lo country Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 Wow. Under "extraordinary circumstances" AG Holder feels it is Constitutionally allowable to use US Military on domestic US targets. http://washingtonexaminer.com/eric-holder-drone-strikes-against-americans-on-u.s.-soil-are-legal/article/2523319 I really hope this is along the lines of how would we stop a zombie apocalypse................You know just pretending. Link to comment
Foppa Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 Define 'extraordinary circumstances': Found one. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-march-3-2011/tales-of-principled-behavior Link to comment
Husker_x Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 I can also envision extreme circumstances where, legal or not, you'd use that power. The "we know a guy has a nuke and is about to detonate it" example that get trotted out in just about every presidential debate comes to mind. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 I believe the US military should not be allowed to be active inside an individual state without the invitation of that state. Something about state rights. If Holder thinks he can just all of a sudden "under extraordinary circumstances" fly a drone over Lexington NE and take out someone....he has a really bad view of his and the government's power. 1 Link to comment
Junior Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 Holder noted that Paul’s question was “entirely hypothetical [and] unlikely to occur,” but cited the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks as the type of incidents that might provoke such a response. US Military are not allowed to be involved in domestic law enforcement, without congressional approval. This is essentially a declaration of martial law. The last time it happened, that I am aware of, is after Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. Though you could certainly question a lot of the National Guard response to various storms/floods. Still, would you all have had a problem with them shooting down the 9/11 attackers? I also find it delightfully ironic when the people who love to spend a gazillion dollars on the military, come to realize "holy crap, they could use this on us if they wanted to!" Yes... and your AR-15's ain't gonna stop them either. Link to comment
rawhide Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 And the drone would most likely be controlled by the CIA. Another legal matter. 8 million AR-15's might make a difference, Junior. 1 Link to comment
NUpolo8 Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 Rand Paul is currently dropping an Old School filibuster about the appointment of the head of the CIA and is using this as the reason. http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN2/ He's been going for a few hours now. It's actually entertaining. There may be something wrong with me. Link to comment
Junior Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 And the drone would most likely be controlled by the CIA. Another legal matter. 8 million AR-15's might make a difference, Junior. Against fighter jets and tanks? Seems unlikely. Link to comment
rawhide Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 Whose tanks and aircraft? The US military? unlikely Link to comment
carlfense Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 Whose tanks and aircraft? The US military? unlikely Agreed . . . which kind of defeats that whole "we need AR15s to defend ourselves from the government" argument. (FWIW I'm not advocating for banning AR15s . . . . just always found it a little ridiculous.) Link to comment
Junior Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 Whose tanks and aircraft? The US military? unlikely Tell that to the people convinced Obama is hell bent on tyranny. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 And the drone would most likely be controlled by the CIA. Another legal matter. 8 million AR-15's might make a difference, Junior. Against fighter jets and tanks? Seems unlikely. Hmmmm....There seems to be some ex - Middle Eastern dictators that might argue that. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 Whose tanks and aircraft? The US military? unlikely Tell that to the people convinced Obama is hell bent on tyranny. I don't believe he is "hell bent on tyrranny. I just think he is clueless on any solution other that government control. But..... It you have to wonder some times by just looking at the topics on this board. Gun control = Take more fire power away from the citizens. Drone Strikes in US = Ability to attack citizens. Government take over of industry = Health Care/Auto industry Control of who has what = Redistribution of wealth controlled by government Link to comment
rawhide Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 I've just read too many Tom Clancy and Dale Brown novels among others. I also took an oath more than 40 years ago that still applies today. Link to comment
lo country Posted March 7, 2013 Author Share Posted March 7, 2013 Whose tanks and aircraft? The US military? unlikely Tell that to the people convinced Obama is hell bent on tyranny. I don't believe he is "hell bent on tyrranny. I just think he is clueless on any solution other that government control. But..... It you have to wonder some times by just looking at the topics on this board. Gun control = Take more fire power away from the citizens. Drone Strikes in US = Ability to attack citizens. Government take over of industry = Health Care/Auto industry Control of who has what = Redistribution of wealth controlled by government 1.7 billion rounds of ammunition Drone Strikes on USC's 2700 MRAP's (mine resistant armored personnel carriers) 7,000 Personal defense weapons Gun control Just saying, on the surface, looks rather odd. (All of the above purchases by US DHS) Link to comment
Recommended Posts