Drones on US soil: What the people dont understand

[g5000]

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.

Wrong.

Ted Cruz Gets Holder To Admit That Killing Americans With Drones On U.S. Soil Is Unconstitutional | Flopping Aces

 

[g5000]

Correct. All the gov't wants to do is play Judge and Jury when ever they want to.

Evidence, please.

And stop drooling on yourself.

 

[tjvh]

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 volumes and volumes and volumes of case law about what domestic law enforcement can and cannot do. Surprise!

That is all the OP is saying.

I can't believe a whiny little bitch like Rand Paul can get you idiots so confused about this so easily.

Whoa, hold on. We already had the OP (who you seem to agree with) telling us that the Police should be armed with air to ground missiles. And you're calling everyone else an idiot?

 

[bucs90]

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?

Ahh. A very common question in the first few days of Police Academy basic law 101.

Well, based on the tip and intell we have, aka the "known facts", would a reasonable person find the level of force the FBI were to use to be "reasonable and necessary"???? Its a very simple standard for a very complex issue.

If Joe Blow tells the FBI "My neighbor down the street with the rattlesnake flag is building a bomb".....would the FBI respond with a drone strike? No. Would they have undercover guys maybe watch his house for a few days to see if its even worth opening a case file on? Probably, depends on who Joe Blow was and how the FBI knew him.

"REASONABLE AND NECESSARY". That is the foundational case law of all use of force on US soil by law enforcement. And they use "reasonable" through the eyes of a "reasonable person", meaning, if 12 sane jurors saw this action, would they feel the force is reasonable and necessary.

You guys are panicking over nothing.

But if a Russian sub surfaced in NY harbor and began launching hell on us, I'd hope the president would use a drone or F16 to act immediately.....rather than waiting for Congress to vote to give permission to protect us. Because afterall, the NYPD doesn't have an anti-sub ship or F16's.

 

[g5000]

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 volumes and volumes and volumes of case law about what domestic law enforcement can and cannot do. Surprise!

That is all the OP is saying.

I can't believe a whiny little bitch like Rand Paul can get you idiots so confused about this so easily.

Whoa, hold on. We already had the OP (who you seem to agree with) telling us that the Police should be armed with air to ground missiles. And you're calling everyone else an idiot?

I will try to use very small words for you.

You seem to be hung up on the types of weapons instead of the law.

The law.

The law.

Got it?

The law dictates when lethal (that means deadly) force can be used against someone.

The law. That means "the rules".

The rules for the military = Apples.

The rules for domestic law enforcement (cops) = Oranges.

The rules that allow a cop to shoot a bad guy are far more restrictive than the ones that allow a soldier to shoot a bad guy.

The cop has to obey centuries of domestic case law. He cannot just shoot a bad guy if there is no immediate danger. Every cop knows this.


And this has been common knowledge to EVERYONE for a long time.

Then one day, someone said the FAA was approved to start regulating the use of drones in the United States.

Right away, some really stupid people thought that meant all those centuries of case law no longer applied.

They clearly did not read the legislation (the law). They just made some big ass assumptions (pretended to know what they were talking about when they really did not).

And not one idiot has ever produced evidence (shown proof) that cops with drones will not have to follow all those rules they have been following all along.

Not one.

Care to give it a shot?

 

[bucs90]

Ok. It seems reason and logic aren't gonna work on this one. Lets use scenarios.

An OH SHIT moment. Somehow some nut got ahold of an M1 tank (like the guy in CA in the 90's did). He is driving down I-95 blasting cars. He got ammo somehow. Shouldnt have been any way to do it, but he did.

The cops are powerless. Not only do their rifles and pistols not harm the tank, but they dont have tanks themselves that can battle with an M1, and the M1 is just running over their crown vics.

National Guard, right? But those guys are all part-time, and they have to get called up. We need action NOW.

The Army, Marine and Navy bases in Virginia and South Carolina have jets, and drones, and rocket launchers.

But its a US citizen driving that tank. Oh shit!!!!

What do you do?

 

[bucs90]

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 volumes and volumes and volumes of case law about what domestic law enforcement can and cannot do. Surprise!

That is all the OP is saying.

I can't believe a whiny little bitch like Rand Paul can get you idiots so confused about this so easily.

Whoa, hold on. We already had the OP (who you seem to agree with) telling us that the Police should be armed with air to ground missiles. And you're calling everyone else an idiot?

I will try to use very small words for you.

You seem to be hung up on the types of weapons instead of the law.

The law.

The law.

Got it?

The law dictates when lethal (that means deadly) force can be used against someone.

The law. That means "the rules".

The rules for the military = Apples.

The rules for domestic law enforcement (cops) = Oranges.

The rules that allow a cop to shoot a bad guy are far more restrictive than the ones that allow a soldier to shoot a bad guy.

The cop has to obey centuries of domestic case law. He cannot just shoot a bad guy if there is no immediate danger. Every cop knows this.


And this has been common knowledge to EVERYONE for a long time.

Then one day, someone said the FAA was approved to start regulating the use of drones in the United States.

Right away, some really stupid people thought that meant all those centuries of case law no longer applied.

They clearly did not read the legislation (the law). They just made some big ass assumptions (pretended to know what they were talking about when they really did not).

And not one idiot has ever produced evidence that drones will not have to follow all those rules.

Not one.

Care to give it a shot?

Sir, we'll have none of that logic here sir!!!!!

Just joking. Well said.

The NYPD could buy the Battleship Missouri and park that big badass MF'er in the harbor........and the laws for domestic law enforcment would still apply, and NYPD would never come close to once ever having to actually use it.

 

[g5000]

I've read the drone legislation law. And guess what?

There is no provision in there that says, "COPS CAN NOW SHOOT AND BLOW UP BAD GUYS AT WILL WITH DRONES!!!"

Sorry to disappoint.

But don't take my word for it. Read it. See for yourself.

 

[GeoLaureate8]

Rand Paul: "I can't understand the president's unwillingness to say, he's not going to kill noncombatants. Think about that. He's unwilling to say publicly that he's not going to kill noncombatants, because that's what we're talking about here.

I'm not talking about someone with a bazooka a grenade launcher on their shoulder. Anyone committing lethal force can be repelled with lethal force. No one argues that point. I'm talking about whether you can kill noncombatants, because many of the people being killed overseas are noncombatants .... We're talking about people eating in a cafe, at home, in a restaurant.
...
Alarm bells should go off when people tell you that the battlefield's in America. Why? Because when the battlefield's in America, we don't have due process. What they're talking about is they want the laws of war."



.

 

[Annie]

Suddenly the same folks that are in favor of draconian gun laws are getting off on scenarios of right wing extremists gaining control of tanks and the police coming to the rescue with drone attacks.

Time really is moving at breakneck speed nowadays.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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.

Can anyone say Pearl Harbor? Oklahoma City? World Trade Center?

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.

Actually, yes, both have answered. Repeatedly. I just read it and also heard on the tv news.

Oh gawd, now McCain is "droning" on and on about protecting the rights of all our citizens. This same man has been against protecting the rights of all our citizens with the idiotic 1070 law.

OTOH, he is basically agreeing with President Obama. Go figure.

McCain has gotten downright schizzy.

 

[bucs90]

People who are all terrified about the militarization of police should view something that will make them relax a little more and realize that our US laws are wonderful and strike a perfect balance between freedom and safety with regards to domestic policing.

Search the "BOPE" of Brazil. And realize how good we have it.

 

[g5000]

How do we know Rand Paul is being a demagogue pandering to the Gullible Dumb Fuck demographic?

Because he has not filed a federal lawsuit challenging the drone law. If the drone law said the gubmint could kilt 'Merkins with dronz without doo process, that would be grounds for an immediate challenge in court.

So that's how we know Rand Paul is a dipshit exploiting the gullibility of idiots and manufacturing fear.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

McCain just said that Americans are not in danger of being hit by a drone. He has said it several different ways. He is very critical of Rand Paul's grandstanding and campaigning.

I'll be damned.

He's now talking about the problems caused by --- 42% of congress has been there for less than 6 years and that Paul's actual filibuster will make it harder for the lazy bums who filibuster from their couch.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Jeezus f Krist. Even Graham has just said it was never a question or problem when Bush was doing it.

wow.

Turn on cspan.

 

[g5000]

Suddenly the same folks that are in favor of draconian gun laws are getting off on scenarios of right wing extremists gaining control of tanks and the police coming to the rescue with drone attacks.

Time really is moving at breakneck speed nowadays.

You are one of the most illogical people on this forum, and that is really saying something.

I am opposed to "draconian gun laws". And I am opposed to Rand Paul's pandering.

And that is because I am all about logic and the truth.

If there was something in the drone law that was unconstitutional, Rand Paul would be filing a case in court.

Since he hasn't, that should be a dead giveaway he is manufacturing fear for his personal aggrandizement.

 

[CMike]

It's really pretty simple.

We are in a war with Al Qaida terrorists. That means that no Al Qaida terrorist or unlawful combatant, is entitled to "due process" no matter where they are.

They may be shot on sight.

 

[bucs90]

Rand Paul: "I can't understand the president's unwillingness to say, he's not going to kill noncombatants. Think about that. He's unwilling to say publicly that he's not going to kill noncombatants, because that's what we're talking about here.

I'm not talking about someone with a bazooka a grenade launcher on their shoulder. Anyone committing lethal force can be repelled with lethal force. No one argues that point. I'm talking about whether you can kill noncombatants, because many of the people being killed overseas are noncombatants .... We're talking about people eating in a cafe, at home, in a restaurant.
...
Alarm bells should go off when people tell you that the battlefield's in America. Why? Because when the battlefield's in America, we don't have due process. What they're talking about is they want the laws of war."



.

Now THAT is a legitimate issue and concern. When we're talking bout changing the laws, thats different. The drone isnt the issue, its the law. If thats the topic, then yeah, I agree. If a known terrorist is sitting in a US cafe, eating- not killing people- and we decide to blow up the whole building, then yes, THAT is horrible, wrong, and should NEVER happen here-----or anywhere for that matter. And I know they are doing that overseas and it is wrong (yet another reason why I dont vote for Republicans OR Democrats right now).

That doesnt mean collateral damage will never happen with domestic law enforcement. We already see it, with tragic examples of innocent people getting hit in a police gunfight. But those are never intentional or preplanned. We simply cannot say "Ok, we know innocent people will die, but we're going it anyway" on US soil.

But the weapon of choice isnt' important so long as we follow the case law of "reasonable and necessary", because that law will determine in itself what weapon is reasonable. Cops practice this daily. They have dept policy that says when they can, and cant, retrieve the AR15's they're issued. Only when that AR15 is "reasonable and necessary" or could possibly become that are they allowed to.

But yes, changing the law itself could be disasterous.

 

[tjvh]

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 volumes and volumes and volumes of case law about what domestic law enforcement can and cannot do. Surprise!

That is all the OP is saying.

I can't believe a whiny little bitch like Rand Paul can get you idiots so confused about this so easily.

Whoa, hold on. We already had the OP (who you seem to agree with) telling us that the Police should be armed with air to ground missiles. And you're calling everyone else an idiot?

I will try to use very small words for you.

You seem to be hung up on the types of weapons instead of the law.

The law.

The law.

Got it?

The law dictates when lethal (that means deadly) force can be used against someone.

The law. That means "the rules".

The rules for the military = Apples.

The rules for domestic law enforcement (cops) = Oranges.

The rules that allow a cop to shoot a bad guy are far more restrictive than the ones that allow a soldier to shoot a bad guy.

The cop has to obey centuries of domestic case law. He cannot just shoot a bad guy if there is no immediate danger. Every cop knows this.


And this has been common knowledge to EVERYONE for a long time.

Then one day, someone said the FAA was approved to start regulating the use of drones in the United States.

Right away, some really stupid people thought that meant all those centuries of case law no longer applied.

They clearly did not read the legislation (the law). They just made some big ass assumptions (pretended to know what they were talking about when they really did not).

And not one idiot has ever produced evidence (shown proof) that cops with drones will not have to follow all those rules they have been following all along.

Not one.

Care to give it a shot?

I really don't care about Rand Paul's argument, or the drone legislation. It's the people who want to arm cops with missiles that I'm far more concerned about.

 

[GeoLaureate8]

Jeezus f Krist. Even Graham has just said it was never a question or problem when Bush was doing it.

wow.

Turn on cspan.

You're an idiot. The DoJ memos and legal framework to kill Americans on our soil didn't exist under Bush. Obama set the precedent by killing a 16 y/o American. Did Bush do that?




.