hasbeen;1401907 wrote:Let me rephrase. Use a drone to kill americans without giving them due process.

justincredible;1401911 wrote:If someone is combative and in the process of attacking Americans, yes, lethal force is justified. If the person is non-combative and not an immediate threat, no, lethal force is not justified.

justincredible;1401911 wrote:If someone is combative and in the process of attacking Americans, yes, lethal force is justified. If the person is non-combative and not an immediate threat, no, lethal force is not justified.

Glory Days;1401925 wrote:So why cant that cant be applied to drones?

hasbeen;1401922 wrote:he got attention for the issue.

hasbeen;1401912 wrote:Usually, when a citizen is killed on US soil, it is when they are putting people in danger(i.e. a police officer killing a guy pointing a gun at him).

Not sure what immediate threat a person on the ground is to a drone in the air.

Gblock;1401929 wrote:is it even and issue?? who gaf to me given the other problems we are currently facing. if we ever kill someone w a drone strike i wont feel bad for whoever the POS is most likely. but even so i bet it never even happens. so its a big argument about something that has a small chance of even occuring

Cleveland Buck;1401928 wrote:It can. No one was debating that. Rand Paul clarified that countless times.

Cleveland Buck;1401936 wrote:So if you have lunch with a buddy from work who emailed his Muslim cousin in Egypt last night, and a drone missile blows you both away, I guess good riddance to the pieces of ****, right?

Cleveland Buck;1401936 wrote:So if you have lunch with a buddy from work who emailed his Muslim cousin in Egypt last night, and a drone missile blows you both away, I guess good riddance to the pieces of shit, right?

Cleveland Buck;1401936 wrote:So if you have lunch with a buddy from work who emailed his Muslim cousin in Egypt last night, and a drone missile blows you both away, I guess good riddance to the pieces of ****, right?

Glory Days;1401933 wrote:So what if that drone was the closest option to stop someone on the ground as a threat to another person on the ground?

Glory Days;1401940 wrote:Haha you are watching cnn, he just said that in his interview....you and rand can take off your tinfoil hat.

Gblock;1401939 wrote:zero chance of that happening that way

Terry_Tate;1401947 wrote:... He just wants to keep the guidelines limited to that basically and they won't give him a clear answer. ....

Cleveland Buck;1401954 wrote:How do you know? That was the question asked of the president that he refuses to answer.

Con_Alma;1401957 wrote:This is the issue. It's the only issue. Drones area valuable tool against enemies of the United States....even when those enemies are U.S. Citizens. The guidelines of usage are what is being sought and what should be sought.

The extrapolations on "what ifs" steering towards an aboration of using drones to kill citizens on U.S. soil is nothing more than exaggeration for effect. I would hope we kill those on US soil who present a danger to us. I would pissed if we didn't.

Gblock;1401959 wrote:because i have common sense something our govt is severely lacking in

Cleveland Buck;1401960 wrote:You realize this all came about because of leaked White House memo, right? That claimed the authority to use drones on U.S. citizens in the United States, with no mention of being a threat. The idea wasn't pulled out of his ass.

Con_Alma;1401945 wrote:It's not the e-mail that would create the drone attack but if you must have an answer in your fishing attempt then yes, good riddance.

justincredible;1401967 wrote:You're cool killing innocent citizens because they are having lunch with someone who emailed a muslim cousin in Egypt the night before? WHAT. THE. ****.

Con_Alma;1401957 wrote: The extrapolations on "what ifs" steering towards an aboration of using drones to kill citizens on U.S. soil is nothing more than exaggeration for effect. I would hope we kill those on US soil who present a danger to us. I would pissed if we didn't.

Con_Alma;1401973 wrote:I don't believe an e-mail would result in such a thing.

I would expect us to kill someone who was an imminent threat and do so with concern for innocent bystanders. Sometimes that is unavoidable. I will forever say, good riddance to that threat.

That's WHAT THE ****!

justincredible;1401975 wrote:I don't think a guy eating lunch is an imminent threat. At that point, arrest him and charge him with treason.