Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
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, fighter aircraft, Apaches, Blackhawks, etc.
So how come dipshit Rand Paul isn't asking the federal government if killing someone with tanks, M-60s, figher aircraft, Apaches, Blackhawks, etc. is constitutional?
Because he is pandering to the Gullible Dumb Fuck demographic, that's why.
DRONZ!
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, fighter aircraft, Apaches, Blackhawks, etc.
So how come dipshit Rand Paul isn't asking the federal government if killing someone with tanks, M-60s, figher aircraft, Apaches, Blackhawks, etc. is constitutional?
Because he is pandering to the Gullible Dumb Fuck demographic, that's why.
DRONZ!
From polite 'education' to attack mode in record time. LOL! Actually Rand was arguing against military like tactics on US soil against US citizens. Doesn't matter if the members wear US Army or Bodunk police department, if they act and are armed as military, they are military.
Who would fund the provisioning of drones? Not local governments, that's for certain.
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, fighter aircraft, Apaches, Blackhawks, etc.
So how come dipshit Rand Paul isn't asking the federal government if killing someone with tanks, M-60s, figher aircraft, Apaches, Blackhawks, etc. is constitutional?
Because he is pandering to the Gullible Dumb Fuck demographic, that's why.
DRONZ!
From polite 'education' to attack mode in record time. LOL! Actually Rand was arguing against military like tactics on US soil against US citizens. Doesn't matter if the members wear US Army or Bodunk police department, if they act and are armed as military, they are military.
Who would fund the provisioning of drones? Not local governments, that's for certain.
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, fighter aircraft, Apaches, Blackhawks, etc.
So how come dipshit Rand Paul isn't asking the federal government if killing someone with tanks, M-60s, figher aircraft, Apaches, Blackhawks, etc. is constitutional?
Because he is pandering to the Gullible Dumb Fuck demographic, that's why.
DRONZ!
From polite 'education' to attack mode in record time. LOL! Actually Rand was arguing against military like tactics on US soil against US citizens. Doesn't matter if the members wear US Army or Bodunk police department, if they act and are armed as military, they are military.
Who would fund the provisioning of drones? Not local governments, that's for certain.
That's for certain, eh? Who funds the provisioning of police helicopters, genius?
Which is cheaper, a drone or a helicopter?
How many drones can you have available to use to search for a lost kid compared to how many helicopters for the same price?
This drone-on-US-soil topic is heating up amongst the right wing circles. Lots of bitching and lots of boogey man rhetoric. People saying Eric Holder (who I despise btw) is lying, or twisting the facts, whatever it may be.
Here is the raw, basic truth people gotta understand. The rules governing use of lethal force on a US citizen, or any person within our borders, by any local, county, state or federal law enforcement agency is exactly the same. Thats right. The FBI has the exact same lethal force guidelines that the Wasilla, AK police department has. Look up court cases Graham vs Connor, and Tennessee vs Garner. The first dictates using only that force which is "reasonable and necessary". And yep, it leaves a lot up to interpretation, since no 2 incidents are exactly alike. The second, Tenn vs Garner, is the "Fleeing Felon Act". It says a law enforcement officer can use lethal force on a fleeing felon (like shooting an unarmed man in the back) IF and ONLY if the facts known indicate that- if allowed to escape- the fleeing felon would cause an imminent (even if not immediate) threat to human life.
So what does that mean? It means if a Podunk County Sheriff pulls over Osama Bin Laden, and OBL runs, he can shoot him in the back legally, because if he escapes, he is obviously an imminent threat to human life.
But nowhere does the law dictate what type weapon must be used by law enforcment- at any level. Only that the force is "reasonable", "necessary", and if no due process, there must be exigent circumstances.
For example, if a cop pulls someone over for a broken tail light, and the driver pulls a gun and aims at the cop, the cop can shoot him........with no due process, no charges having been filed, no jury trial.
So, when would a drone be "reasonable and necessary"??? As Holder said (who I again despise), it would be very difficult to imagine, but, could happen. What about a US citizen, claiming to be constructing a massive bomb in a home, or, intell saying he has smuggled a suitcase nuke into the country and has it in his home. If we have facts that suggest there is a VERY strong likelihood that there is indeed a massive bomb inside the home, and the suspect is barricaded inside, with rifles, HOW would you handle that? Send cops in to certain death with the bomb? No. You'd obviously evacuate the area with a very wide perimeter.
Would a drone hit on the house be the most "reasonable" and "necessary" option, if, and ONLY IF, there was overwhelming evidence that the person inside did have a massive bomb (like OKC size) or other means that prevented cops from reasonably making an entry?
Again, very rare circumstance. But, legally, it is possible that a drone could be used on a US citizen on our soil and it fit the law.
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????
From polite 'education' to attack mode in record time. LOL! Actually Rand was arguing against military like tactics on US soil against US citizens. Doesn't matter if the members wear US Army or Bodunk police department, if they act and are armed as military, they are military.
Who would fund the provisioning of drones? Not local governments, that's for certain.
That's for certain, eh? Who funds the provisioning of police helicopters, genius?
Which is cheaper, a drone or a helicopter?
How many drones can you have available to use to search for a lost kid compared to how many helicopters for the same price?
So you are in favor of Apaches and tanks being used against US citizens accused of doing something wrong? How efficient, no more messy arrests and trials.
The government has nukes.
Rand Paul never got his nipples hard contemplating the US government using nukes on US soil.
The government has tanks.
Rand Paul's panties never got soaked thinking about the US government using tanks on US soil.
The government has fighter jets.
Rand Paul's PMS never ran away with him over the government using fighter jets on US soil.
The government has helicopters.
Rand Paul's ankles never swelled over the government using helicopters on US soil.
But say "DRONZ" around Rand Paul and watch his hormone levels spin out of control!
DROOOOOOOONZ!!!!
Drones are imbued with special unicorn power which make the government more likely to start whacking bad guys without due process.
Somehow.
Since the government has had helicopters for a very long time now, please tell all of us what special magical power drones possess which suddenly mean the US government is going to start whacking bad guys without due process.
This should be fun.
Yep. The government wants to make a person "go away".
Rather than using black ops snipers, CIA clandestine spy services, or if they are that evil, just kidnapping his ass and dumping him in the ocean then letting local cops go on a fruitless search for a suspect.........they decide to blow his house and half his neighbors house up, and draw global attention for a missile strike on US soil.
Im not a big fan of drones on US soil either. But I see how they could be used in an extreme circumstance. Some people watched Terminator one too many times.
Im not supporting it, Im saying it could be legal in very rare circumstances. You guys are talking about the "use of military equipment on US soil", well, thats been happening for decades.
All NTOA certified SWAT teams have a sniper-observer team. That is a traditional military role, with a big military gun. If that situation goes bad, the bad guy could be killed by the swat sniper. Example, which has happened in real time: A suspect has hostages. He says 5 minutes, if demands not met, he's killing them. His demands aren't met. He lets his pet dog out, starts praying on the phone and tells negotiator to tell his mother he loves her. Is this an immediate threat to the life of the hostages? YES. Dude has a gun, made the threat, and is showing all reasonable signs that he is about to kill them. When he comes into view of a window, the sniper opens dudes head like a watermelon. No due process. No charges filed. No jury trial. 100% legal.
BUT, dont forget Graham vs Connor mandates REASONABLENESS. And the standard that case law has set is for the reasonableness to be reasonable through the eyes of a reasonable person, a regular citizen, not a cop or military officer. Basically, would a jury likely find the force reasonable.
So, if someone got mad at a mayor and punched him, then barricaded himself into his house with a pistol, would a drone strike be "reasonable"? Absolutely not, thats a local swat team issue.
If someone robbed a bank, and was holed up in a vacant warehouse with an AK-47 firing back at cops, would a drone strike be "reasonable and necessary"? NO. He'll run out of ammo eventually, the swat teams have gas grenades and big guns themselves. That again is a swat issue.
If the CIA has been tracking a man who smuggled a suitcase nuke into the country, and they have an informant on a small boat with the suspect AND the bomb, and it is 99% verified, and that boat is mobile and heading up the Mississippi River towards an unknown location........would it be reasonable to take that boat out immediately? I believe so. Would local police have the resources to do that? Maybe, maybe not. Probably not, they dont have Apaches or combat boats.
Even that scenario is tricky. But, it would certainly be reasonable to consider a drone to immediately take that boat out.
But there is almost no difference in a drone operator taking someone out vs a swat sniper taking someone out. They both do it from a distance, they both use lethal force, they both are not directly being targeted by the suspect. They both would be acting within current law. The only difference is the scope of the weapon they use to carry out use of lethal force. And that scope is tested against Graham vs Connor and Tennessee vs Garner for reasonable and necessary standards.
Have you considered moving to Venezuela?
No. Unlike the US, Venezuela, and other places like Mexico, Brazil, China, NK, Russia, etc, dont have the same restrictions on their police that we do.
You should read everything I wrote. You'll see that you have nothing to worry about. A drone isn't gonna come get ya' just because you have a yellow rattlesnake flag on the porch. It wouldnt be legal.
And just what happens if someone gives our FBI or other gov't agency a false tip on someone and action is taken. Do we take them out and investigate later?
Is anything clicking yet? Hello?
US Military = Apples
Domestic Law Enforcement = Oranges
Two entirely separate rules of engagement. Read the law.
Yes, there are already laws written about what domestic law enforcement can and cannot do. Surprise!
That is all the OP is saying.
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????
Do you not understand the difference between a foreign invasion and unprovoked attacks on American citizens? Is that at the bottom of your inability to understand?
To answer your question, yes, if a submarine surfaced in Baltimore Harbor, obama would have to call up Congress and request permission. Just like the president had to do when Pearl Harbor was attacked. The president does have certain Emergency Powers which was what Bush used because those powers were exercised during an attack. IF a sub surfaced in Baltimore Harbor, the governor of Maryland would and should act long before the president. There is NOTHING whatsoever that gives the president, or presidebt in this case, the power to order the execution of an American citizen who is not engaged in an attack of some kind or where an attack is imminent. It has nothing to do with foreign invasion.
You may want to create some kind of circumstance where the president has no choice but to seize these kinds of powers but those are different questions from the one that is the issue.
The question is Does the president have the power under the Constitution to order the execution of an American citizen who does not pose an imminent threat?
That's the question that Eric Holder refuses to answer.
Is anything clicking yet? Hello?
US Military = Apples
Domestic Law Enforcement = Oranges
Two entirely separate rules of engagement. Read the law.
Yes, there are already laws written about what domestic law enforcement can and cannot do. Surprise!
That is all the OP is saying.
Hello? Anything clicking here? You're arguing the use of police as military at best. At worst the use of US military against US citizens because a president says, "Go."
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????
Do you not understand the difference between a foreign invasion and unprovoked attacks on American citizens? Is that at the bottom of your inability to understand?
To answer your question, yes, if a submarine surfaced in Baltimore Harbor, obama would have to call up Congress and request permission. Just like the president had to do when Pearl Harbor was attacked. The president does have certain Emergency Powers which was what Bush used because those powers were exercised during an attack. IF a sub surfaced in Baltimore Harbor, the governor of Maryland would and should act long before the president. There is NOTHING whatsoever that gives the president, or presidebt in this case, the power to order the execution of an American citizen who is not engaged in an attack of some kind or where an attack is imminent. It has nothing to do with foreign invasion.
You may want to create some kind of circumstance where the president has no choice but to seize these kinds of powers but those are different questions from the one that is the issue.
The question is Does the president have the power under the Constitution to order the execution of an American citizen who does not pose an imminent threat?
That's the question that Eric Holder refuses to answer.
Hold that thought for one damn second.
SO, you're saying.......if a Chinese or Russian sub surfaced in New York Harbor.....and began firing missiles into Brooklyn and Jersey.........that instead of immediate action, Obama would have to get Congress together, take a vote, and get permission to act while Americans were dying by the tens of thousands per minute????? REALLY?
And people wonder why no one trusts the GOP to govern.
This drone-on-US-soil topic is heating up amongst the right wing circles. Lots of bitching and lots of boogey man rhetoric. People saying Eric Holder (who I despise btw) is lying, or twisting the facts, whatever it may be.
Here is the raw, basic truth people gotta understand. The rules governing use of lethal force on a US citizen, or any person within our borders, by any local, county, state or federal law enforcement agency is exactly the same. Thats right. The FBI has the exact same lethal force guidelines that the Wasilla, AK police department has. Look up court cases Graham vs Connor, and Tennessee vs Garner. The first dictates using only that force which is "reasonable and necessary". And yep, it leaves a lot up to interpretation, since no 2 incidents are exactly alike. The second, Tenn vs Garner, is the "Fleeing Felon Act". It says a law enforcement officer can use lethal force on a fleeing felon (like shooting an unarmed man in the back) IF and ONLY if the facts known indicate that- if allowed to escape- the fleeing felon would cause an imminent (even if not immediate) threat to human life.
So what does that mean? It means if a Podunk County Sheriff pulls over Osama Bin Laden, and OBL runs, he can shoot him in the back legally, because if he escapes, he is obviously an imminent threat to human life.
But nowhere does the law dictate what type weapon must be used by law enforcment- at any level. Only that the force is "reasonable", "necessary", and if no due process, there must be exigent circumstances.
For example, if a cop pulls someone over for a broken tail light, and the driver pulls a gun and aims at the cop, the cop can shoot him........with no due process, no charges having been filed, no jury trial.
So, when would a drone be "reasonable and necessary"??? As Holder said (who I again despise), it would be very difficult to imagine, but, could happen. What about a US citizen, claiming to be constructing a massive bomb in a home, or, intell saying he has smuggled a suitcase nuke into the country and has it in his home. If we have facts that suggest there is a VERY strong likelihood that there is indeed a massive bomb inside the home, and the suspect is barricaded inside, with rifles, HOW would you handle that? Send cops in to certain death with the bomb? No. You'd obviously evacuate the area with a very wide perimeter.
Would a drone hit on the house be the most "reasonable" and "necessary" option, if, and ONLY IF, there was overwhelming evidence that the person inside did have a massive bomb (like OKC size) or other means that prevented cops from reasonably making an entry?
Again, very rare circumstance. But, legally, it is possible that a drone could be used on a US citizen on our soil and it fit the law.
But, law enforcement does not have the right to kill a suspect who isn't resisting or fleeing. They can't just arbitrarily on their own kill a suspect just because he's suspected of something. That's basically the right the administration is claiming to have and it's so contrary to the Constitution that I don't see how anybody can swallow that reasoning.
Correct. All the gov't wants to do is play Judge and Jury when ever they want to.
