US can use Drones on US Citizens...

[UPCrawfish]

DOJ memo released by NBC.....


http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/04/16843014-exclusive-justice-department-memo-reveals-legal-case-for-drone-strikes-on-americans?lite

[Neeco]

There's a saying: "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes".  I hold that dear to my heart.  If you want to gamble with your life, by either DOING bad things or associating with people that do BAD THINGS, then you should be stopped with extreme prejudice. 

Again, only my opinion, and that at least, I am still entitled to.

[Mudinyeri]

There's a saying: "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes".  I hold that dear to my heart.  If you want to gamble with your life, by either DOING bad things or associating with people that do BAD THINGS, then you should be stopped with extreme prejudice. 

Again, only my opinion, and that at least, I am still entitled to.

If I understand your statement correctly, you're suggesting that an association with al-Qa'ida would be a "stupid game".  I won't dispute that.  If you're a U.S. citizen and you're in bed with AQ, you're playing a stupid game.

I think the concern lies in the slippery slope of justifying a "legal framework" for running an end-around the Due Process Clause of the Fourth Amendment.  Once such a legal framework is in place, what prevents the framework from accommodating other "terrorists" such as those that own more than four firearms, or those that own "assault weapons" or "weapons of war"?

Moreover, it's difficult to ignore the disconcerting irony found in the juxtaposition of the current Rules of Engagement for non-U.S. citizens associated with AQ, when placed side-by-side with this memo.  Our men and women on the battlefield are required to establish a higher level of threat before they can take DEFENSIVE actions against suspected AQ members than the DoJ requires of OFFENSIVE actions against anyone they designate as a "senior operational leader" of AQ.

[Neeco]

If I understand your statement correctly, you're suggesting that an association with al-Qa'ida would be a "stupid game".  I won't dispute that.  If you're a U.S. citizen and you're in bed with AQ, you're playing a stupid game.

I think the concern lies in the slippery slope of justifying a "legal framework" for running an end-around the Due Process Clause of the Fourth Amendment.  Once such a legal framework is in place, what prevents the framework from accommodating other "terrorists" such as those that own more than four firearms, or those that own "assault weapons" or "weapons of war"?

Moreover, it's difficult to ignore the disconcerting irony found in the juxtaposition of the current Rules of Engagement for non-U.S. citizens associated with AQ, when placed side-by-side with this memo.  Our men and women on the battlefield are required to establish a higher level of threat before they can take DEFENSIVE actions against suspected AQ members than the DoJ requires of OFFENSIVE actions against anyone they designate as a "senior operational leader" of AQ.

You understood correctly.  Association with a known terror suspect or cell, is bad news, and therefore you are guilty by association at the very least.

Now, the speculation that they would use the drones to target individuals with "assault weapons" while HIGHLY unlikely, is a possibility.  If that possibility EVER came to fruition, I think we would have much bigger problems on our hands than what gun we are carrying. Moreover, the fact that we were in times when that was plausible, would mean an end to all civil liberties anyway. What would it matter what the rules said then? NO ONE would be following them.

[Mudinyeri]

Moreover, the fact that we were in times when that was plausible, would mean an end to all civil liberties anyway.

So, you don't believe we are currently (and have been for some time) losing hold on our civil liberties inch by inch, day by day?

"As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of change in the air — however slight — lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness."

- William O. Douglas, Associate Justice, SCOTUS, 1939 - 1975

[NENick]

In my frustration with fighting our enemies, I agree with Neeco. But in the same breath, we're talking smudging the lines in order to eliminate bad guys... Unfortunately, someone else gets to play around with the definition of a bad guy. We see them doing this in the media every day by vilification of the tea party, and the Ultra Right Wing Extremists... Ultra Right Wing Extremists being normal every day God loving, America loving citizens.

[Neeco]

So, you don't believe we are currently (and have been for some time) losing hold on our civil liberties inch by inch, day by day?

"As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of change in the air — however slight — lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness."

- William O. Douglas, Associate Justice, SCOTUS, 1939 - 1975

I do believe we are losing our rights.  I guess what I am saying, and I think you understand, is this: There is nothing we can do right now to slow the progression.  If the time comes that they freely use the drones on citizens for anything other than terror related acts, what good does the law do?  What good are our rights? 

There is no sense getting wound up about something that won't happen, and if it does, isn't that exactly what we "preppers" prepare for anyway? 

The fact that the law now exists doesn't change the fact that we still have humans controlling .gov, and as humans there is a limit to even what the dictators can achieve without mass revolution.  Do you think a pilot sitting in a trailer in Arizona, would pull the trigger on a citizen?  I hope and hold dear the thought that even with a Tryanical Leadership, our men and women carrying out the acts, would stand up and walk away from such orders.

Maybe I live in a dream world.  Maybe I am just hoping that my children will not see the downfall of the USA.   

[66bigblock]

I think the concern lies in the slippery slope of justifying a "legal framework" for running an end-around the Due Process Clause of the Fourth Amendment.  Once such a legal framework is in place, what prevents the framework from accommodating other "terrorists" such as those that own more than four firearms, or those that own "assault weapons" or "weapons of war"?

This is where I think we are going to see more and more abuse of power by LEO and Homeland Security against everyday citizens right here within the borders of the USA.  First acceptance of killing US citizens abroad without any charges being filed or any indictment.  Why not extend that power against someone here that the Govt feels is an "imminent threat" against the State or other citizens?  To me this is so unbelievable, but yet it is accepted, and may soon become commonplace. 

http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/04/16843014-exclusive-justice-department-memo-reveals-legal-case-for-drone-strikes-on-americans?lite

“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.”

So, if it is ok for the DOD to assasinate a US citizen abroad, why not at home, where he could do even more damage and destruction right here within our own borders?  Is not LEO, SWAT, National Guard, the next logical step to combat local terrorism?  And that is where I think the slippery slope slides right into your front yard.

ARE YOU A TERRORIST?  Sounds crazy, but lets look at it seriously.  How many weapons do you have?  One, two, ten, thirty?  I am not talking about NFA machine guns or Barrett 50 Caliber.  Just any handgun or rifle that you could buy at Scheels.  I think many people would consider more than one or two in the house as - dangerous, militant, suspicious at the very least.  But, lets move on.  How much ammo?  A couple of boxes?  A couple of cases?  What about multiple cases for multiple rounds?  Do a serious inventory and really count.  Getting to 5,000 rounds is nothing, 10k rounds could be put in two milk crates.  25,000 rounds?  Sounds completely lunatic, doesnt it, but go start counting and see where you get.  Here is a news report from  York Nebraska:

http://www.yorknewstimes.com/news/article_21f4b7e8-4765-11e1-b3c2-0019bb2963f4.html


This a news report about a farm couple that got raided for alleged meth. The articles says that they had an aresnal of 10 guns and "bomb making equipment".  The report made it sound like they had more weapons and ammo than the National Guard.  Take a look at the photos of their "aresnal".  I laughed at the duct taped rifle stock and the rust on several barrels.  (Looks like one that really got lost in a tragic boating accident!)  Those look like serious people killing machines, dont they?  See anything that was confiscated that you dont have in your home??  The articles goes on to state that they had "bomb making equipment", or at least items that "could" be used to make bombs.  I question what would have happened if the suspects had not complied immediately with LEO.  Would the York Sheriff use deadly force since they had knowledge of the potential multiple weapons and bomb making equipment?  Obviously they didnt in this case, but what happens next time?  Anybody remember Ruby Ridge?  Waco?

Moving on - got a couple of propane tanks in the garage?  What about fertilizer bags?  You know what those are used for, right?  Meth making.  Bomb making.  Dont even start me on black powder.  What about a gram scale?  Obviously a drug dealer.  I know you have some cold medicine in the cabinet, maybe you wife didnt use all of her last pseudo prescription and kept it for the next time she gets a cold...  You got drano under the sink?  How about a lighter?  Starting fluid for your tractor?  All the items needed to make meth and you have them in your house. 

I know some of you are preppers - an obvious sign of a crazy person, maybe one that even wants to start doomsday!  You been stocking up on beans and rice?  Water?  Bulk storage of gasoline for your generator?  Only a person on intent in crashing the electrical grid would need a generator, right?  Do you have some extra cash under the matress?  That is only used by people trying to go off the grid and avoid paying taxes or buy things illegally.  Didnt you get the memo that we are all supposed to only used credit cards and paypal so all transactions can be traced for proper payment of taxes?  I could go on for hours, but I wont.  The bottom line for me is that you dont have to be actively engaged in making meth, making bombs, domestic terrorism, etc. just have the ability to do so.  I am not saying I am going to get raided today, but if I did, how easy would it be for LEO to spin my propane tanks, left over ephedrine tablets, weapons cache and emergency food supply into "Local prepper terrorist drug manufacturer tax evader apprehended in south Lincoln"?

Other blogs about this Drone action have been positive - "We need to take out the bad guys"  "It will only be used against people that are killers", yet, who decides who are the good guys and the bad guys?  The president?  Diane Feinstein?  Chuck Hagel?  Your local LEO?  Homeland Security?  One thing that has seperated the US from other countries is our right to a fair trial, a right to face your accusers, and so many other protections granted to us by our US Constitution.  This executive order of legal assasination is just the first of many steps that could be taken against you or I as a way to "protect us" from the crazy people, which in the eyes of many people, actually is you and I.


66bigblock

[NENick]

I do believe we are losing our rights.  I guess what I am saying, and I think you understand, is this: There is nothing we can do right now to slow the progression.  If the time comes that they freely use the drones on citizens for anything other than terror related acts, what good does the law do?  What good are our rights? 

There is no sense getting wound up about something that won't happen, and if it does, isn't that exactly what we "preppers" prepare for anyway? 

The fact that the law now exists doesn't change the fact that we still have humans controlling .gov, and as humans there is a limit to even what the dictators can achieve without mass revolution.  Do you think a pilot sitting in a trailer in Arizona, would pull the trigger on a citizen?  I hope and hold dear the thought that even with a Tryanical Leadership, our men and women carrying out the acts, would stand up and walk away from such orders.

Maybe I live in a dream world.  Maybe I am just hoping that my children will not see the downfall of the USA.   

I think they will as long as that citizen/target is over in the middle east. I think it'd be an entirely different story in the US mainland. If we hear a story of a drone attacking someone in the mainland US, all hell is going to break loose.

[Neeco]

I think they will as long as that citizen/target is over in the middle east. I think it'd be an entirely different story in the US mainland. If we hear a story of a drone attacking someone in the mainland US, all hell is going to break loose.

This is exactly what I was getting at.  If you are an American and oversees, you are in harms way, and hopefully you get behind a wall at night in the confines of a secure perimeter.  If you are an American and overseas and in the proximity of someone that has been watched by a drone for more than a minute, you had better have a IR patch glowing to all hell in the sights of that drone.  If you have no valid reason of being near him or in contact with him, then at worst you are a casualty, and at best you are a target.  Either way, you had darn sure know the risks.

At home, Its completely different.  Here you would not only get the benefit of doubt, but there are literally 100's of options to use before lethal UAV force was necessary.  From LEO to DOD, there would be much better options to nab a bad guy.

But in the extreme case, where there is actionable and verifiable intel, that says Joe Shmoe is about to blow up X building with that vehicle, and here are the pics of said vehicle loaded to the gills with C4 and here are his plans from his bunker for striking X building, then by all means, blow him sky high before he reaches his target. 

[Mudinyeri]

I do believe we are losing our rights.  I guess what I am saying, and I think you understand, is this: There is nothing we can do right now to slow the progression. 

Maybe I am just hoping that my children will not see the downfall of the USA.

Nothing we can do?  Really? 

I think we're all hoping that our children will not see the downfall of the USA.  Hope is not a strategy, however.

I think they will as long as that citizen/target is over in the middle east. I think it'd be an entirely different story in the US mainland. If we hear a story of a drone attacking someone in the mainland US, all hell is going to break loose.

How about a drone being used to gather information to arrest a U.S. citizen? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/04/rodney-brossart-american-arrested-using-predator-drone_n_1477549.html

[Neeco]

Nothing we can do?  Really? 

I think we're all hoping that our children will not see the downfall of the USA.  Hope is not a strategy, however.


How about a drone being used to gather information to arrest a U.S. citizen? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/04/rodney-brossart-american-arrested-using-predator-drone_n_1477549.html

What can we do besides protest, Mudinyeri? The law exists already. 

And on the use of drones to aid an arrest.  I am quite positive if those were your cows he stole, you wouldn't mind the use of certain measures to get your possessions back.

I know the argument is that its unconstitutional.  But as soon as you BREAK THE LAW, you lose your right to decide what measures are constitutional in your capture. 

I know its a grey area here, and I am all for our rights, as I have previously stated.  I know I am going to get grief for "riding the fence" on this subject.

But I just can't see the difference in a helicopter and a drone being used in THIS circumstance.

There are pro's and con's.  Do you think its unconstitutional to track illegal human smugglers with drones over our borders?

[NENick]

Nothing we can do?  Really? 

I think we're all hoping that our children will not see the downfall of the USA.  Hope is not a strategy, however.


How about a drone being used to gather information to arrest a U.S. citizen? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/04/rodney-brossart-american-arrested-using-predator-drone_n_1477549.html

My comment was more specific to a hellfire missile blowing someone up... unfortunately, I don't think anyone will hesitate to use drones over the US for policing.

[Mudinyeri]

My points were to further my suggestion that we already well onto the slippery slope.

As for the question about comparing drones to helicopters, I think it's answered pretty well already in the article that I linked.

The fact is that drones vest vast new powers that police helicopters and existing weapons do not vest: and that’s true not just for weaponization but for surveillance. Drones enable a Surveillance State unlike anything we’ve seen. Because small drones are so much cheaper than police helicopters, many more of them can be deployed at once, ensuring far greater surveillance over a much larger area. Their small size and stealth capability means they can hover without any detection, and they can remain in the air for far longer than police helicopters.

If I had six head of cattle that wandered onto a neighbor's land and we couldn't settle the dispute between the two of us ... I don't think I'd be willing to (further) sacrifice our individual right to privacy as U.S. citizens, nor would I be willing to offer up our Fourth Amendment rights, to get those cattle back.  The sheriff could get a warrant and drive out to visit my neighbor, not fly a drone over his property and snoop on him without a warrant.

Unfortunately, the majority of the American people seem willing to continue voting to elect/re-elect politicians eager to nibble away at our rights.  I don't believe that leaves the rest of us without recourse, however.

[Neeco]

My points were to further my suggestion that we already well onto the slippery slope.

As for the question about comparing drones to helicopters, I think it's answered pretty well already in the article that I linked.

If I had six head of cattle that wandered onto a neighbor's land and we couldn't settle the dispute between the two of us ... I don't think I'd be willing to (further) sacrifice our individual right to privacy as U.S. citizens, nor would I be willing to offer up our Fourth Amendment rights, to get those cattle back.  The sheriff could get a warrant and drive out to visit my neighbor, not fly a drone over his property and snoop on him without a warrant.

Unfortunately, the majority of the American people seem willing to continue voting to elect/re-elect politicians eager to nibble away at our rights.  I don't believe that leaves the rest of us without recourse, however.

The article you linked to, stated that they had obtained all necessary warrants to preform the surveillance.

But I think we are both arguing similar points. 

We are headed into the deep end, that is for sure. 

[unfy]

Who needs cameras spread across street level like the UK, we got flying cameras!

Where's the privacy folks up in arms about this one ?

*sigh*

And yes, this drone **** needs to go away. I've got a 70 year old uncle who just shakes his head

[Mudinyeri]

The article you linked to, stated that they had obtained all necessary warrants to preform the surveilla

The article you linked to, stated that they had obtained all necessary warrants to preform the surveillance.

Must have been another article I was reading on the subject where Brossart's lawyer said the drone's use was "warrantless". 

Found it: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/08/02/court-upholds-domestic-drone-use-in-arrest-of-american-citizen

We agree ... headed into the deep end.

[RedDot]

So....Americans abroad, having contacts with known terrorist elements could be targeted for drone strikes?  Would that include "enlightened" individuals like Jimmy Carter and Jesse Jackson?   

[DanClrk51]

Under the NDAA signed by Obama the military can arrest any US citizen on US soil and detain you indefinitely without trial without warrant and basically make you disappear merely based on suspicion of which they need to account to no one. In other words: Suspicion of terrorism also need not be present since they do not answer to anyone and can basically take you away in the middle of the night because your not in line with their ideology.

[A-FIXER]

I just sent Sen. Johanns , and other senators a email how a lack of response to protect Americans ......

HOW DO WE MAKE THE CHANGE?

Replace the Senators and Congressmen(of course the president/king/emperor/lord/nobleman)and the  people who represent us now that do nothing to protect us or our Liberties.