President Can Use Drone Strikes Against Americans on U.S. Soil

[TMF]

Didn't Bush authorize fighter aircraft to shoot down passenger planes on 9/11?

[c.a.willard]

IIRC theres some confusion about who actually gave the order but yes for all intents and purpose the order was given, although never received by the pilots in the air above new york

[TMF]

IIRC theres some confusion about who actually gave the order but yes for all intents and purpose the order was given, although never received by the pilots in the air above new york

Right, but it illustrates that there is such a precedent in modern times where decisive lethal force would have been used and authorized by the Executive Branch

[c.a.willard]

yea, pretty much.  Thats why for once i agree with holder.    Now im gonna go wash my mouth with soap for typing that

[TMF]

And, of course, this has nothing to do with conducting an actual kinetic strike on US soil against a suspect. Not that it would matter what means were used to purposefully kill a suspect as opposed to attempting to make an arrest, whether it be a hellfire or a sniper rifle. But since it was mentioned, police kill dozens of suspects each year in hostage standoffs as the suspect is posing a clear threat to hostages, so I guess if there was some crazy scenario where a hellfire could be used without causing collateral damage I don't see the difference.... the end result is still the same. Once again, all moot since there are no armed UAVs deployed in the US.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Right, but it illustrates that there is such a precedent in modern times where decisive lethal force would have been used and authorized by the Executive Branch

It may be what you want to call precedent, but it is still a stretch when using something like that justify using

a drone to fire a missile at an American citizen on American soil. Bush didn't have time to do much of anything

on 9/11 NEADS or whoever had planes scrambled but couldn't find the bogey. It would probably be the same

with a drone, except for the time it took to find that American to kill, which jmplies something quite different.

 

The Patriot Act probably authorizes them to take out you and I any time they "deem" necessary, for all I know.

That's how they seem to do things nowadays.

 

Also, precedent doesn't necessarily mean anything, except that it was done once before. Both acts could easily

be wrong.

[TMF]

It may be what you want to call precedent, but it is still a stretch when using something like that justify using

a drone to fire a missile at an American citizen on American soil. Bush didn't have time to do much of anything

on 9/11 NEADS or whoever had planes scrambled but couldn't find the bogey. It would probably be the same

with a drone, except for the time it took to find that American to kill, which jmplies something quite different.

 

The Patriot Act probably authorizes them to take out you and I any time they "deem" necessary, for all I know.

That's how they seem to do things nowadays.

 

Also, precedent doesn't necessarily mean anything, except that it was done once before. Both acts could easily

be wrong.

 

Well the point I was making was that a scenario existed in recent history where the President would have ordered a military type strike on US soil to prevent catastrophic civilian casualties.  I don't think any reasonable person would disagree that taking out one of those airliners that day would have been justified.  There was clearly no other option available to stop that attack.  Of course, had Bush shot one down then everybody would be bitching about how he was a murdering baby killer although he would have saved countless lives. 

 

I think that was the opinion Holder was rendering, and that is much different than a kinetic strike against someone suspected of committing a crime in lieu of arresting them.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

And, of course, this has nothing to do with conducting an actual kinetic strike on US soil against a suspect. Not that it would matter what means were used to purposefully kill a suspect as opposed to attempting to make an arrest, whether it be a hellfire or a sniper rifle. But since it was mentioned, police kill dozens of suspects each year in hostage standoffs as the suspect is posing a clear threat to hostages, so I guess if there was some crazy scenario where a hellfire could be used without causing collateral damage I don't see the difference.... the end result is still the same. Once again, all moot since there are no armed UAVs deployed in the US.

Police killing suspects in a standoff is no comparison to someone standing somewhere one moment, then a crater

the next. You and Willard are the ones mentioning standoffs and SWAT. I'm not even considering local police with

the use of a drone. All I would see most PD's use of a drone is for eyes, not killing. This is about the federal government

using a piece of technology against it's owners:unless you forgot where justice resides.

 

Maybe it's too pie in the sky for you, but the people haven't signed the title over, yet.

 

 

And back on topic. I don't really like the guy, but Karl Rove even mentioned last night on Hannity( I was waiting for the

Americans to come on :D) about the two laws that already exist that keep the government from using military force

against the citizenry. The militarization and bastardization of the police forces are the way the federal government

gets around this, evidently. Money and implements equals extortion by the feds. That's part of why there are local

sheriffs and maybe some police chiefs supporting the 2nd. They don't like it, either.

 

Keep on trying to justify use for this kind of hardware and you'll only find yourself wearing a red star on your hat.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Well the point I was making was that a scenario existed in recent history where the President would have ordered a military type strike on US soil to prevent catastrophic civilian casualties.  I don't think any reasonable person would disagree that taking out one of those airliners that day would have been justified.  There was clearly no other option available to stop that attack.  Of course, had Bush shot one down then everybody would be bitching about how he was a murdering baby killer although he would have saved countless lives. 

 

I think that was the opinion Holder was rendering, and that is much different than a kinetic strike against someone suspected of committing a crime in lieu of arresting them.

The trouble is, when you decide to listen to Holder and begin to accept what he says, you are accepting the

wrong premise. Since the Clinton Administration Holder has done nothing but lie and commit fraud against the

country with Clinton's blessing. Do a little digging about Eric Holder on your own and you might look at the

subject a bit differently.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I agree with you that, if a drone could have delivered, which it couldn't have because of time, sure, I

would have authorized the use of almost anything that would preserve life in the end, if I knew enough

to back it up. Isn't that part of the fog of war?

[gun sane]

Heck, police kick in the wrong door every day.  What do we do with the geek on a joystick who just happens to get a terrorist's ID wrong and levels a daycare center?

[G27]

Well the point I was making was that a scenario existed in recent history where the President would have ordered a military type strike on US soil to prevent catastrophic civilian casualties.

I think you give our government too much credit, assuming this sort of thing would only ever be used to stop an immediate threat. I guarantee it's only a matter of time before a US citizen is taken out as an 'AQ operative'. Hopefully the operator will have better aim than they've had in foreign countries.

If you can't see this as a slippery slope, I don't know what to say. Edited March 7, 2013 by crimsonaudio

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Actually, the only thing that Eric Holder should have been allowed to do is put on an orange uniform in front

of the committee and make a statement to Congress before he is taken to prison because of Fast and Furious.

I give him no credibility at all.

[TMF]

I think you give our government too much credit, assuming this sort of thing would only ever be used to stop an immediate threat. I guarantee it's only a matter of time before a US citizen is taken out as an 'AQ operative'. Hopefully the operator will have better aim than they've had in foreign countries.

If you can't see this as a slippery slope, I don't know what to say.

 

Well I guess we're interpreting two different things from what he is saying.  No one has been targeted on US soil for assassination since the Bonnie and Clyde days, but I would say their demise is the best example of what we're agreeing is illegal for the gov to do.  In that instance there was no attempt to arrest, they just ambushed and killed them.  I suppose that happened a lot in American history up until the last few generations.  Had they had UAV technology back then I don't believe dropping a hellfire on their car would have been any different than gunning them down in an ambush.  UAVs aren't what scare me here.  It is just another platform.  The day that Holder says that a UAV can be used to TARGET a suspect we'll be having a different conversation, but he hasn't said that.  My interpretation was that he could use a UAV just like any other military platform in an extreme case.

[mikegideon]

I guess we'll get to find out. There will be a bunch of them based in Nashville, if they're not here already.

[Romad7]

Heck, police kick in the wrong door every day.  What do we do with the geek on a joystick who just happens to get a terrorist's ID wrong and levels a daycare center?

It's really not that simple and most of these "geeks" are former fighter/bomber/attack pilots with a many hours of combat experience.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

He as much as said that by saying "we don't have any intent to do that." Saying that implies "at this time"

as far as I am concerned. Coming out and saying "I believe it would be an illegal act" would have been more

appropriate, and would have stopped Rand Paul and Ted Cruz from the line they had to take.

 

As far as Bonnie and Clyde go, that is more of an example of criminals resisting arrest time and time again,

and warranted the use of force they received, but I get the correlation you mean, just that a drone, in this time

wouldn't be much more of a use with an attempt to arrest. Bonnie and Clyde knew they weren't going to live

very long by their own actions and intended to go out in a blaze, if I remember that history well enough.

 

With the history of the use of force by the federal government at Waco and Ruby Ridge, I will never trust

our federal government until they admit they were wrong, and you and I know that will never happen. That's

a bad enough precedence set for me.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I guess we'll get to find out. There will be a bunch of them based in Nashville, if they're not here already.

Didn't know that. The train of thought Matthew Bracken left me with in his books, having them staged out

of Fort Campbell , was bothersome enough.

Homeland Security is a branch of government, with that fool in charge of it, that needs to be dis-banded

completely. Janet Napolitano has said she would do anything Obama wanted. Big mistake.

Edited March 7, 2013 by 6.8 AR

[gun sane]

It's really not that simple and most of these "geeks" are former fighter/bomber/attack pilots with a many hours of combat experience.

 

Not for nuthin', but "most" isn't that comforting a word in this case. 

[mikegideon]

Didn't know that. The train of thought Matthew Bracken left me with in his books, having them staged out

of Fort Campbell , was bothersome enough.

 

They're supposed to replace the troup carriers at the Nashville Airport. I heard it from a good source.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

:rofl:

[TripleDigitRide]

I know I shouldn't be, but I'm baffled that the legality of this is even up for debate. We are in serious trouble.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

We were warned about the slippery slope that Crimson mentioned, by good people like Jefferson and Franklin,

to mention only a couple. Somehow or another many keep forgetting.

[mikegideon]

:rofl:

 

I'm not kidding

[MacGyver]

Didn't know that. The train of thought Matthew Bracken left me with in his books, having them staged out

of Fort Campbell , was bothersome enough.

Homeland Security is a branch of government, with that fool in charge of it, that needs to be dis-banded

completely. Janet Napolitano has said she would do anything Obama wanted. Big mistake.

The 118th Airlift Wing's based out of Nashville has had its mission has changed to include MQ-9 Reapers.  They're replacing the C-130s.

 

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2012/08/ap-tennessee-air-national-guards-118th-airlift-wing-mission-includes-drones-uavs-083012/