Droning in the USA

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.

**d-usa**

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/05/holder-drone-strike-against-americans-in-the-u-s-possible/

In the letter, Holder said “It is possible I suppose to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States. “

I guess black helicopters are so 2008...

**whembly**

d-usa wrote:
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/05/holder-drone-strike-against-americans-in-the-u-s-possible/

In the letter, Holder said “It is possible I suppose to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States. “

I guess black helicopters are so 2008...

Are these armed drones? I might find that problematic... but, still... our National Guards have armed planes... *shrugs*

If they're unarmed and used as survellance, what's the fuss? How is it any different than the choppa?

**Gentleman_Jellyfish**

whembly wrote:
d-usa wrote:
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/05/holder-drone-strike-against-americans-in-the-u-s-possible/

In the letter, Holder said “It is possible I suppose to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States. “

I guess black helicopters are so 2008...

Are these armed drones? I might find that problematic... but, still... our National Guards have armed planes... *shrugs*

If they're unarmed and used as survellance, what's the fuss? How is it any different than the choppa?

Article wrote:... use lethal force...

This particular link isn't about surveillance, it seems to be about assassination.

**Ouze**

That was a really good way of getting a vague-ass question, and responding with a vague-ass answer. I mean, if you boil it down, his answer was "anything's possible". I mean, FFS, it's like asking if the military could open fire on American citizens if maybe there was a zombie attack or something? What if maybe there were Zombie Nazi's in Montana, could you bomb them? What about, like Bird Flu - could we use flamethrowers on them maybe?

Maybe Congress should ask more specific questions instead of getting into weird hypotheticals. Here's a few off the top of my head:

What statutory authority permits you the right to create lists to assassinate American citizens without due process?

Why does such a killing not violate Executive Order 12333?

What imminent national security threat did a 16 year old American boy pose to the United States?

What element of the Authorization for Use Of Military Force, which allows the Executive to prosecute warfare against the planners of the 9/11 attacks, do you feel gives you authority for military strikes in countries we are not at war with, against organizations not formed until 2009?

**whembly**

Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
whembly wrote:
d-usa wrote:
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/05/holder-drone-strike-against-americans-in-the-u-s-possible/

In the letter, Holder said “It is possible I suppose to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States. “

I guess black helicopters are so 2008...

Are these armed drones? I might find that problematic... but, still... our National Guards have armed planes... *shrugs*

If they're unarmed and used as survellance, what's the fuss? How is it any different than the choppa?

use lethal force

re-read it...

Um.. do I need to dust off the tinfoil?

**Gentleman_Jellyfish**

whembly wrote:
Um.. do I need to dust off the tinfoil?

Didn't you know that dust on your tinfoil can cause the waves to get in?

**whembly**

Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
whembly wrote:
Um.. do I need to dust off the tinfoil?

Didn't you know that dust on your tinfoil can cause the waves to get in?

DAMMIT! That's why it ain't working right!

Good call!

**Gentleman_Jellyfish**

whembly wrote:
Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
whembly wrote:
Um.. do I need to dust off the tinfoil?

Didn't you know that dust on your tinfoil can cause the waves to get in?

DAMMIT! That's why it ain't working right!

Good call!

And don't forget to tape your webcams when not in use!

**whembly**

Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
whembly wrote:
Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
whembly wrote:
Um.. do I need to dust off the tinfoil?

Didn't you know that dust on your tinfoil can cause the waves to get in?

DAMMIT! That's why it ain't working right!

Good call!

And don't forget to tape your webcams when not in use!

Why? Someone wants to look at my manly bod? Dang... I should charge for that!

**Gentleman_Jellyfish**

whembly wrote:
Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
whembly wrote:
Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
whembly wrote:
Um.. do I need to dust off the tinfoil?

Didn't you know that dust on your tinfoil can cause the waves to get in?

DAMMIT! That's why it ain't working right!

Good call!

And don't forget to tape your webcams when not in use!

Why? Someone wants to look at my manly bod? Dang... I should charge for that!

Exactly! Need some tax breaks to see these flapjacks

**whembly**

How 'bout this... are you.... droned?
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/148028-faas-us-drone-authorization-map-highlights-battle-between-feds-and-sky-pirates

**Ouze**

No, I did a lot in high school but not really since then...

Oh, droned.

**whembly**

Ouze wrote:
No, I did a lot in high school but not really since then...

Oh, droned.

damned you're fast! I was waiting for someone to get that.

**Frazzled**

d-usa wrote:
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/05/holder-drone-strike-against-americans-in-the-u-s-possible/

In the letter, Holder said “It is possible I suppose to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States. “

I guess black helicopters are so 2008...

Now THAT is unconstitutional bs of epic proportions.

**Ratbarf**

Notice the extraordinary circumstances? That could mean Civil War round 2, no one can really know what they feel would be justifiable until they actually do it.

**KalashnikovMarine**

Time to get some turkey loads for my shotgun.

**whembly**

FILIBUSTER IN ACTION!

Figured this is appropriate here:

Original Post at 2:09 p.m. – With a blanket of snow the capitol and the federal government shut down and John Brennan poised to be confirmed as CIA Director, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, who has a little bit of libertarian running in his veins, is engaging in the most traditional form of filibuster – talk.

In today’s Washington the filibuster has evolved into a sort of bipartisan détente that most everything requires 60 votes, which has sort of made the word lose some of it’s meaning.

But Paul doesn’t have 40 votes and he wants to make a point about Brennan, the White House adviser who is seen as architect of the administration’s policy of using unmanned drone to kill suspected terrorists in foreign countries. A vote to make Brennan CIA Director could come as soon as today.

Mr. Smith would be proud. That’s how most Americans probably view a filibuster: Jimmy Stewart as Mr. Smith reading aloud for hours and hours in pursuit of righting some wrong.

The wrong, for Rand Paul, is the Obama administration’s targeted killing program – the use of drones to bomb suspected terrorists in foreign lands – is Constitutional. His concern hit a new level Monday when his office released a letter from Attorney General Eric Holder explaining that the administration feels it has the ability, in the extremely unlikely situation, to kill Americans on U.S.
soil to avert an imminent terror attack.

“I rise today to begin to filibuster John Brennan’s nomination for the CIA, Paul declared at about 11:47 a.m. ET. “I will speak until I can no longer speak. I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our constitution is important, that your rights to trial by jury are precious, that no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court. that Americans could be killed in a cafe in San Francisco or in a restaurant in Houston or at their home in bowling green, Kentucky, is an abomination. it is something that should not and cannot be tolerated in our country.”

Paul said he doesn’t necessarily think President Obama will abuse the power. But no president, said Paul, should have the power to kill Americans in the U.S. without a trial by jury.
Here’s an excerpt:
“When I asked the president, can you kill an American on American soil, it should have been an easy answer. It’s an easy question. it should have been a resounding and unequivocal, “no.” The president’s response? He hasn’t killed anyone yet. We’re supposed to be comforted by that. The president says, I haven’t killed anyone yet. He goes on to say, and I have no intention of killing Americans. But i might. Is that enough? Are we satisfied by that? Are we so complacent with our rights that we would allow a president to say he might kill Americans? But he will judge the circumstances, he will be the sole arbiter, he will be the sole decider, he will be the executioner in chief if he sees fit. Now, some would say he would never do this. Many people give the president the — you know, they give him consideration, They say he’s a good man. I’m not arguing he’s not. what I’m arguing is that the law is there and set in place for the day when angels don’t rule government.

More recently, a filibuster is any time the minority party blocks something that could be passed by the majority. That can take several forms. Senators agreed earlier this year to a series of rule changes to cut down on the time it takes to move through these procedural roadblocks while preserving the minority’s right to object.

Paul is certainly in the minority on the issue of drones and targeted killing. An ABC News / Washington Post Poll in February of 2012 found that 83 percent of Americans support the program. Paul would argue that the program is so shrouded in secrecy that people don’t know enough about it. Drawing attention is a stated goal of his filibuster today.

It is important to remember that this traditional form of filibuster is doomed to fail. The human body can only go on so long. Paul has promised to talk until he can’t talk any more, but admitted, “Ultimately I will not win; there are not enough votes.”

As of this writing he has been going for about two hours and he hasn’t yet run out of things to say about drones or the Constitution.

The most recent talking filibuster came from U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, who spent some 8 hours filibustering a tax bill in 2010.

But the record for longest filibuster goes to former South Carolina Sen. Strom Thurmond, who died in 2003, filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1957 for 24 hours and 18 minutes.
It is not clear if Paul’s will last that long. Indeed, the Fox News host Lou Dobbs Tweeted just before 2 p.m. ET, that Paul would be joining him on his show, which starts at 7 p.m. ET.. And considering the bipartisan support the Obama administration, there is little doubt that Brennan will ultimately be confirmed.

No such luck for Caitlin Halligan, who didn’t require a long speech to be filibustered today. Halligan’s nomination to sit on the Federal District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia was blocked by Republicans who feel she is too liberal, particularly on the issue of the 2nd amendment. Halligan got a majority 51 votes, but was defeated on the procedural motion, where she needed 60.

Here are some updates from the filibuster:
Update: 6:19 p.m. – At about 6:15, Sen. Rand Paul snuck some food on the Senate floor. That’s probably against Senate rules, but then again the folks who were helping him earlier all appear to have left. He hasn’t had anyone ask a question for about an hour.

Updated: 4:46 p.m. – Just about exactly five hours into Rand Paul’s filibuster, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid asks for consent to move toward a vote. Paul says he’d happily move toward a vote if the White House will make a statement that the drone program will not kill Americans not involved in terrorism. Reid says he can’t speak for the President or the attorney general. Reid indicates the vote on Brennan will happen on Thursday if and when Paul yields the floor.

Updated 4:42 p.m – Sen. Saxby Chambliss, the top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee has joined the filibuster. Chambliss was one of three Republicans to oppose Brennan in the committee’s vote. Another Republican, Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, comes to help out too.

Update at 3:52 p.m. – Sen. Ted Cruz reads William Travis’s famous “victory or death” letter from the Alamo. The Alamo fell 117 years ago today, something Cruz and Sen. Rand Paul have pointed out. So too is their effort to block John Brennan ultimately ill-fated. The four senators who have undertaken the filibuster, led by Paul, lack the votes.

Sen. Ron Wyden is an example of why Brennan will ultimately be confirmed. Wyden is a Democrat with concerns about drones and oversight. But he has joined the conversation on the Senate floor to dicuss the issue with Paul.

“Every American has a right to know when their government feels it has a right to kill them,” said Wyden.
Update at 3:10 p.m. – Now joining Sens. Rand Paul and Mike Lee is Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Tex., who today questioned Attorney General Eric Holder about the remote possibility that the government would kill Americans in the U.S. without due process. Twenty minutes later, Sen. Jerry Moran of Kansas takes to the floor.

Update at 2:59 p.m. – Utah Sen. Mike Lee gives Sen. Rand Paul a break just about three hours after starting his filibuster.

Update at 2:47 p.m. – Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul has been filibustering John Brennan’s nomination to lead the CIA for three hours.

**Ouze**

Much props for actually doing his damn job. Let me clarify; I'm not saying he should filibuster Brennan, but if they're going to filibuster, it's simply not good enough to raise a hand and say you're going to do it. It should be an extreme measure, and when Americans see a someone reading names out a phone book just to run out the clock, they should ideally look into it to see if it's principled measure (or just, you know, the usual).

In any event, I respect the return to tradition.

Also, I think there are definitely some unanswered questions about the extent of what the administration feels their authority is re: targeted assassinations.

**whembly**

I concur... I just wished they did this during the ACA bill... but, alas.

At least he's trying to have a conversation...

But, how long can he go? It's been 8+ hrs so far! o.O

**KalashnikovMarine**

"I will speak until I can no longer speak, I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our constitution is important, that your right to trial by jury is precious, that no American should be killed on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court."-Rand Paul

Tell'em Rand!

**Relapse**

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.

**Mattman154**

So I'm with you all, I am against the domestic use of drones to kill citizens without due process, however I do want to ask a few questions.

Do we know what kind of work must be done before a drone could be sent on a mission to kill someone? Do you need to go to a lawyer, get a warrant, two keys, etc etc?

How does this parallel to LEO's being given the authorization to use deadly force if deemed necessary?

**KalashnikovMarine**

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.

**Ensis Ferrae**

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.

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.

**Monster Rain**

I'm fine with drones.

The more the merrier.

**whembly**

“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

**Monster Rain**

I have a visceral loathing of Jane Fonda.

**whembly**

Monster Rain wrote:
I have a visceral loathing of Jane Fonda.

Well... many of us do...

Still... she in no way deserves to be "droned".

**KalashnikovMarine**

I dunno, droning Hanoi Jane might be... I'm gonna self censor because that sentence can only end in me saying terrible things.

**whembly**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I dunno, droning Hanoi Jane might be... I'm gonna self censor because that sentence can only end in me saying terrible things.

Dream the dream brother...