JayC

Ok, lets agree to disagree on the two adults....     Lets focus on the teenager...    While there maybe some very limited situations where premeditated killing of a criminal is lawful...   But, most situations it would not be...  So don't you think in all cases, we should have a clearly defined process of determining which Americans deserve to be killed and which shouldn't?  Shouldn't that process be open to third party review (courts or at least congressional oversight)?  And when that process isn't followed and an innocent is killed should their not be criminal sanctions?   And all of this should be done in the public 'light of day' at the very least after the fact?    

And you don't think the cops won't be among those that riot?  They're part of the problem (budget wise).  Look again at police and fire unions.    

Maybe my education is lacking, but recruiting and financing for AQAP may very well be a crime, but does not meet the definition of "engaged in combat" nor an imminent threat.  Nor do they constitute an act of war, or make somebody an unlawful enemy combatant.  Therefore not covered under the same theory of how a policeman shoots and armed suspect, or a SWAT officer uses deadly force to end a hostage stand off.   Lets pretend that certain aspects of recruiting maybe rise to the level of 'operational', but never to the level of 'engaged in combat'...  but where is that line drawn?  Is providing religious advice, even if that advice justifies armed attacks on the US 'operational'?  Where exactly does a persons free exercise of religion and preaching that religion turn into an operational terrorist activity? Further, where is the proof that he was doing anything operational?   Khan is an entirely different story, there is no way to describe anything he was doing as operational in nature.  It's likely that all of his documented activities were legal.   Since you don't believe the story behind Abdulrahman Anwar al-Aulaqi's killing what do you think happened?  

Involvement does not equal, "engaged in combat".  There is little doubt that both of the men were 'involved', Aulaqi may very well have been operational, but I just don't think the President (any President) should get to pick and choose which american citizens he gets to kill.  Even more so when that same President denied in court the existence of the "kill list", didn't charge him with a crime, and made no attempt to capture him.  Khan was almost certainly not 'operational' let alone imminent threat.     But, you again glossed over the son, a 16 year old with no direct ties to any terrorist organization.  Nobody has claimed he was "operational", or "engaged in combat", yet it appears as if he could have been targeted.  So explain to me exactly how we justify the killing of a unarmed 16 year old eating dinner on the side of the road?     

Yes the economy is not doing well, but how do you explain that crime is at an all time low?  And it would go a lot lower if we'd get rid of the war on drugs.   Cities that have reduced the number of police officers have not seen an increase in violent crime.   SWAT teams are largely used to serve warrants on non-violent offenses now, instead of what they were designed to do 30 years ago.   And why exactly does a police department need automatic rifles and an APC?   Frankly we could cut the police department in half, do away with unconstitutional laws and prohibitions and the vasdt majority of us wouldn't notice the difference.  

I think it would be legal on your back via a sling.  The law doesn't appear to prohibit the handling of the semi-loaded long gun :)    

I think that was a reference to the fact that Lincoln was probably the worse President in the history of this country.  And Obama is just continuing on the bad track record of Presidents elected from Illinois.  

Aulaqi - Show me the proof, just because a politician who has been proven to lie to the American people about the threat of terrorism says so doesn't count in my book.  Or do you still believe the attack in Libya was all about an Internet video?  The simple fact is he was never even charged with a crime, never even given the opportunity to turn himself in, and when his family filed suit in federal court the US government wouldn't even confirm if he was being targeted for death.    The son was not collateral damage in the strike on al-Banna, there were 3 strikes on Yemen that day, the strike that killed al-Banna was 11 or 12 miles from the strike that killed Abdulrahman.  Also, the first press release from the government indicated he was targeted as a "21 year old military aged male", until his US birth certificate surfaced proving he had just turned 16, then they started feeding the 'collateral' damage story.  Go back and re-read the news accounts at no time has the Government publicly stated he was killed in the al-Banna strike, only that they happened on the same day in the same "area".   Also, if he wasn't targeted and just happened to be killed as collateral damage, why did it the government announced his death in a drone strike just hours after the attack?  It sure seems like they knew he was there and he was the intended target.   As for Samir Khan, there was no claim by the government he was "operational", or an "immediate threat", he also had not even been charged with a crime.  It's likely everything he did was covered by the 1st Amendment protections since it appears all he did was publish a anti-american magazine.  If that is a crime why haven't we bombed the Washington Post yet? :)   Until this day the government still refuses to even release the legal memo that outlines exactly how these targeted killings of Americans work, the public is left in the dark on what constitutes an imminent threat, or what "engaged in combat" means exactly.  How can we had a program that at the very least targeted two american citizens for death, and the legal justification for the program is still secret after the fact?  What could be in that memo that requires that it be kept hidden from public view?   And we're now almost two years after the killings, why can't the government release the intelligence that proves any of these citizens were "operationally" involved in terrorism?  Redact the sources and methods from the reports and let us see the raw intelligence.  

Ok, so explain to me under the second memo how the 3 US citizens who have been killed by orders of the President were engaged in combat against the US?   What is the process for determining who is 'engaged in combat'?  Is that death sentence and all the supporting documentation a matter of public record?  Is the person deemed to be engaged in combat afforded an appeals process?   How come we can't use the same standard for deadly force against American citizens that our police departments use?     Nobody is suggesting that an armed individual (whether they're armed with a firearm, explosives, or an airplane) can't be killed in self defense or defense of others....     But how does am unarmed 16 year old sitting on the side of the road eating dinner pose an immediate threat to any American citizen?  How exactly is that 16 year old engaged in combat with the US?   My issue here is that Rand Paul isn't going far enough in his question...  We are afforded constitutional protections of God given rights everywhere we go from the US government.  It's no more legal to kill an American citizen with no due process in the United States than in a foreign country under our Constitution.  

Except based on other leaked documents what they consider to be a 'imminent threat' and 'engaged in combat' seem to defy common understanding of those terms.  

Your 9/11 airplane example, didn't happen...  We'll never know if that action would have been held as constitutional or not.  The end result could have been the President (or in reality the vice-President who gave the order) could have been charged with 44 counts of murder.   Although I highly doubt that outcome...  At least in that example you have a valid self defense claim, the aircraft posed a risk to the lives of people on the ground, and therefore using deadly force to save them is justified.  It would have been justified without an order from the President, for a military pilot to make that call on their own.   But what Rand Paul is asking is if a person does not pose a immediate threat can they be killed under the Presidents current drone program... and Holders answer was YES.  The drones are besides the point, if the President ordered the killing of a citizen by Special Forces the illegality of the action wouldn't be any different.     The only reason drones are at the center of this is so far the President has only used drones to killing American citizens who posed not immediate threat to others.    

A President can't order the killing of an American citizen without violating the 5th amendment of the constitution.  An individual solider or police officer can use self defense or defense of a third party.   An elected leader ordering the killing of another citizen with no due process is simply murder in all circumstances.    

What whole part about 'public danger' in the 5th amendment?  Lets post the 5th amendment and point out to me the "public danger" part:     Now, as for your thoughts on a police officer using self defense, or deadly force in defense of a third party, there are a couple of flaws in your logic. First, every citizen in this state can defend themselves and others from a criminal threatening serious bodily injury or death.  That self defense is not an action by the state, but by the person...  whether that person is a police officer or not, and we label those killings as justified homicide.  Nobody is questioning a police officer using self defense or defense of a third party in those situations.   The issue is when a person poses no immediate threat of death of serious injury to others, that person is protected by the constitution whether the President says their a terrorist or not, period.  There are no exceptions to that.   So it's a simple test, if you could legally shoot somebody in self defense if placed in the police officers shoes, then it's a non-state action and justified self defense - not covered by the constitution.  If you would be charged with murder for killing somebody in those same shoes, then it's a criminal act which if done by a government official is also a civil rights violation under the color of law.    

Then go re-read the US Constitution and explain how they dance around that pesky 5th Amendment.    

6.8 Thanks I think :)   I do have a detailed plan for getting the country out of debt all of which could be done without any amendments to the constitution and be completely constitutional.  Not that anybody would ever listen to crazy old me ;)    

I'm a member, because the SAF is really getting things done....  They do call often but it's not anymore annoying than the NRA calls and junk in the mail.

I think you're right, and we should put the federal government through a bankruptcy, using unconstitutional holdings as property to be transferred to the people holding social security 'bonds'.  But the fact is social security is a tax not an insurance policy.   Trust me there are lots of radical ideas I'd put forward that are constitutional to greatly reduce the size of government.  Including limiting or doing away with a standing army.    

F-Troops strikes again, or did 3 years ago :)  At least their so worried about toy guns they aren't out bothering any law abiding gun owners ;)

Unarmed millions, the one time the Jews fought back, outnumbered 10 to 1 by the Nazi forces with handguns and bolt action rifles, they held off 2100 troops with over a hundred fixed machine guns, artillery, and 900+ SS special forces.  While finally over ran, they held the city for a month, and killed nearly 300 Nazi's.   And we're not unarmed sheep.   The real question is would you stand by with proof that the government was killing without trial 10,000 or 100,000 civilians?  Or would you pickup your hunting rifle and help put an end to the tyranny?    

TMF,   I disagree that people some of the founded were slave owners that we should toss out the protections in the constitution.  Just as I'm very sure that your average progressive would still fight for democracy even though the Greeks were also slave owners ;)   I do have a couple of fundamental issues with the constitution, first I think our founding fathers placed too much faith in the good nature of man.  They should have included a 'fourth' branch of government who were completely separate watchers of the government with the power to charge and bring to trial employees and members of the government who violated the law or their oath.  A branch completely unbeholden to anybody in elected office, and prohibited for life from making a single penny off of the government.   Second, I have a moral question about how previous generations can bind yet unborn generations to laws and restrictions on liberty and give them no say in the matter.  All other contracts in this country have an expiration date, except the laws of the land, we're still stuck with a constitution voted on by a small fraction of the population in 1870, which removed a number of freedoms and liberties from the previous constitution, yet somehow I'm bound by these terms and conditions imposed by 5 or 6 generations ago?  How is that moral?   Or better yet, what my grandparents and parents generation are doing to my child's future by selling her into slavery to pay for their retirement and healthcare.  It's somehow her fault they got taken in a government sponsored ponzi scheme, so they're going to make her give up her liberty and future prospects to pay for her mistakes?  How on earth can that be moral?   The real problem in this country?  Nobody is willing to face facts that the government IS the problem,    

I disagree it does a lot of good...  First, it doesn't matter what you believe, only what I do...  my freedom comes from my humanity, not a piece of paper written 226 years ago.   Remember that democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner.  Liberty is a well armed sheep contesting the vote.   If they come for my liberties, I plan on being a well armed something ;)   Part of our problem is that most people can't think rationally and without passion at critical issues.  By allowing another persons freedom to be trampled for the 'good of society', they setup the argument for their liberty to be trampled next week.   There are lots of things I hate or dislike, very few of them I think should be illegal.  I just want to be left alone, and I'm happy to leave others alone in return.    

Which is why our founding fathers put in place a Constitution which limited the tyranny of the majority.      

For all this effort, we could have had the criminal penalty for 39-17-1359 removed, which would have resulted in the exact same thing.  Maybe even changed 39-17-1308 to include a persons vehicle so no permit would be required to have a loaded firearm in your car.    

More importantly you can't lock up or kill 9 million people...  You have to deal with them, it would force at the very least a political agreement to end the insurgency.  IE look at Afghanistan and Iraq where the 'insurgents' were given seats of power in the government.   Even 1% of the population would be 3.15 million which would out number all of our armed government agents, assuming some chunk of the military and the people who provide logistics to the military don't go with the insurgency, and then you have the people who don't want any part of this fight that get up and just go home...  The Federal Government would have a hard time putting together 1 million man army against any insurgency.     

3 on your person?  A lot of people who know me think I'm paranoid for 2 on my person...  Care to give us insight on why you're considering three?