Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by kOrsan on March 7, 2013 at 1:24am

They already used one to track down Christopher Dorner I believe for snuffing some pigs.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nate Lundgren on March 7, 2013 at 2:15am

The phrase "All enemies foreign and domestic" comes to mind for me. Also the first part of the US Constitution: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

"Provide for the common defense" seems to be a power that has already been agreed upon in the Constitution. 

One obvious extraordinary time when "We the People" allowed this kind of thing was during the civil war when the president had authority to order military strikes against US citizens on US soil even if they didn't think they were US citizens anymore. They were the ones to declare their enemy status and take actions demonstrating that they were really being an enemy of the United States of America.

Terrorists or other kinds of enemies of the United States or humanity in general may appear on paper to be citizens of the planet but when they unequivocally demonstrate that they are active and current mortal enemies of US citizens or other humans that deserve their right to a safe life also, those enemies sadly but correctly and justly cease to have the right to life or liberty.

To me, it is a case of simple self-defense and I feel like that it is completely justified. I have no problem with law enforcement (local powers) or the military (federal powers) stopping murderous individuals or countries no matter where they reside. That being said, I would hope that they would do all due diligence, diplomacy and communication with those proven enemies if possible before executing any kinds of lethal actions against them. I agree with Eric Holder that an extraordinary circumstance might present itself and that the president needs the power to oppose that kind of danger even if it is on US soil. The weapons he and the military use are up to them. 

If proven enemies are acting in real time then the president or local law enforcement have to make those tough executive decisions. That is their job first and foremost. To protect and to serve. Call me naive but I still believe in these missions and so far I feel that I can trust the president with the decisions he has made. It has to be one of the worst jobs in the world but also one that is very essential for the wellbeing of humanity here and everywhere. I have no envy of the decisions he/they have/had to make.

As long as the free press (including many citizen/netizen reporters now and whistleblowers) can keep an eye on our leaders and keep them as honest as possible, I'm not worried because most or all of the true story will find it's way to the public eventually. Nothing in life is certain but I'm optimistic about the future and that all of us will work things out individually and collectively as well as we can. What other kinds of options do we have?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gregg R Thomas on March 8, 2013 at 5:30pm

@ Nate,

I read this;

One obvious extraordinary time when "We the People" allowed this kind of thing was during the civil war when the president had authority to order military strikes against US citizens on US soil even if they didn't think they were US citizens anymore. They were the ones to declare their enemy status and take actions demonstrating that they were really being an enemy of the United States of America.

and my jaw dropped.

But then I read this:

Terrorists or other kinds of enemies of the United States or humanity in general may appear on paper to be citizens of the planet but when they unequivocally demonstrate that they are active and current mortal enemies of US citizens or other humans that deserve their right to a safe life also, those enemies sadly but correctly and justly cease to have the right to life or liberty.

and threw my shoe against the wall.

But then I read this:

Call me naive

couldn't have said it better myself.

Recommanded reading:

1984 by George Orwell. Here.

George OrwellWikipedia: Eric Arthur Blair (25 June 1903 – 21 January 1950), known by his pen name George Orwell, was an English novelist and journalist. →

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nate Lundgren on March 8, 2013 at 9:38pm

I'm talking about those that are actively in pursuit of killing others in the here and now. Only those "terrorists" or other "enemies" of humanity are the ones I'm talking about. Please don't misunderstand or misinterpret what I said. That is just rude and not cool to get angry at me without understanding what I said or meant first. What would you do if a terrorist or murderer was in your face at this very moment with the intent to kill you? I was ONLY referring to situations like that. I believe in due process and the Constitution. I'm not saying to scrap that EVER.

What is your point exactly and what are you accusing me of? Are you looking for a fight over something that is not even something that is worth debating? Are you telling me that you don't believe in self defense?

Please don't play troll with me. What I meant by on paper is that killers may be disguised as non-threatening people. I'm not saying that drones should be used to just kill people preemptively or for some sorts of "thought" crimes. Give me a fucking break dude.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Barry Adamson on March 8, 2013 at 10:53pm

US citizens do have the right to due process - regardless of crime.  Even those accused of treason are to have their day in court rather than to be incriminated and killed without a trial.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gregg R Thomas on March 8, 2013 at 11:55pm

@Nate,

You might think what I'm about to say is rude, while it is stark, it is only rude if you perceive it in that way.

Start with learning about the Civil War, most importantly the conditions that lead up to the war, and you will see why your first post was so shocking.

Next read the Federalist Papers.  If you need to reacquaint yourself with the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights then do so.  Get to know the Founding Fathers, they were called terrorists and enemies by the existing government of their time.

Nate being naive about the history of this nation will leave you and others unprepared for the future challenges that you all will surely face. 

My son's friends have died in Iraq and Afghanistan, my friends in Nam, my uncle's in Korea, my Dad's in Europe and the Pacific.  During my fathers time we fought for freedom and liberty, somehow we have progressed to fighting for Empire.

Nate you have countenanced the firing of missiles from American aircraft onto American soil.  Tyranny doesn't come from outside, it raises up from within, but it needs the type of help you provide.

Nate, no one will steal your freedom and liberty, you will simply just give it away, and that saddens me.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Barry Adamson on March 8, 2013 at 10:51pm

This is where I find myself agreeing with Gregg.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by angela kozma on March 7, 2013 at 3:35am

It worries me greatly. Having watched 1984 I see so many comparisons to how our government is heading. It is no longer We the People who make decisions. I watched the filibuster. I listened to points made. What constitutes a terrorist? Some would say is those who don't support their government. How open is the government to questioning? Not very if our past is anything to go by. I see the drones as a very bad thing. It dehumanizes the target. In conflict we must remember we are all human. There are times you do need to take a life. I believed though you must remember it is a life. These are my thoughts on the drones

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by onyango makagutu on March 7, 2013 at 4:38am

I agree with you on this, I think drones dehumanises the society as a whole not just the target. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by angela kozma on March 7, 2013 at 1:04pm

Agreed we shouldn't. Just because we have the technology doesn't mean we have right to use it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by M.M. on March 7, 2013 at 1:32pm

No. Drones should not be used on American soil.

Nor should they be used anywhere.

Reducing war to a video game will only increase our tendency to resort to violence that much more.

Violence should always have a cost in human lives on both sides so that we eventually come to our senses and realize why it should be a last resort and not the first reaction.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Unseen on March 8, 2013 at 9:57pm

Violence should always have a cost in human lives on both sides so that we eventually come to our senses and realize why it should be a last resort and not the first reaction.

I think the President would have a pretty hard time of it if he tried to tell the parents of returning dead soldiers, "I could have spared their lives by using a drone, but you know violence should always have a cost in human lives on both sides so that we eventually come to our senses and realize why it should be a last resort and not the first reaction."

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 9
• Next ›
• Page