Quote:
Originally Posted by Originalist
He made a reference to "SWAT" type situations. maybe the Liquor store analogy was not the best. But a ratioanlly thinking person can see what he meant. There is no flip flop here. Even if there are currently no armed SWAT drones, there will be eventually, and he is simply heading off that issue. I'm glad he did. people are making a big deal out of nothing here. He's obviously not endorsing the military or any other federal agency involving themselves in local law enforcment matters.
|
Your use of "rational thinking" is out of place. To think rationally means to make a choice using a set of constraints; thinking reasonably. There is no rational basis for using a drone to execute a common thug. A rational person is the person like myself and others, questioning his statement. You and others are the ones giving talking points, while others like myself are actually stating specific problems with his statement.
If you compare his filibuster speech to this statement, the statement is diametrically opposed to his speech on the Senate floor. In fact, his statement yesterday surpasses the reason for his filibuster. If you remember, his reason for the filibuster was because the President and DOJ would not commit to answering whether or not they would use drones to kill US citizens who are enemy combatants on US soil.
Enemy combatants are NOT simple liquor store robbers. They're not just criminal thugs. Enemy combatants are defined in relation to terrorism, not theft.
His statement is not only a flip-flop, but it goes well beyond what the President and AG Holder were noncommittal about.
Threaded Mode
