Egads, it ate my reply

Post #372,437 by S1mon_Jester 3/12/13 8:25:39 AM Reply	Egads, it ate my reply and it was one hell of a reply. This will have to do... The issue of carrying guns is a bit weak, but it's not the issue. The complaint of Rand (and in the post below) is that Executive Authority is overreaching (by the Dems) by saying they have the right (and ability) to decide to execute Americans on American soil. Actually the case is worse that that - the President can decide to execute innocent Americans WHO HAVE DONE NOTHING WRONG on American soil. And Rand would (I think) approve. Nevermind the Patriot Act that (iirc) Rand voted for - that allows Americans to be held indefinitely (and tortured) on American soil....all without having to prove a damn thing. No, if you consider United Flight 93, the President has the authority (and...no doubt Rand would argue, the obligation) to shoot down an airliner that was hijacked and threatened Americans. Last I check, this would arbitrarily kill the innocent Americans also onboard the aircraft. (Perhaps Rand has some other mechanism to get them off safely?) So...my only question - does it matter if the missile that shoots down the airliner is fired by an Air Force pilot (acting under orders) or by an armed drone (also acting under orders)? Because in Rand's mixed up universe - it seems to matter.
Post #372,438 by folkert 3/12/13 9:36:00 AM Reply	From your reply... Actually the case is worse that that - the President can decide to execute innocent Americans WHO HAVE DONE NOTHING WRONG on American soil. Wrong. BONK. The whole thing is about Americans engaged in actions of terror committed against the United States in an Emergency Situation. Yes it is vague... Even if the person(s) are Legal Citizen(s) of the United States, if they are determined to be enemy combatants or threats of grave concern, use of non-drone methods is authorized. I guess, all those authorized non-drone strikes in the glory days of Ronnie Raygun don't count, or the ones Bush the 1st or W authorized... either. Of course, though, the BAD stuff Carter and Clinton did are inexcusable. Meh. -- greg@gregfolkert.net PGP key 1024D/B524687C 2003-08-05 Fingerprint: E1D3 E3D7 5850 957E FED0 2B3A ED66 6971 B524 687C
Post #372,471 by S1mon_Jester 3/13/13 12:00:29 AM Reply	Re: From your reply... Wrong. BONK. The whole thing is about Americans engaged in actions of terror committed against the United States in an Emergency Situation. Yes it is vague... Stop. If we concede that the President has the abililty/right to kill innocent Americans -- then I'll argue he can fall back to that when it's Americans engaged in actions of terror committed against the United States. Thus Rand's point is a non-sequitur. (hint: this is my point) Rand is attempting to argue a strawman...that the US would NEVER kill innocent Americans...unfortuately, no one has called him on this and pointed out that he is therefore siding with the Terrorists.
Post #372,442 by mmoffitt 3/12/13 11:09:20 AM Reply	Payne Stewart and KAL007. When PGA golfer Payne Stewart's crew became incapacitated, Air Force jets followed the aircraft until it ran out of fuel and literally fell out of the sky (somewhere around the Dakotas or Montana IIRC). Had the aircraft veered into airspace above a populated area, it would have been shot down so that the crash was not over a populated area. Here, it was assumed that all aboard the small aircraft were dead already. Then there's KAL007. I know that wasn't us, but given everything that's come out it's hard to argue that we didn't at least let that happen. And there was at least one American aboard that flight. So, you're right, we've always been willing to kill innocents or at least allow innocents to be killed. What is different, I'd argue, is that this is the first time we've had a Presidential Administration explicitly state (through the Attorney General no less) that Presidents have a right to kill innocent Americans without review and free from investigation or oversight. Which, imho, runs somewhat counter to the ideas expressed in our Constitution.
Post #372,456 by Another Scott 3/12/13 6:14:59 PM Reply	s / one American / one American Congressman /
Post #372,480 by mmoffitt 3/13/13 10:13:48 AM Reply	s / at least one American / 61 Americans / Thanks, Scott. I was doing that from memory, which at my advanced age is faulty. I knew there were Americans aboard, but had forgotten how many.

Welcome to IWETHEY!