Justice Dept Can Order Drone Strikes On Americans

[Lawdog88]

Originally Posted by cocodrilo

Yes, we're talking overseas.

Do you think some poor ragtag family in some God-forsaken village is going to get some law enforcement (assuming there is any) to come remove some terrorists camping next door? Do you think such a family would dare to do anything?

As for the policy applying on U.S. soil, what's to prevent it? A drone would have done a much more efficient job at Waco than all those federal agents did. (Was Koresh a terrorist? Sure, if Janet Reno and the rest of the gang said he was. Of course that was in a different time. Today drones may be the future.)

I thought your example about neighbors meant on U.S. soil.

My collateral oversight, and do carry on.

[gatorev12]

Originally Posted by cocodrilo

The question is moot.

No...no it's not. IF you truly care about the innocent lives being lost, then it's a very important question.

IF all you're wanting to do is rant about the CIA and how evil it is while not giving a damn about innocent deaths (as I strongly suspect), then of course this question is moot. Innocent lives aren't what you're concerned about in the slightest--you're just using it as a pretext. Carry on if that's the case.

[cocodrilo]

Originally Posted by gatorev12

No...no it's not. IF you truly care about the innocent lives being lost, then it's a very important question.

IF all you're wanting to do is rant about the CIA and how evil it is while not giving a damn about innocent deaths (as I strongly suspect), then of course this question is moot. Innocent lives aren't what you're concerned about in the slightest--you're just using it as a pretext. Carry on if that's the case.

I will bite my tongue here, or bite my keyboard as it were. Let me simply say, God damn me if I ever respond to another post of yours.

[gatorev12]

Originally Posted by cocodrilo

I will bite my tongue here, or bite my keyboard as it were. Let me simply say, God damn me if I ever respond to another post of yours.

You're free to do as you wish...and apologies if you're uncomfortable or unable to deal with the reality I pointed out: terrorists deliberately choose to operate in and out of civilian areas for a reason. It's a reason you're apparently all-too willing to bury your head in the sand about to rant about what you'd rather be ranting about. Which is fine--but don't use the pretext of caring about civilians in order to engage in such activities.

[Dreamliner]

Given the government's war on obesity, and given that obese people make bigger targets, they need to watch the skies.

[cocodrilo]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

Given the government's war on obesity, and given that obese people make bigger targets, they need to watch the skies.

Cui bono? Obese people can have trouble getting around. Much less likely to go to the polls. Why waste drones on non-voters? OTOH it could be a good way to get rid of innocent voters in the vicinity, depending on the demographics.

[GatorAvatar]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

Given the government's war on obesity, and given that obese people make bigger targets, they need to watch the skies.

I guess you will not be happy until we all look like Gov Christie. Not to worry, your wish might become reality soon. We are getting there.

[cocodrilo]

Good article on Obama pushing gun control at home and killing people abroad.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/02/1...killer-abroad/

According to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, between 2004 and 2013 drone strikes have killed up to 893 civilians (including 176 children) in Pakistan, 178 civilians (including 37 children) in Yemen, and 57 civilians (including three children) in Somalia (while these started under Bush they were accelerated under Obama). According to the New York Times, his ambassador to Pakistan, Cameron Munter, complained to colleagues that “he didn’t realise his main job was to kill people”, a colleague said.

[RealGatorFan]

Originally Posted by Lawdog88

I think we are talking overseas.

You believe that the policy also applies on U.S. soil ?

The memo indicated:

A confidential Justice Department memo concludes that the U.S. government can order the killing of American citizens if they are believed to be “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida or “an associated force” -- even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S.

Although the assumption is based on foreign attacks on US soil, what is "an associated force"? Is that anyone that is deemed a terrorist even those that might be a Militia? If so, than wouldn't the use of drones be used against them even on US soil? There's already tons of proof we carry out drone surveilance here in the US so why not go the next step?

[DSRrg]

Originally Posted by RealGatorFan

The memo indicated:

A confidential Justice Department memo concludes that the U.S. government can order the killing of American citizens if they are believed to be “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida or “an associated force” -- even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S.

Although the assumption is based on foreign attacks on US soil, what is "an associated force"? Is that anyone that is deemed a terrorist even those that might be a Militia? If so, than wouldn't the use of drones be used against them even on US soil? There's already tons of proof we carry out drone surveilance here in the US so why not go the next step?

If one round of any caliber leaves the wing of a drone on American soil then that is a game changer. People will be going crazy over that.

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by DSRrg

If one round of any caliber leaves the wing of a drone on American soil then that is a game changer. People will be going crazy over that.

why, yes, I think you're right. If Obama orders drones to open fire on American soil, Americans would probably be very upset.

[DSRrg]

CNN thinks it might be time to use drones on Americans here at home...

http://m.guardiannews.com/commentisf...er-drones-lapd

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by DSRrg

CNN thinks it might be time to use drones on Americans here at home...

http://m.guardiannews.com/commentisf...er-drones-lapd

Actually, it appears that Erin Burnett of CNN asked if we should, not said that we should. And the writer of the piece you linked to, Glenn Greenwald, wrote this:

Here's my question: if the surveillance drones detect his location, should the lives of law enforcement agents be risked, along with other civilians, in an attempt to apprehend this highly-trained warrior? Why shouldn't an armed drone instead be immediately dispatched once his location is ascertained and simply kill him?

.

And that's the question. If police corner this guy on a mountain, but can't physically get to him, is it OK to take him out with a sniper, but not a drone?

[DSRrg]

Originally Posted by rivergator

Actually, it appears that Erin Burnett of CNN asked if we should, not said that we should. And the writer of the piece you linked to, Glenn Greenwald, wrote this:

.

And that's the question. If police corner this guy on a mountain, but can't physically get to him, is it OK to take him out with a sniper, but not a drone?

If you can't physically get him on a mountain how could you positively ID him? Doesn't he have a right to a trial? Or do they do like the FBI did to Vicki Weaver at Ruby Ridge and shoot her in the face while she is holding her infant? Just some questions....

Drones should not be in out skies at all.