Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: I Respect the Anti-Drone Position, but I am Still Very Ambivalent [View all]Marr
(20,317 posts)72. I already have, repeatedly.
Aren't you the guy who claims he didn't say a thing that's in the title of a post two slots up? Is this your whole debate strategy? Just ask for things to be repeated? I have to say, it seems a bit stupid in a written format, where you could just glance up.
Anyway, here's the difference:
One is the targeted killing of American citizens, not in a combat zone, not engaged in any hostile activity, purely on the order of the Executive Branch, with no review of any sort.
The other was a man wanted for direct involvement in a whole string of devastating terrorist attacks by multiple US and foreign agencies and for whom capture was extremely risky or outright unfeasible.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
80 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
It's Not About Which Team Is Good or Bad. It's About How Do You Protect Civilization From Random
Yavin4
Feb 2013
#10
Yes, James Bond and all that "extra-legal" action (Cf.: "1972 Olympic Massacre, Revenge").
WinkyDink
Feb 2013
#60
What method would you use to prevent acts of terrorism against civilian populations?
Yavin4
Feb 2013
#13
The only truly constitutional method would be to ask the terrorist group to surrender
Yavin4
Feb 2013
#25
Elaborate. Because just typing "constitutional ones" is a complete admission you've got nothing.
KittyWampus
Feb 2013
#27
It's called police work, FGS. Do you suggest just killing people BEFORE A CRIME?
WinkyDink
Feb 2013
#64
If you think the U.S. invades "at the behest of" anyone, I've got the swampland.
WinkyDink
Feb 2013
#66
I think The Magistrate gives an effective counter to all of your arguments.
stevenleser
Feb 2013
#11
Now you are arguing slippery slope, as if this or a future administration is going to use drones
stevenleser
Feb 2013
#43
Oh sure, 2-3 out of the billions of trips Americans have made abroad over the past 4 yrs
stevenleser
Feb 2013
#36
It's not a straw man, slippery slope is your argument here when facts suggest otherwise.
stevenleser
Feb 2013
#51
In another country thousands of miles away where we are operating with the government's invite...
randome
Feb 2013
#79
How about just go with the Constitution instead of contorted A.G. justifications?
WinkyDink
Feb 2013
#56
I believe the Democracy Now report found that there are no boundaries on the targeted killing,
Fire Walk With Me
Feb 2013
#80