Nonny, on 07 March 2013 - 03:08 PM, said:
I can't provide a link for this, because I don't know how to link stuff I find on Facebook, but it is from a page called Being Liberal:
TO SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT:
1. We do not support ANY killings by the US Federal and States Governments. That includes legal executions and non-judiciary killings by any means - INCLUDING drones. As liberals, we are pro-life.
2. No US Citizen was ever killed by a drone on US soil. Attorney General Eric Holder has said: “..the US government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so. As a policy matter moreover, we reject the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat...”
3. Yes , there is merit to the topic of drone usage. It is worth open discussion. Let's not forget that drones are the bastard children of the Patriot Act - brought to you by the Bush Administration and the GOP warmongers in the post 9/11 hysteria. We as a society are almost all guilty of silently approving this.
4. We, as liberals are MORE concerned by the real death and suffering of the countless civilians that the US military categorizes as “collateral damage”, than by one more paranoidal fear about the hypothetical killing of US Citizens by drones. The same people who used to talk about “black hawk helicopters" now talk about drones. We question motives, form and timing of Rand Paul’s political theater performance.
As I suspected, this is a topic we can find a lot of agreement on.
It pains me to read posts that seem to suggest that Rand Paul's hypotheticals are established fact. They are not.
Except no one is saying it has happened. We are talking about the statement from Holder that said, under certain circumstances, the President would have the right to do it. Except the circumstances weren't clarified.
Now, I can agree that what Holder wasn't so suspect as far as any "intention" or "probability" of this administration. I can cede that point.
But, I do think that Americans need to look at the topic as a whole. You are right, this is the bastard child of the Patriot Act. We were right to complain about that abomination of legislation. But, now someone is adding another layer to the Patriot Act.
What will the next President do?
We, as citizens, need to draw a clear line for our leaders, so that regardless of political bent, they know what we will tolerate and what we won't tolerate. So, like I said before, I don't care who is President, this has to stop. We do not have to have dead bodies from a drone attack in the streets of Los Angeles before we raise our voices. It doesn't have to have happened already. It is enough for the President to assert his right to do it.
No one said much when the drone killed the American overseas. No one said, where was his trial? Where was his attorney? Where were the witnesses against him? No, label him a terrorist and he was dead. Well even Tim McVeigh got a trial.
We are a nation of laws and the citizens of this country have the right of Due Process. no where in the Constitution does it say that a terrorist [or a traitor] has no rights. In fact, it's quite explicit in naming the rights of a traitor in the Constitution.
And this has been done. It's not just a "what if?". It happened. As a nation we need to have this conversation. How far are we willing to let our leaders go in our name? And, how much are we willing to give up to do it? These are moral questions, not political ones [imo].