Domestic use of Drones. Yes or No; and Policy ???

Lamarr

Star
Registered
Christopher Dorner Becomes First Human Target For Drones On US Soil

The slippery slope.

"It was revealed that Dorner has become the first human target for remotely-controlled airborne drones on US soil.

A senior police source said: “The thermal imaging cameras the drones use may be our only hope of finding him. On the ground, it’s like looking for a needle in a haystack.”

Asked directly if drones have already been deployed, Riverside Police Chief Sergio Diaz, who is jointly leading the task force, said: “We are using all the tools at our disposal.”
 
Re: Drone attacks

So, Lamar; does that mean drones should never be used - or its about time we drop the politics and "sides" and come up with sensible policy guidelines under which they might be used, and by whom? Personally, I am against them being used domestically by the military, but what about law enforcement and under what rules or policy considerations ???









.
 
Re: Drone attacks






ihkeQ.SlMa.91.jpeg





 
Re: Drone attacks

<IFRAME SRC="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/military/rise-of-the-drones.html" WIDTH=780 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/military/rise-of-the-drones.html">link</A>

</IFRAME>
 
FAA moves toward creating 6 drone test sites in US

FAA moves toward creating 6 drone test sites in US
By JOAN LOWY | Associated Press – Thu, Feb 14, 2013

WASHINGTON (AP) — In a major step toward opening U.S. skies to thousands of unmanned drones, federal officials Thursday solicited proposals to create six drone test sites around the country.

The Federal Aviation Administration also posted online a draft plan for protecting people's privacy from the eyes in the sky. The plan would require each test site to follow federal and state laws and make a privacy policy publicly available.
Privacy advocates worry that a proliferation of drones will lead to a "surveillance society" in which the movements of Americans are routinely monitored, tracked, recorded and scrutinized by the authorities.

The military has come to rely heavily on drones overseas. Now there is tremendous demand to use drones in the U.S. for all kinds of tasks that are too dirty, dull or dangerous for manned aircraft. Drones, which range from the size of a hummingbird to the high-flying Globalhawks that weigh about 15,000 pounds without fuel, also are often cheaper than manned aircraft. The biggest market is expected to be state and local police departments.

The FAA is required by a law enacted a year ago to develop sites where civilian and military drones can be tested in preparation for integration into U.S. airspace that's currently limited to manned aircraft.

The law also requires that the FAA allow drones wide access to U.S. airspace by 2015, but the agency is behind schedule, and it's doubtful it will meet the deadline, the Transportation Department's inspector general said in a report last year.

The test sites are planned to evaluate what requirements are needed to ensure the drones don't collide with planes or endanger people or property on the ground. Remotely controlled drones don't have a pilot who can see other aircraft the way an onboard plane or helicopter pilot can.

There's also concern that links between drones and their on-the-ground operators can be broken or hacked, causing the operator to lose control of the drone. Military drones use encrypted GPS signals for navigation, which protects them from hacking, but the GPS signals used by civilian drones don't have that protection.

"Our focus is on maintaining and improving the safety and efficiency of the world's largest aviation system," Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said in a statement. "This research will give us valuable information about how best to ensure the safe introduction of this advanced technology into our nation's skies."

The test sites are also expected to boost the local economy of the communities where they are located. About two dozen government-industry partnerships have been formed over the past year to compete for the sites.

"Today's announcement by the FAA is an important milestone on the path toward unlocking the potential of unmanned aircraft and creating thousands of American jobs," said Michael Toscano, president and CEO of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International.

"States across the country have been eager to receive this FAA designation because they recognize the incredible economic and job creation potential it would bring with it," he said in a statement.

Industry experts predict the takeoff of a multibillion-dollar market for civilian drones as soon as the FAA completes regulations to make sure they don't pose a safety hazard to other aircraft. Potential civilian users are as varied as the drones themselves. Power companies want them to monitor transmission lines. Farmers want to fly them over fields to detect which crops need water. Ranchers want them to count cows. Film companies want to use drones to help make movies. Journalists are exploring drones' newsgathering potential.

The FAA plans to begin integrating drones starting with small aircraft weighing less than about 55 pounds. The agency forecasts an estimated 10,000 civilian drones will be in use in the U.S. within five years.

The Defense Department says the demand for drones and their expanding missions requires routine and unfettered access to domestic airspace, including around airports and cities, for military testing and training. Currently, the military tests drones in specially designated swaths of airspace in mostly remote parts of the country where they are likely to encounter relatively few other aircraft.

The Customs and Border Patrol uses drones along the U.S.-Mexico border. And the FAA has granted several hundred permits to universities, police departments and other government agencies to use small, low-flying drones. For example, the sheriff's department in Montgomery County, Texas, has a 50-pound ShadowHawk helicopter drone intended to supplement its SWAT team.

The sheriff's department hasn't armed its drone, although the ShadowHawk can be equipped with a 40 mm grenade launcher and a 12-guage shotgun. The prospect of armed drones patrolling U.S. skies has alarmed some lawmakers and their constituents. More than a dozen bills have been introduced in Congress and state legislatures to curb drone use and protect privacy.

President Barack Obama was asked Thursday about concerns that the administration believes it's legal to strike American citizens abroad with drones and whether that's allowed against citizens in the U.S. If not, how would he create a legal framework to help citizens know drone strikes can't be used against them?

"There's never been a drone used on an American citizen on American soil," the president said, speaking during an online chat sponsored by Google in which he was promoting his policy initiatives.

"We respect and have a whole bunch of safeguards in terms of how we conduct counterterrorism operations outside of the United States. The rules outside of the United States are going to be different than the rules inside the United States, in part because our capacity, for example, to capture terrorists in the United States are very different than in the foothills or mountains of Afghanistan or Pakistan."

He said he would work with Congress to make sure the American public understands "what the constraints are, what the legal parameters are, and that's something that I take very seriously."

Earlier this week, an FAA official told a meeting of potential test site bidders that aviation regulations prohibit dropping anything from aircraft, which could be interpreted to bar arming civilian drones, according to an industry official present at the meeting who requested anonymity because he wasn't authorized to speak publicly.

http://news.yahoo.com/faa-moves-toward-creating-6-drone-test-sites-220301879--politics.html
 
Court Upholds Domestic Drone Use in Arrest of American Citizen

This is a different case than Dorner.

Court Upholds Domestic Drone Use in Arrest of American Citizen

A motion to dismiss charges based on the use of a Predator drone was denied Wednesday
By JASON KOEBLER
August 2, 2012

A North Dakota court has preliminarily upheld the first-ever use of an unmanned drone to assist in the arrest of an American citizen.

A judge denied a request to dismiss charges Wednesday against Rodney Brossart, a man arrested last year after a 16-hour standoff with police at his Lakota, N.D., ranch. Brossart's lawyer argued that law enforcement's "warrantless use of [an] unmanned military-like surveillance aircraft" and "outrageous governmental conduct" warranted dismissal of the case, according to court documents obtained by U.S. News.

District Judge Joel Medd wrote that "there was no improper use of an unmanned aerial vehicle" and that the drone "appears to have had no bearing on these charges being contested here," according to the documents.

Court records state that last June, six cows wandered onto Brossart's 3,000 acre farm, about 60 miles west of Grand Forks. Brossart allegedly refused to return the cows, which led to a long, armed standoff with the Grand Forks police department. At some point during the standoff, Homeland Security, through an agreement with local police, offered up the use of an unmanned predator drone, which "was used for surveillance," according to the court documents.

Grand Forks SWAT team chief Bill Macki said in an interview that the drone was used to ensure Brossart and his family members, who were also charged, didn't leave the farm and were unarmed during the arresting raid.

Brossart faces felony terrorizing and theft of property charges and a misdemeanor criminal mischief charge. Although his charges weren't dismissed, Brossart won a motion to move the trial from Nelson County—which has a population of 3,100—to nearby Grand Forks County.

Brossart is believed to be the only American citizen who was arrested with the assistance of a drone on U.S. soil. John Villasenor, of the Washington, D.C.-based Brookings Institution, says the legality of domestic drone use likely stems from two Supreme Court cases that allow police to use "public, navigable airspace" for evidence gathering.

Domestic drone use has become a controversial topic over the past several months, with Congress directing the Federal Aviation Administration to devise guidelines for proper drone use.

Wednesday, Massachusetts Democrat Rep. Edward Markey released a draft of a bill that would require private drone operators to inform the government of any data collected by drones and would require law enforcement to "minimize the collection … of information and data unrelated to the investigation of a crime."

States are "increasingly using unmanned aircraft systems in the United States, including deployments for law enforcement operations," according to the bill. There "is the potential for unmanned aircraft system technology to enable invasive and pervasive surveillance without adequate privacy protections."

In April, Brossart told U.S. News that he thought the SWAT team use of the drone was "definitely" illegal. Some estimates suggest that there may be as many as 30,000 unmanned drones operated in the United States by 2020 for uses such as wildfire containment and surveillance, law enforcement, and surveying.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...estic-drone-use-in-arrest-of-american-citizen
 
Last edited:
Re: FAA moves toward creating 6 drone test sites in US

Privacy advocates worry that a proliferation of drones will lead to a "surveillance society" in which the movements of Americans are routinely monitored, tracked, recorded and scrutinized by the authorities.


"Privacy" should be a huge concern in whatever policy that evolves. A lot of the 4th amendment privacy analysis hinges on whether a person has an "expectation of privacy" in the place of search or seizure (i.e., expectation of privacy in ones home, car, boat, yard, garbage can, etc.) The use of drones adds a new dimension, the ability to hover, including, but not limited to, over a person's home/yard for hours or days to collect data and observe a lot of what arguably should be protected information, i.e., occupants of the home lounging nude around their backyard pool adequately that is otherwise fenced/screened off from ground-level view.





The biggest market is expected to be state and local police departments.

Law enforcement, an automatic Red Flag.




The test sites are planned to evaluate what requirements are needed to ensure the drones don't collide with planes or endanger people or property on the ground. Remotely controlled drones don't have a pilot who can see other aircraft the way an onboard plane or helicopter pilot can.

Not only do drones over domestic skies pose privacy concerns, but safety concerns as well




"States across the country have been eager to receive this FAA designation because they recognize the incredible economic and job creation potential it would bring with it," he said in a statement.

Industry experts predict the takeoff of a multibillion-dollar market for civilian drones as soon as the FAA completes regulations to make sure they don't pose a safety hazard to other aircraft. Potential civilian users are as varied as the drones themselves. Power companies want them to monitor transmission lines. Farmers want to fly them over fields to detect which crops need water. Ranchers want them to count cows. Film companies want to use drones to help make movies. Journalists are exploring drones' newsgathering potential.


:hmm::hmm::hmm: Privacy concerns, safety concerns, and . . . the role Government plays in the creation of wealth :D concerns . . .




 
Re: FAA moves toward creating 6 drone test sites in US

We're basically more fucked. There is no stopping this. The government wants it and there is alot of money involved so consider it part of what it means to be an American.

Between already existing government surveillance cameras and police helicopters, the battle for drone limitations is already lost.
 
Re: FAA moves toward creating 6 drone test sites in US

We're basically more fucked. There is no stopping this. The government wants it and there is alot of money involved so consider it part of what it means to be an American.

Between already existing government surveillance cameras and police helicopters, the battle for drone limitations is already lost.

The government wants it? The technology has been around for a minute and no apparent rush from government to expand it beyond what has heretofore been military applications - supposedly abroad. You might be right; but I 'm reluctant to apply the government did everything default response to everything that happens.

Like with MOST (if not all) technology, it there is a potential to make money, the civilian world will push it to reality. Should not our (the public at-large) focus be on reasonable policy/guidelines/protections (yep, there goes those "regulation" words) to control their use -- since it appears your first preference, outright ban, is too late ???

Why do you believe "[w]e're basically more fucked" ???

Hope it isn't because you've argued so strenuously and so consistently against reasonable regulation until you've been entrapped by your own ideo.

:confused:


.

.
 
Re: FAA moves toward creating 6 drone test sites in US

The government wants it? The technology has been around for a minute and no apparent rush from government to expand it beyond what has heretofore been military applications - supposedly abroad. You might be right; but I 'm reluctant to apply the government did everything default response to everything that happens.
My two base premises about your government are it does what it can get away with, and there is no difference between a Republican and Democrat.

With that in mind, the history of government planning by bureaucrats takes it for granted that once a policy is adopted it will only be changed at the margins. That's why decades long plans were conceived for the USSR, Castro, Iran, and any other perceived problem.

My point being that just because the technology have been around for a while means nothing other than Bush could not get the widespread use of drones adopted but Obama can. That's not really surprising though. The man who was only willing to go as far as jailing an American with no judicial review could not secure widespread surveillance, but the man willing to kill multiple Americans did deliver.

This isn't an Obama conspiracy since I attribute long-term policy to bureaucrats. It's just that if you're willing to kill an American for American security, then anything short of that like surveillance is clearly on the table.

This should also make it plain that I don't think "government did everything" is my point. I think history just steamrolls and humans, if allowed, will lazily let the wrong result come to pass.

Like with MOST (if not all) technology, it there is a potential to make money, the civilian world will push it to reality.
If a company developed technology strictly for military use, then they are deathdealers. They should also know that the history of the world says governments will eventually use that technology on its own citizens.

The enemy eventually goes away, the technology isn't then undeveloped. Governments proudly makes use of the force at it's disposal.

Should not our (the public at-large) focus be on reasonable policy/guidelines/protections (yep, there goes those "regulation" words) to control their use -- since it appears your first preference, outright ban, is too late ???
We obviously disagree on the "public-at-large's ability to be reasonable. When I say government only does what it an get away with, that implies a sufficient level of consent by the governed. Once it gets this far there is no reasonable anything enforced by the public. But then again, your faith in America doing the right thing is likely different than mine.

Why do you believe "[w]e're basically more fucked" ???​
Because the most effective advances in a Big Brother society happens at the margin.

Domestic drones meet margin, margin meet domestic drones.
 
Re: FAA moves toward creating 6 drone test sites in US

My two base premises about your government are it does what it can get away with, and there is no difference between a Republican and Democrat.

Okay if you want to make it "my government" but I thought it was "our government" ??? Nevertheless, I fail to see where that has any relevance to the argument, but if you feel that advances your cause, so be it.

I hope this "your government" as opposed to "our government" reference isn't related the unsolicited and irrelevant comment below about Bush and Obama :hmm:


With that in mind, the history of government planning by bureaucrats takes it for granted that once a policy is adopted it will only be changed at the margins. That's why decades long plans were conceived for the USSR, Castro, Iran, and any other perceived problem.

I didn't mention or imply anything of or relating to republicans or democrats, but again, if you feel referring to either of them as advancing your argument, Okay. But I fail to see what either has to do with our discussion.

I simply posited that drones have been around for some time, and I have not seen any overt plan or effort by government (including Libertarians, since you like to cite labels) to expand the use of drones beyond military use.


You're 3 for 3 here. Nothing I mentioned in the passage that you quoted had anything whatsoever to do with the USSR, Castro, Iran, etc.

AND, through all you've said above, not a word to rebut the conclusion - that there doesn't appear to be evidence of government (federal government, since it is the only one heretofore using drones) pushing the expansion of drones beyond military use. Hell, it could be, but what says so?



My point being that just because the technology have been around for a while means nothing other than Bush could not get the widespread use of drones adopted but Obama can. That's not really surprising though. The man who was only willing to go as far as jailing an American with no judicial review could not secure widespread surveillance, but the man willing to kill multiple Americans did deliver.

This isn't an Obama conspiracy since I attribute long-term policy to bureaucrats. It's just that if you're willing to kill an American for American security, then anything short of that like surveillance is clearly on the table.

Exposing your inner thoughts here Greed ?

Nothing I said had anything to do with George Bush. :confused:

The fact (if it is a fact) that Obama obtained wider use of drones in Afghanistan and Pakistan is plainly irrelevant to our your assertions and our supposed discussion = expansion of drones into civilian use and applications.

Why you would bring Bush v. Obama into this is, well, baffling :( - or, revealing
icon3.gif



This should also make it plain that I don't think "government did everything" is my point. I think history just steamrolls and humans, if allowed, will lazily let the wrong result come to pass.

Now, after the Bush ~ Obama digression (for what reason I still don't see) we're getting back to the issue. And my point here, from the start was: we (government, the people, everyone) need to begin A.S.A.P., with considering and formulating REGULATIONS (again, that word you seem to have a problem saying) to govern the use of drones by "Civilian Users" from a liberty interest, privacy interest, and a criminal procedure interest prospective.

I defer, for the moment, on the remainder of what you said so that we might hone the issue.



.
 
Re: FAA moves toward creating 6 drone test sites in US

Okay if you want to make it "my government" but I thought it was "our government" ??? Nevertheless, I fail to see where that has any relevance to the argument, but if you feel that advances your cause, so be it.

I hope this "your government" as opposed to "our government" reference isn't related the unsolicited and irrelevant comment below about Bush and Obama :hmm:




I didn't mention or imply anything of or relating to republicans or democrats, but again, if you feel referring to either of them as advancing your argument, Okay. But I fail to see what either has to do with our discussion.

I simply posited that drones have been around for some time, and I have not seen any overt plan or effort by government (including Libertarians, since you like to cite labels) to expand the use of drones beyond military use.


You're 3 for 3 here. Nothing I mentioned in the passage that you quoted had anything whatsoever to do with the USSR, Castro, Iran, etc.

AND, through all you've said above, not a word to rebut the conclusion - that there doesn't appear to be evidence of government (federal government, since it is the only one heretofore using drones) pushing the expansion of drones beyond military use. Hell, it could be, but what says so?





Exposing your inner thoughts here Greed ?

Nothing I said had anything to do with George Bush. :confused:

The fact (if it is a fact) that Obama obtained wider use of drones in Afghanistan and Pakistan is plainly irrelevant to our your assertions and our supposed discussion = expansion of drones into civilian use and applications.

Why you would bring Bush v. Obama into this is, well, baffling :( - or, revealing
icon3.gif





Now, after the Bush ~ Obama digression (for what reason I still don't see) we're getting back to the issue. And my point here, from the start was: we (government, the people, everyone) need to begin A.S.A.P., with considering and formulating REGULATIONS (again, that word you seem to have a problem saying) to govern the use of drones by "Civilian Users" from a liberty interest, privacy interest, and a criminal procedure interest prospective.

I defer, for the moment, on the remainder of what you said so that we might hone the issue.



.
Continuing is pointless if 95% of what I said is dismissed. The other 5% exist without context in that case. I don't believe in vacuums.
 
Re: FAA moves toward creating 6 drone test sites in US

Continuing is pointless if 95% of what I said is dismissed. The other 5% exist without context in that case. I don't believe in vacuums.

Might as well. When you'd rather engage in some Bush V. Obama conspiracy bullshit - than bring yourself to the simple conclusion that regulation is desperately needed for what is plainly about to be an exploding industry.



.
 
Re: FAA moves toward creating 6 drone test sites in US

Might as well. When you'd rather engage in some Bush V. Obama conspiracy bullshit - than bring yourself to the simple conclusion that regulation is desperately needed for what is plainly about to be an exploding industry.



.
Why are you perverting the term regulation as if thats the proper way to talk about LIMITED GOVERNMENT, which you are not for.

Plus I'm pro regulation and pro government, just not an unlimited one. Me not you post how bankers should be in jail for massive fraud. Your regulations gave them $23 trillion. Mine would make them poor and incarcerated.

Also, I don't have a history of personalizing policies to individuals. People respond to incentives and presidents are people. You lower the cost of them fucking up then they will fuck up. It's not a conspiracy it's human nature.
 
Re: FAA moves toward creating 6 drone test sites in US

Why are you perverting the term regulation as if thats the proper way to talk about LIMITED GOVERNMENT, which you are not for.

Preverting a term??? :lol:

GTFOH

I used the term the same as Meriam Webster does:



a: to govern or direct according to rule

b (1): to bring under the control of law or constituted authority

(2): to make regulations for or concerning <regulate the industries of a country>​


Plus I'm pro regulation and pro government, just not an unlimited one.

I don't like calling people liars; and I believe the phrase calling a spade a spade has racist origins. So, for those reasons, I won't use them.


Me not you post how bankers should be in jail for massive fraud.

If I fail to post that you're a liar, does that not make you one ???


Your regulations gave them $23 trillion. Mine would make them poor and incarcerated.
Did you purposefully overlook the numerous times that I have pointed out that it is "effective regualtion" thats important -- not just regulation for the sake of regulation.

Did you miss that ???



Also, I don't have a history of personalizing policies to individuals.

Frankly, I don't what you mean by this, so I won't offer a comment. If you were talking about legislation (i.e., personalizing policies to individuals), why didn't you just say so.


People respond to incentives and presidents are people. You lower the cost of them fucking up then they will fuck up. It's not a conspiracy it's human nature.

Look, I have to run an errand and I don't have the time or desire at the moment to de-cipher your post. YOU, hommie, made those irrelevant references to Bush, Obama, and conspiracies. They had shit to do with the discussion, then or now.



.
 
Holder: Yep, Obama could kill Americans on U.S. soil

So why exactly is Rand Paul the only one filibustering Brennan?

Holder: Yep, Obama could kill Americans on U.S. soil

President Barack Obama has the legal authority to unleash deadly force—such as drone strikes—against Americans on U.S. soil without first putting them on trial, Attorney General Eric Holder wrote in a letter released Tuesday.

But Holder, writing to Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, underlined that Obama “has no intention” of targeting his fellow citizens with unmanned aerial vehicles and would do so only if facing “an extraordinary circumstance.”

Paul had asked the Obama administration on Feb. 20 whether the president "has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil and without trial." On Tuesday, he denounced Holder's response as “frightening” and “an affront to the Constitutional due process rights of all Americans.”

“The U.S. government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so,” Holder assured Paul in the March 4, 2013 letter. The attorney general also underlined that “we reject the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat.”

Holder added: “The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no President will ever have to confront."

But "it is possible, I suppose to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States," Holder said. "For example, the President could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances of a catastrophic attack” like Pearl Harbor or 9/11.

“Were such an emergency to arise, I would examine the particular facts and circumstances before advising the President on the scope of this authority,” said Holder.

Paul, whose office released the letter, denounced the attorney general’s comments.

"The U.S. Attorney General's refusal to rule out the possibility of drone strikes on American citizens and on American soil is more than frightening—it is an affront the Constitutional due process rights of all Americans," the senator said in a statement.

The exchange came as the White House agreed to give Senate Intelligence Committee members access to all of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel opinions justifying Obama's expanded campaign of targeted assassination of suspected terrorists overseas, including American citizens. Some lawmakers had warned they would try to block top Obama counterterrorism adviser John Brennan's nomination to head the CIA unless they were able to see the memos.

A few hours after the White House agreed to share the information, the committee approved Brennan 12-3, setting the stage for a full Senate vote.

Obama's drone war—relatively popular at home, reviled across the Muslim world—has drawn fresh scrutiny ever since NBC News obtained and published a Justice Department memo that lays out the legal justification behind it. The White House has defended the policy as “necessary,” “ethical” and “wise.” But civil liberties champions have sharply criticized it.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/...ill-americans-u-soil-213059085--politics.html
 
Re: Holder: Yep, Obama could kill Americans on U.S. soil



So why exactly is Rand Paul the only one filibustering Brennan?

Good question -- and an even better one is why was Rand Paul filibustering at all ??? Didn't he already have the answer that he claimed he was seeking through the filibuster ??? Holder's letter to Rand Paul cited in the link in the Yahoo article you posted explaining the administration's position is dated March 4, 2013 -- a day or two prior to the filibuster.

Maybe those other senators, absent Ted Cruz, knew that and decided against the Rand-Paul-style attention whoring, on THIS occasion ??? Ya think?

BTW, if you had followed the link in the article you might have noticed AND pointed out (if you did notice) that the headline in the yahoo-blog post -- "Holder: Yep, Obama could kill Americans on U.S. soil" -- is, well, misleading. What the Attorney General actually said in the letter was:

"The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no President will ever have to confront. It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize thee military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States. For example, the President could conveivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances of a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2011.

Were such an emergency to arise, I would examine the particular facts and circumsgtances before advising the President on the scope of his authority."


Maybe thats just different to me. IDK. Nevertheless, debating and devising a policy/guidelines seems to be in order -- and, perhaps, a good project upon which Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and the rest of Congress should spend some time.


Any ideas ??? What about the use of drones in the two instances Holder mentioned ??? What would you advise ???


.
 
Re: Holder: Yep, Obama could kill Americans on U.S. soil

So why exactly is Rand Paul the only one filibustering Brennan?


The Wall Street Journal to Rand Paul:


"Calm down, Senator. Mr. Holder is right, even if he doesn't explain the law very well. The U.S. government cannot randomly target American citizens on U.S. soil or anywhere else. What it can do under the laws of war is target an "enemy combatant" anywhere at anytime, including on U.S. soil. This includes a U.S. citizen who is also an enemy combatant. The President can designate such a combatant if he belongs to an entity—a government, say, or a terrorist network like al Qaeda—that has taken up arms against the United States as part of an internationally recognized armed conflict. That does not include Hanoi Jane."




SOURCE



 
Re: Holder: Yep, Obama could kill Americans on U.S. soil

Good question -- and an even better one is why was Rand Paul filibustering at all ??? Didn't he already have the answer that he claimed he was seeking through the filibuster ??? Holder's letter to Rand Paul cited in the link in the Yahoo article you posted explaining the administration's position is dated March 4, 2013 -- a day or two prior to the filibuster.

Maybe those other senators, absent Ted Cruz, knew that and decided against the Rand-Paul-style attention whoring, on THIS occasion ??? Ya think?

BTW, if you had followed the link in the article you might have noticed AND pointed out (if you did notice) that the headline in the yahoo-blog post -- "Holder: Yep, Obama could kill Americans on U.S. soil" -- is, well, misleading. What the Attorney General actually said in the letter was:

"The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no President will ever have to confront. It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize thee military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States. For example, the President could conveivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances of a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2011.

Were such an emergency to arise, I would examine the particular facts and circumsgtances before advising the President on the scope of his authority."


Maybe thats just different to me. IDK. Nevertheless, debating and devising a policy/guidelines seems to be in order -- and, perhaps, a good project upon which Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and the rest of Congress should spend some time.


Any ideas ??? What about the use of drones in the two instances Holder mentioned ??? What would you advise ???


.
I provided a link to the one page letter that was designed to just be a response to satisfy the conscience of people like you and not address any concerns.

So it's not surprising that it sounds different to you. The history of drone usage against Americans doesn't fit into a emergency use only category. Holder characterized the question, of the targeting of Americans, as only relevant in the context of emergency or extraordinary circumstance. Based on what? Not past usage.

Holder affirmed the President's authority to target Americans on US soil with no judicial review, and just like indefinite detention affirmation, said he would not use it. Why is that a comfort and what does that mean for subsequent Presidents.

I really don't understand you people. It was the most obvious thing in the world that once executive decree death sentences for Americans became policy overseas, the only thing left was to shrink the radius.

I really wish Bush was in office so the Democrats could give all of you the go ahead to give a shit about massive expansions of executive authority again.
 
Drones used violently on citizens inside the border? No.

Drones used for surveillance? With proper oversight and privacy laws and Constitutional rights recognized, yes.
 
Re: Holder: Yep, Obama could kill Americans on U.S. soil

I provided a link to the one page letter that was designed to just be a response to satisfy the conscience of people like you and not address any concerns.
I'm really impressed with your ability to read minds: young robbers in Chicago, Eric Holder and people like me. Too bad, you really suck at it!



The history of drone usage against Americans doesn't fit into a emergency use only category. Holder characterized the question, of the targeting of Americans, as only relevant in the context of emergency or extraordinary circumstance. Based on what? Not past usage.

Yes answered that way, because the question was:


"Paul had asked the Obama administration on Feb. 20 whether the president "has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil and without trial."

YOU, re-characterized the question by throwing in the emergency, non-emergency language -- then you scoff at Holder, who apparently doesn't share your clairvoyance. He answered Rand's question, but not one in your head. :smh:

BTW, not that it matters, but it appears that the Wall Street Journal shares my view. Holder answered the very fact-specific-less question with a worse case generality. Is the there room here for refining the policy? - hell yes; maybe you have something you'd like to add as to what that policy should be ???



Holder affirmed the President's authority to target Americans on US soil with no judicial review, and just like indefinite detention affirmation, said he would not use it. Why is that a comfort and what does that mean for subsequent Presidents.

NO. Thats how YOU characterized Holder's response. If you will read what he said, and NOT read into it what you want him to say so that you can throw your bricks, you can see that the policy is uncertain

"It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States."


and in need of definition; but in a worse case scenario:



"For example, the President could conveivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances of a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2011."

a situation could arise where desperate circumstances might dictate desperate measures. Of course, there having been no "past uses" on which to base the policy and none have been presented and tested before the Supreme Court, now is a good damn time to examine and fomulate a policy . . .



I really don't understand you people. It was the most obvious thing in the world that once executive decree death sentences for Americans became policy overseas, the only thing left was to shrink the radius.


I know its hard to understand when you're desperately playing "Gotcha Reasoning". There has NOT BEEN A SHRINKAGE OF ANY RADIUS; you're <s>jumping</s> leaping to conclusions.



.
 
Re: Holder: Yep, Obama could kill Americans on U.S. soil

I'm really impressed with your ability to read minds: young robbers in Chicago, Eric Holder and people like me. Too bad, you really suck at it!


Yes, ideology is a MF... I mean principle!
 
I applaud the hell out Rand Paul for his principled stance on drones. :clap:

Okay. This is not easy S.B.; but I'll give him one clap. One clap.

His record is "too mixed" for me. But, to the extent his efforts are aimed at bringing about reasoned guidelines, . . . one clap.


.
 
I do as well. But this is more about his attention whoring and fundraising than actual drone policy.

Okay. This is not easy S.B.; but I'll give him one clap. One clap.

His record is "too mixed" for me. But, to the extent his efforts are aimed at bringing about reasoned guidelines, . . . one clap.


.

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

I hear you guys. I feel the same way.
 
So why exactly is Rand Paul the only one filibustering Brennan?





Sen. McCain Tears Into Rand Paul's 'Totally Unfounded' Filibuster:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/HW1_28ysBik" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>




 
Great debate fellas...

But lets be real how in the hell are we to protect ourselves from drones...at night or during the day

Makes me wonder why they dont want us hacking into our cell phones...could the companies be selling us out as fucking hotspots...or better yet could we be able to link into satellites and protect ourselves by creating an app that would alert us when drones are near....

Think about that
 
BExpTb3CQAA2yqW.png


At least we are safe from drones on American soil, travel overseas and the gloves come off. This carefully written letter, suggests that other means will be employed to take you down such as a sniper or explosions.

If you are engaged in combat against the United States on American soil, you may die from a drone attack.

It does not say that we are guaranteed our rights to due process, just that you won't be killed in a particular manner by not engaging in combat against the United States.

bournedro.jpg
 
BExpTb3CQAA2yqW.png


At least we are safe from drones on American soil, travel overseas and the gloves come off. This carefully written letter, suggests that other means will be employed to take you down such as a sniper or explosions.
If you are engaged in combat against the United States on American soil, you may die from a drone attack.

It does not say that we are guaranteed our rights to due process, just that you won't be killed in a particular manner by not engaging in combat against the United States.

bournedro.jpg

Honestly, that's no different than any other time. But Paul asked a specific question and Holder answered, having answered the first question at a hearing.
The possibility is open but just because it's nearly impossible to eliminate collateral damage (other dead people), I don't see it happening. Not for moral reasons but because then it becomes politically damaging. They'll still just go in and get you like they did McVeigh.

Just like Paul got a soul clap for his stand, so does McCain and Graham for shutting his down.
 
I'm really not all that motivated to respond to stupid shit but the perpetual cheerleading by the other cult members is disgusting.

Q. whether the president "has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil and without trial."

A. Have not done it and do not intend to do so.

Only the most faithful thinks this answers whether or not the President has the authority to target a US citizen in the United States, the same way he targeted Awlaki, if he did intend to do so.

Self asked question, will the President target Americans not in combat?

Answer, no.

That was nice of Holder to give Rand Paul political cover to stop his filibuster.

Awlaki was not in combat. The administration did not assert he was an immediate or imminent threat when they killed him. He was not reported to have a gun pointed at anyone or on his way to conduct an attack. He was driving down a barren road in a country we are not at war with.

The administration's logic is if you are part of a terrorist organization, then you are a perpetual imminent threat. In other words, you're always in combat with the US even when you are standing still or driving down a road.

Because people on this board are hypocrites and self-destructively base their blackness on how much they support Obama when he does something worse than Bush, no one will ever question what combat means when the administration has already killed one American using the logic of affiliation alone equals combat.
 
I'm really not all that motivated to respond to stupid shit but the perpetual cheerleading by the other cult members is disgusting.

Sure you're not :lol: thats why your comments have become progressively negative and insultive towards fellow board members who disagree with your comments.


 
Q. whether the president "has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil and without trial."

A. Have not done it and do not intend to do so.
What is it Greed, you want to re-write the answer of the U.S. Attorney General -- because it doesn't suit you ??? Holder answered your question in the negative, i.e., NO, in his letter to Rand Paul as noted in Post #30 above.

.
 
Sure you're not :lol: thats why your comments have become progressively negative and insultive towards fellow board members who disagree with your comments.


Really, I thought my post were of the same quality as anyone else who implies I'm delusional or a coon or a Republican parrot when they respond to me.
 
What is it Greed, you want to re-write the answer of the U.S. Attorney General -- because it doesn't suit you ??? Holder answered your question in the negative, i.e., NO, in his letter to Rand Paul as noted in Post #30 above.

.
That's fine you think that way which is why I didn't direct my post today to you.

Anyone here can assess whether Holder answered if the President has the authority when he finally has the "intention" to target an American on US soil with no warrant.

And people can decide whether Alwaki was in combat when he got a missile up the ass.

Unless you're promoting that I misquoted him.
 
Back
Top