Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

And my unit is taking a kick to the balls by having to switch out of our A-10 flying mission and go to these damned drones. I hate these things with a passion. They are dangerous both on the ground and in the air because the operators make tons of mistakes. I've seen two drones taxi into each other in Afghanistan, for instance. I've seen a Belgian F-16 hit one that was taxiing without its lights on. And I have heard the pilots all say how the skies are so cluttered with the damned things that you have to keep a special watch just for them.

I have a problem with the whole unmanned aircraft thing once you put weapons on them. I don't like them to begin with, but if you have weapons on them and they are controlled by someone who operates under a totally different set of ROE's, you never really know how safe you are on the ground.

I'll just say that while there are many people who may deserve being shot with drone missiles, it wouldn't be constitutional to do so without due process.

Honestly, I'm more concerned about Holder's comments that the banks are, in effect, so big they're beyond prosecution.

 Frazzled wrote:

Now THAT is unconstitutional bs of epic proportions.

So, those soldiers you want placed on the US/Mexico border are only allowed to look pretty?

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
The key words are "immediate threat." It is unconstitutional to kill a US citizen if that citizen does not pose an immediate threat.

Well, that, and the distinction between drone* attacks on American citizens, and drone attacks on American territory. I saw discussion of the latter, but not the former; despite the article title.


*Which is a really weird place to draw the line. Is it alright if manned aircraft attack?

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

There is also executive order 12333, which strictly prohibits at least the military from conducting intelligence operations within the US, without a whole laundry list of crap being met prior to getting authorization. Whether or not this EO applies to law enforcement agencies, I don't know.

It doesn't really matter, it could be easily rescinded and replaced.

The response of "omg drone strikes against US citizens!" is kind of strange considering the comment only said "it's conceivable that in some extraordinary circumstance the military could be authorized to use lethal force against US citizens". The only situation where military involvement would make sense would be something like a state's national guard rebelling, or something equally insane. Otherwise you have more disproportionate force than you can shake a stick at in the form of law enforcement alone, and then the national guard for just about any outlandishly dangerous situation not involving a large amount of military grade materiel.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
The response of "omg drone strikes against US citizens!" is kind of strange considering the comment only said "it's conceivable that in some extraordinary circumstance the military could be authorized to use lethal force against US citizens". The only situation where military involvement would make sense would be something like a state's national guard rebelling, or something equally insane. Otherwise you have more disproportionate force than you can shake a stick at in the form of law enforcement alone, and then the national guard for just about any outlandishly dangerous situation not involving a large amount of military grade materiel.

It was pretty insane thinking you'd see the justice department torching 70+ people, mostly kids on tv before Waco happened. It was even more insane thinking no one would really be punished for that atrocity after it happened.

Relapse wrote:
After Waco, Ruby Ridge, Fast and Furious, etc., I sure as hell don't want to see some moron in the justice department getting those kind of toys to play with.

Now you understand.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

“No one will ever forget Jane Fonda swiveling around in North Vietnamese armored guns. And it was despicable. It’s one thing if you want to try her for treason. But are you just going to drop a hellfire missile on Jane Fonda?” - Paul Rand

Bad cases make bad law.

What if the drone just dropped rotten tomatoes?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:
Honestly, I'm more concerned about Holder's comments that the banks are, in effect, so big they're beyond prosecution.

Bank regulation is not the purview of the DOJ sweets.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
The response of "omg drone strikes against US citizens!" is kind of strange considering the comment only said "it's conceivable that in some extraordinary circumstance the military could be authorized to use lethal force against US citizens". The only situation where military involvement would make sense would be something like a state's national guard rebelling, or something equally insane. Otherwise you have more disproportionate force than you can shake a stick at in the form of law enforcement alone, and then the national guard for just about any outlandishly dangerous situation not involving a large amount of military grade materiel.

or the Presdient doesn't like some guy.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
The key words are "immediate threat." It is unconstitutional to kill a US citizen if that citizen does not pose an immediate threat. Obviously an active shooter is an immediate threat. But if you have the time to build a targeting package for a drone strike, then you have time to make an arrest. Whether or not a citizen is a terrorist, or belongs to a terrorist group, that citizen still has the protection of the Bill of Rights. They cannot be executed without due process of law. It is in the 5th amendment.

To break it down, there is no similarity besides a LEO or even a citizen using lethal force in self defense or in the name of protecting others and a no over sight, no judicial process death warrant.

You guys know how pro-police I am and this is exactly right. It's not similar. The time and distance required to get the drone somewhere is enough time to seriously bring into question the immediacy of the threat.

 Rented Tritium wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
The key words are "immediate threat." It is unconstitutional to kill a US citizen if that citizen does not pose an immediate threat. Obviously an active shooter is an immediate threat. But if you have the time to build a targeting package for a drone strike, then you have time to make an arrest. Whether or not a citizen is a terrorist, or belongs to a terrorist group, that citizen still has the protection of the Bill of Rights. They cannot be executed without due process of law. It is in the 5th amendment.

To break it down, there is no similarity besides a LEO or even a citizen using lethal force in self defense or in the name of protecting others and a no over sight, no judicial process death warrant.

You guys know how pro-police I am and this is exactly right. It's not similar. The time and distance required to get the drone somewhere is enough time to seriously bring into question the immediacy of the threat.

Exactly. In the US people are reachable. Now if someone how Raz Al Ghoul has holed up in an underground bunker in the Rockies and is holding off the local forces, and this is part of a full military response then cool. Otherwise no way Jose.

 Frazzled wrote:

 sebster wrote:
Honestly, I'm more concerned about Holder's comments that the banks are, in effect, so big they're beyond prosecution.

Bank regulation is not the purview of the DOJ sweets.

In this thread, Frazzled pretends that there is not a difference between civil banking regulation and criminal prosections for things such as (but not limited to) fraud.

 Ouze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 sebster wrote:
Honestly, I'm more concerned about Holder's comments that the banks are, in effect, so big they're beyond prosecution.

Bank regulation is not the purview of the DOJ sweets.

In this thread, Frazzled pretends that there is not a difference between civil banking regulation and criminal prosections for things such as (but not limited to) fraud.

Mmm..so you're arguing the DOJ would not prosecute a company for fraud because its too big to fail? Interesting to see how you prosecute a company under criminal regs like that. I mean its kind of hard for a nonexistent entity to show intent.

What are you going to do? Send the company to jail?

When the Chief Legal Counsel of the USA, cannot answer a very simple constitutional question, about due process and killing us citizens, it is time to be worried.

 SickSix wrote:
When the Chief Legal Counsel of the USA, cannot answer a very simple constitutional question, about due process and killing us citizens, it is time to be worried.

There is no justice, just us.

But yea, welcome to the Terrordome. According to the SOuthern Poverty Center, you are now a hate group. That small buzzing fly orbiting your house that looks remarkably like a drone, is really just a gigantically big mosquito.

I was listening to the usual conspiracy tin-foil crowd at work this morning. They were going off about "they are putting xrays on the interstate to monitor us", "FEMA death camps", and other crazy nuts talk.

It just makes me share my head when people are so misinformed that they come up with crap like that, and don't even know about things like this.

There is plenty of real things to be worried and concerned about without making crap up.

 d-usa wrote:
I was listening to the usual conspiracy tin-foil crowd at work this morning. They were going off about "they are putting xrays on the interstate to monitor us", "FEMA death camps", and other crazy nuts talk.

It just makes me share my head when people are so misinformed that they come up with crap like that, and don't even know about things like this.

There is plenty of real things to be worried and concerned about without making crap up.

yes they are crazy.

However, like the vapid left wing there is a point:
*Drone strikes on US citizens in the US ore violently unconstitutional.
*Drones can survey anywhere and are getting such that they can effectively create 4th amendment searches.
*DHS is developing or now has vans who's sole purpose to drive down the street and scan everything - also violatiove of the 4th Amendment.
*DHS really did look to buy MRAP vehicles.
*A bill is being recommended by NY Senator Shumer that effectively is a gun registration bill. Washington did pass a bil in its house using a local registration to put into aeffect the ability of police to enter homes annually and seize firearms without warrant - (but it was quickly quashed when it came out).
*FEMA does have camps. They are just really crappy trailer park camps outside New Orleans, Mississippii and maybe in NJ now.

Like I said, there is stuff that can be a concern (although I usually don't think it is panic level worthy.

But the "Obama is training a youth army to do his bidding" type crap is just stupid, especially when there is the real stuff out there.

Yep

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 sebster wrote:
Honestly, I'm more concerned about Holder's comments that the banks are, in effect, so big they're beyond prosecution.

Bank regulation is not the purview of the DOJ sweets.

In this thread, Frazzled pretends that there is not a difference between civil banking regulation and criminal prosections for things such as (but not limited to) fraud.

Mmm..so you're arguing the DOJ would not prosecute a company for fraud because its too big to fail? Interesting to see how you prosecute a company under criminal regs like that. I mean its kind of hard for a nonexistent entity to show intent.

What are you going to do? Send the company to jail?

You're moving the goalposts from your original laughable position to some weird... look, I don't even care what your second argument is, arguing with you is like playing Minesweeper where after you make a move, the unrevealed mines move somewhere else. So lets stick with your original point: You're wrong. There are tons of different elements of the DOJ that prosecute financial crimes, and of course all the US attorneys who do so are also part of the Justice Department.

In any event, this deserves it's own thread. Which is here.

 Rented Tritium wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
The key words are "immediate threat." It is unconstitutional to kill a US citizen if that citizen does not pose an immediate threat. Obviously an active shooter is an immediate threat. But if you have the time to build a targeting package for a drone strike, then you have time to make an arrest. Whether or not a citizen is a terrorist, or belongs to a terrorist group, that citizen still has the protection of the Bill of Rights. They cannot be executed without due process of law. It is in the 5th amendment.

To break it down, there is no similarity besides a LEO or even a citizen using lethal force in self defense or in the name of protecting others and a no over sight, no judicial process death warrant.

You guys know how pro-police I am and this is exactly right. It's not similar. The time and distance required to get the drone somewhere is enough time to seriously bring into question the immediacy of the threat.

Immediacy of the threat should not be the only concern. Seriousness of the threat, potential loss of lives during conventional engagement and any number of things should be taken into account.

After all, how can we justify drone strikes on citizens other than the US?

Frazzled wrote:
Exactly. In the US people are reachable. Now if someone how Raz Al Ghoul has holed up in an underground bunker in the Rockies and is holding off the local forces, and this is part of a full military response then cool. Otherwise no way Jose.

Why are you using Ras Al'Ghul as an example here?

Oh right. Typical Frazzled...

But really, why does it have to be a "full military response" to justify the usage of drones? If "Ras Al'Ghul" is up in the Rockies and standing off the FBI, why should they not be able to request drone support?

 Bonecrusher 6 wrote:
And my unit is taking a kick to the balls by having to switch out of our A-10 flying mission and go to these damned drones. I hate these things with a passion. They are dangerous both on the ground and in the air because the operators make tons of mistakes. I've seen two drones taxi into each other in Afghanistan, for instance. I've seen a Belgian F-16 hit one that was taxiing without its lights on. And I have heard the pilots all say how the skies are so cluttered with the damned things that you have to keep a special watch just for them.

I have a problem with the whole unmanned aircraft thing once you put weapons on them. I don't like them to begin with, but if you have weapons on them and they are controlled by someone who operates under a totally different set of ROE's, you never really know how safe you are on the ground.

A serious question

Would you not as a member of the armed forces under iminant threat/ seeing others in said military not be justified in using lethal force against the drone/drone opperators ?

I know you could shoot at a pickup that looked to be driving into a checkpoint, could you not open fire on a drone that looked to be driving into an F-16 (or its opperator)?

 Ouze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 sebster wrote:
Honestly, I'm more concerned about Holder's comments that the banks are, in effect, so big they're beyond prosecution.

Bank regulation is not the purview of the DOJ sweets.

In this thread, Frazzled pretends that there is not a difference between civil banking regulation and criminal prosections for things such as (but not limited to) fraud.

Mmm..so you're arguing the DOJ would not prosecute a company for fraud because its too big to fail? Interesting to see how you prosecute a company under criminal regs like that. I mean its kind of hard for a nonexistent entity to show intent.

What are you going to do? Send the company to jail?

You're moving the goalposts from your original laughable position to some weird... look, I don't even care what your second argument is, arguing with you is like playing Minesweeper where after you make a move, the unrevealed mines move somewhere else. So lets stick with your original point: You're wrong. There are tons of different elements of the DOJ that prosecute financial crimes, and of course all the US attorneys who do so are also part of the Justice Department.

In any event, this deserves it's own thread. Which is here.

Please show me the list of companies prosecuted by the DOJ, not individuals, but companies. Also please provide a list of companies free from such action because they are "too big to fail."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 sebster wrote:
Honestly, I'm more concerned about Holder's comments that the banks are, in effect, so big they're beyond prosecution.

Bank regulation is not the purview of the DOJ sweets.

In this thread, Frazzled pretends that there is not a difference between civil banking regulation and criminal prosections for things such as (but not limited to) fraud.

Please show me where a company has been put in jail for fraud.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Exactly. In the US people are reachable. Now if someone how Raz Al Ghoul has holed up in an underground bunker in the Rockies and is holding off the local forces, and this is part of a full military response then cool. Otherwise no way Jose.

Why are you using Ras Al'Ghul as an example here?

Oh right. Typical Frazzled...

But really, why does it have to be a "full military response" to justify the usage of drones? If "Ras Al'Ghul" is up in the Rockies and standing off the FBI, why should they not be able to request drone support?

Frazz... last one comes to mind is Enron...

Frazzled wrote:1. What? I didn't know the name of rock Hard Ghandi from Iron Man III, and one can't get enough of Liam Neeson. BECAUSE THE FBI SHOULD NOT HAVE THE POWER TO KILL PEOPLE FROM 30,000. THEY DON"T HAVE THAT POWER NOW.

It's not a question of "having the power". It's a question of "having access to the technology".

Nobody bats an eyelash when a SWAT/SRT sharpshooter downs a dangerous individual. How is this different?

Sorry for showing my ignorance here, but is Paul arguing against the use of drones in general, or just against the idea that a US citizen could theoretically be droned on US soil?

Also is there any real reason to suspect that drone attacks would ever occur on US soil? It's just that I can't imagine any scenario where a drone attack would be considered the best way to deal with a domestic terrorist.

 whembly wrote:
Frazz... last one comes to mind is Enron...

People yes. I didn't say otherwise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Frazzled wrote:1. What? I didn't know the name of rock Hard Ghandi from Iron Man III, and one can't get enough of Liam Neeson. BECAUSE THE FBI SHOULD NOT HAVE THE POWER TO KILL PEOPLE FROM 30,000. THEY DON"T HAVE THAT POWER NOW.

It's not a question of "having the power". It's a question of "having access to the technology".

Nobody bats an eyelash when a SWAT/SRT sharpshooter downs a dangerous individual. How is this different?

I'm scared that you don't see the difference, since you are a police backer.

SWAT may take out someone who is imminent threat to themselves or others. A drone is not in imminent threat and if it is, so what. You can't give out the death sentence because someone killed your toy.

Again, a drone is just fine in a military operation. Soldiers deserve soldiers sir.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LuciusAR wrote:
Sorry for showing my ignorance here, but is Paul arguing against the use of drones in general, or just against the idea that a US citizen could theoretically be droned on US soil?

Using drones to kill US citizens on US soil in this instance.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Frazzled wrote:1. What? I didn't know the name of rock Hard Ghandi from Iron Man III, and one can't get enough of Liam Neeson. BECAUSE THE FBI SHOULD NOT HAVE THE POWER TO KILL PEOPLE FROM 30,000. THEY DON"T HAVE THAT POWER NOW.

It's not a question of "having the power". It's a question of "having access to the technology".

Nobody bats an eyelash when a SWAT/SRT sharpshooter downs a dangerous individual. How is this different?

I'm scared that you don't see the difference, since you are a police backer.

SWAT may take out someone who is imminent threat to themselves or others. A drone is not in imminent threat and if it is, so what. You can't give out the death sentence because someone killed your toy.

Way to cherrypick what you wanted from my statement.

Now, what danger is a SWAT/SRT sharpshooter in? The sharpshooters during any kind of crisis where SWAT or SRT(Special Response Teams, the terms are becoming slightly more interchangeable depending on the agencies) are actually going to be involved will be out of harm's way. They do not go in with the assault or breach teams. Their whole job is to provide precision fire from outside of the general danger area.

So I say again:
Nobody bats an eyelash when a SWAT/SRT sharpshooter downs a dangerous individual. How is this different?

A drone and sharpshooter both are effectively "outside of imminent danger". When it comes to making a judgement call as to whether someone is an "imminent threat to others", who makes that call?
The sharpshooters generally make that call on their own. That's a lot of trust placed into someone.

Now, why is it that an agent on the scene cannot request a drone strike during an operation?

That was the question I was bringing up. None of this garbage about "The government's gonna drone strike you for jaywalking" that seems to get espoused.

Again, a drone is just fine in a military operation. Soldiers deserve soldiers sir.

Why is a drone "just fine" when killing citizens of other countries, but not citizens of our own?

Excellent post EXCEPT wher you "missed" the part where I said "imminent threat to themselves or others."

Why is a drone "just fine" when killing citizens of other countries, but not citizens of our own?

I care less than the weight of a single tear for the citizens of other countries in other countries. I only care about US citizens and people in the USA. Ok truthfuylly I only sort of care then. I only really care about the wiener dog race and family. I thought you got that.

 Frazzled wrote:
Excellent post EXCEPT wher you "missed" the part where I said "imminent threat to themselves or others."

No, I actually did not.

I even addressed it.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Excellent post EXCEPT wher you "missed" the part where I said "imminent threat to themselves or others."

No, I actually did not.

I even addressed it.

No you didn't you said snipers make that call on their own.
1. I don't believe you, at all.
2. They are at the scene. By the time a drone gets there the threat has passed and the drone driver is not on the immediate scene. Are you even grasping what you're saying? You're arguing its ok for the federal government to unilaterally assassinate US citizens on US soil. Outside of a war, thats screaming jay hawkings level crazy talk.

Do none of you people actually read the Bill of Rights?

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Excellent post EXCEPT wher you "missed" the part where I said "imminent threat to themselves or others."

No, I actually did not.

I even addressed it.

No you didn't you said snipers make that call on their own.
1. I don't believe you, at all.

You don't have to. It's one of those things where if you were to ask, you'd find out the answer.
Sharpshooters generally are given leeway on judgement calls. Remember Ruby Ridge?

2. They are at the scene. By the time a drone gets there the threat has passed and the drone driver is not on the immediate scene.

So?

The idea that drones are going to be deployed with no conventional agencies or anything is so patently silly that it is mindboggling that people actually think it.

Are you even grasping what you're saying? You're arguing its ok for the federal government to unilaterally assassinate US citizens on US soil. Outside of a war, thats screaming jay hawkings level crazy talk.

But it's ok for the federal government to unilaterally assassinate citizens of foreign nations on foreign soil?

Do none of you people actually read the Bill of Rights?

Sure. But it's a document written in a different time, intended to be the guidelines for the rights given to individuals. It was not meant to be strictly interpreted with no regards to the changes in technology and society.