Moderator: Community Team
BigBallinStalin wrote:He's more suitable than Petraeus, that's for sure. Because:
(1) Petraeus wields too much military influence, which should be kept separate from the CIA.
(2) He's got more experience with the CIA--which can be good or bad, depending on your view.
Lagniappe
I don't understand why politicians would filibuster against Brennan but not Petraeus on the grounds of CIA drone strikes. Petraeus oversaw that program too... (I'm not sure if Rand Paul has a history of criticizing Petraeus though).
Brennan has a dark history too (torture, overseeing it perhaps?).
Problem
Risk of groupthink increases with having Brennan on board, since he's so agreeable with Obama and his drone strike policy.
PLAYER57832 wrote:I miss woodruff at this point...
Personally, I don't think we know enough to make a decision on him. Gotta bow to the representatives on this.
warmonger1981 wrote:From what ive heard the CIA can kill you and they don't have to report it nor do they need a warrant.
BigBallinStalin wrote:I don't understand why politicians would filibuster against Brennan but not Petraeus on the grounds of CIA drone strikes.
thegreekdog wrote:When questioned as to whether the same proposal would exist with respect to domestic drone usage, the Justice Department responded with, essentially, we wouldn't rule it out.
When questioned further, with a specific scenario of a suspected domestic terrorist sitting in a coffee shop in Houston, Texas, the Justice Department responded that it had a legal basis to kill that person with a drone.
thegreekdog wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:I miss woodruff at this point...
Personally, I don't think we know enough to make a decision on him. Gotta bow to the representatives on this.
Or you could read up about it and make an informed decision instead.
EDIT - Sorry, can't help myself. This is the issue.
At some point in the last couple of years the Justice Department determined that it had a legal basis to kill Americans in other countries if they were suspected of being terrorists. This determination could be made by the president and one of his designated agents without any judicial or Congressional input.
When questioned as to whether the same proposal would exist with respect to domestic drone usage, the Justice Department responded with, essentially, we wouldn't rule it out.
When questioned further, with a specific scenario of a suspected domestic terrorist sitting in a coffee shop in Houston, Texas, the Justice Department responded that it had a legal basis to kill that person with a drone.
The question for you, Player, is do you care? What if you were sitting in the Houston coffee shop? Would you care then?
“The country needs more senators who care about liberty, but if Mr. Paul wants to be taken seriously he needs to do more than pull political stunts that fire up impressionable libertarian kids in their college dorms. He needs to know what he’s talking about,” said Mr. McCain
Mr. Graham said asking whether the president has the power to kill Americans here at home is a ludicrous question.
“I do not believe that question deserves an answer,” Mr. Graham said.
“I am going to vote for Brennan now because it’s become a referendum on the drone program,” he said.
thegreekdog wrote:My realistic interpretation is that Senator Paul is trying to differentiate himself from other Republicans for a run at the White House in 2016.
Lindsey Graham wrote:“I do not believe that question deserves an answer,”
thegreekdog wrote:f*ck you Graham. f*ck you McCain.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/ins ... ilibuster/
Can't say I'm shocked, but seriously... f*ck you guys.“The country needs more senators who care about liberty, but if Mr. Paul wants to be taken seriously he needs to do more than pull political stunts that fire up impressionable libertarian kids in their college dorms. He needs to know what he’s talking about,” said Mr. McCain
Yes, god forbid he gets college kids caring about this shifty shit you fuckers do.Mr. Graham said asking whether the president has the power to kill Americans here at home is a ludicrous question.
“I do not believe that question deserves an answer,” Mr. Graham said.
Then you're a fucking idiot apparently.“I am going to vote for Brennan now because it’s become a referendum on the drone program,” he said.
Yeah, because you're a fucking asshole.
thegreekdog wrote:When questioned further, with a specific scenario of a suspected domestic terrorist sitting in a coffee shop in Houston, Texas, the Justice Department responded that it had a legal basis to kill that person with a drone.
Cruz wrote:I want to ask a more specific question: if an individual is sitting quietly at a café in the United States, in your legal judgment does the Constitution allow a US citizen on US soil to be killed by a drone?
...
The person is suspected to be a terrorist. You have abundant evidence he was a terrorist. He was involved in terrorist plots. But, at the moment, he is not pointing a Bazooka at the Pentagon. He is sitting in a café. Overseas, the United States government uses drones to take out individuals when they’re walking down a pathway or when they’re sitting at a café. If a US citizen on US soil is not posing an immediate threat to life or bodily harm, does the Constitution allow a drone to kill that citizen?
Holder wrote:I would not think that would be an appropriate use of any kind of lethal force. We’d deal with that in a way that we typically deal with a situation like that…
Metsfanmax wrote:Regarding the use of drone strikes on American soil: if the person in question is an American citizen and is actively in the midst of some sort of terrorist plot, what is the difference whether they are on American soil or whether they are on Yemeni soil? The idea of using the drones on American soil against American citizens should be met with the same level of resistance (or lack thereof) as the use of drones on foreign soil, if the obstacle to the ability to detain and bring to trial these people is of similar magnitude.
Metsfanmax wrote:Regarding the use of drone strikes on American soil: if the person in question is an American citizen and is actively in the midst of some sort of terrorist plot, what is the difference whether they are on American soil or whether they are on Yemeni soil? The idea of using the drones on American soil against American citizens should be met with the same level of resistance (or lack thereof) as the use of drones on foreign soil, if the obstacle to the ability to detain and bring to trial these people is of similar magnitude.
Metsfanmax wrote:Regarding the use of drone strikes on American soil: if the person in question is an American citizen and is actively in the midst of some sort of terrorist plot, what is the difference whether they are on American soil or whether they are on Yemeni soil? The idea of using the drones on American soil against American citizens should be met with the same level of resistance (or lack thereof) as the use of drones on foreign soil, if the obstacle to the ability to detain and bring to trial these people is of similar magnitude.
Mets wrote:Regarding the use of drone strikes on American soil: if the person in question is an American citizen and is actively in the midst of some sort of terrorist plot, what is the difference whether they are on American soil or whether they are on Yemeni soil?
Return to Out, out, brief candle!
Users browsing this forum: jonesthecurl