Drone strikes inside US?

[Lifetime]

the law doesn't agree, nor has it ever. (nor should it for that matter)

[arch stanton]

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. 

 

Cases that are that black and white are the exception and not the rule. That's the reason for the Constitution and it works. Standing by its principles is much better than the alternative.

 

In the case of Pastor Homophobe, he's a typical bully using his bully pulpit to enjoy the sound of his own voice. It's our responsibility to protect those who might be endangered. Did you ever notice who are the favorite targets of these clowns?  Pregnant women and gays. They don't feel so religiously superior to gangs and drug dealers because they fight back. They are cowards who hide behind a few cherry-picked lines from their favorite book of fairy tales to justify organizing their army of mouth breathers to harass the weak and unprotected in our society. If they succeed it's not the fault of the Constitution, it's the fault of those of us who won't protect our own.

[WarAngel]

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.

 

I agree that the military use of armed drones on American soil is not a valid question.

 

But I disagree that there is zero reasoning to think that domestic law enforcement agencies would not seek to have the authority to use armed drones here. The fact that the technology is available, and currently being used by the DHS (unarmed drones for surveillance purposes only at this time) it is a logical extension that they might want to use them on American soil for certain situations. One such situation that would seem like a plausible case for the use of an armed drone was with Chris Dorner. A dangerous, armed threat in a fairly remote location who actively posed a threat to law enforcement. In such a case I can see a justifiable request by any law enforcement agency to use a drone strike to kill someone. He has met the qualifications of imminent threat IMO. However the change of the definition of "imminent threat" by the Obama administration expands the idea of using a drone to someone like Ted Kaczinsky.  Living in a remote area, suspected of being a threat but with no specific evidence that he was going to commit another crime.  A drone attack would be justifiable given the Obama administration's definition of "imminent threat".  

 

To me, the issue of using armed drones on American soil isn't so much about the use of the technology. Drones have a justifiable place in the government's arsenal of weapons to fight crime both here and abroad.  However, IMO the question is: Does the governments expansion of the definition of "imminent threat" violate the 5th amendment? Their official position with the use of drones overseas says "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." I don't think that it is a stretch to think that domestic law enforcement agencies could use the same definition to justify killing someone whom they do not have clear evidence that he poses a threat to anyone now or in the immediate future.

[arch stanton]

To me, the word that the Obama administration has tried hardest to redefine is transparency. It was his buzzword when it suited him. No way should a United States senator have to resort to filibustering nominations to get answers. The president is commander-in-chief, not sole authority on military issues. Classifying everything under the veil of national security is dictatorial bullshit. 

 

This is a new area and it deserves to be debated publicly since the choices made now will affect all Americans for years to come. The more they try to hide, the more they should not be trusted.

[Lifetime]

I agree that the military use of armed drones on American soil is not a valid question.

 

But I disagree that there is zero reasoning to think that domestic law enforcement agencies would not seek to have the authority to use armed drones here. The fact that the technology is available, and currently being used by the DHS (unarmed drones for surveillance purposes only at this time) it is a logical extension that they might want to use them on American soil for certain situations. One such situation that would seem like a plausible case for the use of an armed drone was with Chris Dorner. A dangerous, armed threat in a fairly remote location who actively posed a threat to law enforcement. In such a case I can see a justifiable request by any law enforcement agency to use a drone strike to kill someone. He has met the qualifications of imminent threat IMO. However the change of the definition of "imminent threat" by the Obama administration expands the idea of using a drone to someone like Ted Kaczinsky.  Living in a remote area, suspected of being a threat but with no specific evidence that he was going to commit another crime.  A drone attack would be justifiable given the Obama administration's definition of "imminent threat".  

 

To me, the issue of using armed drones on American soil isn't so much about the use of the technology. Drones have a justifiable place in the government's arsenal of weapons to fight crime both here and abroad.  However, IMO the question is: Does the governments expansion of the definition of "imminent threat" violate the 5th amendment? Their official position with the use of drones overseas says "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." I don't think that it is a stretch to think that domestic law enforcement agencies could use the same definition to justify killing someone whom they do not have clear evidence that he poses a threat to anyone now or in the immediate future.

 

 

I agree that the military use of armed drones on American soil is not a valid question.

 

But I disagree that there is zero reasoning to think that domestic law enforcement agencies would not seek to have the authority to use armed drones here. The fact that the technology is available, and currently being used by the DHS (unarmed drones for surveillance purposes only at this time) it is a logical extension that they might want to use them on American soil for certain situations. One such situation that would seem like a plausible case for the use of an armed drone was with Chris Dorner. A dangerous, armed threat in a fairly remote location who actively posed a threat to law enforcement. In such a case I can see a justifiable request by any law enforcement agency to use a drone strike to kill someone. He has met the qualifications of imminent threat IMO. However the change of the definition of "imminent threat" by the Obama administration expands the idea of using a drone to someone like Ted Kaczinsky.  Living in a remote area, suspected of being a threat but with no specific evidence that he was going to commit another crime.  A drone attack would be justifiable given the Obama administration's definition of "imminent threat".  

 

To me, the issue of using armed drones on American soil isn't so much about the use of the technology. Drones have a justifiable place in the government's arsenal of weapons to fight crime both here and abroad.  However, IMO the question is: Does the governments expansion of the definition of "imminent threat" violate the 5th amendment? Their official position with the use of drones overseas says "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." I don't think that it is a stretch to think that domestic law enforcement agencies could use the same definition to justify killing someone whom they do not have clear evidence that he poses a threat to anyone now or in the immediate future.

referring to rules for using a weapon in war and applying those rules to domestic crime enforcememt is foolhardy. Yes it is a stretch to apply rule of military engagement in an active wsr to domestic crime enforcement. An immenent threat from a known and active enemy at a time of war does not have the same definitiin as an immenent threat in a domestic crime situation. Like I said before, in war you don't just sit back and wait until you have specific evidence of an impending attack before you take measures to subdue the enemy. You know the enemy if given the chance will do great harm whether you know specifics about when where and how is not a criteria for taking action. Domestic crime issues are completly different animals with different rules of engagement.

[Ordos]

referring to rules for using a weapon in war and applying those rules to domestic crime enforcememt is foolhardy. Yes it is a stretch to apply rule of military engagement in an active wsr to domestic crime enforcement. An immenent threat from a known and active enemy at a time of war does not have the same definitiin as an immenent threat in a domestic crime situation. Like I said before, in war you don't just sit back and wait until you have specific evidence of an impending attack before you take measures to subdue the enemy. You know the enemy if given the chance will do great harm whether you know specifics about when where and how is not a criteria for taking action. Domestic crime issues are completly different animals with different rules of engagement.

LT, are you at all concerned that the loosely defined 'war on terror' and so-called 'enemy combatants' leave a broad enough excuse to use the same reasoning that you describe above in application to domestic situations?

[Lifetime]

To me, the word that the Obama administration has tried hardest to redefine is transparency. It was his buzzword when it suited him. No way should a United States senator have to resort to filibustering nominations to get answers. The president is commander-in-chief, not sole authority on military issues. Classifying everything under the veil of national security is dictatorial bullshit. 

 

This is a new area and it deserves to be debated publicly since the choices made now will affect all Americans for years to come. The more they try to hide, the more they should not be trusted.

the President holds the highest level of authority in the military chain of command. This isn't a new area, it's a new weapon in the arsenal.

[Lifetime]

LT, are you at all concerned that the loosely defined 'war on terror' and so-called 'enemy combatants' leave a broad enough excuse to use the same reasoning that you describe above in application to domestic situations?

no

[Ordos]

no

Consider me skeptical, then. Especially considering the availability of NSPD-51.

[Lifetime]

NSPD 51 deals with national crisis management

[Ordos]

NSPD 51 deals with national crisis management

I am aware of that.

[Lifetime]

then you would be aware that it does not affect domestic crime situations.

[Ordos]

then you would be aware that it does not affect domestic crime situations.

I think you mistake my point. Just as NSPD 51 appears to give the POTUS near dictatorial powers in national crises, it seems to me that the enemy combatant reasoning allows for the classification of war powers on domestic soil. I hope the Executive branch does not use the same argument.

[Lifetime]

and I dont agree with either of those conclusions.

[Ordos]

and I dont agree with either of those conclusions.

And I hope you're right

[Jason]

I wanted to bump an old random thread too so it's this one because I'm glad it hasn't happened yet 

[Jason]

On 3/8/2013 at 10:31 AM, HaloMagic said:

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

I believe this is not as important as it was 7 years ago 

[Taylor]

Lifetime really thought drone strikes in the U.S. were a good idea?

[Lou]

3 minutes ago, Taylor said:

Lifetime really thought drone strikes in the U.S. were a good idea?

That's not what he said!

[gotbeer]

2 hours ago, Jason said:

I wanted to bump an old random thread too so it's this one because I'm glad it hasn't happened yet 

Funny you would bump this one.  I was talking to a buddy that was working next to March Air force base for the last few months.  And he commented that the base is really active with flights coming and going a lot.  Then he said, that most of the flights are drones.  Some really big one's.  But most are small ones.  I'm wondering where these small one's are going, since they can't have that much range on them.  

[T.G.]

Someone request a drone strike?