| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Holder letter ignites new debate on drones |
| 2013-03-07 |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #11 Paul was deft, cogent, brilliant. Cruz was good too. An example of Alinsky jujitsu. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2013-03-07 23:35 |
| #10 The 9/11 highjackers were intent on murdering as many innocent people as possible and the president should be empowered to shoot down the airliner to prevent imminent act of mass murder. There is a big difference between that and someone who simply disagrees with the administration and is simply going to a Tea party rally - or someone who is refusing to give up their arms. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2013-03-07 23:16 |
| #9 Didn't they already establish the legal precedent with the Reno Doctrine carried out at Waco? [I'd put a /sarc at the end, but I'm not sure you can given no one 'faced the music' for that action] |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2013-03-07 22:37 |
| #8 The way you end this debate is simple, you announce that drone strikes will be used on domestic terrorists, such as ELF and other enviro-terror groups, as well as other terrorists, like Tyrant Obama's buddies. |
| Posted by: Silentbrick - Schlumberger Squishy Mud Division 2013-03-07 22:03 |
| #7 Yep. Paul was deft, cogent, brilliant. Cruz was good too. I'd gladly pay higher taxes to fund big fat pay raises if they'd shut down the Senate and spank Mr. "Constitutional Law Professor" like that, once a month. |
| Posted by: RandomJD 2013-03-07 21:34 |
| #6 There is always going to be a gray area. There will always be a required trust in the people we have put into high office. If an American citizen had commandeered an airliner and was about to slam it into WTC as part of a large terrorist plot, and we had an Air Force fighter in the vicinity that could shoot it down just in the nick of time, as President I would have given the order (with the heaviest heart) to shoot it down. I think most of us would do that. So 'imminent danger' is always going to be a judgment call, and one has to trust the people making the judgment. That in the end was the unspoken agenda of Senator Paul, the crafty devil -- he was making clear that we could not trust Obama and therefore needed it in black and white. He succeeded. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2013-03-07 20:40 |
| #5 What constitutes an "imminent danger" to one man might not be so judged by another. Who decides? Do the blue eyed people constitute an "imminent danger"? How about the brown eyed people? How about us hazel eyed bastard? |
| Posted by: Canuckistan sniper 2013-03-07 19:04 |
| #4 that would be an imminent danger - something Sen. Paul conceded |
| Posted by: Frank G 2013-03-07 18:55 |
| #3 wr, would it matter whether the highjacker aiming the airliner at the Capitol was an American citizen or not - or if you even had a way to know? What about all the other American citizens on the plane? Much as I despise Holder, I can see circumstances where the President may have to kill Americans though he does not really have the authority to do so. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2013-03-07 18:52 |
| #2 An Act of War by non-US citizens was being carried out against American citizens by Al Qaeda on 9/11, all of which were dead along with thousands more on the ground when that order was issued. The situation of foreign combatants actively carring out suicide attacks using human shields being addressed by they US military and the Commander in Chief is far, far different than the context of the subject matter addressed by Rand Paul, how the Chief Executive officer and the Justice department will deal with US Citizens domestically who have NOT been found guilty of a domestic crime by a court of law, who is being observed by a domestic drone. |
| Posted by: wr 2013-03-07 16:31 |
| #1 Bush had authority to shoot down US airliners as of 9/11 |
| Posted by: texhooey 2013-03-07 13:23 |