Drone strikes inside US?

[floplag]

On the old forums we hada discussion about drone strikes and due process... im curious how some will feel about that now based on this article.. though im sure i already know the answer:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/05/politics/obama-drones-cia/index.html

 

[Lifetime]

If there is just and legal cause to use lethal military force on American soil, I would not be opposed to that lethal force being a drone.

[HaloMagic]

If there is just and legal cause to slaughter Chinese farmers in my backyard I would not be opposed to it.

[mtangelsfan]

Not a fan. 

[Jim]

No, never

[Lifetime]

@jim, @mt, why?

[Bruce Nye]

Do we just forget due process and fire away?

[Lifetime]

No of course not. Would there be any justifiable cause to use military deadly force on American soil?

[Bruce Nye]

No of course not. Would there be any justifiable cause to use military deadly force on American soil?

 

 

Of course.  I'm just not ready to give a government I don't trust that approval.

[Jim]

Any just and legal cause I can think of to kill Americans inside our borders could and should (IMHO) be handled by a living, breathing soldier. Whether it is by ground or air doesn’t make a difference to me.

 

At the point in which our government feels the need to use military action to kill Americans inside our border, means we have bigger issues. Whom or what is doing the killing will not matter a bunch, really.

[Lifetime]

No one is doing that. If there is just cause for lethal military force, why not use drones as part of the solution?

[Lifetime]

Any just and legal cause I can think of to kill Americans inside our borders could and should (IMHO) be handled by a living, breathing soldier. Whether it is by ground or air doesn’t make a difference to me.

At the point in which our government feels the need to use military action to kill Americans inside our border, we have bigger issues. Whom or what is doing the killing will not matter a bunch.

what is your reasoning for wanting lethal action to be carried out by a living breathing soldier as opposed to a drone- which is controlled by a living breathing soldier by the way.

[Jay]

A drone is less likely to put 378 bullet holes in the newspaper delivery woman's truck

[Ray McKigney]

The drones will take over. Hasn't anybody seen 2001?

[HaloMagic]

A drone is less likely to put 378 bullet holes in the newspaper delivery woman's truck

It was 10-378.

[arch stanton]

The examples are poor. Drones would have been useless in either case he mentioned. And I really don't care what Holder has to say. I want it from Obama's mouth.

 

The use of drones or any military action against Americans on American soil should be completely transparent. Any evidence against a potential target should be made public and be held to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt. It should be known in advance that no one has immunity and every person in the loop will have complete accountability for the results and collateral damage is not tolerated..

 

And for the record, during my time in the military I would have refused to attack Americans unless I was 100% positive that they were a threat.

[Lou]

Any just and legal cause I can think of to kill Americans inside our borders could and should (IMHO) be handled by a living, breathing soldier.  

 

 

this is easy to say when you're not the living,breathing soldier. 

[Lou]

A drone is less likely to put 378 bullet holes in the newspaper delivery woman's truck

 

what if it's dark outside?

[Tank]

We are a nation of laws. Drone strikes fly in the face of that.

[Lifetime]

We are a nation of laws. Drone strikes fly in the face of that.

how so?

[Broad Street]

The examples are poor. Drones would have been useless in either case he mentioned. And I really don't care what Holder has to say. I want it from Obama's mouth.

 

The use of drones or any military action against Americans on American soil should be completely transparent. Any evidence against a potential target should be made public and be held to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt. It should be known in advance that no one has immunity and every person in the loop will have complete accountability for the results and collateral damage is not tolerated..

 

And for the record, during my time in the military I would have refused to attack Americans unless I was 100% positive that they were a threat.

 

I don't know if I'm understanding this correctly... You want to go out publicly with all the evidence against the target and publicly say that we're ready to take whatever steps necessary to neutralize the target? If that's the case, wouldn't any smart domestic terrorist run directly into a crowd of citizens? I say bring a judge in on it to make a ruling, then take out the target, THEN publicly announce what you did and why.

[arch stanton]

I don't know if I'm understanding this correctly... You want to go out publicly with all the evidence against the target and publicly say that we're ready to take whatever steps necessary to neutralize the target? If that's the case, wouldn't any smart domestic terrorist run directly into a crowd of citizens? I say bring a judge in on it to make a ruling, then take out the target, THEN publicly announce what you did and why.

And are you saying you want to live in a place where people can be murdered and tried by propaganda after the fact? I don't. Innocent until proven guilty, public trial by jury, right to confront witnesses, these are good things and need to apply all the time. Proactive freedom does not exist.

[Broad Street]

And are you saying you want to live in a place where people can be murdered and tried by propaganda after the fact? I don't. Innocent until proven guilty, public trial by jury, right to confront witnesses, these are good things and need to apply all the time. Proactive freedom does not exist.

 

Innocent until proven guilty? Have you not looked at sexual assault cases? The man is ALWAYS guilty until proven innocent. Everybody talks about all these rights that American citizens have and how the Constitution protects them and they're glad for their rights, but are they actually effective? No, they're not. Our Constitution needs to be rewritten to roll with modern times. It's not 1781 anymore, guns shoot more than 1 bullet every 2 minutes and 90% of the population ISN'T a Puritan. America's Constitution (Amend it!) needs to get with the times.

[Rico]

The military is not law enforcment.  The military should not have a role in going after domestic terrorists. 

 

I also believe state and federal agencies (FBI, ATF, National Guard) should not have drone technology. 

 

So I'm going to have to go with NO on this. 

[Jay]

Innocent until proven guilty? Have you not looked at sexual assault cases? The man is ALWAYS guilty until proven innocent. Everybody talks about all these rights that American citizens have and how the Constitution protects them and they're glad for their rights, but are they actually effective? No, they're not. Our Constitution needs to be rewritten to roll with modern times. It's not 1781 anymore, guns shoot more than 1 bullet every 2 minutes and 90% of the population ISN'T a Puritan. America's Constitution (Amend it!) needs to get with the times.

time for bed Kody