In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 553
Online now 327 Record: 4850 (6/6/2012)
The home for discussion on USC athletics
FightOn247 message board for off topic posts
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Progress? Or something to fear?
Unmanned aircraft have proved their prowess against al Qaeda. Now they're poised to take off on the home front. Possible missions: patrolling borders, tracking perps, dusting crops. And maybe watching us all?
“Close tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share,” Reagan vowed.
Like most things, it depends on how they are used. If they are used for border surveillance or crop dusting, that is good. If they are used to shoot hellfire missiles at citizens, that is a bad thing. I expect they will be used properly.
Obama’s lawyers have argued that it would lawful to kill a U.S. citizen if “an informed high-level official” of the government decided that the target was a ranking person in al Qaeda who was “an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States” and if his capture was not possible.
Does that include an American in America? Is there due process to determine whether or not capturing the American is possible? Or that if he really is an Al Qaeda member? How high level of an official does it need to be?
The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen - Dennis Prager
Obama has already stated that he would not use a drone strike in the U.S. Discussing this from a hypothetical point of view, how can capture not be possible in the U.S.? It is clear that the legal opinion was meant to allow strikes against citizens beyond our jurisdiction. That would exclude citizens in the U.S.
how can capture not be possible in the U.S.? I don't know, the statement from the Admin seemed pretty vague
It is clear that the legal opinion was meant to allow strikes against citizens beyond our jurisdiction. That would exclude citizens in the U.S. - It would be comforting to hear those words come from the President
NDAA has made me think it's not safe to assume much about what our gov't deems to be appropriate or not
To hear those words from the President, you have to listen to him. As I stated above, Obama has publicly stated that no one would be targeted by a drone in the U.S.
I actually hear him and Carney quite often. Been listening to POTUS on Sirius on my way to and from work. Probalby get 60-75 minutes of talk and soundbite about what's going on in DC.
I also know the Admin has created a brief justifying the use of drones on American citizens. I am not sure but I don't think that brief specifically excludes using drones on Americans in the USA.
You've gotta be joking Chris. Exactly how many of your civil liberties are you willing to squander in the name of... I don't even know what anymore?
I'm proud to report that the anti-NDAA bill in Arizona (AZ HB 2753) that I've worked so hard on PASSED the Arizona Judiciary Committee today by a vote of 6-2. The Liberty Preservation Act BANS enforcement of the NDAA or similar legislation in the state of Arizona. It is a huge victory that we got the bill through committee ready to be voted on because we have a grand total of 9 sponsors in the house - that's a big deal.
Jeezch, Chris, I'm guessing you're ALL FOR the NDAA and allowing the President power to use the military to indefinitely detain American citizens because they are suspected of terrorism. Where's your conscience sir?
Down with drones --- and the lobbyists who want the taxpayers to pay for them!
Join the fight for YOUR liberty!
funny, the same liberals who claim cons will hate anything Obama says/does (which is not completely untrue) will support drones killing americans and the NDAA.
Could you imaging if in 2007 Candidate Obama had said these are two things he would support (as well as told the truth about gitmo, rendition, etc)?
The problem with CS is that he is all for this when his guy is in office, but railed against the Patriot Act when GWB was POTUS.
If you are willing to give up liberties, you have to be willing to give them up regardless of who sits in the Oval Office. I am not willing to give them up, period -- I really do not care who sits in the chair. We have seen, time and again, that once you give them up, you do not EVER get them back.
"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both."
This post was edited by deetj13 14 months ago
You helped work on a patently unconstitutional law? I believe indefinite detention of Americans without due process is unconstitutional. I share your sentiments. However, a state cannot pass laws taking punitive actions against anyone working with the federal government.
On a different note, what does that have to do with drones? What problem do you have with a drone being used for surveillance?
What does supporting drones or the NDAA have to do with disliking legislation that they previously liked because it is endorsed by Obama?
CS was against unmanned drones being used in the U.S. when GWB was in office? I do not remember that even being discussed by our government, much less this board.
Quite frankly, I'm outraged at this nation's stance on the NDAA. I can't believe anyone with two brains cells thinks this is a good idea - and that goes for it's co-author, Republican John McCain, as well as anyone else. It's a huge violation of our most basic civil liberties. Republican, Democrat, doesn't matter... what's the deal with the love for the NDAA?
Yup, as a civil libertarian this scares me. Obama has not been noticeably much better than the GOP on some of these things, although I am glad to he decided to give some oversight to Congress on the intelligence behind some of these things. I would like at least the safeguards of independent judicial function overseeing some of this. In general I think the executive's powers when it comes to war-making is quite scary, no matter who is in power. That's one of the reasons I was so vocal in my opposition to Obama when he didn't consult Congress on Libya.
Yup. Both parties are terrible on this. It cuts across party.
In answer to your first question, you don't have our lawyers working for you. We paired with the finest constitutional lawyers in the country to carefully craft the language for the Liberty Preservation Act and ensure its enforceability in the state of Arizona. I can't speak for the other 49 states; they are fighting their own battles. But certain elements of Arizona's state constitution work in our favor. The vote today speaks for itself. Bi-partisan support against an act WE ALL KNOW is unconstitutional. The trick, as you've correctly surmised, is getting the language to work in a functional manner in the state of Arizona.
What does it have to do with drones? Nothing, technically. The NDAA and the use of drones are unrelated. But philosophically, I oppose any violation of civil liberties. The use of drones for surveillance robs us of our privacy rights. You also have to consider the context. We are talking about potentially ARMED drones in the future. You really want drones flying around with the ability to shoot people at will? That sound like a good idea that respects privacy and civil liberties? There are more efficient - and far less expensive and invasive - ways to protect our borders. Dr. Ron Paul outlined such plans in his bid for the 2008 nomination.
SoT, I hope you won't think this me being deliberately anti-Paul, but now his rather quixotic political campaigns are dead, do you see civil libertarians trying to actively influence the mainstream of both parties, rather than trying to replace it. What's the post-Ron Paul strategic plan?
It's a great question. I wish I had the answer. Civil libertarians are such an anomaly in the political spectrum. We're not really Republicans or Democrats; we are outliers. We believe the ENTIRE system is broken and demand systemic change, not just policy change. So who knows? I think we had a lot of hope stocked in Rand Paul, but in one term he's turning about to be more establishment than his father ever was in 30 years (witness the Clinton hearings)!!! Chris Christie? Eh, he's establishment too, despite his libertarian views on marijuana and gay marriage. Johnson? Anything is possible I guess.
The answer to your question is really "activism at a grass-roots level". That's how we're aiming to nullify the NDAA, on local and state levels. Same with drone implementation. You gotta start somewhere in the fight for liberty...
Excellent question though. Just wish I had a more concrete answer for ya.
No, I appreciate the answer. No need for certainty when there isn't any.
Much appreciated sir!
You are moving the bar. As pointed out, the brief states that it the targeted killing of Americans is only constitutional if it is not possible to capture them. That means out of our jurisdiction. You responded that you'd like the President to say that. I pointed out that he had. Now you move the bar that him saying it is not adequate. You want it in the brief. As I pointed out, if the person is in the United States, it is possible to capture them. You cannot think of a situation in which a person is in the United States, but he cannot be captured.
I am not arguing that it violates AZ law. I am arguing that it violates the U.S. Constitution. There is something called the Supremecy Clause. AZ has run afoul of it a lot when it comes to immigration. They made the same argument regarding carefully crafting the laws, but that care did not pass muster with the U.S. Supreme Court. If challenged, I strongly doubt this will.
Against drones, against the internet thing they keep trying.
You're right I did move the bar. You'll need to forgive me if don't take this president (or any president) at ther word. I need it in writing and as part of law
This post was edited by TrojanMonkey 14 months ago
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports