Drone strikes inside US?

[mtangelsfan]

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.

 

Are you referring to the same Constitution that you swore an oath to protect?

[nate]

Very against drone strikes on the US.  I also think that Rand Paul was doing the right thing.  There should be a lot more transparency when it comes to authorized force on Americans, here and abroad.

[Lifetime]

I must say this is pretty ignoramt of the laws that govern this country

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.

[floplag]

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.

 

Not sure i agree with the examples here, but i wish to ask about the issue of amending the constitution...

 

The question i have to ask is, per whose ideals?

 

The ideals this country was founded on should be simple absolutes... there are no elongated parameters set to the concept of due process, free speech, freedom of religion.. these are extraordinarily simple ideals. 

 

We have already tried over the years to interpret them to deatch and bend them to fit whoever is in power, se HR 247 as a wonderful example of how something can be interpreted in an extermely bad way and be very legal in doing so.. for those not familiar is basically can make it a crime to protest in any area where Obama is present.  This is an extreme interpretation of it, but it is also not innacurate.  Of course this was not panned at all on his board to the surprise of precisely noone.

 

What im getting at is basically who gets to make that call?  1 judge?  a small group of old closed minded people in the SCOTUS?  Congress in the lobbysints pockets?  public referrendum?  executive priviledge?  All any of that does is limit something that should only be limited by common sense and responsibility.

 

This might be the one time in history that i would agree with the whole less is more nonsense.

[floplag]

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.

 

It has already been established by many here that they have no problem with this idea on foreign ground.. so im sure it wont matter domestically as expected.

 

Personally this disgusts me on many levels not the least of which being it is a giant overstep of the federal government in terms of jurisdiction.

[Lifetime]

drone use should be treated as any other military lethal action whether home or abroad. it requires the same level of legal authority and justification as any other call for lethal military action does. the idea of drones being used for lethal force domestically is a hypothetical scenario that hasn't even been considered prior to this suggestion. Is it possible that a scenario might present itself sometime in the future that would call for lethal military action on US soil? Sure it's possible, not probable but possible. And if such a scenario presented itself, it would have to have the proper authorization and legal authority to  be used. If that is the case, it matters none if the lethal force is a manned or unmanned aircraft or any other lethal mechanics. This is not something to be used where civil police have jurisdiction. This is solely a military weapon.

[Lifetime]

It has already been established by many here that they have no problem with this idea on foreign ground.. so im sure it wont matter domestically as expected.

 

Personally this disgusts me on many levels not the least of which being it is a giant overstep of the federal government in terms of jurisdiction.

no it isn't. how is using a military device in a legal military engagement an over stepping of federal jurisdiction?

[HaloMagic]

I am somewhat split on this one. I don't mind the idea that, in an extremely rare situations that will probably never occur, the government uses drones on targets within the US borders. However, I don't think those targets should be US citizens. I would be in favor of being able to charge citizens and conduct public trials in absentia and revoke their citizenship upon a guilty verdict. Then I wouldn't be opposed to drone strikes in situations where it is deemed completely necessary, provided the risk to extraneous human life or damage that could lead to undue hardship is effectively 0%. In that case other approaches should be taken. Unfortunately our current Constitution doesn't allow trials to be conducted in absentia so there would need to be an amendment made to allow it. Short of that I don't support targeted drone strikes on any American citizens anywhere.

[Lifetime]

why the distinction between US citizens and non-citizens?

[HaloMagic]

Because our government is required by our Constitution to uphold the rights of US citizens.

[Lifetime]

what rights are you speaking of?

[HaloMagic]

Due process in this case.

[Lifetime]

due process is not uniquely a citizen's right

[nate]

Considering that the clauses about detaining American Citizens in the NDAA signed last year were found to be in violation of Due Process, I would think drone strikes would fall under the same umbrella.  The US government should not be able to execute US Citizens by way of drone strike.  They should be forced to detain and take them to trial.

[Rico]

I can think of only two scenarios where drones would be used on US soil. 

 

1. We are being invaded by another super power.

2. We are in full out civil war.

 

Both these options are so extreme and unlikely that it doesn't marit another huge thread.

[VariousCrap]

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.

 

 

 

Oh dear god....

[Lifetime]

Oh dear god....

good rebuttal

[mancini79]

I'm all for drone's used to gather intelligence or surveillance. But there are many problems by arming them on US territory. They can be, and have been, hacked. Somebody would be able to send an armed drone crashing down onto innocent civilians. It also takes away "due process". What gives the military or government the right to be judge and jury from the skies? For the current record of drones strikes, what is the success rate? How many times did they miss their target or cause collateral damage? A lot of things could go wrong when lives are at stake from a bomb being operated by remote control. 

[Lifetime]

the hacked issue can be resolved so I don't see that as a road block. As for due process, no one is even hypothetically suggesting using drones for civil law enforcememt. The only time drones would be used on American soil as a lethal weapon is in an extreme circumstance that calls for military action. As a military action, it would require the same kind of authorization military action is required now. Again, extreme circumstances that are improbable to ever exist in country. If lethal military action is called for, and a drone is the most efficient means to an end, why not use them as opposed to some other lethal military action?

[arch stanton]

the hacked issue can be resolved so I don't see that as a road block. As for due process, no one is even hypothetically suggesting using drones for civil law enforcememt. The only time drones would be used on American soil as a lethal weapon is in an extreme circumstance that calls for military action. As a military action, it would require the same kind of authorization military action is required now. Again, extreme circumstances that are improbable to ever exist in country. If lethal military action is called for, and a drone is the most efficient means to an end, why not use them as opposed to some other lethal military action?

It's nice that you say so. It's even nicer now that the government says so.

[Lifetime]

whatever that's supposed to mean.

[WarAngel]

drone use should be treated as any other military lethal action whether home or abroad. it requires the same level of legal authority and justification as any other call for lethal military action does. the idea of drones being used for lethal force domestically is a hypothetical scenario that hasn't even been considered prior to this suggestion. Is it possible that a scenario might present itself sometime in the future that would call for lethal military action on US soil? Sure it's possible, not probable but possible. And if such a scenario presented itself, it would have to have the proper authorization and legal authority to  be used. If that is the case, it matters none if the lethal force is a manned or unmanned aircraft or any other lethal mechanics. This is not something to be used where civil police have jurisdiction. This is solely a military weapon.

 

I agree that the U.S. military would have the legal authority to use predator drones on U.S. soil (even against American citizens) under some circumstances (foreign military invasion, civil war, etc.) But the U.S. military (excluding the Coast Guard and National Guard) is not allowed to operate in a law enforcement capacity on U.S. soil and so would not be tracking any enemy combatant (terrorist or otherwise) on U.S. soil.  So the inclusion of "home" in your statement of "home or abroad" is pointless as long as we are limiting the use of drones to the military.

 

The question, as I see it, is not whether or not the military can use predator drones to kill American's on U.S. soil, but whether the U.S. government can kill anyone (citizen or not) who does not actively pose a threat without due process.  Since the Coast Guard, National Guard, FBI, Department of Homeland Security, ATF, and I'm sure several other agencies do have "military" capabilities and could (if they don't already) have access to drones, the question remains. Could these agencies (with drones or by other means) legally kill someone who does not pose an imminent threat without due process?  The question of drone use on American soil against Americans is a narrow focus of this larger question, but it's one that should be answered by our government (the Attorney General and the President in particular). The reason this question should be answered is that our government has stretched the concept of "imminent threat" to an absurd level (IMO) such that it has no real meaning. According to the Obama administration:

 

"the condition that an operational leader present an "imminent" threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons will take place in the immediate future."

 

So, they have already stated that they don't have to have any evidence that anything will happen now or in the immediate future.  They just have to suspect that it will and that is justification for the military to use a drone to kill someone. It's not a stretch to believe that this same logic would be used by a domestic law enforcement agency as a justification to kill someone here without due process considering the concept of "imminent threat" now means that the government simply suspects that you might attack at some time in the future.

 

In my untrained legal opinion, it would be illegal for the U.S. government (excluding the military) to kill any person who does not actively pose a threat (whether or not they were an American and whether or not they were on American soil). Also, the idea that "imminent threat" does not require clear evidence that a specific attack will take place in the immediate future is asinine. So, while I agree that the question of military use of armed drones on American soil is generally pointless, the question of armed drones being used on American soil in a law enforcement capacity is valid and may very soon not be simply a hypothetical question.

[Lifetime]

"I agree that the U.S. military would have the legal authority to use predator drones on U.S. soil (even against American citizens) under some circumstances (foreign military invasion, civil war, etc.) But the U.S. military (excluding the Coast Guard and National Guard) is not allowed to operate in a law enforcement capacity on U.S. soil and so would not be tracking any enemy combatant (terrorist or otherwise) on U.S. soil. So the inclusion of "home" in your statement of "home or abroad" is pointless as long as we are limiting the use of drones to the military."

Actually it isn't pointless. The fact of the matter is the use of lethal military force on US soil would only take place in an extreme case such as invasion or civil war. If those conditions exist and military lethal force is authorized and warranted, the the use of drones should be an acceptable means of applying said lethal force.

"The question, as I see it, is not whether or not the military can use predator drones to kill American's on U.S. soil, but whether the U.S. government can kill anyone (citizen or not) who does not actively pose a threat without due process. Since the Coast Guard, National Guard, FBI, Department of Homeland Security, ATF, and I'm sure several other agencies do have "military" capabilities and could (if they don't already) have access to drones, the question remains. Could these agencies (with drones or by other means) legally kill someone who does not pose an imminent threat without due process? The question of drone use on American soil against Americans is a narrow focus of this larger question, but it's one that should be answered by our government (the Attorney General and the President in particular). The reason this question should be answered is that our government has stretched the concept of "imminent threat" to an absurd level (IMO) such that it has no real meaning. According to the Obama administration:

"the condition that an operational leader present an "imminent" threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons will take place in the immediate future."

So, they have already stated that they don't have to have any evidence that anything will happen now or in the immediate future. They just have to suspect that it will and that is justification for the military to use a drone to kill someone. It's not a stretch to believe that this same logic would be used by a domestic law enforcement agency as a justification to kill someone here without due process considering the concept of "imminent threat" now means that the government simply suspects that you might attack at some time in the future."

This boils down to a difference in definition or perhaps a twisting of words. Imminent threat is a requirement. We are talking about engaging an enemy that is actively plotting to harm the US persons, military and interests. This is a wartime action against someone who is part of the enemy or is in cahoots with the enemy. Knowing that the enemy organization to which these people belong (including in positions of leadership) is still actively involved in trying to bring harm to the US is justification enough to go after them with any manner of military force. The type of force used is dependent on efficiency and an effort to reduce military and collateral damage. These strikes aren't done without any evidence that the target is actively involved with the enemy. There may not be a known plot or specific information about an immediate operation but the reality is, that would hardly ever be the case prior to a military strike on a specific target during an engagement. The military does not just stand by until they have evidence of an immediate action before they set out to strike an enemy target. They did not say that drone strikes were justified without ANY evidence but rather that they don't necessarily have evidence or details of an immediate future action. It's not at all asinine. Imminent threat involves information about an enemy organization that is actively involved in military action against the US. It is not necessary to have the details or timing of a specific attack to deem an active enemy is an imminent threat.

The question of military use of armed drones on American soil in a law enforcement capacity is not a valid question. There is zero reasoning to think that the government would take those measures. It was raised as a hypothetical when there is nothing whatsoever to indicate anyone has or would even contemplate such an action. And there is no evidence that the domestic security agencies, Coast Guard, FBI, Homeland Security, ATF, etc. has access to or any authorization whatsoever to use armed drones.

[Vegas Halo Fan]

But he also said the government has no intention of carrying out drone strikes inside the United States. Echoing what he said in a letter to U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, he called the possibility of domestic drone strikes "entirely hypothetical."

 

So we're having this drawn out, heated dialog over a comment about a hypothetical situation. I cannot definitively say that there is absolutely no circumstance under which it would make sense to use an armed drone in our own country. If Osama bin Laden had been holed up in an isolated cabin in a rural part of Arizona, say...but it makes equal sense to say that it is not part of a plan or strategy.

[Broad Street]

Are you referring to the same Constitution that you swore an oath to protect?

 

Yes. Please note, I was incredibly drunk last night, and I DO NOT wish for the WHOLE Constitution to be rewritten. BUT, you cannot argue that there aren't some things that need Amendments. I believe in the freedom of religion (even though religious prejudice is very much alive and well in this nation) and the freedom to say whatever you want, even though some abuse that right (Westboro Baptist Church). But I also believe that our justice system needs a fixing. It's insane how much money is being poured into prisons, especially in California. But, that's for another topic. 

 

In my insane and probably irrational opinion, I do not believe that someone who has CLEARLY murdered people deserves due process.