WarAngel

That is one of the stupidest articles I've ever read. Professional sports are about one thing and one thing alone: production. A player can be a bad person and still play IF he is productive (Barry Bonds). Hamilton has not had anything even close to resembling decent production in line with his compensation. On top of all that is the fact that he relapsed. In the last 2 years he has shown that he is incapable of helping the team as a player (Cron's production is likely to be at least as good as Hamilton's at this point) and Hamilton has become a huge distraction. The only questionable thing is trading him to an in division rival, but at this point the Rangers may be the only other team in baseball willing to have him.

My first 2 thoughts as he was approaching home plate: -Don't do it! -Shouldn't the team have a policy about this?

My 6 year old daughter writes more interesting and factually accurate stories than T.J. Simers.

I agree that the military use of armed drones on American soil is not a valid question. But I disagree that there is zero reasoning to think that domestic law enforcement agencies would not seek to have the authority to use armed drones here. The fact that the technology is available, and currently being used by the DHS (unarmed drones for surveillance purposes only at this time) it is a logical extension that they might want to use them on American soil for certain situations. One such situation that would seem like a plausible case for the use of an armed drone was with Chris Dorner. A dangerous, armed threat in a fairly remote location who actively posed a threat to law enforcement. In such a case I can see a justifiable request by any law enforcement agency to use a drone strike to kill someone. He has met the qualifications of imminent threat IMO. However the change of the definition of "imminent threat" by the Obama administration expands the idea of using a drone to someone like Ted Kaczinsky. Living in a remote area, suspected of being a threat but with no specific evidence that he was going to commit another crime. A drone attack would be justifiable given the Obama administration's definition of "imminent threat". To me, the issue of using armed drones on American soil isn't so much about the use of the technology. Drones have a justifiable place in the government's arsenal of weapons to fight crime both here and abroad. However, IMO the question is: Does the governments expansion of the definition of "imminent threat" violate the 5th amendment? Their official position with the use of drones overseas says "an "imminent" threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons will take place in the immediate future." I don't think that it is a stretch to think that domestic law enforcement agencies could use the same definition to justify killing someone whom they do not have clear evidence that he poses a threat to anyone now or in the immediate future.

I agree that the U.S. military would have the legal authority to use predator drones on U.S. soil (even against American citizens) under some circumstances (foreign military invasion, civil war, etc.) But the U.S. military (excluding the Coast Guard and National Guard) is not allowed to operate in a law enforcement capacity on U.S. soil and so would not be tracking any enemy combatant (terrorist or otherwise) on U.S. soil. So the inclusion of "home" in your statement of "home or abroad" is pointless as long as we are limiting the use of drones to the military. The question, as I see it, is not whether or not the military can use predator drones to kill American's on U.S. soil, but whether the U.S. government can kill anyone (citizen or not) who does not actively pose a threat without due process. Since the Coast Guard, National Guard, FBI, Department of Homeland Security, ATF, and I'm sure several other agencies do have "military" capabilities and could (if they don't already) have access to drones, the question remains. Could these agencies (with drones or by other means) legally kill someone who does not pose an imminent threat without due process? The question of drone use on American soil against Americans is a narrow focus of this larger question, but it's one that should be answered by our government (the Attorney General and the President in particular). The reason this question should be answered is that our government has stretched the concept of "imminent threat" to an absurd level (IMO) such that it has no real meaning. According to the Obama administration: "the condition that an operational leader present an "imminent" threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons will take place in the immediate future." So, they have already stated that they don't have to have any evidence that anything will happen now or in the immediate future. They just have to suspect that it will and that is justification for the military to use a drone to kill someone. It's not a stretch to believe that this same logic would be used by a domestic law enforcement agency as a justification to kill someone here without due process considering the concept of "imminent threat" now means that the government simply suspects that you might attack at some time in the future. In my untrained legal opinion, it would be illegal for the U.S. government (excluding the military) to kill any person who does not actively pose a threat (whether or not they were an American and whether or not they were on American soil). Also, the idea that "imminent threat" does not require clear evidence that a specific attack will take place in the immediate future is asinine. So, while I agree that the question of military use of armed drones on American soil is generally pointless, the question of armed drones being used on American soil in a law enforcement capacity is valid and may very soon not be simply a hypothetical question.

Our government is a fat, bloated, pig of a man who desperately needs to go on a diet before he dies of a massive heart attack. The sequester is like that same man clipping his toe nails and saying he lost weight.

First, no. Second, it's not Scioscia's fault they've missed three playoffs the last three years, it's mine. I moved out of SoCal right after pitchers and catchers reported in 2009, so I get credit for the playoffs that year. But the last three are completely my fault because I moved away. Sorry guys!

The mobile version is great! After several years of no access from work I can finally get to Angelswin from my phone where I can actually read some posts. Thanks Chuck!

I used to be on here all the time, but due to a job change a few years ago (and restricted internet access) I haven't had as much time to be on here. But now with the mobile version of the site, I'm excited to get back into the thick of it with my fellow Angels fans! So loving the new site!

Formerly in Monrovia, but now living in Lakewood, Colorado.