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.

Frazz... Kan... guys, aren't ya'll arguing essentially the same thing?

 whembly wrote:
Frazz... Kan... guys, aren't ya'll arguing essentially the same thing?

Not at all. Anyonee who thinks the Bill of Rights is a mere guideline is terrifying, but typical.

Who guards the guards?

 Frazzled wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Frazz... Kan... guys, aren't ya'll arguing essentially the same thing?

Not at all. Anyonee who thinks the Bill of Rights is a mere guideline is terrifying, but typical.

Who guards the guards?

Well... sure, I get that.

So, isn't the point of contention is who defines "imminent danger"?

 Frazzled wrote:

*Drone strikes on US citizens in the US ore violently unconstitutional.

But, evidently, they are fine when said US citizens are not in the US.

 Frazzled wrote:

*Drones can survey anywhere and are getting such that they can effectively create 4th amendment searches.

What if the drones are privately operated?

No. It's how these drones are being used. Kan and Frazz have drifted off target. The President doesn't want to call in drone support to back up LEOs under fire. He wants to call in drones on people with no justification, no evidence and most importantly no due process of law. A police sniper can and does take down individuals who are actively resisting arrest and threatening the lives of officers and others. Unless the bad guy's got a weapon pointed at an officer or innocent a shooting isn't justified.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

*Drone strikes on US citizens in the US ore violently unconstitutional.

But, evidently, they are fine when said US citizens are not in the US.

Scum bag that Alwaki undoubtedly was, even he deserved due process. I've been making a fuss about the President's various drone wars for awhile now. Drones have a place on the modern battlefield and can be damn useful in that roll, a buddy of mine who works in the industry has also pointed out other excellent uses, but this isn't really even about the drones, this is your President and the attorney general saying the US Government can murder you without due process of any sort.

I'm sorta surprised that the liberal pundits/hollywood is keeping this up... don't they know this is making Obama look bad?

Kirsten Powers tears into a Conservative regarding drones.http://www.mediaite.com/tv/kirsten-powers-tears-into-conservative-on-fox-after-he-dismisses-concerns-over-innocents-killed-by-drones/

John Cusak is jumping into the fray... http://twitchy.com/2013/03/06/john-cusak-on-rand-paul-filibuster/

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
No. It's how these drones are being used. Kan and Frazz have drifted off target. The President doesn't want to call in drone support to back up LEOs under fire. He wants to call in drones on people with no justification, no evidence and most importantly no due process of law.

By what means have you reached this conclusion?

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

...but this isn't really even about the drones, this is your President and the attorney general saying the US Government can murder you without due process of any sort.

No, no it isn't. And, quite honestly, your attempt to claim that it is represents a horrible misunderstanding of due process of law.

 dogma wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
No. It's how these drones are being used. Kan and Frazz have drifted off target. The President doesn't want to call in drone support to back up LEOs under fire. He wants to call in drones on people with no justification, no evidence and most importantly no due process of law.

By what means have you reached this conclusion?

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

...but this isn't really even about the drones, this is your President and the attorney general saying the US Government can murder you without due process of any sort.

No, no it isn't. And, quite honestly, your attempt to claim that it is represents a horrible misunderstanding of due process of law.

Clumsy phrasing on my part. This is the Holder justice department saying that the President/Government has the authority to use premeditated force on US soil, when they don't. That's what Senator Paul is filibustering for. A simple yes or no answer to the question he had addressed to Holder previously. The president doesn't want to murder you... yet any way.

and clearly we both have very different interpretations of due process of law. Here I always thought that a decision to execute someone had to be made in court with crazy things like evidence, and judicial oversight.

Mattman154 wrote:
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?

Would anybody be able to answer this? What are the current requirements for a drone to kill someone?

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

Mattman154 wrote:
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?

Would anybody be able to answer this? What are the current requirements for a drone to kill someone?

From my understanding, for the Alwaki situation was his name was on a list, the CIA took care of it.

In my opinion it is never okay to kill US citizens anywhere without due process, unless they are actively in that moment putting rounds down range against our own people.

If a situation can't be conceived where the President would need this power, then why give it to him at all? Hard to abuse authority you never had in the first place.

Also, read some history books before some of you find yourself parroting 'But it could never happen here!' Right into a re-education camp or mass grave.

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:

 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)?

Not when the operator is not only several thousand miles away, but was in these cases, not even military. These drones were/are operated by the CIA. As far as shooting at the drone while on the ground, what are you going to shoot it with? Small arms aren't going to stop it in time. The 20mm on the F-16 would, but the rounds will also cause all sorts of collateral damage. When you're in an area that has lots of fuel, lots of live munitions, and tens of millions of dollars of aircraft, not to mention lots of people, you just can't shoot and not cause a lot of damage.

In that case, all you can do is wince and watch, and make sure that you have something solid between you and situation if the collision actually happens. You want a sphincter puckering situation? Try having to down load munitions from an aircraft after that happens. Especially after you can see that the fuses are damaged.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

Clumsy phrasing on my part. This is the Holder justice department saying that the President/Government has the authority to use premeditated force on US soil...

Again, by what means have you reached this conclusion.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

And clearly we both have very different interpretations of due process of law. Here I always thought that a decision to execute someone had to be made in court with crazy things like evidence, and judicial oversight.

Why are executions even an issue at this point?

I mean, air strikes are not always aimed at one person.

Holder fesses up - no authority.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/white-house-holder-respond-to-rand-paul-the-answer-is-no/article/2523555

 Frazzled wrote:
Holder fesses up - no authority.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/white-house-holder-respond-to-rand-paul-the-answer-is-no/article/2523555

Well then... happy?

yep, but thats more because I am eating barbeque potato chips right now. MMMM!

 Frazzled wrote:
Holder fesses up - no authority.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/white-house-holder-respond-to-rand-paul-the-answer-is-no/article/2523555

But, apparently, piloted aircraft are just fine.

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Holder fesses up - no authority.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/white-house-holder-respond-to-rand-paul-the-answer-is-no/article/2523555

But, apparently, piloted aircraft are just fine.

huh?

 whembly wrote:

huh?

The only objection seems to be regarding drones, so a piloted aircraft should be able to act with impunity.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

huh?

The only objection seems to be regarding drones, so a piloted aircraft should be able to act with impunity.

Oh... I see what you're saying.

I object to that too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You know... I just went back to Rand Paul's filibuster... he wasn't just talking about "weaponized drones"... he was talking about targeted killing in a general sense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just saw this on twittah... Rand is spiking the football.

Rand Paul doing an end zone dance on Fox: “Under duress, and under public humiliation, the White House will relent and do the right thing.”

— Mike O’Brien (@mpoindc) March 7, 2013

Here was Holder's response to Rand Paul's 13 hour long filibuster.....

Dear Senator Paul: It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: "Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?" The answer to that question is no.

http://htmlimg3.scribdassets.com/2ac26d9268277a3c/images/1-94c0edc99c.jpg

 whembly wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

huh?

The only objection seems to be regarding drones, so a piloted aircraft should be able to act with impunity.

Oh... I see what you're saying.

I object to that too.

That's the bottom line for me, too. The whole "drone" thing just confuses people. I don't want drones doing anything I'm not ok with a fighter jet or a helicopter doing.

I'm totally 100% fine with drones being used as air support for car chases for instance, because I am fine with helicopters dong that. I am 100% fine with drones doing search and rescue or manhunts, because helicopters are great for that right now.

It's a pretty narrow scenario where I'm fine with a cop in a helicoptor shooting someone. The suspect would need to be actively shooting at someone. If a drone is nearby when someone is an active threat, I am fine with that drone taking a shot to save lives right at that moment. If that particular scenario comes up, go for it. That's about it.

Bottom line is you have to attempt arrest. If the guy creates an active immediate threat WHILE you are trying to arrest him, then you gotta do what you gotta do, but the arrest is still the gameplan.

This whole issue arose out of a good answer to a very bad question. The question that was originally asked was there any situation under which the president could order a drone strike on US soil. The answer was yes, because there is. Civil war being the main scenario. People were getting up in arms over an unclarified answer to a vague question.

Ted Cruz to Introduce Bill to Prohibit Drone Killings of U.S. Citizens.

Que? Amending the AUMF?

The Federal Government may not use a drone to kill a citizen of the United States who is located in the United States. The prohibition under this subsection shall not apply to an individual who poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to another individual. Nothing in this section shall be construed to suggest that the Constitution would otherwise allow the killing of a citizen of the United States in the United States without due process of law

Isn't this a violation of separation of powers? Or, he wouldn't fight in now because it would be simply atrocious for a president to oppose a bill limiting his power to assassinate Americans?

Politics at it's best.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Aternative question now is this... Those guys in Benghazi were "engaged in combat" against our embassy.

Maybe now would be a good time to ask...'Why wasn't there a drone strike in Benghazi?'

 whembly wrote:

Aternative question now is this... Those guys in Benghazi were "engaged in combat" against our embassy.

Maybe now would be a good time to ask...'Why wasn't there a drone strike in Benghazi?'

And I would think that you of all people would realize why.

For the same reason we will not have drones with LAPD colors on them shooting Lenny the Bank Robber.
Too much collateral damage.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Aternative question now is this... Those guys in Benghazi were "engaged in combat" against our embassy.

Maybe now would be a good time to ask...'Why wasn't there a drone strike in Benghazi?'

And I would think that you of all people would realize why.

For the same reason we will not have drones with LAPD colors on them shooting Lenny the Bank Robber.
Too much collateral damage.

You're missing the point.

If they felt that they could assassinate one guy in an extreme remote area via drones, they could've sent some more drone puppies at Bengahzi. (remember, they had at least two of the reconnaissance drone there).

See the disconnect?

 whembly wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Aternative question now is this... Those guys in Benghazi were "engaged in combat" against our embassy.

Maybe now would be a good time to ask...'Why wasn't there a drone strike in Benghazi?'

And I would think that you of all people would realize why.

For the same reason we will not have drones with LAPD colors on them shooting Lenny the Bank Robber.
Too much collateral damage.

You're missing the point.

If they felt that they could assassinate one guy in an extreme remote area via drones, they could've sent some more drone puppies at Bengahzi. (remember, they had at least two of the reconnaissance drone there).

See the disconnect?

The fact that you cannot see how ridiculously fallacious this line of thinking is just flatout hurts my brain.

So it's completely unacceptable and violates the Constitution and due process when it is a drone strike on a US citizen on US soil...but completely acceptable for a drone strike in Benghazi?

And for that matter, Frazzled already brought up the point of "it takes time for a drone to get on station to deliver a payload".
The unarmed drones that were on station likely were scrambled from elsewhere, as there is a push going on for unarmed drones equipped with surveillance gear to be able to get anywhere at any time to get "eyes on" for situations.
It takes time however to get an armed drone airborne, as they are being slightly more cautious in the push for armed drones to be airborne 24/7 near hot spots.

Eventually we'll have drones with accurate sniping abilities and we won't have the collateral damage issue.

We should stick to arguing about the legal nature of it, not the capability of the drones themselves.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Aternative question now is this... Those guys in Benghazi were "engaged in combat" against our embassy.

Maybe now would be a good time to ask...'Why wasn't there a drone strike in Benghazi?'

And I would think that you of all people would realize why.

For the same reason we will not have drones with LAPD colors on them shooting Lenny the Bank Robber.
Too much collateral damage.

You're missing the point.

If they felt that they could assassinate one guy in an extreme remote area via drones, they could've sent some more drone puppies at Bengahzi. (remember, they had at least two of the reconnaissance drone there).

See the disconnect?

The fact that you cannot see how ridiculously fallacious this line of thinking is just flatout hurts my brain.

Sorry mang... have some aspirin.

So it's completely unacceptable and violates the Constitution and due process when it is a drone strike on a US citizen on US soil...but completely acceptable for a drone strike in Benghazi?

Correct. Because there was an active fight with heavy weapons going on... you know...an actual war skirmish.

And for that matter, Frazzled already brought up the point of "it takes time for a drone to get on station to deliver a payload".
The unarmed drones that were on station likely were scrambled from elsewhere, as there is a push going on for unarmed drones equipped with surveillance gear to be able to get anywhere at any time to get "eyes on" for situations.
It takes time however to get an armed drone airborne, as they are being slightly more cautious in the push for armed drones to be airborne 24/7 near hot spots.

Off-topic here (I know, I brought it up)... there numerous resources reportedly well within 2 hours (less than hour?) to Benghazi... where the fight lasted more than 8 hours.

Resources "being within 2 hours of Benghazi" does not mean that the resources would have been helpful.