President Can Use Drone Strikes Against Americans on U.S. Soil

[Moped]

According to Eric Holder, a U.S. President has the authority to execute Americans on U.S. soil with a Drone Strike without due process.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/holder-yep-obama-could-kill-americans-u-soil-213059085--politics.html

 

HOLY FREAKIN COW!!!  What has he been smoking?!?!?

[Raoul]

Lovely. It was a nice union while it lasted.

[seez52]

Yep, we're experiencing Abraham Lincoln's third term.

[Chucktshoes]

Well, looks like they will just send drones from now on instead of the Federal Bureau of Incineration's Hostile Roasting Team in.

[zapfbroad]

"An hour ago on Hannity, I discussed Eric Holder's assertion that the President has the power to assassinate American citizens without trial." - Rand Paul

http://youtu.be/rYC7Ch-_kBs

[c.a.willard]

Im sorry but there is a difference between legal authority to use an armed drone and authority to commit assasinations on US soil.  A good example would be if there was a drone with an air to air missile up on 911 would the president have legally be justified in using that option. 

[Guest 6.8 AR]

That's right about there being a difference between the two, but there used to be no so-called "legal

opinion" by the Attorney General. I wonder why it was brought up? I wonder why there is a reason to

have those drones over American soil, possibly with some kind of missile, to begin with? Has that not

entered your mind?

 

These drones may end up being something we didn't want. Ever thought of that? Of course you could

say that about any potential weapon system, in the wrong hands. Game changer, isn't it?

 

Let's see. There used to be a question about killing American citizens on foreign soil. Oh, we solved

that question, in a very limited circumstance, but we solved that. Well, Hell, some have just thrown up

their hands, voluntarily, and said no-knock warrants are just fine with them. Ah, it's the government

doing it. You got your asset forfeiture and seizure laws. Yeh, they're fine by some, I'm sure. Do you

really need any more examples of problems coming out of government?

 

Nah, just tinfoil crap.

 

There is a difference when there is a legitimate government made up of people who respect the

Constitution and aren't drunk with power.

Edited March 6, 2013 by 6.8 AR

[scoutfsu]

Sweet.  I vote Voldemort as target #1.

 

Haha, weird.  TGO changed my post for me. 

Edited March 6, 2013 by scoutfsu

[c.a.willard]

It was brought up because someone asked for a specific opinion on it.  Not even holder would have been stupid enough to voluntarily say it without being asked.  O.K maybe he is stuped enough, but still the article said it was in response to a question of could the president legally authorize a drone strike on US soil, his answer was yes in very limited circumstances it would be legal to do so. 

[Romad7]

Im sorry but there is a difference between legal authority to use an armed drone and authority to commit assasinations on US soil. A good example would be if there was a drone with an air to air missile up on 911 would the president have legally be justified in using that option.

This touches on what I have been saying, it's about capabilities. The "drones" aren't anything new as far as capabilities, a manned fighter is what would be used to stop a 9/11 type attack. It is much more capable.

Since 9/11 armed aircraft that are much more capable than any UAV have been flying patrols over US cities with the intent and authority to strike terrorists in extreme circumstances. This is not a new thing but for some reason people are freaking out about "drones" as if there are different in some way.

U2s and SR-71s were doing the same missions before they just were manned. Aircraft with the same (mostly better) capabilities as a Reaper UAV have been flying armed missions over our cities for as long as they have been around. The unmanned aircraft are just cheaper to use and usually have a better loiter time. Heck, Google probably is a more effective agency at gathering geo-intel on US citizens.

Manned and unmanned aircraft have another thing in common, a US Citizen is flying them!

We need to stop focusing on the shiny object and get back to curing the disease that is our government. They have proven that high tech stuff is not needed to burn down a house that offends them, don't need "drones" for that.

A government that would use a UAV to strike American citizens on American would use an AH-64 Apache or a simple sniper rifle to do it as well. That should be the main issue here, the GOVERNMENT. Keep them in check or "drones" are the last things we should worry about. Edited March 6, 2013 by Romad7

[Guest 6.8 AR]

This touches on what I have been saying, it's about capabilities. The "drones" aren't anything new as far as capabilities, a manned fighter is what would be used to stop a 9/11 type attack. It is much more capable.

Since 9/11 armed aircraft that are much more capable than any UAV have been flying patrols over US cities with the intent and authority to strike terrorists in extreme circumstances. This is not a new thing but for some reason people are freaking out about "drones" as if there are different in some way.

U2s and SR-71s were doing the same missions before they just were manned. Aircraft with the same (mostly better) capabilities as a Reaper UAV have been flying armed missions over our cities for as long as they have been around. The unmanned aircraft are just cheaper to use and usually have a better loiter time. Heck, Google probably is a more effective agency at gathering geo-intel on US citizens.

Manned and unmanned aircraft have another thing in common, a US Citizen is flying them!

We need to stop focusing on the shiny object and get back to curing the disease that is our government. They have proven that high tech stuff is not needed to burn down a house that offends them, don't need "drones" for that.

A government that would use a UAV to strike American citizens on American would use an AH-64 Apache or a simple sniper rifle to do it as well. That should be the main issue here, the GOVERNMENT. Keep them in check or "drones" are the last things we should worry about.

Not necessarily. When you remove the pilot from the airplane, making it a drone, and turning control

of it over to someone in a building a thousand miles away, you remove much of the psychological

effect of "killing". Same reason that on raids by government agencies use hit teams made up from

other field offices. Remove the personal nature.

Maybe some in a government would use an AH64 against an American, but I guarantee you there will

be more who would use a drone. All you have left is a video game to someone who may have no idea

what he or she just did.

 

You people who really want to justify the use of drones aren't taking into account the political evil and

means to an end some people in power will go. Ever since Janet Napolitano was put in charge of DHS,

she has succeeded in naming conservatives, 2nd Amendment supporters, returning Soldiers, and a

few other classes of American citizens as "extremists" and "terrorists", yet you still want to cling to the

idea that technology will not be used against Americans.

 

Sure the technology is great, but it isn't all about technology. It's about ideology. If you refuse to wrap

your head around the idea that liberalism equals death, you will never understand.

 

All this stuff started with philosophy, political ideology, before it became an argument about technology.

That is also why I argue the 2nd Amendment is infringed with any gun control law, not just any one in

particular. Technology isn't what this is about. It is too easy an excuse for someone who hasn't bothered

to think about it, though.

[zapfbroad]

this is how it will begin:

"Recently uncovered government documents reveal that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) unmanned Predator B drone fleet has been customize designed to identify civilians carrying guns and track cell phone signals." 

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/03/05/Homeland-Security-Drones-Designed-To-Identify-Civilians-Carrying-Guns

then they'll include non-lethal devices to aid & assist in apprehension

then ....

then ....

then they're mowin down kids in the backyard of some homeschoolers in idaho for playin with paintball guns

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Silly tin foil theories. The admin might consider it legal to hit citizens in the USA but they would never really do it, right? Sarcasm.

 

I suppose in "extraordinary enough circumstances" an undercover law enforcement officer could, without trial, walk up behind an unsuspecting man on the street, shoot him in the back of the head with a silenced pistol and then disappear into the crowd-- Like a mob hit. If Holder were asked point-blank about the legality of a "government mob hit" and he answers, "yes in extraordinary enough circumstances" then there would also be scandalous public response. Wonder if Holder would try real hard to "wiggle out" of directly answering that form of the question?

 

Law enforcement snipers shoot people without trial, under "extraordinary circumstances". In some circumstances that most likely "makes sense", but then there was the Ruby Ridge sniper ultimately ruled an unjustified circumstance. In situations where no-trial sniper hits are legally justified-- In theory wouldn't it be equally justified to use nerve gas, mortar, flame thrower, manned or unmanned aerial missile strike? If the circumstances legally justify a long-distance rifle bullet then wouldn't the circumstances "in theory" justify any method which yields the equivalent result?

 

Nowadays many people especially bleeding heart liberals and ACLU lawyers might "feel different" about napalming a barricaded criminal from an A-10 warthog, versus a swat sniper shooting the fella. But maybe in the future both methods might be considered equally "reasonable" ways of solving the problem? Same problem, same ultimate resolution?

 

In addition to high-flying missile drones, we'll soon enough have tiny inexpensive grenade drones. Rather than the sniper waiting for a clear shot, or calling down "silent death from above", just fly a grenade drone into the target's face and set it off?

 

Perhaps the first drone strikes on U.S. soil might be in the same circumstances as would nowadays be addressed by a sniper? After a few "legally justified" cases, then there would be the question whether the standards of "acceptable circumstance" loosen up over time? It would be one thing to drone-strike a dangerous barricaded criminal. It would be a different kettle of fish to routinely use drones to accomplish government sanctioned "anonymous mob hits". But a government "anonymous mob hit" is real dicey except in the most extreme rare circumstance, regardless of method.

 

Dunno. Maybe the Pima County Swat Team kicks down Jose Guerena's door, sees him grab a rifle, then backs out and calls down a drone strike? Same end result, right? Would also have worked real dandy at Ruby Ridge.

 

I'm not advocating drone strikes, just trying to think it thru. I don't like the idea of ubiquitous domestic government drones.

 

The other issue with drones-- They are just one more input method for the growing full-coverage surveillance society. Am beginning to suspect that a full-coverage surveillance society is inevitable even if the government would stay entirely out of it. Businesses and private citizens will also put out their own surveillance nets even if uncle sam doesn't. The technology will become increasingly cheap and easy to implement. We can make laws against it, but we see how ineffective ban laws are. We may see a day when private surveillance nets are used as counter-measures against government and corporate surveillance nets?

[Romad7]

6.8 AR,

You do make some good points and believe it or not, I am on your side.

Your comment about killing is untrue though. It's no different than a sniper that pulls the trigger and kills someone far away. I have talked to and worked with many UAV crews and it is very real to them. They know and can see exactly what the effects are and it is a very serious matter to them.

My main point is that UAVs are just a tool like our guns are for us. Edited March 6, 2013 by Romad7

[G27]

I imagine the Pakistani people are laughing at us now, 'collateral damage' and all that.

[kieefer]

Rand Paul is doing a filibuster on the senate floor about this subject. I like this guy.  :usa:

[JayC]

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

 

It was brought up because someone asked for a specific opinion on it.  Not even holder would have been stupid enough to voluntarily say it without being asked.  O.K maybe he is stuped enough, but still the article said it was in response to a question of could the president legally authorize a drone strike on US soil, his answer was yes in very limited circumstances it would be legal to do so. 

 

[Guest 6.8 AR]

6.8 AR,

You do make some good points and believe it or not, I am on your side.

Your comment about killing is untrue though. It's no different than a sniper that pulls the trigger and kills someone far away. I have talked to and worked with many UAV crews and it is very real to them. They know and can see exactly what the effects are and it is a very serious matter to them.

My main point is that UAVs are just a tool like our guns are for us.

I never said we were on different sides, but that you have to consider the unintended consequences of that new

technology. I do differ in your assertion about the UAV crews. Every time you remove a human from the loop of

using lethal force, you increase the odds of it getting out of hand. Our nuclear arsenal made damn sure it was

almost impossible for a launch, and it still can very close. Maybe not the right comparison, but I would never feel

comfortable about a UAV firing on someone, even in a war zone, much less our native soil.

 

Maybe I'm just behind times and just some old fart, but I kind of like the idea of having that human being behind

the stick and making the final order. Technology is advancing much faster than our military and judicial prudence

needs it to be. I'm not saying "all" UAV controllers, or whatever they are called, are inherently bad, but it does

raise the possibility of tragic error. And I sure as Hell don't like the capability of our federal government using this

kind of technology.

 

There are policies that allow for effectively exemptions from private property rights with the use of drones. Ever

considered that? They can just fly those things anywhere they want and obtain data over your property. Maybe

they could have always done it, but it makes it that much easier. The EPA can use them to determine, rightly or

wrong, that you are in violation of some law you have never heard of, or that someone could be growing pot on

your land. I wonder what happens when you get arrested for someone else's criminal activity?

 

Maybe it's just me and my tinfoil, but I do not like the idea of our government having any more "freedom" to go

out on fishing expeditions against me. It looks like the wrong place for freedom.

 

Much more to this than a casual glance will reveal.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

How much running roughshod over the Constitution is it going to take for society to wake up to this? It may

be that all the ammunition purchasing is completely reasonable. It may be that buying those armored vehicles

are not going to be used by DHS. Not for me to say, but sum of the news is still tyranny. Add all this stuff up

and tell me why it is even getting reported if it is the case. I know good and well I'm not the only one who is

concerned, yet there are those who will try any way they can to see justification with it, even if there is none

to be found.

 

I heard a lot of Generals are retiring for some reason or another. Is it because they all just decided everything

was fine? Not what I hear.

 

The latest appointment for CIA is a man(John Brennan) who doesn't really have our country's best interests

at heart. He is an apologist dating at least back to 9/11, if not much longer. He is the one Rand Paul is doing

the one man filibuster over. At least someone gets it. That idiot Hagel is in charge of the military because no one

meant what they said in the hearings. He will gut the military as fast or faster than Obama will let him.

 

And yes, it is our fault for letting these buffoons get away with it. I just wonder how long we will let it continue?

Until the DHS starts taking out targets it dislikes? Laugh all you want.

[kieefer]

How much running roughshod over the Constitution is it going to take for society to wake up to this? It may

be that all the ammunition purchasing is completely reasonable. It may be that buying those armored vehicles

are not going to be used by DHS. Not for me to say, but sum of the news is still tyranny. Add all this stuff up

and tell me why it is even getting reported if it is the case. I know good and well I'm not the only one who is

concerned, yet there are those who will try any way they can to see justification with it, even if there is none

to be found.

 

I heard a lot of Generals are retiring for some reason or another. Is it because they all just decided everything

was fine? Not what I hear.

 

The latest appointment for CIA is a man(John Brennan) who doesn't really have our country's best interests

at heart. He is an apologist dating at least back to 9/11, if not much longer. He is the one Rand Paul is doing

the one man filibuster over. At least someone gets it. That idiot Hagel is in charge of the military because no one

meant what they said in the hearings. He will gut the military as fast or faster than Obama will let him.

 

And yes, it is our fault for letting these buffoons get away with it. I just wonder how long we will let it continue?

Until the DHS starts taking out targets it dislikes? Laugh all you want.

 

Fully agree, how much longer?

I thought we had enough that Romoney was a shoe in. If we don't take the senate, we are doomed.   :death:

 

One sad note on Rand, he voted for Hagel's appointment. Could call it a flip flop that will probably haunt him.

Here's a Glenn Beck interview on that http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/02/28/rand-paul-talks-to-glenn-about-hagel-brennan-and-the-sequester/

 

I admire many of the things he's says and applaud his filibuster against Brennan but also keeping a close eye on him.

 

Ted Cruz is another one I'm excited about.  :usa:

 

http://youtu.be/D9LXMORxmW0

Edited March 6, 2013 by kieefer

[c.a.willard]

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

 

 

Ive read it many times.   It is no more dancing around the 5th amendment than a police officer killing an active shooter, a swat MO taking out a hostage taker or any number of different examples where it is perfectly legal for a government entity to take a life without a trial.  perhaps it is you who should reread the fith amendment there is that whole part about public danger that you seem to be missing.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

How much longer? We're done if we don't get the Senate in 2014. The House can't stop the train from derailing.

 

I've decided I don't trust anyone who crosses over the Potomac. Cruz could be the exception if he keeps his job

performance where it is, but without control of the Senate, even he doesn't matter. Rand could have caught his

own blunder. Hard to tell.

 

The depressing part of this whole process called "democracy" is that not too many people agree on much of

anything and are willing to just let the country implode. I don't know what it is that makes people take stupid

pills every day and can't realize there are only a couple specific things that have to be agreed upon to right

the ship. Maybe it's ego, don't know. Money, probably, but that will be sad when the idiot realizes there aint

no money left. And I'm not talking about Congress. I'm talking about people from places like this forum and so

many from the Atlantic to the Pacific that don't give a moment's thought about what to try to find a solution

without worrying about their damn ego.

 

Something to the frog in the pot and turning the heat up. We're the frogs.

 

The end game to all of our problems is nothing short of a bloody war unless we deal with those people inside

DC who are sending all of us to Hell. We will get to see the result of that technology some think would never

happen on American soil. I won't be laughing, either, but I know a few who will be crying.

 

It is a "have to" moment to control the Senate and the House in 2014. There is no other sane choice.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Ive read it many times.   It is no more dancing around the 5th amendment than a police officer killing an active shooter, a swat MO taking out a hostage taker or any number of different examples where it is perfectly legal for a government entity to take a life without a trial.  perhaps it is you who should reread the fith amendment there is that whole part about public danger that you seem to be missing.

Killing an active shooter has exactly nothing to do with the 5th Amendment. Using a drone is no comparison. A private

citizen can take out an active shooter. You are comparing using a tool to using another tool, when this argument is

really about the government having the ability and so-called legal authority to kill an American on American soil, not being

an active shooter without due process, to begin with.

 

Every scenario I've read about, fiction only, is where the target is a political or pseudo military enemy of a particular

regime in control of the drone in question. Doubtful an active shooter would face anything more than a SWAT team's

bullets. It's already bad enough that we have accepted any militarization of any police department. DHS is a much larger

threat and should be abolished, along with the entire Patriot Act.

[c.a.willard]

6.8 i have to respectfully disagree, the argument was about wether or not it was legal for the president to authorise the takeing of an American life on American soil without due process.  If we can agree that there are some situations in which a persons due process is forfeited because of the risk they pose to others than it is not a far leap to authorizing a different type of weapon for a greater public danger.  It would be no different that giving military fighter jets shoot down authorization over US soil. 

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I'm talking about an act of volition as opposed to an act of defense or protection of life. I just don't see how a

drone would be of much benefit against an active shooter, unless it just happened to be in the immediate vicinity,

already. I'm not too sure we are talking about the same thing.

 

The President of this country has no legal authority to attack an American citizen without some form of due process.

That will rule out the use of a drone used in an offensive mode. It's bad enough the SOB's have the things and

can use them for spying, as it is. A circular argument can spin off of this by saying military hardware is being used

against the citizenry. The same military hardware that is effectively banned from civilian use. Know where I'm going,

yet? Laws have been enacted that reduce our liberty without any constitutional authority, and some of those laws

effectively reduce our ability to defend ourselves in person or in court from any enemy, foreign or domestic. What's

that statement? We are a nation of laws, not men? Don't give the President his cake, yet.

 

It isn't authority coming from the President, anyway. The authority comes from the Constitution and the amendments

and case law. All the President usually does is temporarily usurp a little power, which he may or may not have the

authority to do, either. I'm making no distinction between Republican or Democrat, but it just so happens this current

President will try anything he can. He has no respect for the Constitution, much less an American citizen.