Holder: drone strikes on citizens in U.S Legal
 

Well, well I'll see your, DHS armored cars and drones seen by airline pilots with this.. http://washingtonexaminer.com/eric-h...rticle/2523319 have a nice post consitutional day,..

Anyone planning a wedding should watch out! :o

It should be noted that the Attorney General is not the final authority on what is and ain't legal. The AG is in the Executive Branch and is, in effect, the POTUS' attorney.

The Judicial Branch is the one that determines what is and ain't legal.

Holder saying this is like the head attorney of Exon saying that it is OK to dump oil. Just because he said it is legal does not mean that it is legal.

Conspirator at larger. :shifty:

Nor does it say it doesn't or won't happen.

Sadly, very true. Through out our history, our government has done illegal things or things illegally and not been held accountable. :nope:

Meh. Holder is the Obama administration's Donald Rumsfeld; the guy that talks too much for his own good and loves gnawing on his own foot. America survived Rummy, and we'll be fine with Holder too. I know this likely does not fit into the sky is falling narrative, but for the OP, the sky is always falling.

Drones don't kill people....right?
Drones seem to spark a lot of controversy but you just might consider it as another weapon...like sniper rifle or SWAT team armed to teeth.
So ..

'Striking US citizen in US legal" should be the name of the game here yet drone strike makes it more dramatic and fearsome isn't it?

Fixed. :yep:

It's a bit disconcerting when I find myself on the same side of an issue as yubba and Rand Paul.

Great movie btw Skyfall saw it 2 days ago.....wait...what are we on about here?
*scrolls up*

Ahh......

HunterICX

Biggest problem with folks like that is they marginalize what are often legitimate concerns. We should not let our disdain for the messenger cloud our ability to debate such a provocative issue.

The fact the AG is claiming the right to kill American citizens with drone missiles and that the administration says that "collateral damage" is acceptable is something we should definitely be discussing. It's not how far Holder and Obama would push it but rather how a future AG and President will stretch the limits.

When Income tax was being debated in Congress, at the time just 2% (iirc) one of it's members proposed setting a maximum upper limit of 10% but the amendment failed because nobody wanted to imply that it could actually go that high. Too bad for all of us.

Yeah, you see this is what I'm talking about. More than likely Holder was referring to terrorist cells operating within the US. What people then do make the slippery slope argument, and then the sky is falling. Before you know it, you're believing in Bush's secret Illuminati castles in Colarado or Obama's Hitler Youth army. People love their hysteria, and this forum is becoming saturated with it.

The slippery slope argument is a valid one. Every government stretches the limits of what is legal and acceptable.

Bush did it with the creation of the Guantanamo prison. Obama is now doing it by claiming the right to kill American citizens here in the states by surprise missile attack. How far will the next POTUS push it? We can't let the yubbas of the world keep us from discussing and setting limits. After all Obamas hitler youth army might not exist but that doesn't mean we should let a future president create one.

Lets say there is car heading for Washington with big big bomb in it and it needs to be taken out , how would you prefer it done with f16 or Apache helicopter to make you feel better or the fearsome terminator drone?
Should you send hasty swat team and risk complications instead?
What would you do to make your self feel better asuming that this is not all some evil scheme of the government?
Also i see those post about drone surveillance while people don't mind their picters being taken every where they go by conventional cameras.
Just put world drone next to something and here we go.....