heat and scratch the itch
Skinned up knees and salty lips
Let go it's harder holding on
One more trip and I'll be gone

~~ Stone Temple Pilots

(in reply to Marini)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: The Paul Filibuster - 3/6/2013 9:01:00 PM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Senator Rand Paul has a question.

Will the President say that he won't use drones to kill American Citizens, on American soil?

And he's trying not to sit down, until he gets an answer.

The White House isn't returning the calls from his office.

Live coverage from C-Span 2

The clock started at 11:47 a.m. Eastern

I'm proud of the man.

I suspect, however, that most of the posters here, who consider themselves "enlightened", "intelligent", and just "morally better" than all of us troglodyte wingnuts will poo-poo and make fun.

If so, then they will just be confirming what they care about the Constitution: not one bit.

I've posted several times about the extra-judical assassination of American citizens. Our loyal left of center statists seem to think it all ok.

I weep for the nation that use to exist, and for the future gulags.

Firm



yours and everyone elses out here agreement to be governed by the plutocracy?

The police state it created? The ones that are creating the gulags?

yeh ahs a believer yes ah is!


and citizen makes what difference again?





_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: The Paul Filibuster - 3/6/2013 9:03:29 PM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini

quote:

ORIGINAL: Level

I'm thinking along the same lines.

One last hypothetical: if we could have scrambled fighters to shoot down the planes that hit the Twin Towers, would that be acceptable?

Of Course!



there is no bonsfide evidence that is true, start by proving planes in fact did hit the twin towers.

Every video I have seen is fucking hollywood so start there.

Cant expect an air force to shoot down an imaginary target LOL






< Message edited by Real0ne -- 3/6/2013 9:04:00 PM >

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to Marini)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: The Paul Filibuster - 3/6/2013 9:18:17 PM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: muhly22222

quote:

1- would the use of drones against non-Americans on our soil be as problematic?


I would have a problem with this, as well, although it's not as worrisome. Think of it like a scale:

U.S. citizens on U.S. soil...full due process
U.S. citizens abroad....slightly less due process
Foreign citizens on U.S. soil...slightly less due process
Foreign citizens abroad....very little, if any, due process

This is all based on an assumption that there has been some sort of wrongdoing (at least by our definition) that is enough to warrant death. Obviously, I'm very much against using drones to kill harmless children in Afghanistan, or anywhere else.

quote:

2- what if they were used against Americans initiating a terror attack of some sort? Should law enforcement be used instead?


Well, there are actually a number of law enforcement agencies that already have drones. Of course, those aren't directly under the President's control.

My answer to this depends on what you mean by initiating a terror attack. If you mean that they are actively executing it, for instance, that they are in the act of hijacking a plane, then different rules apply. At that point, they are an imminent threat to the safety of other citizens, and need to be stopped; if that means killing them, so be it.

If you mean that they are planning a terror attack, but have not done anything that currently poses a threat to others, or will do so very soon, then law enforcement authorities should be used to arrest them. If they turn violent during that attempt at an arrest, then they pose an imminent danger, and the above paragraph is back in play.



you think law and rights end at the border in either direction?

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to muhly22222)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: The Paul Filibuster - 3/6/2013 9:25:45 PM   
RottenJohnny


Posts: 1677
Joined: 5/5/2006
Status: offline 		I may have missed it but am I the only one that thinks the use of drones on American soil for any law enforcement purpose is unacceptable?

_____________________________

"I find your arguments strewn with gaping defects in logic." - Mr. Spock

"Give me liberty or give me death." - Patrick Henry

I believe in common sense, not common opinions. - Me

(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: The Paul Filibuster - 3/6/2013 9:29:21 PM   
TheHeretic


Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline 		Say, Real, are you familiar with the urban legend of the gangster rapper who is alleged to have said during the 2008 campaign that the best thing rap could do for Obama was to shut the fuck up? Think there might be some guidance in that, to those such as yourself, when it comes to Senator Paul bringing something like this to the forefront?


_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.


(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: The Paul Filibuster - 3/6/2013 9:30:41 PM   
MrUnderwood


Posts: 10
Joined: 2/14/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: muhly22222
I would prefer to see it done without the need for active-duty military personnel involved, on the basis of establishing a precedent, but I'm not opposed to it in a pinch. Like I said before, if a person or group was posing an imminent threat to others, they need to be stopped. It's no different than a police officer shooting a man who is pointing a gun at his ex-wife. A person or group has broken the laws, and they cannot be stopped from hurting others without being killed. At that point, law enforcement has a duty to society to take the necessary step(s).

I love it. It is all so cut and dry when we throw our Constitutional Rights, indeed, our human rights, out the window. Prefer dis-establishing a precedent, do you? Yes, by all means reiterate how, in a pinch, when some insane ex-wife allows herself to be disarmed by me, when some undercover asshole, "certain" he has his man, puts his gun in my face and I assert my Second Amendmentality; it is "ok" for your UAV (in preference to active duty military) to whip out the beat down stick, instead of - oh, I don't know, say some sort of "enforce due process" solution.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Level
One last hypothetical: if we could have scrambled fighters to shoot down the planes that hit the Twin Towers, would that be acceptable?


If we scrambled the fighters, it clearly would be acceptable, what is that called, Ouid pro quo? We did it so we must approve it, kind of thing. If the President scrambled the fighters upon his personal assessment, that would likely have been challenged as over extension of power. Consider: if the planes had been prevented from hitting the targets, there would have been no crime and the innocent would have been sacrificed. Relatives would scream murder. "you killed them over a hijacking?!?!" You think RealOne's conspiracies are bad now, here is the real chiller: is an administration that is capable of stopping the attack also capable of deducing the above paragraph within the time frame that would have been required to prevent 9/11? Would you or any president kill all those people, certain it could never be proven you had stopped a bigger attack? I doubt it.

(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: The Paul Filibuster - 3/6/2013 9:48:05 PM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline

No fun in that! We wouldnt get to see the comedy. Maybe not on the bottom tier but the top is laughing their asses off.

Beginners Guide To The 9 11 Conspiracy Theory

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to MrUnderwood)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: The Paul Filibuster - 3/6/2013 9:56:37 PM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Say, Real, are you familiar with the urban legend of the gangster rapper who is alleged to have said during the 2008 campaign that the best thing rap could do for Obama was to shut the fuck up? Think there might be some guidance in that, to those such as yourself, when it comes to Senator Paul bringing something like this to the forefront?




While I applaud his efforts its too little too late.

Most people acknowledge its already gone to far. It only takes one spark to set off an explosion.

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to TheHeretic)
Profile   Post #: 37
RE: The Paul Filibuster - 3/6/2013 10:07:34 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny

I may have missed it but am I the only one that thinks the use of drones on American soil for any law enforcement purpose is unacceptable?

Really? You cannot imagine any acceptable use for a drone in law enforcement? What about a drone that flies into a dangerous situation first? Or a bomb disposal robot?

(in reply to RottenJohnny)
Profile   Post #: 38
RE: The Paul Filibuster - 3/6/2013 10:47:40 PM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline 		Now thats novel, a flying bomb disposal robot drone.
I cant imagine one for me please.

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 39
RE: The Paul Filibuster - 3/6/2013 11:01:11 PM   
MrUnderwood


Posts: 10
Joined: 2/14/2012
Status: offline 		If it beeps and has blinking lights, it has to be bad, huh. No, I'm with you there, the only reason we landed on the moon (sorry, pretend landed), was so we could mount it instead of howling at it, right?
A "flying bomb disposal robot" is an anti-ballistic missile. Granted, the bad guys would have to fire their bleepy thing first, their "anti human" robot; you propose we not unleash an anti-anti-robot, for fear we are letting too many robots loose, do you?

(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 40
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: The Paul Filibuster Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109