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

[MacGyver]

Let just one very good hacker or some group like Anonymous hijack the signal and take over a drone, much less an armed one.

You mean like the way Iran talked that one into landing last year by spoofing the GPS satellites?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Is that how they got that one? Didn't know that.

[MacGyver]

Is that how they got that one? Didn't know that.

There's not much being discussed because of both the classified nature of the subject and the fact that its really embarrassing, but here's a fair write up with some references.

Leave a pretty wide margin for speculation...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/12/15/us_spy_drone_gps_spoofing/

[kieefer]

Well, 5pm 3/7 and it's pretty much over except for the bashing of Rand Paul from the MSM who's riding on the back of John :surrender: McCain.

:waiting:

[Guest 6.8 AR]

The John and Lindsay show is getting old, isn't it? They are the other two besides Lamar and Bob

who definitely need replacing.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

There's not much being discussed because of both the classified nature of the subject and the fact that its really embarrassing, but here's a fair write up with some references.

Leave a pretty wide margin for speculation...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/12/15/us_spy_drone_gps_spoofing/

Well, I guess that good old inertial guidance could eventually make a comeback. :D Interesting article. Thanks.

[kieefer]

The John and Lindsay show is getting old, isn't it? They are the other two besides Lamar and Bob

who definitely need replacing.

Amen to that but all we have control over is L&B. 

I'm through donating to out of state candidates so the folks in AZ and SC need to get a clue.

 

 

.

Edited March 8, 2013 by kieefer

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I'm pretty much through until the Tea Party takes hold. Republicans are too schizophrenic for me, nowadays.

 

There is no way in Hell I would consider supporting someone like McCain or Graham. The pasture is a good

place for them.

 

It's just so refreshing what Rand Paul et al did yesterday. He did get his name in the spotlight

just long enough to piss off Karl Rove, under his breath, you understand. I'm sure if Rove is

on Fox tonight, he will be bragging on Paul, and barfing immediately away from the camera.

Edited March 8, 2013 by 6.8 AR

[kieefer]

Just for kicks, here the ones sucking up to KingNothing at dinner;

 

The GOP lawmakers at Wednesday’s dinner were Sens. John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Tom Coburn, Kelly Ayotte, Pat Toomey, Bob Corker, Ron Johnson, Saxby Chambliss, John Hoeven, Dan Coats, Richard Burr and Mike Johanns. Toomey, Johnson and Chambliss headed to the Senate floor later that night.

 

Here's who stood with Rand;

 

The Republican senators who participated in the filibuster with Paul include, Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Pat Toomey (R-Penn.), John Thune (R-S.D.), John Barrasso (R-Wy.), Tim Scott (R-S.C.), John Cornyn (R-Texas), Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.).

Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) was in attendance and supported Paul’s filibuster by bringing the senator a thermos and an apple, a likely reference to “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.” 

[JayC]

What whole part about 'public danger' in the 5th amendment?  Lets post the 5th amendment and point out to me the "public danger" part:

 

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

 

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.

 

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.

 

[c.a.willard]

If they are engaged in active combat against the US they are a threat how hard is thatt to understand.  Yes obviuosly it would be illegal to kill a person not posing a threat, but thats not what was being discussed.  Incase your unsure you can look up the second memo confirming that the person would have to be engaged in combat against the US in order for it to be legal.  Someone actively engaged in combat against the US presents a public danger that if large enough could warrant military action.  It is no different than the shoot down order on 911, there were US citizens on those planes and had a fighter had a chance at taking one out it would be legal to do so.

 

Obviously it would be illegal to target innocent personnel no one ever said that it would be legal to do so.  Simply that under the right set of circumstances the president could authorize military action against a US citizen.

[JayC]

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.

 

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. 

 

[TMF]

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.

So if Bush ordered one of the hijacked planes on 9/11 to be shot down that would have been murder? He should have just knowingly let them fly into the WTC and Pentagon?

[JayC]

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.

 

And, of course, this has nothing to do with conducting an actual kinetic strike on US soil against a suspect. Not that it would matter what means were used to purposefully kill a suspect as opposed to attempting to make an arrest, whether it be a hellfire or a sniper rifle. But since it was mentioned, police kill dozens of suspects each year in hostage standoffs as the suspect is posing a clear threat to hostages, so I guess if there was some crazy scenario where a hellfire could be used without causing collateral damage I don't see the difference.... the end result is still the same. Once again, all moot since there are no armed UAVs deployed in the US.

 

[JayC]

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.

 

for air rights see United States v. Causby

 

 

Also on the topic of drone strikes the justice department has released a second memo in response to a follow up question from paul.  In the secod memo the question asked was if it the president could use a drone strike on a US citizen not engaged in combat against the united states.  The answer was a simple no. 

Edited March 8, 2013 by JayC

[JayC]

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.

 

If they are engaged in active combat against the US they are a threat how hard is thatt to understand.  Yes obviuosly it would be illegal to kill a person not posing a threat, but thats not what was being discussed.  Incase your unsure you can look up the second memo confirming that the person would have to be engaged in combat against the US in order for it to be legal.  Someone actively engaged in combat against the US presents a public danger that if large enough could warrant military action.  It is no different than the shoot down order on 911, there were US citizens on those planes and had a fighter had a chance at taking one out it would be legal to do so.

 

Obviously it would be illegal to target innocent personnel no one ever said that it would be legal to do so.  Simply that under the right set of circumstances the president could authorize military action against a US citizen.

Edited March 8, 2013 by JayC

[TMF]

 
 It would have been justified without an order from the President, for a military pilot to make that call on their own.
 

.

Are you kidding? Pilots are nothing more than a heavy machine operator. They don't handle intelligence or know the full scope of a situation outside of what they can see from their cockpit. A pilot could never make that choice. That is the silliest thing I've ever heard.

[c.a.willard]

Anwar Al Aulaqi:  actively engaged in the recruiting of terrorists to attack US interersts at home and abroad and was a known alqaeda leader

 

Abdulrahman Anwar al-Aulaqi was colateral damage of a strike targeting Ibrahim al-Banna whom the US governemnt did not know was there (not sure if i believe this one)

 

Samir Khan was killed in the same strike that killed anwar and was also involved in the recruiting and taining of alqaeda operatives. 

 

 

So yes two of the 3 were engaged in combat with the US  the third was collateral damage of a legitimate target. 

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I'm not kidding

Mike, I was laughing at the reversal from troop transport with those C-130's to those drones. I was imagining

in my mind's eye, this caricature of a drone with a hundred soldiers hanging on while taking off at BNA.

What a world, what a world!

[DaveTN]

Saying that UAV’s are going to open fire on innocent American citizens is as ridiculous as the anti-gun people saying that just because we have “assault rifles” we are going to start killing people. The obvious difference is the latter has actually happened.... a lot.

I love technology and think it’s a great thing. In war, Armed UAV’s are “smart weapons” that don’t have to kill everyone in the area when they have a target. In civilian use do I care that they may be used to find pot growers that are committing criminal acts right out in the open, or that they may be “Patrol vehicles” that have the ability to fly? Absolutely not, use those type flights for training operators.

As far as the President using drones to execute innocent Americans on American soil…. Let me know when that happens. As far as a drone being used to take out an active shooter or a barricaded suspect… more power to them.

[JayC]

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.

 

Anwar Al Aulaqi:  actively engaged in the recruiting of terrorists to attack US interersts at home and abroad and was a known alqaeda leader

 

Abdulrahman Anwar al-Aulaqi was colateral damage of a strike targeting Ibrahim al-Banna whom the US governemnt did not know was there (not sure if i believe this one)

 

Samir Khan was killed in the same strike that killed anwar and was also involved in the recruiting and taining of alqaeda operatives. 

 

 

So yes two of the 3 were engaged in combat with the US  the third was collateral damage of a legitimate target. 

Edited March 8, 2013 by JayC

[East_TN_Patriot]

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

 

Um... WHAT???

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Saying that UAV’s are going to open fire on innocent American citizens is as ridiculous as the anti-gun people saying that just because we have “assault rifles” we are going to start killing people. The obvious difference is the latter has actually happened.... a lot.

I love technology and think it’s a great thing. In war, Armed UAV’s are “smart weapons” that don’t have to kill everyone in the area when they have a target. In civilian use do I care that they may be used to find pot growers that are committing criminal acts right out in the open, or that they may be “Patrol vehicles” that have the ability to fly? Absolutely not, use those type flights for training operators.

As far as the President using drones to execute innocent Americans on American soil…. Let me know when that happens. As far as a drone being used to take out an active shooter or a barricaded suspect… more power to them.

No one said they would, but the fact that it took a filibuster, what 12-13 hours long, to make Eric Holder admit

it would be illegal, ahem, say that, should make a sane person question what a government official's definition

of words like "intent, immediate and imminent" really mean. From the way this administration throws particular

words around leaves a lot to be desired.

 

"Intent" can change from one moment to the next. Especially coming from some public official with a less than

desirable history in the Justice Dept, but maybe that doesn't bother you. It does me.

 

You may love technology. I do, too, but you may change your mind when it does something to you. I'd rather be

suspect than allow it to happen without questioning it's use.

[JayC]

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.

 

Um... WHAT???

Edited March 8, 2013 by JayC

[c.a.willard]

JAYC just so you are aware after the attack AQAP confirmed both mens involvement with the terrorist network.