More hypocrisy from Obama

[faethor]

If by spending a million bucks of someone else's money you could kill without trial a political dissident just by declaring him a combatant, why not.

Again there's simply a dozen other less expensive and as effective ways to do this. Rocket launchers, grenades, just burn down their house with them in it, etc.

It would be much harder for the public to accept sending the cops to execute him (though I'm sure execution by cop already happens but not generally at the direction of the Federal government).

Maybe I'm too positive that think they won't stand for drone killings either.

What Rand Paul was unable to secure from the government was that the same practices which are deemed lawful abroad cannot be applied within the borders of the US. Indeed the response seems to imply that it IS lawful to kill someone when they have been declared a combatant or are military age males in a field of combat.

Rand's problem is he carried on about drones. Rand's problem is he talked and did nothing. His 'demands' were never met, nor were they Constitutional. And he declared victory, which he gained nothing. He wanted some exception for drones but not other weapons? That makes no sense. The problem isn't the tool. The problem is the potential practice. Why not do your job, create legislation which outlaws the practice for the military as a whole, not only drones?

Combatant doesn't actually mean carrying a weapon and being involved at that moment in fighting - it is a much more flexible term than that. And if America were declared a theatre of battle as it sometimes rhetorically is then that would open up a lot more targets.

Sure. Anyone remember how it was handled in the Civil War? Of course no drones. But, the exact same political questions.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Again there's simply a dozen other less expensive and as effective ways to do this. Rocket launchers, grenades, just burn down their house with them in it, etc.

It's public money and it's "military" and "intelligence" spending. Keeping it high tech and expensive lends to it's perceived legitimacy and denies that sort of legitimacy to other parties - like when the US can drop a ton of explosives from a high tech aircraft and call it a strike whereas terrorists have to pack the explosives in a van and drive it to the target.

Maybe I'm too positive that think they won't stand for drone killings either.

Well, I was going to mention that. A lot of people are quite happy to close their eyes to the loop hole because they like to think that no-one would be nuts enough to do that. I can't understand how people could have lived through the last few administrations and still think that. If there is a loophole that someone is trying to keep alive it's because they CAN imagine using it some day - else you'd just make a law to close it. They don't close it, they deliberately weasel word things to leave it open.

Rand's problem is he talked and did nothing. His 'demands' were never met, nor were they Constitutional.

So Rand's problem is he failed and everybody hates a loser - and that is psychologically true. People (especially when they are scared) would rather have a strong leader who acts illegally (to "save" them from enemies) rather than someone who is lawfully but is defeated by that more forthright person.

He wanted some exception for drones but not other weapons? That makes no sense. The problem isn't the tool. The problem is the potential practice. Why not do your job, create legislation which outlaws the practice for the military as a whole, not only drones?

1) Drones are exceptional. They are new and legislation tends to be specific (look at the drug law where people get around the list all the time by cooking up new drugs) and the practice is new. The practice particularly with drones is being normalized. All the other assassination techniques take more manpower and effort so drones are actually pretty cost effective in those terms and flying them is not much more expensive than having them on the ground.
2)Trying to roll back the practice in all it's forms would be impossible as it effects vast amounts of manpower and spending and costs already sunk. Biting off a big chunk is harder than chipping at the little bits. As you can see, chipping at the little bits is already impossible enough. The public just doesn't care. Secretly I think a lot of people would like to see some "bad guys" droned and watch it live on the TV news. That is where the real problem is - that people don't understand the threat and just think it's pretty cool to blow people up by remote control.

 

[faethor]

It's public money and it's "military" and "intelligence" spending. Keeping it high tech and expensive lends to it's perceived legitimacy and denies that sort of legitimacy to other parties - like when the US can drop a ton of explosives from a high tech aircraft and call it a strike whereas terrorists have to pack the explosives in a van and drive it to the target.

I don't know if I'm optimistic enough to think the US population will say OK to drones but no to guns, missiles, tanks, grenades, nukes, etc? Or if I'm pessimistic to conceive we have so many luddites that friendly drone's won't even fly without protest? I'd say at least 30-40% of the population fears any technology other than their car or TV.

So Rand's problem is he failed and everybody hates a loser - and that is psychologically true.

Rand's problems are 3 fold. (probably more but a quick 3 easy hitters.) First, his statements that using drones is unconstitutional is wrong. Second, his job is to create and work to get passed legislation. He didn't only fail that he failed to start. And the 3rd one is he lied. What he demanded and his reason for pontificating was not what happened in the end. He had no victory it was exactly the same as before, no change.

1) Drones are exceptional. They are new and legislation tends to be specific (look at the drug law where people get around the list all the time by cooking up new drugs) and the practice is new. The practice particularly with drones is being normalized. All the other assassination techniques take more manpower and effort so drones are actually pretty cost effective in those terms and flying them is not much more expensive than having them on the ground.

No they're not. They are a weapon. Like a gun or bomb or tank or nuke. Their rules of use on the American people (rightly or wrongly) is exactly the same.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Rand's problems are 3 fold. (probably more but a quick 3 easy hitters.) First, his statements that using drones is unconstitutional is wrong.

We (and others) have differing opinions. Specifically Paul's question was whether US citizens could be droned on US soil under the same sort of policy as they can currently be droned on foreign soil on the president's say-so. Apparently there is no reason why not. The whole program is pretty dodgy on the whole and as to whether you can be deprived of your life on the basis of a secret decision and whether that counts as due process is very debatable.

Second, his job is to create and work to get passed legislation.

Or to block or amend legislation or at the least represent his constituents in debates (by adhering to the platform upon which he was elected).

And the 3rd one is he lied. What he demanded and his reason for pontificating was not what happened in the end. He had no victory it was exactly the same as before, no change.

This one just doesn't follow. He didn't get what he wanted but he did get publicity for the issue. I think if he was a guy you didn't already dislike you would be cutting him a lot more slack. If Obama hadn't become the president but he pulled the same filibuster I think we'd be hearing a different tune. Paul is getting slapped about because he has done more than anyone else on this issue (including proposed bills and amendments) so he has lost more often.

No they're not. They are a weapon. Like a gun or bomb or tank or nuke. Their rules of use on the American people (rightly or wrongly) is exactly the same.

Yes, as a class, but no. Hydrogen bombs are also weapons as you say, so is sarin gas and anthrax. I doubt that it would be lawful to use those, even in Texas, on a robber.

 

[faethor]

We (and others) have differing opinions.

You're Canadian yours doesn't count.

Specifically Paul's question was whether US citizens could be droned on US soil under the same sort of policy as they can currently be droned on foreign soil on the president's say-so.

Drones can be used in the same way the laws allow any military weapon to be used. That's what the President swore a few months before the Pontification of Paul. That's what the AG said to shut Paul up.

Or to block or amend legislation or at the least represent his constituents in debates (by adhering to the platform upon which he was elected).

At didn't front any blocking or amendments. And there was no real debate. It was Paul getting himself educated that the same policies exist for US military using guns or drones or any weapon. At best he got an education while being on camera.

This one just doesn't follow. He didn't get what he wanted but he did get publicity for the issue. I think if he was a guy you didn't already dislike you would be cutting him a lot more slack.

All show and no go. He's a politician like all the others.

Yes, as a class, but no. Hydrogen bombs are also weapons as you say, so is sarin gas and anthrax. I doubt that it would be lawful to use those, even in Texas, on a robber.

AFAIK there are no exceptions to the types of weapons the US Military can use. To date - Watts, LA Riots, Civil War were mostly guns or machine guns. They're usually sufficient because people are so outgunned. But, never say never.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

All show and no go. He's a politician like all the others.

Way back near the beginning of our back and forth you were saying the same thing that he didn't offer any amendments or legislation and I pointed out then that even the article that started this states that he DID put forward legislation and amendments - so I really have no idea why you keep saying that he didn't.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

AFAIK there are no exceptions to the types of weapons the US Military can use. To date - Watts, LA Riots, Civil War were mostly guns or machine guns. They're usually sufficient because people are so outgunned. But, never say never.

Right - and what about the situation where people aren't rioting but they might be talking about doing it some time. This is what we are really talking about because that is how the drones are being used overseas - on persons not currently involved in combat but who have been declared combatant by the president. If the president says that someone in the US is plotting something is it OK for him to order a drone strike? Is it ever OK for the president to order a specific person assassinated? And is it OK for him to order a US citizen assassinated? And is it OK for him to order a US citizen on US soil to be assassinated?

 

[Robert]

 

[faethor]

Way back near the beginning of our back and forth you were saying the same thing that he didn't offer any amendments or legislation and I pointed out then that even the article that started this states that he DID put forward legislation and amendments - so I really have no idea why you keep saying that he didn't.

Thanks I appear to have missed that. So I went back and looked. The policy was only about drones. How short sighted is it to not write a technology neutral legislation? Otherwise we'd be back behind the woodshed fighting about some other weapon technology in the future.

Right - and what about the situation where people aren't rioting but they might be talking about doing it some time. This is what we are really talking about because that is how the drones are being used overseas - on persons not currently involved in combat but who have been declared combatant by the president. If the president says that someone in the US is plotting something is it OK for him to order a drone strike? Is it ever OK for the president to order a specific person assassinated? And is it OK for him to order a US citizen assassinated? And is it OK for him to order a US citizen on US soil to be assassinated?

Again the use of drones is exactly the same as the use of guns on these people. If there's a problem here it's not drones. The questions that should be discussed is the later one's about ordering assassinations, when and how. This is independent of the method of assassination.

And more to your answers it was legal for other Presidents to order US citizens assassinated - LA Riots, Watts, Civil War - are 3 fairly easy examples of that happening. No charges were pressed nor convictions had. Lincoln successfully avoided any charges, for example. Paul says drones may only be considered in extraordinary, lethal situations where there is an ongoing, imminent threat. Which is what US law says about any US military action on citizens. This was before Rand's legislation. And to your question of 'couch sitter' - In that case it could very well be that person on the couch that does the orchestration but doesn't pull the proverbial trigger themselves. A couch sitter example? - Osama Bin Laden fits that bill.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Like I mentioned, we already have assassination by law enforcement.

meanwhile...

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Again the use of drones is exactly the same as the use of guns on these people. If there's a problem here it's not drones. The questions that should be discussed is the later one's about ordering assassinations, when and how. This is independent of the method of assassination.

Logistically (and therefore in fact) the weapon matters - drones make it easy and "safe" (both physically and emotionally) for the assassins. But let's leave this aside. If you think that the whole issue of getting the president to drop assassinations is easier than forbidding him to use his favourite (and really quite well suited) technology for doing it maybe you should try that. There is some merit to your argument after all. It's the same as - don't ban guns or don't ban large magazines, or don't ban assault rifles, just make it illegal to murder people. A perfectly sane stand, of course, because banning these weapons won't prevent people from murdering people with any other weapon like a knife or a hatchet or a hammer.

Paul says drones may only be considered in extraordinary, lethal situations where there is an ongoing, imminent threat. Which is what US law says about any US military action on citizens.

You'd think but the US has already assassinated US citizens in non combat situations using drones so is it legal or not to kill US citizens not actively involved in combat and where they are no immanent threat to life? In fact they have been used in countries where the government was friendly towards the US who were well known in the towns where they lived and who could have been apprehended by the local authorities instead of hellfired from above. This mode of killing instead of arresting US citizens has been used and there has not been any appreciable push-back except by the likes of the Pauls. Why is this OK and why should it make any difference if the US citizen is within the US or without? Do you think that people who are deemed a threat to the US (meaning the government and the elites it serves) should be killed (by drone or other means but drone is way easier)?

 

[robert l. bentham]

actually fluffy, my understanding is that the" war on terra" is border-less and world wide... we are all in the combat zone...

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

actually fluffy, my understanding is that the" war on terra" is border-less and world wide... we are all in the combat zone...

And every time there is a terror attack on US soil that just proves that US soil is part of the battle field so now imagine that we live in a time when a bomb can go off and the next day we can watch someone we are told did it get droned on TV. No trial, no publicly available evidence and no right of appeal. The next day we can have another bomb go off and watch someone else get droned. Everything is secret - no need to ask whether the bombs and the guy who gets droned have anything to do with each other - it all just magically happens while the NSA and the drone pilots work to keep you safe but constantly fearful. Everywhere an enemy and the government the only thing standing between you and the mad terrorists and nobody ever needs to explain a damned thing.

 

[robert l. bentham]

we don't actually have to imagine that, it pretty much looks like today... not really much difference between a drone and two JSOCers clad in black, riding a motorcycle and attaching magnetic bombs at high speed... in my opinion...

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

we don't actually have to imagine that, it pretty much looks like today... not really much difference between a drone and two JSOCers clad in black, riding a motorcycle and attaching magnetic bombs at high speed... in my opinion...

Salvadore option coming home?

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

The reason I say this is a couple of Southern states are playing with laws that say 'we only follow Constitutional laws'. Which is great. Except the reality is they want a 'State right' to declare a Federal Law unconstitutional. That's not how it works,...

Madison and Jefferson seemed to be of the opinion that is exactly how it works.

Virginia Resolution of 1798

Ultimately the meaning of the law is a matter of public opinion (much like what the Bible actually says) and should it once again become fashionable, the states can start ignoring federal laws they see as unconstitutional and if the people of the states agree then that is how the law shall be unless someone with the er of the federal government thinks that their businesses and interests will be so negatively impacted that the feel it is worth using the armed forces again to push the issue.