Rand Paul's 13 hour Filibuster

I don't think that the government would send drones to kill these people in all honesty. It would make for horrible press.

Then why do they want the ability to do so? If a person actively tries to gain a power to do something, they will not just get it and leave it alone/never use it.

If they won't use it, why do they need it? Better simply to not give it to them.

Then why do they want the ability to do so? If a person actively tries to gain a power to do something, they will not just get it and leave it alone/never use it.

If they won't use it, why do they need it? Better simply to not give it to them.

Maybe they actually want to stop dangerous individuals on US soil who are a threat to our country with respect to nuclear weapons and matters of catastrophic importance (if push comes to shove). Hypothetically speaking.

I don't know guys. Does anyone else want to back me up here. I'm starting to feel a little crazy.

Maybe they actually want to stop dangerous individuals on US soil who are a threat to our country with respect to nuclear weapons and matters of catastrophic importance (if push comes to shove). Hypothetically speaking.

Why not do it with the police? A drone can't make snap decisions and it can't properly evaluate any given situation it is put in even with a person remotely controlling it, there will be delays in judgment and even reception; a cop (usually) can do these things.
I don't see why this is needed, all it seems to be meant for it overreach of power and bypass of due process/rights of the people.

Much less to the extent that they would waste taxpayer money to send a drone to assassinate me.

That's just silly, they don't do anything BUT hemorrhage our money, why wouldn't they do so in this case?

Flonne is known for being paranoid but he does have a point. If the government doesn't like you (internet activists) by the current legislation they could destroy you without a trial. Wikileaks is probably the entire reason for this. I don't think it's a power a government should/can have, yet the entire legal system is so goddamn retarded we might as well save money and off them as they probably won't get a fair trial.

You're both missing the point this situation would only happen if and only if you were an imminent threat as in you just hacked our launch codes or something along those lines and only if we couldn't get to you any other way and capture is impossible then in that instance only dose a drone pay a visit to your house. This whole thing is about the CIA basically acting like a second military with less rules which disturbs the hell out of me.

Maybe they actually want to stop dangerous individuals on US soil who are a threat to our country with respect to nuclear weapons and matters of catastrophic importance (if push comes to shove). Hypothetically speaking.

I don't know guys. Does anyone else want to back me up here. I'm starting to feel a little crazy.

You're both missing the point this situation would only happen if and only if you were an imminent threat as in you just hacked our launch codes or something along those lines and only if we couldn't get to you any other way and capture is impossible then in that instance only dose a drone pay a visit to your house. This whole thing is about the CIA basically acting like a second military with less rules which disturbs the hell out of me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_al-Aulaqi

It's already happened, granted, not on US soil, but the fact the option exists is rather unsettling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_al-Aulaqi

It's already happened, granted, not on US soil, but the fact the option exists is rather unsettling.

Point taken. It's disappointing to see the wrong terrorist die in stead of another.

Curious if the problem was on the part of the operator who gave incorrect directives or the drone automatically attacking the wrong target.

Point taken. It's disappointing to see the wrong terrorist die in stead of another.

Curious if the problem was on the part of the operator who gave incorrect directives or the drone automatically attacking the wrong target.

We all do. The problem is the government is literally telling us "don't worry about it". I'm not an Obama hater but that has "King" -like written all over it.

That moment when everyone in this thread realizes that Swerve is only playing Devil's Advocate.

That moment when everyone in this thread realizes that Swerve is only playing Devil's Advocate.

No. Sadly I'm not.

That moment when everyone in this thread realizes that Swerve is only playing Devil's Advocate.

That doesn't somehow make all the points in the thread invalid, even if it were true.

Why not do it with the police? A drone can't make snap decisions and it can't properly evaluate any given situation it is put in even with a person remotely controlling it, there will be delays in judgment and even reception; a cop (usually) can do these things.
I don't see why this is needed, all it seems to be meant for it overreach of power and bypass of due process/rights of the people.


That's just silly, they don't do anything BUT hemorrhage our money, why wouldn't they do so in this case?

I support the use of drones, with the right amount oversight. A satellite FISA court or something would work, in the interest of quick decision-making.

Drone technology like any technology will continue to get better and become more effective. There are and will be situations where lives can be retained in the pursuit of a dangerous criminal or terrorist and with the right amount of oversight, I don't see why we shouldn't advance such a useful technology.

The issue here is executive restraint. The administration has a ton of unilateral authority and people have a good reason to believe additional checks and balances are in order.

Why not do it with the police? A drone can't make snap decisions and it can't properly evaluate any given situation it is put in even with a person remotely controlling it, there will be delays in judgment and even reception; a cop (usually) can do these things.
I don't see why this is needed, all it seems to be meant for it overreach of power and bypass of due process/rights of the people.

You know how you often say things like "if the government sends people to take my guns, they won't get out alive?"
That's why not do it with the police.
I wanted to tell you in a recent thread, "A tyrannical government, such as you are describing, won't send its people to politely knock on your door and get shot at. They'll send aircraft to turn your house into a crater from 30 miles away. Believing your guns will somehow protect you if the USA government goes evil, is at least a century out of date." I refrained then but I'm saying it now.

A person who is deemed a "ticking bomb", or an immediate and serious threat to national security, can be expected to be armed and dangerous. Why would the government send policemen to their deaths?

That said, the government will generally prefer to apprehend such persons alive, in order to question them (no doubt using methods you'd also object to). If they use drones or some other heavy-handed overkill, it's as a last resort. Not out of the goodness of their hearts, and not because they fear public outcry or legal action. Just their own self-interest. I really don't think you have any reason to fear drones randomly offing civilians on America's streets.

You know how you often say things like "if the government sends people to take my guns, they won't get out alive?"
That's why not do it with the police.
I wanted to tell you in a recent thread, "A tyrannical government, such as you are describing, won't send its people to politely knock on your door and get shot at. They'll send aircraft to turn your house into a crater from 30 miles away. Believing your guns will somehow protect you if the USA government goes evil, is at least a century out of date." I refrained then but I'm saying it now.

A person who is deemed a "ticking bomb", or an immediate and serious threat to national security, can be expected to be armed and dangerous. Why would the government send policemen to their deaths?

That said, the government will generally prefer to apprehend such persons alive, in order to question them (no doubt using methods you'd also object to). If they use drones or some other heavy-handed overkill, it's as a last resort. Not out of the goodness of their hearts, and not because they fear public outcry or legal action. Just their own self-interest. I really don't think you have any reason to fear drones randomly offing civilians on America's streets.

We'd be much more classy

I wanted to tell you in a recent thread, "A tyrannical government, such as you are describing, won't send its people to politely knock on your door and get shot at. They'll send aircraft to turn your house into a crater from 30 miles away. Believing your guns will somehow protect you if the USA government goes evil, is at least a century out of date." I refrained then but I'm saying it now.

There would be a revolution in this country LONG before it reached that point. Half the country is already on the edge of it now. That's the most extreme example of why guns are important; if the government has become too corrupt, they exist to allow the people a forceful method of overthrowing it.

There would be a revolution in this country LONG before it reached that point. Half the country is already on the edge of it now. That's the most extreme example of why guns are important; if the government has become too corrupt, they exist to allow the people a forceful method of overthrowing it.

Yeah, because a bunch of people armed with (at most) machine guns can overthrow a corrupt government armed with, for instance, drones...

Yeah, because a bunch of people armed with (at most) machine guns can overthrow a corrupt government armed with, for instance, drones...

Actually, considering how the government is treating the military right now, especially with the cuts/medical care, the military might actually work in favor of the civilians.

Yeah, because a bunch of people armed with (at most) machine guns can overthrow a corrupt government armed with, for instance, drones...

Quantity sometimes overwhelms. Unless they decide it is necessary to nuke their own citizens on their own soil, in which case, I'm pretty sure the rest of the world would say, "hey, maybe they don't have pomegranate under control anymore, they just nuked themselves".

Actually, considering how the government is treating the military right now, especially with the cuts/medical care, the military might actually work in favor of the civilians.

Actually, considering how the government is treating the military right now, especially with the cuts/medical care, the military might actually work in favor of the civilians.

In which case the civilians don't need any weapons at all. And perhaps shouldn't have them so they don't shoot at the military and antagonize them.

[MENTION=2088]Flonne[/MENTION]; who said anything about nukes? This thread is talking about remote-controlled conventional weaponry.

In which case the civilians don't need any weapons at all. And perhaps shouldn't have them so they don't shoot at the military and antagonize them.

[MENTION=2088]Flonne[/MENTION]; who said anything about nukes? This thread is talking about remote-controlled conventional weaponry.

You said "if the government were corrupt guns would do us no good", and, "for INSTANCE, drones", as in, ONE EXAMPLE IS DRONES. Don't use some silly backpedal argument like that; if they reached a point where they didn't care what they had to do to control the people, they would hold nothing back in doing so, be it drones or nukes or biological weaponry or anything else. Right now, we aren't to that point; we still have one of the best working governments in the world, even if that is only comparatively and it doesn't necessarily mean our government is "good". We've had a bad run of presidents for a very long time; first with Clinton and his idiotic ideas for the housing market that eventually was one of the major contributors to a huge recession (at least on the banks side), then with Bush and his huge overexpenditure on military that was another major contributor to a huge recession and terrible PR, and now with Obama and his everything. We can't do much good if the most powerful person that represents the country should be in a mental institute.

And who says drones can't be modified to carry nuclear armaments?

Strawman much?
You decide the government will nuke its citizens and then show how absurd that is and what the world will think. Well, maybe that's why they won't do it?

"For instance" means that the government also has GPS-guided and other "smart" bombs, manually guided bombs, cannons, ground-based rockets, and any number of other ways to deliver a destructive amount of conventional explosives to a person-, car-, or house-sized target. It doesn't have to be a pistol-carrying policeman or a town-killer nuke. Plenty of other options there.