FSTDT Forums
Community => Politics and Government => Topic started by: booley on March 08, 2013, 04:45:06 pm
-
Basically after asking Holder if Obama could target drones on Americans who weren't attacking the US and Holder gave a flat out "No", both senators thinks this means there should be a law.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/08/ted-cruz-rand-paul-drones_n_2838662.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009
Maybe it's me but shouldn't' we concentrate on solving problems that exist first?
-
Since we're making laws to stop things that are not happening, I propose we make a law that outlaws the cloning of dictators.
We've already not seen the threat of cloning people such as Pol Pot, Hitler and Stalin. This nonexistent threat is so great, we must fight it with a law from Congress.
We cannot afford to ignore the fiction of a threat by these yet to be reanimated totalitarians.
-
But... but... if Obama isn't going to shoot at us with drones, what am I going to do with the arsenal I've been stockpiling? D:
-
But... but... if Obama isn't going to shoot at us with drones, what am I going to do with the arsenal I've been stockpiling? D:
Of course, it's only an "if".
-
I'd just like to point out something:
Maybe this law isn't as useless as you think. What if the next president would like to kill US citizens with drones. Or the next one. Or maybe Obama changes his mind. Laws are supposed to be a limit, list of things we don't want people to do. There are laws against murder although most people go trhough their whole lives without murdering anyone.
Besides: Laws and goverment powers should not be based on who happens to be in power at the time. For example: I don't think president Niinistö would start executing people if he doesn't like their hair BUT I would not want the parliament to make a law saying "President can sentence people to death if their hair looks bad." Simply saying, "it's cool, I know that this president would not misuse that law" is not a good defense because we don't know who will be the next president.
Very silly example, I know.
In the case of Obama and the drones, Obama has used the drones to kill citizens of USA. This was according to the laws of USA and within his powers as a president. Making a law limiting that power to does not seem like a bad idea.
I do admit that this is not the most important thing for your country right now but it doesn't mean that it should not be done either.
-
Given how the American Government seems to treat its own citizens and the citizens of other countries a law like this may actually be a good thing.
That is of course assuming that the government does not just ignore it an continue killing people without cause or trial as they are doing right now.They haven't used drones to kill US citizens on US soil yet, but it wouldn't surprise me if that started happening in the near future.
-
But... but... if Obama isn't going to shoot at us with drones, what am I going to do with the arsenal I've been stockpiling? D:
A better question is what, exactly, do you expect your arsenal to be able to do against a drone?
-
But... but... if Obama isn't going to shoot at us with drones, what am I going to do with the arsenal I've been stockpiling? D:
A better question is what, exactly, do you expect your arsenal to be able to do against a drone?
Given about half are apparently broadcasting their cameras un-encyrpted, better than you may expect.
I'm still dumbfounded by that. We had insurgents with WiFi devices tapping into drones and getting out of dodge if one came their way.
-
But... but... if Obama isn't going to shoot at us with drones, what am I going to do with the arsenal I've been stockpiling? D:
A better question is what, exactly, do you expect your arsenal to be able to do against a drone?
Given about half are apparently broadcasting their cameras un-encyrpted, better than you may expect.
I'm still dumbfounded by that. We had insurgents with WiFi devices tapping into drones and getting out of dodge if one came their way.
...please tell me that's a joke. I don't care if you have to lie. Please, oh please, just tell me that we haven't put the multi-million dollar killing machines in the hands of people that stupid.
-
Used to be that none of them where.
I'm not sure how it got out of the paper airplane phase without encryption involved myself. But apparently all the way back when we were in Bosnia, people getting Drone feeds over their fucking satilite TV hook ups.
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/12/army_uav_hack_122009w/
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/10/hack-proof-drone/
Thanks to a fucking CRACKED article. CRACKED.
-
Cracked is funny that way. You go there for dick jokes but sometimes they uncover something truly beautiful, horrifying or just incredibly funny. Sometimes all three at once.
And thats just the dick jokes.
Cracked articles can also be pretty educational.
-
Passing a law to underscore the illegality of drones targeting law abiding US citizens in the US is nice and all, but the cat's been outta the bag a long time. A sufficiently rogue president or even just drone operators can and probably will use drones to murder Americans who are deemed politically inconvenient someday...just a matter of time, really.
-
Passing a law to underscore the illegality of drones targeting law abiding US citizens in the US is nice and all, but the cat's been outta the bag a long time. A sufficiently rogue president or even just drone operators can and probably will use drones to murder Americans who are deemed politically inconvenient someday...just a matter of time, really.
Pretty much.
IF we look back at history, whenever the US does something shitty to it's citizens they typically try it out on non citizens first.
It's almost as if we have to protect the rights of people who aren't us, even people we may hate, in order to protect our own rights.
weird.
-
Accusing Obama of using drones to target US citizens is committing a typical fallacy of paranoid nutjobs: assuming that the president is a dictator, able to freely go rogue and do whatever he wants regardless of the will of everyone else.
The only situation that will lead to the US government legally assassinating its own citizens to prevent dissent will be one in which the laws no longer matter, because all branches of government have gone evil by that point. They can change the laws at will.
-
Accusing Obama of using drones to target US citizens is committing a typical fallacy of paranoid nutjobs: assuming that the president is a dictator, able to freely go rogue and do whatever he wants regardless of the will of everyone else.
Did they accuse Obama specifically? Does the proposed law state that it only forbids Barak Hussein Obama from using drones to kill US citicens or is it about limiting the powers of the POTUS no matter who he is?
Actually after checking the proposal it looks like it says that the FEDERAL GOVERMENT is not allowed to use drones to kill US citizens. No matter who is the president or which party is in charge.
I know that these people are anti-Obama but the way the law has been written it does not sound that bad.
-
The thing about Obama was a bit of a tangent, mostly because many of the people who make these accusations love to accuse the president (as long as he's politically their opposite, at least) of playing a major personal part in things.
Regardless, my point still stands: if the government gets to the point where they're willing to stamp out dissent through drone strikes on their own citizens in their homes, any past laws will likely no longer matter.