Drone strikes on Americans

[knapplc]

The slippery slope argument is what concerns me most here. I think I lie somewhere in between Conga's and Undone's opinion here - to an extent I feel like, you're over there, you know the risks, you get targeted by a drone... oh well.

 

But my concern is, if it's OK to do it "over there," what's to stop them from using drones against citizens "over here?" It's a matter of geography. This memo states "over there," but that's for now, under this president (and that's a fluid situation, too). But the next president or the next president, or the next - what's to stop them from using this precedent and taking it one step further?

 

I don't like the "slippery slope" argument and I'm sure nobody else does, either. But it's got to be considered.

 

I suppose the more realistic "slippery slope" would be to use drones against the US Citizens in the Mexican Cartel within the United States.

 

Al-Qaeda leaders are probably going to stay away from the US to establish their power structures, while the Cartel is already here.

 

I'm not being specific about any organization or affiliation. Limiting the conversation to al Qaeda or drug cartels doesn't begin to cover what I'd be worried about. You commit a crime - any crime - and a "next step, next step" interpretation of the abilities the government is granting itself with this memo says you can be targeted by a drone.

 

Take, for example, those helicopter chase scenes they love to show on local LA television. The guy in the car is fleeing arrest. He's a criminal, and therefore a potential threat. Bring in the drone and the hellfire missile, and problem solved. That's the kind of thing I'm getting at.

I would watch that.

 

--------------

 

But seriously, the drone missiles are a tool of war...and your concern is them being used for domestic law enforcement?

 

There probably already exists several "memos" explaining how domestic law enforcement within the US can't use drone missiles or our super secret space lasers.

 

The memos go both ways. There are lots of them.

 

Yes, absolutely. Maybe not today, maybe not in this decade, but in the future, when established precedent is used as a baseboard to establish yet another precedent that is even more far-reaching, and yet another which is even more far-reaching.

 

The Constitution, as written 200+ years ago, has been pushed and molded and morphed into something nearly unrecognizable at this point. It's a relevant point to worry just how far that morphing will go.

[Ziggy]

Personally, I feel no sorrow for the death of the US Al Q member or any enemy combatant. But as long as we have a constitution in our country that says due process is afforded to all US citizens, then what the current White house staff, and Military did was unconstitutional. Its been said many times, and I will not rehash much of the responses, but I felt it important to voice my opinion on the matter. My question is where is the ACLU on this situation, where is code Pink, or Susan whatser face. Where are all the people who stood up for the Guantanamo bay inmates, but are silent when a president on their "side" kills an American citizen without due process, and in direct violation of our constitution?

 

Lastly, i think the world is ending.....me and carl mostly agree on a topic.....

[carlfense]

Personally, I feel no sorrow for the death of the US Al Q member or any enemy combatant. But as long as we have a constitution in our country that says due process is afforded to all US citizens, then what the current White house staff, and Military did was unconstitutional. Its been said many times, and I will not rehash much of the responses, but I felt it important to voice my opinion on the matter. My question is where is the ACLU on this situation, where is code Pink, or Susan whatser face. Where are all the people who stood up for the Guantanamo bay inmates, but are silent when a president on their "side" kills an American citizen without due process, and in direct violation of our constitution?

 

“This is a chilling document,” said Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the ACLU, which is suing to obtain administration memos about the targeted killing of Americans. “Basically, it argues that the government has the right to carry out the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen. … It recognizes some limits on the authority it sets out, but the limits are elastic and vaguely defined, and it’s easy to see how they could be manipulated.”

http://openchannel.n...cid=msnhp&pos=1

[Ziggy]

I worded that poorly in my post, I meant when we killed the OG US ALQ member, not now. I know its a hot topic right now, but really surprised it wasn't a big deal before, especially during the election. Figured it was a pretty easy lay up for the Republicans to hit him in the anti war base with.

 

 

Eww stop carl, your making this so awkward for me.....

[carlfense]

Eww stop carl, your making this so awkward for me.....

[QMany]

Brennan says the test for drone strikes on Americans is that it must directly "save lives" and there must be "no other alternative."

[BigRedBuster]

I have not read all of this thread or the Gun Control thread so pardon me if this has been mentioned. But doesn't it bother people that both of these threads are at the top of this board at the same time?

 

The government wants to limit the fire power of the citizens but then have the power to use more fire power than legally used now on it's citizens.

 

Kind of a chilling thought to me.

[Ziggy]

Yea BRB, it is pretty telling the way our society has pushed personal responsibility away and given more and more to the government, completely opposite of what the country was founded on.

 

Also found this strolling on reddit. Interesting read, not sure on facts and such.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/m/...-us-drones.html

 

 

Edited:added S to trolling.....reddit is silly

[knapplc]

I just came to post that, Ziggy.

 

Obama ran on Hope and Change. Then he ran on four more years... or whatever. But the reality is that this kinder, gentler president with the more open government promise has not kept it, and should be held accountable for it by the citizens.

 

The drones issue isn't a yes/no answer. There's a lot going into whether I think they're OK or not. But the lack of transparency and the doubling-down on policies I didn't like under Bush need to be talked about. People need to be concerned about this.

[JJ Husker]

I just came to post that, Ziggy.

 

Obama ran on Hope and Change. Then he ran on four more years... or whatever. But the reality is that this kinder, gentler president with the more open government promise has not kept it, and should be held accountable for it by the citizens.

 

The drones issue isn't a yes/no answer. There's a lot going into whether I think they're OK or not. But the lack of transparency and the doubling-down on policies I didn't like under Bush need to be talked about. People need to be concerned about this.

 

Absolutely agree. But, how do we hold a lame duck President accountable? I mean he was just elected and inagurated. I saw an opportunity in the election booth to respond to the lack of transparency of his first term. Unfortunately too few rose to the occasion. It looks to me like he is going to double down on his efforts to do whatever the hell he wants, without regard to the usual channels or even the Constitution. Like I said, I agree, but I don't see any getting through to him. What do you suggest?

[rawhide]

one solution:

 

[knapplc]

Welp, they're using drones to search for Christopher Dorner.

 

---

 

Man hunt for ex-soldier who shot police chief's daughter and killed policeman

 

POLICE plan to use spy drones in the hunt for a Rambo-style ex-soldier and policeman who has murdered three people and vowed to kill again.

 

They believe burly, heavily-armed Christopher Dorner is holed-up in the wilderness of California’s snow-capped San Bernardino mountains 80 miles east of Los Angeles.

 

A senior police source said: “The thermal imaging cameras the drones use may be our only hope of finding him. On the ground, it’s like looking for a needle in a haystack.”

 

Asked directly if drones have already been deployed, Riverside Police Chief Sergio Diaz, who is jointly leading the task force, said: “We are using all the tools at our disposal.”

 

The use of drones was later confirmed by Customs and Border Patrol spokesman Ralph DeSio, who revealed agents have been prepared for Dorner to make a dash for the Mexican border since his rampage began.

 

---

[walksalone]

Welp, they're using drones to search for Christopher Dorner.

 

If they're having to look in that part of CA, that's really their best bet, because imagine the number of folks and manhours that'd be spent trying to do this on foot and with air support...

[rawhide]

I'm between Big Bear and Mexico so I'm ready.

 

With the weather lately; if he didn't have an insulated hideyhole. He be a popsicle.

[zoogs]

Welp, they're using drones to search for Christopher Dorner.

 

I feel like this story and its unfortunate headline have been really, really overblown....because none of the relevant issues appear to even crop up. At least to me. Maybe I'm missing something.

 

This is a surveillance drone we are talking about, that is giving law enforcement the best chance at locating the guy. It's not armed and they're not going to take him out without due process. But more than a few of my friends have posted this, asking 'Is this the end of democracy?' I don't lump you in that group, by the way, just commenting on the general outcry over this. As it's stated in the part you're quoting, they need the aerial thermal imaging.

 

This is simply a case of better available technology than sending a manned helicopter pilot out there patrolling the highways looking for cars. It's safer and more efficient. Sounds like a great use of the tech.

 

Although probably the day will come when these drones are armed as well, and considered mobile precision policemen, able to take out a guy if he stops in the middle of the highway, hides behind his truck, points an AK-47 and starts shooting. Even if that happens, that isn't killing an American citizen without due process, exactly, is it? Police on the scene would do the exact same thing. But it does raise some interesting questions on how far technology can go and if there's ever a point where it simply overreaches.