Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Place An Ad | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Drones must not be used on U.S. citizens

March 24, 2013

DEAR EDITOR: As more details of the DOJ Whitepaper come to light, the memo in regard the legality of drone strikes against American citizens, the little publicized nomination of John Brennan to b......

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(84)

WarrenProud

Mar-24-13 7:19 AM

More Tea Party BS. Drones have not been used against American citizens. This is yet another non-issue that the Republicans are using to stir up their Republican NeoCon masses against our great President Obama. If a Republican was president, they would be all for it.

4 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

reallytiredofit

Mar-24-13 8:09 AM

Are you kidding me mandatorymullets, Anwar al-Awlaki was a treasonist who was involved in combat against his own native land. He was not on American soil when he was killed, he was in Yemen while plotting how to kill more American soldiers. In my way of thinking, once you have taken up arms against your own country, and are actively involved in the process of killing other Americans, you have by your own behavior become nothing more than another enemy soldier. To suggest that this scumbag should have been allowed to continue killing American soldiers until someday when we could catch him is ludicrous.

2 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Daniel

Mar-24-13 8:16 AM

Then I hope I never here of another criminal getting shot by any law enforcement officer without "Due Process" first. Rand Paul certainly did not roll to far from the tree. Just another baggy that no one treats seriously. Its just another tool, like a gun, club, pepper spray etc.

Go ahead and point a gun at an officer and see how much "Due Process" you get. No difference.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

reallytiredofit

Mar-24-13 10:00 AM

Now you really ARE kidding RIF, George Bush invaded Iraq on faulty information that resulted in 4400 Americans being killed without due process. If you want to help with the expansion of government into peoples rights try helping to rid the nation of the laws designed to disenfranchise voters. By the way Senator paulie jr. was on the floor of the Senate requesting information on the use of drones on AMERICAN SOIL. That is a much different thing.

2 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

liemonger

Mar-24-13 10:37 AM

"Just another baggy"

Beats being a baguette like Daniele.

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

reallytiredofit

Mar-24-13 12:12 PM

Just for the record by the way, President Obama responded to the Honorable Senator from Virginia that, "NO HE DID NOT BELIEVE THE PRESIDENT HAD THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO ORDER A DRONE STRIKE ON AN AMERICAN CITIZEN ON AMERICAN SOIL". That answered the question asked by Mr.Paul. End of debate!

2 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

PantherPride

Mar-24-13 1:34 PM

The only difference between armed drones and someone kicking in your door and taking you dead or alive is the distance involved.Its wrong without due process within our borders.The writer has a point: what is viewed as a "threat" today my not be how its defined in the near future. Even unarmed,they present a real compromise to what we consider our basic rights to privacy.The amazing resolution the cameras have from miles above was shown On the NOVA program The Rise Of The Drones.They have the capability to circle unseen for up to 30 hours at a time. Of course,this is only the unclassified technology we are aware of at the present time.Careful what you wish for...

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

neversummer

Mar-24-13 2:22 PM

Get your own! diydrones dot com

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

reallytiredofit

Mar-24-13 6:42 PM

MM, I'm sorry I forgot you have a reading problem. I Didn't say anything about the Attorney General. Mr. Holder gave his opinion to the President. The President gave HIS answer, the one that counts by the way, to Senator Paul. Study up a little before you ramble OK.

1 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

liemonger

Mar-24-13 7:50 PM

MM,

You're going to have to wait until someone tells her what think before she has a canned-response.

DeeEErrRp.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

neversummer

Mar-25-13 6:48 AM

Seriously, if you're in Yemen, who cares who pulled the trigger?

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

reallytiredofit

Mar-25-13 8:58 AM

I see you just can't control yourself Mark, you just have to resort to calling people names. With you nothing less could be expected.

1 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

reallytiredofit

Mar-25-13 9:12 AM

Let's get the facts straight for once. The President asked the Attorney General for HIS opinion on the use of military drones on U.S. soil. The Attorney General replied that there could be circumstances which would not violate the constitution. After reviewing Mr. Holder's response Barack Obama rejected it and stated publicly that HIS position is that the use of military drones against an American citizen on U.S. soil would indeed violate the U.S. Constitution. Quite frankly, that should have ended the discussion, but the Obama haters just cannot restrain themselves.

1 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Marmel

Mar-25-13 1:25 PM

Straight from the white house talking points huh dos. Too bad we have been paying attention. The DOJ and the administration are one and the same. This idea was not rejected until it came to light and even after that it took some weeks for the administration and the DOJ to admit it was unconstitutional. Seriously Dos, how stupid do you think we are? Obama never knows what anybody under his control is doing and he is always fighting against them and their evil policies. LOL. Get some class and a moral compass buddy.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Billdog

Mar-25-13 2:05 PM

Under the UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE, treason is punishable by death. If a person, American Citizen or not is found to be with out a doubt engaging in a terrorist or treasonous act, I have no problem with this. MandatoryMullets, neither of the people or cases you site were on American soil. Both were haters of your country, country men and your way of life. They would of killed you without a trial, so get over it.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Marmel

Mar-25-13 2:30 PM

treason is punishable by death.

I agree also also but it appears you are lacking an understanding of the detials of this argument, which is where the devil is.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

reallytiredofit

Mar-25-13 5:35 PM

Marmel, That is a very provocative question you have asked me. Unlike you though I usually try to answer questions put to me. So here goes. You asked me "HOW STUPID DO YOU THINK WE ARE"? First I don't know who WE is, so I will confine my answer to just you, if that's OK. In all honesty marmel I don't think you are stupid at all, absolutely not. Rather I believe that you are somewhat mentally stunted, and have a difficult time grasping issues with any complexity at all. I hope you find my answer has satisfactorily answered your recent inquiry.

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Swelterstat

Mar-25-13 6:53 PM

WarrenProud.........GREAT PRESIDENT...LOL What are you smoking??????

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Goneforgood

Mar-25-13 10:07 PM

@Billdog The UCMJ does not have jurisdiction over civilians unless the person is serving with or accompanying US armed forces in the field in times of declared war or a contingency operation. In other words the UCMJ has no jurisdiction over US civilian citizens living outside the US accused of treason such as Anwar al-Aulagi. In any case even under the UCMJ you are entitled to be judged by a jury of your peers and found guilty before any punishment can be handed down.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

reallytiredofit

Mar-25-13 10:24 PM

Thank you, I appreciate that coming from a rug scrubber, Mark.

1 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

reallytiredofit

Mar-25-13 10:34 PM

I love how all you right wingers are out there supporting one of your own in Anwar an-Awlaki. He fit right in with your group's mentality. Particularly with that last post from usblues or goneforblues or carpetcleanermark or oh well you know.

1 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Goneforgood

Mar-25-13 11:04 PM

reallytiredofit / dosequis ; There you go with the unproven accusations, twisting words and flat out lies.

That stuff may have worked in bankruptcy court but not to many people will fall for it here.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Billdog

Mar-26-13 9:20 AM

MandatoryMullets, where was Anwar al-Awlaki, and what activities was he engaged in?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

reallytiredofit

Mar-26-13 9:41 AM

Yes blue, Somebody should have just went right over to Yemen and arrested that rascal. For the longest time I thought Sheriff Joe from Arizona was going to do it but he was real busy with his document search. We couldn't have the military arrest him because he was a civilian and the US military has no police authority over civilians in Yemen. Heck no, that would have violated poor old Anwar's constitutional rights against unlawful search and seizure.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

reallytiredofit

Mar-26-13 9:47 AM

Is there a statute of limitations for murder? I'm thinking that a smart lawyer could file a class action suit against the United States Government for all the southerners killed during the Civil War. I know of no instance where the dead had been arrested according to the constitution and tried. Hundreds of thousands of constitutional violations in just 4 years. WOW the national debt sure would go up.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 84 comments Show More Comments
 
 

 

I am looking for: