Drones on US soil: What the people dont understand

[bucs90]

Before a sniper 'takes aim' efforts are made to have the suspect surrender, no? How may snipers 'accidentally' take out innocents when finally taking the shot? Drones?

While we're now arguing details, the issue is much larger since drones by definition would put US military operating within our borders-no courts needed. US citizens would just have to take the word of politicians that they were doing the right thing. Geez, doesn't that sound so progressive?

Only if it were a military owned/operated drone. If the CIA or FBI or Miami PD owned the drone, then it would not be military.

And yeah, a swat sniper is a last resort. And a sniper missing his shot is extremely rare. They are very well trained, for obvious reasons. And thats a great point, the collateral damage a drone could cause.

But remember, if a drone is used it is not the actual DRONE that is going to be judged in the Use of Force test. It is the weapon, which would be the missile it fires. Im not a drone expert, but, I think they fire a "Hellfire" missile or something? Any military guys here can verify that?

Anyway, the court ruling would be this: Is the use of a Hellfire missile (Whehter from a drone, or F16, or Apache helicopter) be "reasonable and necessary" in this incident?

So, forget the drone itself. Focus on the missile it fires. So, if Miami PD or the CIA or FBI used a drone to fire a missile on a target, then the missile is the test of legality. So, would it be "reasonable and necessary" to fly an Apache helicopter over that house and fire missiles on it? 99.99999999999999999% chances are NO WAY IN HELL would it be.

The case law for use of force being "reasonable and necessary", focus on "necessary", means no other level of LESSER force would work, and thus, making this higher level necessary.

So, if a house has 3 domestic terrorists, and they are working on a plot for the future, and they probably have a couple guns in there, would a drone (aka, a Hellfire Missile strike) be REASONABLE? Absolutely not. A local SWAT team could take that house easily, and the FBI's elite SWAT team surely could even better. Would a Hellfire Missile drone strike be NECESSARY? Absolutely NO. It would not. Lesser levels of force- like a SWAT team entry- would likely work, thus eliminating the "reasonable and necessary" mandate for Use of Force with a drone strike.

You guys are daydreaming way too much about what they can and cant do. Holder, who again I despise, is simply answering the question that every police recruit in history has been confused about in police academy when they ask "When can and cant I shoot someone?" That simple quesiton is so complex, because in LE you cannot say definitely when lethal force is justified. Every incident has all it's own moving parts that must meet the "reasonable and necessary" standard.

So with the above logic, all becomes clear on why the US government via Homeland Security is militarizing police departments throughout the US, 'just in case.' Anyone thinking Hunger Games?

There is a purpose for "just in case" preparation to an extent. I wouldnt advicate SWAT teams getting Apache helicopters. Thats just stupid. But having an armored vehicle to protect them from gunfire? Yeah, why not. The only person who would be worried is a person who would be trying to shoot at a SWAT team.

Police departments began to "militarize" in the 1950's when the national trend was "Professional Policing", which took lots of former military people and made them cops, restructured the police to a paramilitary type force, using rank, uniforms, procedure, etc, like military. WHY? Because of the mass corruption of police in the early 1900's. They wanted to clean up the act, and, while police corruption gets a lot of media attention, it is very rare in scope of how many cops are out there vs how many are actually corrupt. The "militarization" of police has done 10X more good for the US than bad. Most people's biggest complaints about their local cops is that they sometimes see them driving too fast and not wearing a seatbelt, or.....God forbid....spoke to them in too rude or robotic of a manner.

 

[Annie]

Only if it were a military owned/operated drone. If the CIA or FBI or Miami PD owned the drone, then it would not be military.

And yeah, a swat sniper is a last resort. And a sniper missing his shot is extremely rare. They are very well trained, for obvious reasons. And thats a great point, the collateral damage a drone could cause.

But remember, if a drone is used it is not the actual DRONE that is going to be judged in the Use of Force test. It is the weapon, which would be the missile it fires. Im not a drone expert, but, I think they fire a "Hellfire" missile or something? Any military guys here can verify that?

Anyway, the court ruling would be this: Is the use of a Hellfire missile (Whehter from a drone, or F16, or Apache helicopter) be "reasonable and necessary" in this incident?

So, forget the drone itself. Focus on the missile it fires. So, if Miami PD or the CIA or FBI used a drone to fire a missile on a target, then the missile is the test of legality. So, would it be "reasonable and necessary" to fly an Apache helicopter over that house and fire missiles on it? 99.99999999999999999% chances are NO WAY IN HELL would it be.

The case law for use of force being "reasonable and necessary", focus on "necessary", means no other level of LESSER force would work, and thus, making this higher level necessary.

So, if a house has 3 domestic terrorists, and they are working on a plot for the future, and they probably have a couple guns in there, would a drone (aka, a Hellfire Missile strike) be REASONABLE? Absolutely not. A local SWAT team could take that house easily, and the FBI's elite SWAT team surely could even better. Would a Hellfire Missile drone strike be NECESSARY? Absolutely NO. It would not. Lesser levels of force- like a SWAT team entry- would likely work, thus eliminating the "reasonable and necessary" mandate for Use of Force with a drone strike.

You guys are daydreaming way too much about what they can and cant do. Holder, who again I despise, is simply answering the question that every police recruit in history has been confused about in police academy when they ask "When can and cant I shoot someone?" That simple quesiton is so complex, because in LE you cannot say definitely when lethal force is justified. Every incident has all it's own moving parts that must meet the "reasonable and necessary" standard.

So with the above logic, all becomes clear on why the US government via Homeland Security is militarizing police departments throughout the US, 'just in case.' Anyone thinking Hunger Games?

There is a purpose for "just in case" preparation to an extent. I wouldnt advicate SWAT teams getting Apache helicopters. Thats just stupid. But having an armored vehicle to protect them from gunfire? Yeah, why not. The only person who would be worried is a person who would be trying to shoot at a SWAT team.

Police departments began to "militarize" in the 1950's when the national trend was "Professional Policing", which took lots of former military people and made them cops, restructured the police to a paramilitary type force, using rank, uniforms, procedure, etc, like military. WHY? Because of the mass corruption of police in the early 1900's. They wanted to clean up the act, and, while police corruption gets a lot of media attention, it is very rare in scope of how many cops are out there vs how many are actually corrupt. The "militarization" of police has done 10X more good for the US than bad. Most people's biggest complaints about their local cops is that they sometimes see them driving too fast and not wearing a seatbelt, or.....God forbid....spoke to them in too rude or robotic of a manner.

There are reasons for police departments to be funded locally, along with schools. This whole discussion is one of the reasons why. The US government has the US Military to fund and arm and give missions to. The local police should be just that.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

It would be hard to imagine the scope of the way you have misunderstood the use of military drones within the United States. I'm seeing it, but am shocked at the level of misunderstanding.

Speaking of "misunderstanding".

If the R gets their way, we won't be able to defend ourselves on our own soil - such as our embassies and military bases.

If sniveling little Rand Paul gets what he wants, Benghazi will look like a teepottey.

 

[tjvh]

See my last post. A SWAT sniper is also for "taking out" identified threats known from intelligence to pose a high and immediate risk to human life. A drone is nothing more than a huge, mechanical sniper with 1,000X the firepower.

You're right, there has almost always been high collateral damage. Which is why the use of a drone on US soil would be so rare, nearly impossible, due to the "reasonable" standard that US law enforcement must meet when using force. A situation in which a drone strike would be "reasonable and necessary" is extremely rare, as Holder said, but not impossible.

But in theory, the drone's main two purposes are already being used by law enforcement:

- Striking from afar. SWAT snipers already strike from afar, on targets that pose an immediate threat to human life, but, not necessarily that sniper's life.
- Aerial support. Police use helicopters every day to get an aerial view. 2 Atlanta PD helo pilots died last year in a crash. A drone is unmanned and uses less fuel.



Im not advocating it. Im just saying it is already legal in theory, although very rarely would it be legal to use a drone for a use of force strike. The "reasonable and necessary" standard is pretty strict on law enforcement.

Before a sniper 'takes aim' efforts are made to have the suspect surrender, no? How may snipers 'accidentally' take out innocents when finally taking the shot? Drones?

While we're now arguing details, the issue is much larger since drones by definition would put US military operating within our borders-no courts needed. US citizens would just have to take the word of politicians that they were doing the right thing. Geez, doesn't that sound so progressive?

Only if it were a military owned/operated drone. If the CIA or FBI or Miami PD owned the drone, then it would not be military.

And yeah, a swat sniper is a last resort. And a sniper missing his shot is extremely rare. They are very well trained, for obvious reasons. And thats a great point, the collateral damage a drone could cause.

But remember, if a drone is used it is not the actual DRONE that is going to be judged in the Use of Force test. It is the weapon, which would be the missile it fires. Im not a drone expert, but, I think they fire a "Hellfire" missile or something? Any military guys here can verify that?

Anyway, the court ruling would be this: Is the use of a Hellfire missile (Whehter from a drone, or F16, or Apache helicopter) be "reasonable and necessary" in this incident?

So, forget the drone itself. Focus on the missile it fires. So, if Miami PD or the CIA or FBI used a drone to fire a missile on a target, then the missile is the test of legality. So, would it be "reasonable and necessary" to fly an Apache helicopter over that house and fire missiles on it? 99.99999999999999999% chances are NO WAY IN HELL would it be.

The case law for use of force being "reasonable and necessary", focus on "necessary", means no other level of LESSER force would work, and thus, making this higher level necessary.

So, if a house has 3 domestic terrorists, and they are working on a plot for the future, and they probably have a couple guns in there, would a drone (aka, a Hellfire Missile strike) be REASONABLE? Absolutely not. A local SWAT team could take that house easily, and the FBI's elite SWAT team surely could even better. Would a Hellfire Missile drone strike be NECESSARY? Absolutely NO. It would not. Lesser levels of force- like a SWAT team entry- would likely work, thus eliminating the "reasonable and necessary" mandate for Use of Force with a drone strike.

You guys are daydreaming way too much about what they can and cant do. Holder, who again I despise, is simply answering the question that every police recruit in history has been confused about in police academy when they ask "When can and cant I shoot someone?" That simple quesiton is so complex, because in LE you cannot say definitely when lethal force is justified. Every incident has all it's own moving parts that must meet the "reasonable and necessary" standard.

Now you want Police departments to field air to ground missiles? I'm not even sure that some cops should even be trusted with hand guns. I can see the headlines now... "Officer Christoper Dorner just got fired from the LAPD, but prior to leaving the building he took control of the LAPD's Drone aircraft and let loose a few missiles at the homes of his superiors". Yeah... That would go over well.

 

[Katzndogz]

See my last post. A SWAT sniper is also for "taking out" identified threats known from intelligence to pose a high and immediate risk to human life. A drone is nothing more than a huge, mechanical sniper with 1,000X the firepower.

You're right, there has almost always been high collateral damage. Which is why the use of a drone on US soil would be so rare, nearly impossible, due to the "reasonable" standard that US law enforcement must meet when using force. A situation in which a drone strike would be "reasonable and necessary" is extremely rare, as Holder said, but not impossible.

But in theory, the drone's main two purposes are already being used by law enforcement:

- Striking from afar. SWAT snipers already strike from afar, on targets that pose an immediate threat to human life, but, not necessarily that sniper's life.
- Aerial support. Police use helicopters every day to get an aerial view. 2 Atlanta PD helo pilots died last year in a crash. A drone is unmanned and uses less fuel.



Im not advocating it. Im just saying it is already legal in theory, although very rarely would it be legal to use a drone for a use of force strike. The "reasonable and necessary" standard is pretty strict on law enforcement.

Where you are wrong is that intelligence identifying that a high value target poses an imminent threat isn't good enough for a SWAT sniper to take the guy out. Intelligence could identify the man, who might then be the subject of a court ordered surveillance, but he could not be executed based solely on intelligence.

Thats incorrect. While rare, it is quite possible. If he poses an "imminent" threat, that means that, if allowed to escape, he would cause an immediate threat to human life. Meaning....it would meet the Tennessee vs Garner court standard, and use of deadly force would be justified. You may not have meant "imminent" to be fair, you may have meant that he poses a possible future threat...but, not immediate or imminent. In that case, YES, you would be correct. And, SWAT snipers are deployed 99% of the time only with a full SWAT team activation, meaning basically the shit has already hit the fan and is an active incident.

This drone thing is tricky though, and I agree the use of them would be nearly impossible to justify legally. NEARLY impossible. Remember the video from the whacko that stole the Army tank from a Natl Guard unit back in the 90's and was on a rampage? He had no ammo, and probably didnt know how to use it anyway.

But, what if someone DID get their hands on a M1 tank, and was cruising the highway firing shots at cars???? Even our SWAT teams have NO means of fighting that. They dont have tanks that could take on an M1, they dont have attack helicopters, and they dont have RPG's. So who and how would that tank be stopped? Probably a National Guard helicopter, or, the President ordering a military hit on the tank due to it being an active act of terrorism. A drone would be justified in that incident, right?

Again, extremely unlikely. Im just saying there is a technical legal way they could be used on US soil.

The president could not order an attack of any kind on a tank rolling down the freeway in an American city. Not legally at least and that's the point.

 

[Katzndogz]

The way dictators use military force on their own people.

North Korean army minister 'executed with mortar round' - Telegraph

On the orders of Kim Jong-un to leave "no trace of him behind, down to his hair," according to South Korean media, Kim Chol was forced to stand on a spot that had been zeroed in for a mortar round and "obliterated."

This is why obama is so jealous and why he's looking to take this kind of power for himself.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Bucs shouldn't you be off somewhere crying about some towns handling of their local budgetary issues?

 

[Wolfsister77]

Here's some of the letter Holder wrote to Rand Paul about the use of drones on US soil and here's the link to the whole thing:

http://paul.senate.gov/files/documents/BrennanHolderResponse.pdf

As members of this administration have previously indicated, the US government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so.

As a policy matter moreover, 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. We have a long history of using the criminal justice system to incapacitate individuals located in our country who pose a threat to the United States and its interests abroad. Hundreds of individuals have been arrested and convicted of terrorism-related offenses in our federal courts.

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 the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States. 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 like a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001.


The letter concludes, "were such an emergency to arise, I would examine the particular facts and circumstances before advising the president of the scope of his authority."

So it really sounds like the use of drones on US soil would only occur in a pretty dire situation anyway.

 

[Annie]

Here's some of the letter Holder wrote to Rand Paul about the use of drones on US soil and here's the link to the whole thing:

http://paul.senate.gov/files/documents/BrennanHolderResponse.pdf

As members of this administration have previously indicated, the US government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so.

As a policy matter moreover, 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. We have a long history of using the criminal justice system to incapacitate individuals located in our country who pose a threat to the United States and its interests abroad. Hundreds of individuals have been arrested and convicted of terrorism-related offenses in our federal courts.

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 the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States. 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 like a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001.


The letter concludes, "were such an emergency to arise, I would examine the particular facts and circumstances before advising the president of the scope of his authority."

So it really sounds like the use of drones on US soil would only occur in a pretty dire situation anyway.

and which Americans were involved in either of the examples above? How could have the use of drones have interrupted either event, IF Americans had been involved? Logical fallacies abound, not just in his feeble response, but the defense of the response from liberals across the internet. Shocking, really.

 

[Katzndogz]

Holder has engaged in reducto ad absurdum. He has reduced the question to it's most ridiculous position and then attacked that position. Liberals do it all the time. The question posed had nothing to do with invasion by a foreign enemy but whether the presidebt had the authority to order the execution of American citizens on US soil based solely on how he felt that day. Holder has refused and continues to refuse to answer the question. He might make up other questions to answer. Ones he likes better, but he won't answer that one.

 

[Oldguy]

Here's some of the letter Holder wrote to Rand Paul about the use of drones on US soil and here's the link to the whole thing:

http://paul.senate.gov/files/documents/BrennanHolderResponse.pdf

As members of this administration have previously indicated, the US government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so.

As a policy matter moreover, 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. We have a long history of using the criminal justice system to incapacitate individuals located in our country who pose a threat to the United States and its interests abroad. Hundreds of individuals have been arrested and convicted of terrorism-related offenses in our federal courts.

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 the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States. 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 like a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001.


The letter concludes, "were such an emergency to arise, I would examine the particular facts and circumstances before advising the president of the scope of his authority."

So it really sounds like the use of drones on US soil would only occur in a pretty dire situation anyway.

Maybe, maybe not. What ought to concern you is this statement:

"I would examine the particular facts and circumstances before advising the president of the scope of his authority."

The Constitution, the law and the courts determine the limits of Presidential power, not the Attorney General. That's the same kind of thinking which allowed the Bush administration to start torturing people. They acted upon the legal OPINION of the Justice Department's lawyers, without giving the courts a chance to rule on that opinion. That meant torturing could proceed until, and unless, it was challenged in court.

That's not how it should work. The right course of action should be to honor the Constitution, not find a way around it and wait for someone to say something.

 

[Wolfsister77]

Here's some of the letter Holder wrote to Rand Paul about the use of drones on US soil and here's the link to the whole thing:

http://paul.senate.gov/files/documents/BrennanHolderResponse.pdf

As members of this administration have previously indicated, the US government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so.

As a policy matter moreover, 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. We have a long history of using the criminal justice system to incapacitate individuals located in our country who pose a threat to the United States and its interests abroad. Hundreds of individuals have been arrested and convicted of terrorism-related offenses in our federal courts.

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 the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States. 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 like a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001.


The letter concludes, "were such an emergency to arise, I would examine the particular facts and circumstances before advising the president of the scope of his authority."

So it really sounds like the use of drones on US soil would only occur in a pretty dire situation anyway.

and which Americans were involved in either of the examples above? How could have the use of drones have interrupted either event, IF Americans had been involved? Logical fallacies abound, not just in his feeble response, but the defense of the response from liberals across the internet. Shocking, really.

The attacks occurred on US soil and constitute acts of war on this country. He was saying our current law enforcement system is capable of handling terrorists on US soil but there might be an extraordinary circumstance in which they'd use drones such as an attack on this country similar to 9-11 or Pearl Harbor.

He was giving an entirely hypothetical situation because he can't say there would NEVER be a circumstance where drones would be used on US soil and might even end up killing Americans.

That was my point here.

 

[g5000]

The difference between a helicopter and a drone is that one is manned, and the other isn't. Another difference is that the pilot of one has better peripheral vision of what is going on around the aircraft than the other.

There aren't going to be predator drones armed with Hellfire missiles flying around your neighborhood any more than there are cops in Apache helicopters flying around your neighborhood.

Stop stabbing yourselves in the head with pencils, and stop masturbating to paranoid fantasies. You rubes are the very reason demagogues like Rand Paul do the whiny bitch act they do. You are the Gullble Dumb Fuck demographic to which they are pandering.

 

[Annie]

The difference between a drone and a helicopter is that one is manned, and the other isn't. Another difference is that the pilot of one has better peripheral vision than the other.

There aren't going to be predator drones armed with Hellfire missiles flying around your neighborhood any more than there are cops in Apache helicopters flying around your neighborhood.

Stop stabbing yourselves in the head with pencils, and stop masturbating to paranoid fantasies. You rubes are the very reason demagogues like Rand Paul do the whiny bitch act they do. You are the Gullble Dumb Fuck demographic to which they are pandering.

Unless of course, there are reports of possible plans for 9/11 or Pearl Harbor type attacks. Again, see SWATTING.

 

[Wolfsister77]

Here's some of the letter Holder wrote to Rand Paul about the use of drones on US soil and here's the link to the whole thing:

http://paul.senate.gov/files/documents/BrennanHolderResponse.pdf

As members of this administration have previously indicated, the US government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so.

As a policy matter moreover, 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. We have a long history of using the criminal justice system to incapacitate individuals located in our country who pose a threat to the United States and its interests abroad. Hundreds of individuals have been arrested and convicted of terrorism-related offenses in our federal courts.

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 the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States. 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 like a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001.


The letter concludes, "were such an emergency to arise, I would examine the particular facts and circumstances before advising the president of the scope of his authority."

So it really sounds like the use of drones on US soil would only occur in a pretty dire situation anyway.

Maybe, maybe not. What ought to concern you is this statement:

"I would examine the particular facts and circumstances before advising the president of the scope of his authority."

The Constitution, the law and the courts determine the limits of Presidential power, not the Attorney General. That's the same kind of thinking which allowed the Bush administration to start torturing people. They acted upon the legal OPINION of the Justice Department's lawyers, without giving the courts a chance to rule on that opinion. That meant torturing could proceed until, and unless, it was challenged in court.

That's not how it should work. The right course of action should be to honor the Constitution, not find a way around it and wait for someone to say something.

I don't entirely disagree with you here. I was just clarifying that he was talking about attacks on this country and not killing Americans that would be better taken out with law enforcemnt authorities.

 

[bucs90]

Where you are wrong is that intelligence identifying that a high value target poses an imminent threat isn't good enough for a SWAT sniper to take the guy out. Intelligence could identify the man, who might then be the subject of a court ordered surveillance, but he could not be executed based solely on intelligence.

Thats incorrect. While rare, it is quite possible. If he poses an "imminent" threat, that means that, if allowed to escape, he would cause an immediate threat to human life. Meaning....it would meet the Tennessee vs Garner court standard, and use of deadly force would be justified. You may not have meant "imminent" to be fair, you may have meant that he poses a possible future threat...but, not immediate or imminent. In that case, YES, you would be correct. And, SWAT snipers are deployed 99% of the time only with a full SWAT team activation, meaning basically the shit has already hit the fan and is an active incident.

This drone thing is tricky though, and I agree the use of them would be nearly impossible to justify legally. NEARLY impossible. Remember the video from the whacko that stole the Army tank from a Natl Guard unit back in the 90's and was on a rampage? He had no ammo, and probably didnt know how to use it anyway.

But, what if someone DID get their hands on a M1 tank, and was cruising the highway firing shots at cars???? Even our SWAT teams have NO means of fighting that. They dont have tanks that could take on an M1, they dont have attack helicopters, and they dont have RPG's. So who and how would that tank be stopped? Probably a National Guard helicopter, or, the President ordering a military hit on the tank due to it being an active act of terrorism. A drone would be justified in that incident, right?

Again, extremely unlikely. Im just saying there is a technical legal way they could be used on US soil.

The president could not order an attack of any kind on a tank rolling down the freeway in an American city. Not legally at least and that's the point.

No? Then how did President W. Bush ordered Air Force jets to intercept and possibly be prepared to shoot down planes over US soil on 9-11-2001? Let me guess, if a submarine surfaced in the Baltimore Harbor, and starting firing missiles, then Obama would have to call Congress up and request a vote to give permission to attack that sub? Til then, lets just hope the Baltimore PD harbor unit boats can take on the sub????

 

[g5000]

The difference between a drone and a helicopter is that one is manned, and the other isn't. Another difference is that the pilot of one has better peripheral vision than the other.

There aren't going to be predator drones armed with Hellfire missiles flying around your neighborhood any more than there are cops in Apache helicopters flying around your neighborhood.

Stop stabbing yourselves in the head with pencils, and stop masturbating to paranoid fantasies. You rubes are the very reason demagogues like Rand Paul do the whiny bitch act they do. You are the Gullble Dumb Fuck demographic to which they are pandering.

Unless of course, there are reports of possible plans for 9/11 or Pearl Harbor type attacks. Again, see SWATTING.

If there is an attack on the order of Pearl Harbor, drones will be but one of many weapons used to repel the enemy. Tanks, M-60s, grenades, fighter aircraft, Apaches, Blackhawks, etc.

So how come dipshit Rand Paul isn't asking the federal government if killing someone with tanks, M-60s, grenades, figher aircraft, Apaches, Blackhawks, etc. is constitutional?

Because he is pandering to the Gullible Dumb Fuck demographic, that's why.

DRONZ!

 

[Wolfsister77]

The difference between a helicopter and a drone is that one is manned, and the other isn't. Another difference is that the pilot of one has better peripheral vision of what is going on around the aircraft than the other.

There aren't going to be predator drones armed with Hellfire missiles flying around your neighborhood any more than there are cops in Apache helicopters flying around your neighborhood.

Stop stabbing yourselves in the head with pencils, and stop masturbating to paranoid fantasies. You rubes are the very reason demagogues like Rand Paul do the whiny bitch act they do. You are the Gullble Dumb Fuck demographic to which they are pandering.

Yeah, and that's really the point of what Rand Paul is doing. Fear mongering-hype and paranoia. I'm sure it benefits him.

 

[bucs90]

Here's some of the letter Holder wrote to Rand Paul about the use of drones on US soil and here's the link to the whole thing:

http://paul.senate.gov/files/documents/BrennanHolderResponse.pdf

As members of this administration have previously indicated, the US government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so.

As a policy matter moreover, 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. We have a long history of using the criminal justice system to incapacitate individuals located in our country who pose a threat to the United States and its interests abroad. Hundreds of individuals have been arrested and convicted of terrorism-related offenses in our federal courts.

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 the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States. 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 like a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001.


The letter concludes, "were such an emergency to arise, I would examine the particular facts and circumstances before advising the president of the scope of his authority."

So it really sounds like the use of drones on US soil would only occur in a pretty dire situation anyway.

and which Americans were involved in either of the examples above? How could have the use of drones have interrupted either event, IF Americans had been involved? Logical fallacies abound, not just in his feeble response, but the defense of the response from liberals across the internet. Shocking, really.

One was an act of preemptive war. One was an act of terror. The OKC bombing was an act of terror, by a US citizen.

And the troops from The Citadel military college in 1861, when they opened fire on a federal ship in Charleston harbor, sparked the Civil War.


You are implying that ONLY foreigners can initiate acts of war or terrorism on the US. Not true.

 

[Wolfsister77]

The difference between a drone and a helicopter is that one is manned, and the other isn't. Another difference is that the pilot of one has better peripheral vision than the other.

There aren't going to be predator drones armed with Hellfire missiles flying around your neighborhood any more than there are cops in Apache helicopters flying around your neighborhood.

Stop stabbing yourselves in the head with pencils, and stop masturbating to paranoid fantasies. You rubes are the very reason demagogues like Rand Paul do the whiny bitch act they do. You are the Gullble Dumb Fuck demographic to which they are pandering.

Unless of course, there are reports of possible plans for 9/11 or Pearl Harbor type attacks. Again, see SWATTING.

If there is an attack on the order of Pearl Harbor, drones will be but one of many weapons used to repel the enemy. Tanks, M-60s, grenades, fighter aircraft, Apaches, Blackhawks, etc.

So how come dipshit Rand Paul isn't asking the federal government if killing someone with tanks, M-60s, grenades, figher aircraft, Apaches, Blackhawks, etc. is constitutional?

Because he is pandering to the Gullible Dumb Fuck demographic, that's why.

DRONZ!

Exactly!! He is trying to make it appear that the Government is going to be flying around the country with drones killing Americans and this just isn't true.

If we were attacked-we'd use ALL weapons at our disposal and this is really what Holder's letter was saying.