Albert Lea Discussion Forum » Printable Version of Topic » Response to drone strikes on US soil

Forum: Current Events
Topic: Response to drone strikes on US soil
started by: Rosalind_Swenson

Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Mar. 06 2013,10:51 am

Holder and Brennan's responses to Rand Paul's letters:
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Today, Sen. Rand Paul received two pieces of correspondence regarding the legality and constitutionality of the U.S. government using lethal force, including drone strikes, on Americans and in U.S. territory. Sen. Paul sent three inquires on the matter to President Obama's nominee to be Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, John Brennan (HERE, HERE and HERE). He finally received responses from both Mr. Brennan and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder on one item of inquiry.

Attorney General Holder stated in a letter to Sen. Paul dated March 4, 2013: "It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States."

"The U.S. Attorney General's refusal to rule out the possibility of drone strikes on American citizens and on American soil is more than frightening - it is an affront the Constitutional due process rights of all Americans," Sen. Paul said.

Sen. Paul also received a letter in response from Mr. Brennan, clarifying the CIA does not have the power to authorize such operations. Notably missing from Mr. Brennan's response are answers to the myriad other questions Sen. Paul posed to him in previous correspondence.
< http://paul.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=724 >
-----------
I think Rand Paul's letters to Brennan and refusal to acknowledge his nomination to head of CIA, were more about getting American citizens to pay attention and start thinking than they were letters demanding answers from him.
In case anyone hasn't read them yet:
Parts of Letter 1:
Do you agree with the argument put forth on numerous occasions by the Executive
Branch that it is legal to order the killing of American citizens and that it is not compelled
to explain its reasoning in reaching this conclusion? Do you believe this is a good
precedent for the government to set?
Congress has been denied access to legal opinions and interpretations authorizing
placement of U.S. citizens believed to be engaged in terrorism on targeting lists, thus
denying Congress the ability to perform important oversight. Will you provide access to
those opinions, as well as future opinions?
Would it not be appropriate to require a judge or court to review every case before the
individual in question is added to a targeting list? Please describe the due process
requirements in place for those individuals being considered for addition to a targeting
list.
Would you agree that it is paradoxical that the federal government would need to go
before a judge to authorize a wiretap on a U.S. citizen overseas, but possibly not to order
a lethal drone strike against the same individual? If not, please explain why you believe
something similar to the FISA standard should not be applied in regards to lethal actions
against U.S. citizens.
Is it still your intent to codify and normalize the so-called "disposition matrix"--a
targeting list that you helped to establish--to direct counterterrorism operations in future
administrations, as well as the targeted killing procedures you have outlined in your
"playbook"?
Aside from the president, how many people have access to the full disposition matrix?
Of those, how many participate in the process to add individuals to the targeting list, and
how many have the authority to veto an individual's inclusion?

Aww heck, the letters have too much information for me to post. Read all three if you haven't already.
Letter 1 < http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2htm...ges=yes >

Letter 2
< http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2htm...ges=yes >

Letter 3
< http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2htm...ges=yes >

Or just click the links on Paul's site.

Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Mar. 06 2013,2:46 pm

Rand Paul's filibuster of the nomination of Brennan. Not sure how long it will go on, but so far it's live.
< http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN2/ >

Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Mar. 06 2013,10:47 pm

As skeptical as I am about government, this filibuster is amazing. Anyone watching it?

Posted by nedkelly on Mar. 10 2013,7:57 am

(Rosalind_Swenson @ Mar. 06 2013,10:47 pm)

QUOTE

As skeptical as I am about government, this filibuster is amazing. Anyone watching it?

Just another windbag...Blovating his stupid beliefs!!!!!!!!. Next thing he will be endorsing depends.....ned

Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 10 2013,8:36 am

^thought that was your job ned. :rofl:

Posted by pepi la pew on Mar. 10 2013,2:53 pm

Well ned I would rather edorse a depends than a DEM A RAT :rofl:

Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 10 2013,6:24 pm

^^^ We kill ourselves^^^
:rofl:

Posted by Botto 82 on Mar. 10 2013,10:25 pm

Yes. The D's and the R's are really that much different from one another. :dunce:

Posted by This is my real name on Mar. 11 2013,6:11 am

(Botto 82 @ Mar. 10 2013,10:25 pm)

QUOTE

Yes. The D's and the R's are really that much different from one another. :dunce:

Didn't Lewis Black say the two parties could be likened to a giant pile of crap looking at itself in the mirror?

Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Mar. 15 2013,8:28 am

(nedkelly @ Mar. 10 2013,7:57 am)

QUOTE

(Rosalind_Swenson @ Mar. 06 2013,10:47 pm)

QUOTE

As skeptical as I am about government, this filibuster is amazing. Anyone watching it?

Just another windbag...Blovating his stupid beliefs!!!!!!!!. Next thing he will be endorsing depends....ned

Yeah, I guess you're right. It was kind of exciting pretending for awhile that there's a good guy. At least he DID get some good information out there on the indefinite detention of citizens and drones. Hopefully more people are starting to think for themselves now.

Posted by MADDOG on May 26 2013,6:27 pm

QUOTE

Updated: 04/06/2013 11:46 AM
Created: 04/03/2013 9:04 PM KSTP.com

Unmanned aircraft, commonly referred to as "drones," are being used to hunt terrorists around the world and back up US military forces on the battlefield.

And soon smaller versions could be in the skies over Minnesota.

The state is competing against 36 other states to host one of a half dozen test sites for drones.
< KSTP >

QUOTE

12:12 PM, May 19, 2013 CAMP RIPLEY, MINN. — The Minnesota National Guard has officially launched its new $3.9 million Unmanned Aircraft Operations Facility at Camp Ripley.
< Military Times >

Posted by Santorini on May 26 2013,7:43 pm

Interestingly, holder defended actions of drone strikes saying; based on generations-old legal principles & Supreme Court decisions...United States citizenship alone does not make such individuals immune from being target. Kind of arbitrary definition!

Posted by Botto 82 on May 26 2013,8:04 pm

I would imagine that there are those among us who feel that things along these lines will magically get better. Disabuse yourselves of that notion. This country is headed downhill, and fast. Where we end up will make Hitler's Germany look like a church social.

We live in a country whose government willfully ignores lethal corporate control of every conceivable watchdog agency, promotes a for-profit police state, and has a populace that is easily duped by a distracting media operated by the same corporate control. Anyone that thinks the halcyon days of the twentieth century will somehow make a miraculous return is dreaming.

We are reaping the rewards from decades of slavery, genocide, greedy commercialism and murderous militarism. This is our legacy - a paranoid government that will stop at nothing to justify its embrace of the absolute worst in Human ambitions.

How's that for sunshine, lollipops and rainbows?

Posted by MADDOG on May 26 2013,8:13 pm

(Botto 82 @ May 26 2013,8:04 pm)

QUOTE

How's that for sunshine, lollipops and rainbows?

How's that for reality?

QUOTE

Interestingly, Holder defended actions of drone strikes saying

Holder? He can't even be trusted to investigate himself. And he already KNOWS what he did.

Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on May 27 2013,2:27 am

Ok, so the drone facility at Camp Ripley is different from the one the Department of Employment and Economic Development is talking about in the KSTP article right? So we already have 1, and we might get another one?

This part of the KSTP article:

QUOTE

The state is competing against 36 other states to host one of a half dozen test sites for drones.

Who are they competing for? Who is looking for states to host drone test sites?

The two viewer comments for the KSTP article were quite interesting.

Posted by Santorini on May 27 2013,10:58 pm

(Botto 82 @ May 26 2013,8:04 pm)

QUOTE

Your right! Former Obama adviser Axelrod said it best on MSNBC while attempting to defend Obama regarding his knowledge of the IRS scandal... it's impossible for him to have known..government is too big!!! There ya have it...!!!

Posted by irisheyes on May 28 2013,2:42 am

(Santorini @ May 26 2013,7:43 pm)

QUOTE

It's the job of an attorney to use "legal principles & Supreme Court decisions". What part of that is arbitrary in your mind?

Most conservatives didn't breath a word of criticism for drone strikes until January '09. Personally, I'd like to see the targeted killings of citizens end for good, as well as the entire war on terror. But let's do it regardless of whether there's an "R" or a "D" next to the name of the POTUS.

Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on May 28 2013,8:10 am

I'm in no way sticking up for Bush, I didn't think I'd ever dislike any president more than him, but the things coming about during Obama, and the more I've been finding out about the last several administrations... It appears they are all the same person. Maybe the kooks who talk about "shadow government" are right.

Under Bush there far far fewer drone strikes. - Whether that's because they were able to keep them secret better or they just did fewer I don't know. Human rights groups have been the main ones screaming about drone strikes. That's because they kill so many innocent people, and according to most investigations on the subject, it's just a tiny fraction of the drone kills that are not innocent.

Does it really matter who was worse? Bush or Obama? Republican or Democrat? Honestly, I don't see a difference. I've been hearing people for years saying they are voting for "the lesser of two evils". I didn't realize just how accurate the word "evils" was.
Our leaders are crap, and they are dangerous, not just to people in other countries, but to us. - They have been dangerous to other countries and to us for a very long time. Thanks to the internet, that fact is becoming more well known.

Posted by Glad I Left on May 28 2013,8:18 am

(Rosalind_Swenson @ May 28 2013,8:10 am)

QUOTE

Thanks to the internet, that fact is becoming more well known.

That's because if it's on the internet it's true.

Bonjour!

Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on May 28 2013,8:20 am

(Glad I Left @ May 28 2013,8:18 am)

QUOTE

(Rosalind_Swenson @ May 28 2013,8:10 am)

QUOTE

Thanks to the internet, that fact is becoming more well known.

That's because if it's on the internet it's true.

Bonjour!

You must be forgetting about all the declassified documents we now have access to thanks to the internet. All the archived Congressional investigations, testimonies. - There's absolutely no need to just "believe" anything said on the internet. Unless you think the government documents are false?

Posted by Expatriate on May 28 2013,10:59 am

At one time I had some respect for Ron but Rand is a total tool who shamelessly promotes himself on the hatemonger A.M. programs.

Posted by Santorini on May 28 2013,2:16 pm

(irisheyes @ May 28 2013,2:42 am)

QUOTE

(Santorini @ May 26 2013,7:43 pm)

QUOTE

" such individuals" is what is arbitrary!!

Posted by Santorini on May 28 2013,2:21 pm

(Glad I Left @ May 28 2013,8:18 am)

QUOTE

(Rosalind_Swenson @ May 28 2013,8:10 am)

QUOTE

Thanks to the internet, that fact is becoming more well known.

That's because if it's on the internet it's true.

Bonjour!

Now that was good!!! Clever response :thumbsup:

Posted by Liberal on May 28 2013,3:20 pm

QUOTE

" such individuals" is what is arbitrary!!

Tell us again about your "advanced education"? :dunce:

Posted by Botto 82 on May 28 2013,3:58 pm

(Liberal @ May 28 2013,3:20 pm)

QUOTE

" such individuals" is what is arbitrary!!

Tell us again about your "advanced education"? :dunce:

That'd be akin to you explaining the concept of keeping an open mind.

Posted by Santorini on May 28 2013,7:04 pm

(Botto 82 @ May 28 2013,3:58 pm)

QUOTE

(Liberal @ May 28 2013,3:20 pm)

QUOTE

" such individuals" is what is arbitrary!!

Tell us again about your "advanced education"? :dunce:

That'd be akin to you explaining the concept of keeping an open mind.

If the govt uses term " such individuals"; who gets to define WHO "such individuals" are? What criteria is therefore used to determine who or what is a threat which would warrant the govt using drone strikes against its own citizens. " such individuals" leaves a lot to the imagination!

Posted by Botto 82 on May 28 2013,8:34 pm

(Santorini @ May 28 2013,7:04 pm)

QUOTE

That could be anything from an Occupy protest to a compound of survivalist types in Montana.

Maybe we should revisit the tactics and thinking of Joseph McCarthy, just to put into context how quickly anyone, without the benefit of due process, can be defined as "the enemy."

If we're not protecting Liberty as defined in the Constitution and by the Founding Fathers, what are we protecting with things like warrantless wiretaps and domestic drone strikes? Ask yourselves that one.

Posted by grassman on May 28 2013,9:19 pm

I think what has happened is our borders have been wide open for soooo long, the enemy is amongst us :oops:

and protocal needs to be set. Whether it be used against American Citizens is kind of a wait and see what happens.

Posted by Liberal on May 28 2013,9:54 pm

QUOTE

"Such individuals" was defined clearly earlier. His actual statement.

QUOTE

As I noted in my speech at Northwestern, "it is an unfortunate but undeniable fact" that a "small number" of U.S. citizens "have decided to commit violent attacks against their own country from abroad." Based on generations-old legal principles and Supreme Court decisions handed down during World War II, as well as during the current conflict, it is clear and logical that United States citizenship alone does not make such individuals immune from being targeted.

I think we can all agree on what "violent attack" means.

Posted by Botto 82 on May 29 2013,1:08 am

(Liberal @ May 28 2013,9:54 pm)

QUOTE

I think we can all agree on what "violent attack" means.

I don't think so, given Israel has been given a pass on every one of these they've participated in. 'Violent attacks' has been given less and less of a literal interpretation of same, and become more and more of a political football, depending on who our supposed allies are at the time.

The U.S.S. Liberty incident should tell you everything you need to know about that.

Posted by Liberal on May 29 2013,8:07 am

Can you show me one example of anyone claiming that the attack on the Liberty wasn't a "violent attack"? Even so how does that make the term "those people" arbitrary when "those people" clearly referred to US Citizen violently attacking the US?

Is there any event in US history that you don't think involved a conspiracy theory?

Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on May 29 2013,10:08 am

The US and Israel, and all the news said the event with the USS Liberty was a "tragic accident". NOT a violent attack.

As for "those people" who were "violently attacking" the US.
They have said that only one of "those people" were targeted. The other three American citizens were collateral damage apparently.
Here's some good material from the ACLU on drone strikes, not just the strikes that killed these four people.
< http://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/targeted-killings >

The reason the government is now giving for going after the only one drone target is that he was the one who planned and directed the Underwear bomber. And of course we just have to take their word that he was a danger, but there are some serious flaws with one of the things they pinned on him.

If anyone checks into this event even a little bit, this event sounds very much like one of the FBI's set up terrorist plots mentioned in that NYTimes article that has been posted in here a time or two. The NYTimes article even mentions this event, but according to the article it was "real" and not staged.

The underwear bombers father went to authorities trying to tell them he is worried about his son and that he thinks he is planning an act of terrorism. - He was pretty much ignored. Then there's witnesses saying how he was allowed on the plane when he shouldn't have been.

The most informative piece of information though comes from congressional testimony on this.

I apologize, I had better videos than this, but all of my save folders and files were wiped out a couple of days ago. It's quite difficult to find the full testimony of this event, but hopefully I can find it again, or at least transcripts of the two hearings. This is a pretty good video though.

liberal:

QUOTE

Is there any event in US history that you don't think involved a conspiracy theory?

Is there any official story, no matter how full of holes, no matter how ridiculous sounding, no matter how contradictory to witnesses and other evidence, and even other government versions you won't swallow?

Posted by Liberal on May 29 2013,1:29 pm

QUOTE

The US and Israel, and all the news said the event with the USS Liberty was a "tragic accident". NOT a violent attack.

So if I violently attack someone that I mistake for being someone else then it's not a violent attack, it's just a tragic accident? :dunce:

So it turns out I was wrong and some people are too stupid to understand what the words violent attack means. Ive got to learn to account for the home schoolers and Iowans when I make such broad statements.

Posted by MADDOG on May 29 2013,1:49 pm

(irisheyes @ May 28 2013,2:42 am)

QUOTE

Most conservatives didn't breath a word of criticism for drone strikes until January '09. Personally, I'd like to see the targeted killings of citizens end for good, as well as the entire war on terror. But let's do it regardless of whether there's an "R" or a "D" next to the name of the POTUS.

Prior to 2009, the rest of the media was holding presidents accountable before January 2009.

What if Bush came with a policy like Bambino did?

QUOTE

The leak of a document on the Obama administration's drone strike policy has some people in Washington playing the "what if" game.

What if President George W. Bush's administration had written such a document on the legality of drone attacks, even on U.S. citizens working with suspected terrorists overseas?

Former Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer tweeted: "Good thing (Department of Justice) drone memo didn't come out in 2008. Candidate Obama would never have put up with stuff like that going on."

Joe Scarborough, the former Republican congressman who hosts MSNBC's Morning Joe, said that if this were the Bush administration, there would be "congressional hearings" and "articles of impeachment."
< USA Today >

Of course when the possibility of collateral damage was too great, Bush rejected drone strikes.

QUOTE

Calderon pleaded with Bush for armed drones. He had been impressed by the results in Iraq and Afghanistan, two former U.S. officials said. The White House considered the request, but quickly rejected it. It was far too likely to result in collateral damage, they said.

The drone program, which began under the Bush administration in 2002, has greatly expanded under President Barack Obama. While polls find broad public support for the targeted strikes abroad, the "collateral damage" feared by the Bush White House remain(ed) a sticking point.

According to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism Obama has quite the reputation for drones.

QUOTE

Obama strikes: 317
Total reported killed: 2,541-3,540
Civilians reported killed: 411-884
Children reported killed: 168-197
Total reported injured: 1,174-1,479

< BIJ >

Of course most of you won't remember the commentary from the Iraq wars where our enemy were called cowards because they didn't face us, but rather left bombs behind to be triggered or they hid in rat holes.

Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on May 29 2013,1:56 pm

liberal:

QUOTE

Can you show me one example of anyone claiming that the attack on the Liberty wasn't a "violent attack"?

Can you give one example of mainstream media, Israeli leader or American presidential administration that said it was a violent attack and not a tragic accident?

liberal:

QUOTE

liberal:

QUOTE

So if I violently attack someone that I mistake for being someone else then it's not a violent attack, it's just a tragic accident? :dunce:

^ Exactly.

at·tack
/əˈtak/
Verb
Take aggressive action against (a place or enemy forces) with weapons or armed force: "in December, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor".
Noun
An aggressive and violent action against a person or place: "he was killed in an attack on a checkpoint".
Synonyms
verb. assault - assail
noun. assault - onset - aggression - fit - offensive - charge
======

ac·ci·dent
/ˈaksidənt/
Noun

An unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury.
A crash involving road or other vehicles, typically one that causes serious damage or injury.

Synonyms
mishap - chance - casualty - misadventure - fortuity

How are those two definitions interchangeable?

Derailer

So was it a violent attack or tragic accident? Botto and I say it was a violent attack. The governments and media are the ones who called it a tragic accident.

Posted by Botto 82 on May 29 2013,2:29 pm

Let's not get hung up on minutiae, okay?

It's a pretty safe bet that if this happened on Bush's watch, libbies everywhere would be outraged, and calling for the President's head on a pike, figuratively speaking.

Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on May 29 2013,2:54 pm

The US or Israel attack another country it's called preemptive defense. US kills innocent civilians with drone strikes, they're just collateral damage of preemptive defense. US bombs a Chinese Embassy it's a tragic accident. Israel bombs a US ship it's a tragic accident. Israel boards an unarmed flotilla in international waters and kills some people it's called a raid.

How many other countries could get away with these things?

Botto:

QUOTE

It's a pretty safe bet that if this happened on Bush's watch, libbies everywhere would be outraged, and calling for the President's head on a pike, figuratively speaking.

It's a stupid stupid game. People keep rooting for their favorite team. Freaking annoying.

Posted by Liberal on May 29 2013,7:13 pm

Seriously, how stupid does someone have to be to think that a violent attack isn't a violent attack if the wrong person is attacked? So if I beat the snot out of the kooks kid thinking it's someone else then it's not a violent attack because I accidentally beat the snot out of the wrong person?.

Perfect example of the Dunning–Kruger effect, and one more reason why parents that home school should be tested to make sure they have an IQ higher than room temp.

QUOTE

Israel boards an unarmed flotilla in international waters and kills some people it's called a raid.

I wonder how unarmed people stabbed Israeli soldiers?

Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on May 29 2013,8:31 pm

Reading comprehension isn't your thing is it.

I'm the one who keeps saying it was a violent attack, I'm the one who keeps saying the Israeli government, US government, and media NEVER said it was a violent attack.
You said to Botto:

QUOTE

Can you show me one example of anyone claiming that the attack on the Liberty wasn't a "violent attack"?

I answered for him.

QUOTE

The US and Israel, and all the news said the event with the USS Liberty was a "tragic accident". NOT a violent attack.

One example? That is every example. Both governments, all mainstream national media. NONE OF THEM SAID IT WAS A VIOLENT ATTACK, THEY ALL SAID IT WAS A TRAGIC ACCIDENT.

And where on earth did you get the idea that I home-school Mr. Twister?

Goodgod you are such a pathetic waste of time and energy.

Posted by Liberal on May 29 2013,9:28 pm

QUOTE

I'm the one who keeps saying it was a violent attack, I'm the one who keeps saying the Israeli government, US government, and media NEVER said it was a violent attack.

Let's try this again. You made the absurd claim that when you attack the wrong person it's not a violent attack but rather a tragic accident. In fact when I tried to clarify your position by asking "So if I violently attack someone that I mistake for being someone else then it's not a violent attack, it's just a tragic accident? " And your response was "^ Exactly. " :crazy:

What part was the tragic accident the two jets unloading their ordinance, the three torpedo boats, or the napalm bombs the second group of aircraft dropped?

QUOTE

And where on earth did you get the idea that I home-school Mr. Twister?

Goodgod you are such a pathetic waste of time and energy.

Sorry, I must have confused home school and reform school.

Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on May 29 2013,9:34 pm

liberal:

QUOTE

Let's try this again. You made the absurd claim that when you attack the wrong person it's not a violent attack but rather a tragic accident.

Really Mr. Twister?? You twisting or outright lying now?

Yeah, reading comprehension DEFINITELY is NOT your thing lol.