E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
US Air Force via Reuters
A Predator drone is shown in an undated photo from the Air Force.
Michael Reynolds / EPA
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder addresses the National Association of Attorneys General in Washington, D.C., on Feb. 26.
The Obama administration has "no intention" of carrying out drone strikes against suspected terrorists in the United States, but could use them in response to “an extraordinary circumstance” such as the 9/11 terror attacks, according to a letter from Attorney General Eric Holder obtained by NBC News.
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who received the March 4 letter from Holder, called the attorney general’s refusal to rule out drone strikes in the U.S. “more than frightening.”
The letter from Holder surfaced just as the Senate Intelligence Committee was voting 12-3 to approve White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan to be CIA director. The vote came after the White House agreed to share additional classified memos on targeted drone strikes against U.S. citizens overseas.
Paul had threatened to hold up Brennan's confirmation on the floor of the Senate if the administration did not clarify whether targeted drone strikes could be used inside the U.S.
In his letter, Holder called the question of drone strikes inside the U.S. "entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur and we hope no president will ever have to confront. … As a policy matter, moreover, we reject the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat."
But Holder then appeared to leave the door open to such strikes in extreme circumstances.
"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. For example, the president could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances of a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on Dec. 7, 1941 and Sept. 11, 2001."
In a statement, Paul said, “The U.S. attorney general’s refusal to rule out the possibility of drone strikes on American citizens and on American soil is more than frightening – it is an affront the Constitutional due process rights of all Americans.”
Paul told NBC News that the response by Holder could lead to a situation where “an Arab-American in Dearborn (Mich.) is walking down the street emailing with a friend in the Mideast and all of a sudden we drop a drone” on him. He said it was “really shocking” that President Barack Obama, a former constitutional law professor, would leave the door open to such a possibility.
Paul said he will filibuster Brennan’s confirmation over the issue but acknowledged “we probably can’t stop him.” He did say, however, he intends to co-sponsor a bill with Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, to be introduced in the next few days, that would bar the president from using drone strikes in the U.S.
Related stories:
Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americans
Senate panel votes to move Brennan's CIA nomination forward
More from Open Channel:
- Philosophical duel developing over more cops in schools
- Damn the regulations! Drones plying US skies without waiting for FAA rules
- New al-Qaida terror guidebook urges young extremists to think small
Follow Open Channel from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook
Leave a Comment:
Why is this such an issue? If something akin to the two instances cited did occur, people would be clamoring for the Feds to throw everything we have at a defense or response. It's a very limited and narrow window and the Constitution is not silent on the issues.
I'm more concerned about our enemies developing and using drone technology to bomb U.S. citizens in retaliation for the collateral damage we've done in other countries!
Fly, I'm of the train of thought that the way Presidents, or in Dick Chaney's case, Vice Presidents, can get the Justice dept lawyers to make anything they want to do "legal" is what most Americans are truly afraid of.
Sure be nice to have a little check or balance in there.
Seriously? Dec 7 was a military action.. like it or not the facts are facts. Holder would NOT even have a position at the table as to a military response there.. .or not in our current Constitutionally defined government.
Sept 11... would have required we have an ARMED drone in operation over US soil.. is Holder stating that we have those operational NOW? We couldn't manage to get an armed manned READY fighter to deal with flight 93 and he is stating we would somehow respond swiftly with an armed drone in flight?
You are correct the Constitution speaks to who has what say and Holder does NOT. Of course Holder picks and chooses which laws he feels he will ignore.
How does this not violate Posse commentates? The united states constitution was created in such a way that it is a right of every American to form a militia in the event of "too much government".
This simply cannot be allowed. I'm all for security, but not when it's asymmetrical.
Power grab continues - and America - is a sleep at the wheel
The day will come when we will say - "How did this happen?"
Continue to dismiss the obvious with Blind Faith in a Government that lies to it's people
Freedom is never Free - Does not take much of a brain to figure that out
Killing of Americans - on US soil - At a government officials discretion - Bad Medicine
Democrats showed more ire against a warrant granting body of foreign wiretaps on the worry it may record an American Citizen. Yet now they are perfectly okay with Obama killing two Americans without so much as judicial determination of the facts.
How asinine liberals are.
Well ... so much for "due process" ! Did you hear about a drone spotted over New York City ?
Just to point out - there is a huge difference between a drone - which can be owned and operated by the FBI, and military troops operating on US soil. In that light, its simply another weapon.
The Constitutional line is crossed with boots, not weapon types.
Gosh!, Golly!! and Geee!!!!! What if THE CORPORATIONS don't like my Nationalization talk about them and their damaging greed Like $4.50 p/g of gas?????
If they use it to only fly over the border between Mexico and the USA that is fine. Drop as many of the invaders as you can, but in the same breath, don't tell me the border is safe Mr. Holder- that is double talk from a politician...
FlyOverMe:
The issue (to me) is that drone strikes are NOT accurate. Do you recall in the Gulf War all of the Smart Bombs that were not so smart? Many missed their targets. TV only showed us the ones that hit. I just read a very good book (Feet To The Fire) based on interviews with war press reporters which dealt with these issues where TV gave us a distorted view of the real damage and smart bomb disasters in Iraq. Do you want drone strikes to hit the wrong target in YOUR neighborhood?
You fight your enemy where the enemy exists, not where you wish he existed. That said, we need Congress to set up the rules. I frankly trust neither party very much, but the crowd in the White House now is the same bunch that at first said there were WMDs, and then upon finding none said that Bush lied us into war. It's the same bunch that said waterboarding just three ILLEGAL enemy combatants was one of the worst war crimes ever committed, but which now can't find any reason to limit the scope of their authority to kill Americans other than their own restraint.
In other words, this bunch (in particular) would kill me, or you, in a heartbeat if it helped them politically. They would, conversely, not care if you or I was killed, for the same reason. Our president is an infant. Whatever authority granted to him, or to ANY president, should flow from a deliberate debate about what kind of country we want. But there is a rub.
See, DOJ claims that we would only use drones on foreign territory for targets we cannot feasibly interdict and apprehend. So, if drones could be used within the USA to attack people here, then what would be the underlying rationale? Could these same people not be apprehended? Because if they can't be apprehended here feasibly, then there is no place on earth more feasible, and so the claimed restraint about how and when to use drone attacks is, well, bollocks. Our administration is making up rules as they go which suit their immediate goals. Could there be a worse way to run government? Thanks, liberals.
Where are all the tards that were here a month ago saying "a drone will never be used against an american ... on american soil"??
Can't see the future? I can.
Holder: No drone strikes on Americans in US, except in 'extraordinary circumstance'
Extra-ordinary circumstances could be one of the following...
- A Republican pisses the hell outta somebody...
- A republican refuses to take the antennae out of their head
- A Republican glued to Faux News for too long....
I could see a Drone used for such purposes perhaps
On a positive note, it seems to me like more people are realizing these issues aren't issues of right vs. left, and that they are issues of us, the people vs. the state. Seems like the political right/left dem/repub hacks are more outliers on issues like this than they are the norm. People are waking up. This is a good thing.
Wait until the first innocent American dies from a drone attack on American soil.
The Owedumbo administration is more aggressive with drones on our own soil than it was in Benghazi. In fact, why don't we only allow drones with cameras on US soil, just like we did in Benghazi?
The Constitution is under attack, those who have sworn to defend the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic need to act. 'Extraordinary circumstance' is the moment th bottom falls out from photo opbama's crime syndicate, sometimes called his cabinet. He has already executed two Americans without a trial, how many more will die before the defenders of the Constitution act?
Drones wouldn't be so much of a worry if we didn't also have Homeland Security and The Patriot Act, both which give unlimited power to take a citizen without a warrant and hold him until hell freezes over without benefit of counsel or a trial.
It has been done recently in Alabama to Wayland Gray, who arrived with three other Muscogee Creek Nation men to pray on what has always been sacred ground and where their ancestors are buried. The Poarch Creek who now have possession of the site have entered into an agreement with the state to build... wait for it... a casino on the site, which violates the treaty made with the Muscogee.
The men were arrested and Wayland Gray told them to go ahead and build the casino but he would be back to pray when it was torn down... meaning when they went to federal court and the treaty was upheld.
He was slapped with a "terrorist" label for saying what he did and is still being held without legal representation.
Before all you Indian haters start dancing with joy, perhaps you'd better thing of whether or not you have anything the state or federal government wants to take from you. All they have to do is proclaim you a terrorist. Before the drones, you had a slim chance of getting your case brought before the court of public opinion. Now you can be taken out cooking hot dogs in your back yard.
Are you SURE you want rifles to be outlawed? They can take down the drones, you know.
tommyboyesq: I agree - the limited circumstance of an armed attack against the US domestically is not very likely to require a drone used in a neighborhood that is occupied. Nor should it be. In a circumstance of a vehicle which needs to be destroyed by stealth, well, yes, I could see that, especially if it had nuclear cargo.
In such a circumstance - perhaps it becomes the only way. Who knows. Why rule it out for that circumstance? As a matter of course, I do not believe drones should be used domestically. However, I am willing to be half the comment writers here are unaware that small "drones" are already operating in their states, used by police, as search and recording devices. That, for me, is a larger problem. Warrentless searches are a far greater breach of liberty in as much as they are harder to document and harder to expose. As opposed to a unique circumstance where there is a terrorist attack, it strikes much harder at liberty to lose ones right to privacy.
So tell me, how many Japanese-Americans would have been killed by Mr. Holder after the Dec. 7 attack? Sending them to concentration camps was terrible, but to consider killing them by drones would be totally absured! It's looking like their incremental power grab marches on...............................
Could have used a drone on the Saudi getaway route after 9/11... But it was a sanctioned escape.
REMEMBER, Holder said he could HYPOTHETICALLY think of a scenario in which a drone would be used. The key word is HYPOTHETICAL! He would have done the wing-nuts and himself a favor if he would have used the words "dreamed-up" instead of confusing them with the difficult word HYPOTHETICAL! And just think Rand Paul has a doctors degree. Sure wouldn't want to be in his dental chair, jeeez!
The military's DUTY is to defend this country against all enemies FOREIGN and DOMESTIC with drones or not. Cops and Sheriffs and FBI however should only have them for surveilance same as a chopper in the air. Just as long as I don't find one hovering in my living room when I light up. We fear our privacy being invaded much more than being blown up by a drone. Militia types love their Orwell.
Dear all bleeding heart libtards,
You voted for the biggest big gov't president we've had (except maybe Carter) because you too wanted to villify the evil so-called rich millionaires and billionaires (which curiously includes people making $200k in New York City), no matter the negative effect on our economy.
Yet what you failed to appreciate is that the big gov't agenda doesn't end only with the destruction of our economy. This drone program is only one example of that extension of big gov't.
But don't blame me, I didn't vote for this community organizing as$ clown.
Holder is a treasonous SOB. Now this administration will declare that all gun owners are terrorist, and the killing will begin. Just watch what happens when Obama goes to Israel, the plot will come into focus.
If Bush and Cheney had proposed this after 9/11, Dems would have been pouncing on it and Reps would have been defending it. At least half of you need to admit that it is less the issue you are agreeing/disagreeing with, and more the person/people you are agreeing/disagreeing with.
As far as Holder's actual statement, I'll quote an authority greater than I on such declarative statements:
"Only a Sith deals in absolutes"
The world is far to gray for some of you "drones". Pun intended.
Is this Holder the same Holder who said he knew nothing about fast and furious, what a lying POS.
Yesh Chief, Illuminati! Red Dragon's Blood! The President most of you claim to be an idiot is busy pulling off the largest conspiracy in the history of mankind! What is he, an idiot, or a mastermind?!?
why am i not surprised by this report... frogs in a pot of water.
So Rand Paul figures we should not use drones against an invader once they are on US Soil? How's that for a Hypothetical for ya Dr. Paul? No where did it mention against U.S> Citizens simply INSIDE the US Borders. Try not to add things in that were not in the response folks.
Only a democrat administration would be so assinine.
Waco and Ruby Ridge come to mind.
And they think we are fools to want to keep the second amendment.
disgusted - I'll say an idiot. Who else would try and piss off over half the country?
Doc Holliday said:
Extra-ordinary circumstances could be one of the following...
- A Republican pisses the hell outta somebody...
- A republican refuses to take the antennae out of their head
- A Republican glued to Faux News for too long....
I could see a Drone used for such purposes perhaps
Neither helpful nor funny, given the circumstances - reported as inflammatory.
OTOH, Dingle B says:
Yes, TPTB and the media have worked overtime to keep us divided, so that we can't see what they're really up to. But this is something that both left and right SHOULD agree on, which is I cannot think of any good reason to allow this, or leave the door open for the possibility. Sometimes lines have to be drawn, and this is one of those times. I have no problem with a drone strike against a terrorist camp in Yemen which killed an American citizen - maybe he shouldn't have been there? It's not like we can send in the police or FBI to such a place, heck Zero Dark Thirty was a huge risk that could have backfired. (It worked, though, so maybe we should re-think our overseas drone strikes as well.) And in America, if an armed dangerous person (like that former police officer) won't be taken alive, well the police might have to shoot him. But the police are there to make a determination as to who this person is, and make an ATTEMPT at arresting him, something that no drone will ever be able to do. Therefore it cannot be allowed in America. You will find little to NO conservatives supporting Holder on this; personally I'd prefer NONE!
President has always had the power to use military force to defend the US. Nukes, drones, doesn't matter. This memo is just stating the president's Constitutional power -- in extreme scenario's the president has full military power, even within the boarders of the US (think Lincoln and the Civil War, WWII and Hawaii).
It's one of the main reasons the presidency matters -- commander in chief of the armed forces isn't just a fancy title for show.
Chick Binder watched Farenheit 9/11 last night.
Wake up, people, Your freedoms and Constiutional rights are being stripped away from you!! First indefinite detention and now drone killing of Americans with NO due process!!
Apparently the 'plot' is already in focus for you. Your tin foil hat must be expertly applied.
Blah, blah, blah - 2000-2008 - Dems complain Bush is ushering in a new world order. 2008-2013 (so far) Reps complain Obama is ushering in a new world order. Forget the discourse in this country being unproductive, it is flat out BORING.
So, who has some thoughts not regurgitated from your favorite politcal leaning mainstream news outfit?
Well....What is the alternative?....Have a president sit with children instead and continue to read "My Pet Goat" with them while the nation is under attack by terroists?
Been there done that!
Liberal 'logic'
Waterboarding foreign terrorists= bad.
Killing Americans with no due process = good.
.
Steven B, it's amazing isn't it? If the mainstream media had any balls, or if they were willing to be journalists for a change, they would ask Odumbo how he justifies killing Americans on our own soil with no due process, but attacked Bush for waterboarding foreign terrorists to get the very information that allowed him to learn the whereabouts of bin Laden. Are foregin terrorists entitled to better protection under our constitution than US citizens on US soil?
If President Osama (oops, Owebama - I keep getting these two Anti-Americans confused with each other) could take out the US Constitution with a drone strike, he would.
BTW....So a drone was spotted flying over New York today...pilot reported it....Voter suppression tool dreamed up by Rove?
Somewhere maybe a mouse is roaring....no?
Here's an independent summarizing Rep "logic" -
Attorney General pushed and pushed to make a definitive statement on drone strikes in the US and finally says, "entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur and we hope no president will ever have to confront. … As a policy matter, moreover, we reject the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat," after the adminstration framed this in the context of attacks on terrorists on US soil...
and a Rep paraphrases that to mean that Dems want to kill Americans (not terrorists) with no due process. Typical.
Realist17 - Your clever puns add immense value to the discussion. I know FOX wants you to believe that Obama wipes his backside with the Constitution, and MSN wanted you to believe it about Bush with the Patriot Act, but fact is, both are wrong and they know it. They simply offer the masses simple, easily-digestible ideas because that's all most can wrap their heads around, but things are always more complicated than the over-simplified drivel coming from the left and right's media arms.
Normally I would classify Rand Paul as a nutjob, but I find myself agreeing on this one. The erosion of civil rights (Patriot act, Homeland Security, TSA) begun under Bush/Cheney seems to be continuing unabated. Which begs the question; what aren't we being told? Seeing how the apparent influence of the rich/corporate interests in both parties is only in degree, is the corporate takeover of the government that close?
I'm no conspiracy nut, but you still gotta wonder....
What are "extraordinary circumstance for this administration", it could be anything we are losing our freedom under the Obama regime, who don't care about our Constitution and our rights , they want to take away the second admendment after kill a citizen , terrorist or not, without due process. Knowing that this administration fail to be a more transparent, there is no trust anymore.
Realist - What's amazing is Holder was actually talking about the exact same terrorists you refer to with water-boarding, only the hypothetical he extended would involve the terrorists being in the US. You know, kind of like those that boarded multiple planes to fly into US buildings? And yet, you somehow read that he was talking about Americans.
FlyOverMe
I say we Burn that Bridge when we come to it ! Obama is hell bent on causing a revolution from the stunts his kronies have been up to.
Well, liberal me is agreeing with Rand Paul. Drone strikes on US soil on US citizens by the president is unconstitutional as far as I remember. That is one reason we have national guard; they are not regular army. Hawaii was not a state in 1947 and so its constitutional status would have been more grey at the time. The poll shows that 63% of us disagree with drone strikes over US. That would be something that I think liberals and conservatives agree on since we are both here at this site reading the article and commenting. Get that folks? We agree on something. Saints be praised!
Obama and his Staff are nothing but Criminals... Obama wants a War on American Soil, that way he has Americans to blame for the Civil War or Revolution he started.. What he dosnt realize his he will loose this one, badly
For some, specifically the yahoos of the Reich wing, Nothing puts the constitution under attack more swiftly than when there is a combo of non white president and a non white attorney general in picture.
All of their most sordid xenophobic fantasies, fears and drama comes to fore as great cries of "freedoms" being trampled rends the heart of the overcast skies.
All humbug and bull@!$%# considering they didn't even bate an eyelid when extraordinary renditions, wholesale wiretaps and torturing of American citizens was rampant during Bush administration.
If there had been a magic button I could have pressed on 9-11 to stop what happened, but I'd have had to piss on the US Constitution to do it, I would have let 9-11 proceed as is it did. Although the body count was high on 9-11, and it was a genuine national tragedy, the body count will become much higher the day our Constitution is deemed totally irrelevant.
There is a reason our people are Constitutionally protected from the military. This protection ceases to exist if we allow this Government,(or any future Government), to militarize local, state, and national police forces.
Honestly, I don't believe it would work if our Government tried to use the military against the people. I don't believe most line commanders and soldiers would accept any orders that involved harming American Citizens.
However, I do believe the police will do just about anything they're told to do to keep their "Gubment pay and benfits". Most cops aren't willing to submit to the power of judges and juries. They see themselves as the law. I've seen people shot for simple possession of narcotics. I've seen unarmed people shot at the hands of "no knock" search warrants that later proved to be without merit. Hell, I saw an active Army officer and an active Army NCO shot by a deputy for simple possession of a machine gun while training. http://www.wral.com/news/news_briefs/story/6751785/ (that deputy not only didn't face charges, he was later promoted to chief deputy in a different dept.)
So seriously. Some of you want the cops militarized? You really want a country where military hardware is used on our own people? You want a country where search warrants and due process are made irrelevant by the simple word "terrorist"? Because the way I see it, this Government defines a terrorist as anyone who disagrees with them, AND is willing to do something about it.
The next person they call a terrorist, just might be you.................
GungaDin
you are so full of BS its pathetic Traitor... Go back in your hole cause you have no clue
"Power grab continues - and America - is a sleep at the wheel"--- I couldn't agree more Marcus D-4300696.#1.6 And in more ways than one.
I find Holder, this administration and the government establishment in general very disturbing, systematically dismantling our rights to liberty in the name of so called "homeland security".
I wonder if Holder will try Fast and Furious with drones?
Will Obama showing his hand if he can't scare you with spending cuts maybe this will.
...from the most transparent administration in history! (sarcasm intended!)
Due process out the window along with guns. More Obummer constitution wrecking. Looking more and more like Nazi Germany.
Why are all these Jewish politicians wanting to get rid of the public's guns, don't they remember what happened in Germany before Hitler got into power? And what happened after he got in power. Seems they would be all for an armed public. Finestien, Bloomberg, etc.
And the pop tart that looked like a gun at school getting a student suspended? With such reactionary measures are schools even teaching the second amendment? Sounds to me like public schools are just indoctrination into an armless society.
To take over a nation you start with the children.
The big question. Does President Obama want to give up power in 3 years?
Mr. Holder: "NOW HEAR THIS" if so much as one (1) American citizen is killed by a drone, in the United States, under ANY circumstance, YOU and those under your command, WILL be held responsible and will answer to the American people.
This is not Nazi Germany, or Iran, or Russia (USSR)
This is The United States of America. We, the citiznen and people of the United States, will not tollerate this kind of action, under any circumstance.
This will not stand.
BE ADVISED!!
@Disgusted, Owebama already took out a US Citizen terrorist in Yemen... what leads you to conclude that he wouldn't do the same thing on American soil - in an "extraordinary circumstance" of course (whatever that means)?
Oh Geez...maybe we can have Bush #3 be next president so he can dream up a fake reason to go to war for more War profits, have thousands of our troops die because of the war profits, then Drain the economy so it crashes because he has no plan to pay for it,...besides..."deficits don't matter" as republicons like to say.....
Oh, that's right.....been there done that......Bush #2 and Bush #1.
Repeal the Patriot act. Nothing in that bill is Patriotic.
Dear Realist17 and all the other people (morons) out there,
Do you really want to talk about the economy and negative effects on it?
YOU PAY LESS IN TAXES OVERALL PERCENTAGE WISE THEN YOUR WORKERS DO. STFU AND PAY YOUR "FAIR" OF THE TAXES TO THE GOVERNMENT. Every single worker "produces" or "services" way more then they ever get paid for. They do not get paid what they are worth, EVER or else the company could not make a profit.
A worker produces or services $200 a day worth of stuff yet they only get paid $100 or $50 from the company they work for. The rest gets taken out or "paid" in taxes to the company so that they may stay in business and make a profit. There is overhead, managers that do not produce or service anything, CEOs, rent, power, water, phone, etc. that all cost money and HAS to come from somewhere.
Most workers pay at least a 50% tax to the company that they work for. Meaning their paycheck should be for double what they are getting now. That is until they are forced to pay taxes so that the company can operate and survive. After they pay their taxes then they would have the same amount left over that they are getting paid now.
The issue is that you (rich people) have not paid you fair share of the taxes since the 60's. Who voted and lobbied for that chit? Let me guess it was poor people...f***ing morons. How much did Regan spend btw and increase our national debt by? How much did he lower taxes on the rich by? Yet you cry about 39%...I should come whoop the chit out of your sorry selfish greedy a$$es for even opening up your mouth and saying anything when you workers are paying you over 50% in taxes. WTF is wrong with you people and why do you expect your workers to pay more in taxes then you do? WTF kind of leader is that? How much more chit and money do you need to make you happy? Once you have 10 to 20 times more then the majority of the people, should that not be enough to be "happy"?
Crying about people in New York making X amount...MAYBE HAVE MORE TAX BRACKETS LIKE WE DID BACK IN THE 40'S-60'S WHEN WE HAVE A 90% TOP TAX RATE, BUT THAT WOULD REQUIRE A BRAIN, BEING ALBE TO LOOK UP THINGS, AND DO RESEARCH ON THEM. Which you obviously do not have or else I would not be having this one-sided discussion with you. I would not have to point out the fact that most workers pay more in taxes overall then most rich people do since most rich people ONLY have to pay the government in most cases since they do not work for someone else.
If only the people with the money and who get to make the rules were not so f***ing stupid. Why do we let you lead again if you hurt the economy and can only think about yourself? I think it is time we get some new leaders is all. The old ones have worn out and need to be replaced is all. Just have to make it as painless as possible so that the people do not suffer. Both of our parties are sell outs to the rich and powerful and they play us the people for fools.
How did we ever get to the point where "using a drone" against the US--her own citizens---was ever an option??? ---Even in "dire circumstances"???!!! Hugo Chavez dies.....and Obama replaces him.....lovely...
I am amazed, but not surprised, at some of the partisan response in some of these posts. Seriously... how can this drone thing be rationalized away? Ot has a terribly ugly feel to it. Those of you defending the train of thought that it is good, or even ok, do you support the Patriot Act as well? Do you not think it has the potential to serve a dangerous infringement of civil liberties?I just don't understand how anyone thinks the government is our friend and not an necessary obstacle in our lives, let alone this- a potentially dangerous adversary.
wasn't Holder the same idiot who refused to prosecute the Black Panthers that were weaponized at the polls of the first obama election?
I see a future where drones will be used to enforce our curfew, for our safety of course. Maybe they can take an EPA angle and say if everyone's in bed by nine we'll use less energy.
You nitwits don't even see it coming. SUCKERS ALL THE WAY!!!
why would you ever need a drone attack on US soil when its full of things that can more easily be used; police, military, civilians, manned aircraft, etc. ? using drones for surveillance of known FOREIGN invaders is great but attacks on our very own soil by drones is a dangerous thing, we would need to be invaded by ground troops and have clear targeting with zero citizen friendly fire to warrant any use of drone attacks, pretty much a "we're screwed" scenario.
the US constitution makes it clear who has the authority to declare war:
the war powers act is unconstitutional by a mile as there is no power in congress to give the president war declaration powers either in response to an attack or preemptive strikes, once war is declared by congress then the president can direct the war but not before then. if congress wants to give the president war declaration powers then they need a constitutional amendment to do it legally, a judge is not needed when its a clearly defined power.
this is it for what the president has to do with any war powers or military involvement, not much and it sure does not say he can declare war or use our military at whim, congress has control over our armed forces and when they are to be called upon and they cannot delegate that without an amendment of which there is none.
"terrorism" cannot be used to justify the killing of individuals within any country unless that country is knowingly and with support, allowing the individuals in question to attack our country or interests. even in that instance, congress would need to formally declare war against the harboring country in order to use any armed force against it. rebels using friendly countries to launch attacks on others is what would be called unlawful combatants, not "terrorists" and we have no authority to attack specific targets in any country unless war is declared by congress.
any use of our armed forces does require an act of congress regardless if its drones or soldiers, if holder (or anyone) wanted to target a suspected "terrorist" within our country with military drones (or any military armament) then he would need an act of congress to do so, he is not above congress. (soldiers are considered property while in service and treated as arms)
http://www.constitution.org/cons/constitu.htm not too hard to read this thing, it has all the answers.
President Obama Signs Indefinite Detention Bill Into Law
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/president-obama-signs-indefinite-detention-bill-law
I think if we discover an imminent terrorist attack, let's say in New York City, we should just nuke the whole area to stop it. So, maybe 20 million people or so die, but we would have stopped the attack!
Are we just going to sit by and let our rights as citizens to be trampled on? Attorney General Eric Holder stopped short of entirely ruling out a drone strike against an American citizen on U.S soil-without trial. Does anyone else find this outrageous? Where are our rights under the Constitution? I hope that journalist's truly follow up on this policy and that our legal experts weigh in on whether or not this is unconstitutional. This is a debate we should have as a nation.
It is only a matter of time until the NRA will lobby that it is a 2nd Amendment right to have an armed drone so why worry?
Drones don't kill people, people kill people.
The drone already attacked - hence the budget forgotten.
Starman how do you "loose" a war?
I see the Tea Party is in full force fighting a hypothetical situation.
The reality here is the military would never be used to wage a war against its citizens because the American military would be divided on this ideology and that in itself would lead to a civil war, just like in the 1860s. Not all the teabagging red dawn wanna be's bitching about a hypothetical situation on the vine.
To target domestic terrorist in an extreme situation, who cares. Just regulate it and require congressional intelligence commitee approval, and a Federal Warrant?
Otherwise you just simply put the assets in Federal Agencies hands who have a history of killing US Citizens
FBI, ATF, DEA all have killed American Citizens, so if the drones are owned and operated by the FBI does that makes it ok? How about if it is a State Governor utilizing National Guard who is given drone assets in the Future? Does that make you feel better?
If you really want to be paranoid, just think that the genie is out of the bottle and there already private drones being built. How long until they are armed and protected by the 2nd Amendment probably?
Pragmatic-3918582
There is.
It's in the 5th amendment. It's called "due process".
But it's in that stodgy old 6 page document called the Constitution that neither Holder or Barrack Hussein believe in.
This is what happens when you elect an alleged "Constitutional scholar" who doesn't believe our Constitution is a "charter of negative liberties".
Actually, he doesn't believe in it at all.
Not only is Obama going after the 2nd Amendment but also the 1st Amendment.
It was reported yesterday that the White House was unhappy with Dennis Rodman.
Next day, Dennis Rodman suddenly cancelled all appearances and is not even speaking to reporters.
Wow, I thought for sure Rodman would keep talking because that is his style and its his right.
Well, Obama sure made him shut-up.
Revolution is getting nearer and nearer. O and Holder should remember what happen with Gadaffi. He forgets the American people have armed themselves and he can make whatever law he wants to against the 2nd amendment, but it is our right no matter what he signs and we don't have to abide by his laws. Even the law enforcement are saying they will not comply with his unconstitutional laws. I wonder where he will try to hide when the @*!@ is going to hit the fan.
No, you twit, those of us who have guns are adamantly holding on to the right to possess them so we can shoot the drones out of the damned sky when they invade our private air space over our Bar-B-Q grills and outside our children's windows.
Why the hell do you think the government is pushing to take rifles away? It's because they can shoot a bullet as much as a mile, meaning that the average citizen can possibly take out a drone.
@ Pragmatic:
The Fifth Amendment was screwed the day the Patriot Act was extended by Obama. It will NEVER go away unless the citizens of this country demand it, because no president will willingly give up that absolute power.
Erosion of Rights. That's what it is and will continue to be. I don't want to say "Big Brother," but that's what it is, unless you want to call it the "Piecemeal Elimination of Rights."
Our education system is geared to produce willing workers and to stifle creative thought. When creativity is denied, a certain type individual will be inclined to non-social actions. We are creating our own enemies, inside our borders, and then creating the rationale to eliminate that enemy without Due Process, or with Due Process before the fact. Just planning ahead, I guess.
Starsailing,
I don't think that any president with half a brain would have stopped reading to the school children and started screaming "we under attack, we're all going to die!" That would have been stupid. The terrorist attacks that happened on 9/11 were best explained to the children by their parents at home where the children would feel safe. So I give GW an A++++ for how he handled that situation. I would even give BO an A++++ if he had been president at the time and had handled the same way.
I'd like to thank all the statists, especially the DemoCrips and the RepubliBllods...because those two, more than any, sophistically defended and hypocritically attacked that which, had the other Party done it, would have been lamented and embraced (respectively). Oh, but for one of the two Whores of Babylon (which we affectionately refer to as "Parties")suggesting the insanity to the flock, it would have found no support. But merely the idea that one of your two mental slavery gangs and their false narratives and faux paradigms endorsed X notion was reason enough for the sheep to defend/attack X notion.
You guys have about much free will and critical thinking capabilities as my pet canine.
And no, my dog isn't blue or red, he doesn't give a crap about abortion one way or the other, and he doesn't have a name which starts with "R" or "D"...so stop looking for a way through the Partisan Paradigm Machine to support or attack my dog.
You and others really need to read the letter. The question posed by Rand Paul and was reiterated in the letter as to whether, "the president has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial."
That's not adding anything. Are you all that @!$%#ing blind?!?
Then, there's others of you talking about the president's ability to authorize military response to an attack; absolutely. But the question was about those ACCUSED of being terrorists, not convicted of, ACCUSED!
Damn it, you blind party loyalists! Wake the @!$%# up!!!
chick binder
Could have used a drone on the Saudi getaway route after 9/11... But it was a sanctioned escape.
yes that would be Bush, and those Saudis would be his buddies! Doesn't anyone else find it weird that when ALL flights are grounded...that flight was permitted? obviously something going on there...
Hey dubya...ever find those WMD's?
The patriot act is not constitutional, why do we let it stand? This is the fundamental document where all of this unconstitutional action is coming from.
If we allow this administration to fly drones over our heads our constitution is dead.
A judge makes out a search warrent based on solid evidence: this is a check and balance for the police branch. A drone firing on a citizen doesn't have any checks or balances. There is no judicial branch for over-site. This is another step towards Marshall law and Fascism.
- moral from Aesop's Fable: The Wolf and the Lamb
And so fitting of Obama and his minions
As long as we are useful to the 1%ers- we have life security. I'm disabled - I'm at the top of the list for instant disposal. Wars need soldiers - Uncle Sam Needs You - the 1%ers need you. A planned die-off would have to be very selective - not much of a surprise if carried out with drones.
This apocalypse won't happen in our life time - still too many resources. Relax, mute the commercials, take a moment for your self - buy a Blizzard (Heath Bar), buy some bongos, set a World Record...sorry, I almost slipped into a Tubes song there...where was I?
@GIJoe, comment 1.53, I would hope that to be true, but remind myself of of Kent State on May 4 1970, and the shooting by the National Guard that killed 4 and injured nine US citizens. So, I can only hope that our soldiers, will do as you suggest!
Holder is CRAZY.
Glad he is gone, but he most likely still has influence in White House Decisions.
Good bye Holder---you are not missed!
@screaming:
Shoot the drones down with your guns? LOL
You really think that you can hit something that is 10,000 feet up in the air, doing 150 mph, and shooting back at you with a Hellfire missile?
My gawd, the ignorance of these gun nutters just cracks me up... LOL
If people aren't doing something about the overreaching government, the overreaching government is going to do something about the people. Fight.
American Hero
Perhaps you remember the American hero Richard Jewell, who in 1996 discovered a bomb and played a central role in having the area with thousands of Olympics spectators evacuated.
Initially he was hailed as a hero but then suspicions arose and he was hounded into seclusion.
On NBC television Tom Brokaw announced: "The speculation is that the FBI is close to making the case. They probably have enough to arrest him right now, probably enough to prosecute him, but you always want to have enough to convict him as well. There are still some holes in this case".
That was 1996.
Under the Global War On Terror regime Richard Jewell, seen as an "imminent threat", would have been wisked away to Gitmo. He would not get a hearing nor would he get a trial. The nightly news would have praised such a move and I dare say the American people would have bleated in well-fed approval.
Believing his imminent fate could be Gitmo, if he had decided to flee he would have been pursued and targeted by drone and cruise missle.
Either fate, Gitmo or drone, would have been recorded as a victory for freedom over terrorism and America would have slept ever more soundly.
Unfortunately, very few of the posters here have the ability to apply logic to this situation in the manner of FlyOverMe. When I read the article I knew - this would be a boon to all the right-wing wackadoodles who lack the ability to think clearly on this subject. Simply because drones have been used in war does not mean they could have no use within the borders of the U.S.
Please - just one of you nutballs - tell me that in the event this country suffers another terrorist attack (and it will, it is only a matter of when), you would NOT allow a drone to attack those terrorists who have killed Americans on their own soil. How would that be any different from attacking them with any other method? Stupid knee-jerk responses are never helpful - but do serve to show the paranoid freaks among us for what they are.
I cant say im too opposed to them using drones here in America, as long as those drones hit enemy targets only and not innocent american citizens.
Our governments Original intent was to protect our borders and keep us safe. Slowly , over the years the government has been adding such subtle small changes to where it is in control of everything that americans dont even or know the difference from over a century ago until present. I guarantee if you were to take Americans from back in the birth of ameirca, and put them in the present, there would be a huge revolt against the government. Were like lemmings , at the mercy of our government, when the government should be at our disposal.
Some of you need to take your tin foil hats off. Seriously. I like how some rare extraordinary hypothetical event is twisted to OMG THEY'RE GOING TO USE DRONES ON AMERICAN CITIZENS ON OUR SOIL THE CONSTITUTION IS UNDER ATTACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The radical one siders (of any party) are what's wrong with this country, not one man.
People seem to forget that under a republican president we were literally minutes away from shooting down an airliner with US citizens on it via a fighter jet. Were you people okay with that then? That seems far more drastic than using a drone to take out a target in the event of a catastrophic extraordinary situation.
Boy, the conspiracy crazies are out in full force today!! They live in constant, hysterical fear of "tyranny" and big government, and socialism, and all the rest, and then they show us what life would be like if THEY ran the gubmit; There they are, running through through the woods practicing killing anyone who disagrees with them because they see "threats" everywhere. They proclaim the constitution to be sacred and not a living document, and then they are constantly proposing this amendment and that amendment that protects "their" way of life.
I watched a spot on our local news that filmed a "militia" group as they practiced their war games, and it was funnier than The Big Bang Theory. A bunch of fat, middle-aged, long-haired, full-bearded people with mud smeared all over their faces, dodging trees as they ran toward..... what? Then they would slowly drop to their ample bellies and take three or four seconds to get their guns located and aimed and fire at......what? Yessiree; bring it on, huh boys? I know I felt much safer knowing these yahoos are out there protecting my rights and preventing a takeover from a tyrant like.......who?????
Face it boys and even some girls, you would be a joke if you weren't so paranoid.
Is their definition of terrorist, the sames as yours? Many would consider anyone that is against "our" government to be terrorists, while others might call them patriots! I am sure that during the American Revolution that started our country we would of been described as terrorists. The only way it is truly determined is by who is the winner of the conflict! Terrorists can fit into many categories, some just by the words they say! Remember that we are accepting the word of our government, and we all know that they have never lied to us, to push their agendas ahead!
An armed drone in US airspace would be handy if a "terrorist" was holed up in a remote, fire resistant location that was difficult to access with a traditional Libor/Ramjac assassination squad. Skynet seems to be online.
Remember how easy it is to claim a US citizen is an enemy of the United States, and they "supposedly" are in the process of making an attack against us, making them a terrorist. We already have opened that door, in the attack of US citizens, by drones in Yemen, one of who was only 16 years old! They already have made one step in that direction, what difference is it if we allow them to do it here on American soil! They were US citizens, what difference does it make where they are located. I consider the gangs we have in the US as terrorists. Although I might think that we would be better off without them, and a drone strike against them to rid ourselves of them would be great, I would have to give them their constitutional rights, under the 5th Amendment:" nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" , since the fact remains that some might be murderers, while others are being forced to do the gangs bidding, ie., prostitution, lookouts for illegal activity, etc., yet are considered to be a part of the gangs.
JP -
It doesn't take a bullet to bring down a drone. A focused EMP can bring one down. I wouldn't say much about electronics or power in the area afterwards though.
How about some laws to back up why even the hypothetical possibility of this being attempted by ANY administration should be condemned:
The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 prohibits the use of the US military for domestic law enforcement within US borders: "SEC. 15. From and after the passage of this act it shall not be lawful to
employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or
otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under
such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized
by the Constitution or by act of Congress."
Now, I am sure that the administration will argue that what is being enforced is not a domestic law but rather an international law, but then, I'm sure murder is illegal in international law. Should we start taking out the FBI's 10 most wanted with drones as soon as they are spotted? If and when a drone strike is ever carried out on US soil (and if we even ever hear about it), the nation as a whole needs to stand up and demand impeachment. Personally, I don't care who the President is in power at the time.
The Constitution is only ineffective if We the People make it ineffective.
The Constitution is still the SUPREME Law of the Land, and ALL other laws, acts and the like are still subject to it. {The Fifth Amendment has not been made 'ineffective by legislation'. WE have made it ineffective by subjugating ourselves to a voluntary 'act'."} It is up to the People to use the courts to prove the unconstitutionality of these subject laws. And as long as the People remain ignorant sheep to this, and continue to accept and adhere, en mass, to those laws and acts that are, in fact, unlawful, there will never be an effective move away from this tyranny by consent.
-------- (Even stopped clocks, {ie - Lenin/Hitler}, are correct twice a day...)
When this country was initially founded, the people were to "govern" themselves. Not to BE "governed" over. THAT is where we went wrong...
Extraordinary today.... ORDINARY TOMORROW...
Fight back Americans... don't let this happen here in AmeriKa
the attorney general of the United States says it is legal to ignore the Posse Comitatus act, the Bill of Rights of the Constitution in order for Americans to be safe ; our safety is at risk from our own government!
From Holder and his buddy, Barry, exceptional circumstances could mean hitting white only areas.
And who gets to define, 'extraordinary circumstance'??
How is an unmanned drone much different then a maned F18? Or any other form of attacking American people with American military force?
I'm surprised the civilian police aren't up in arms. If the nation is going to be goverened by Marshall law then who needs them?
Better then using a drone to take out the terrorists that would trample their constitutional rights. I wonder how Bush's order right after 9-11 to have fighters over major cities with orders to take out any planes that didn't comply was constitutional but drones aren't?
A moving plane with no flight plan and not responding to radio hails, moving at over 200 MPH is a tiny bit different then what we are talking about here, try and keep up..
UN-FUKKING BELIEVABLE!
These people don't know where to stop, now do they!
And the sheeple go along with this.
YEAH....RIGHT...
First place to test armed drones: Chicago.
Next will be ANY political oppositiion party (homes, businesses, and meeting halls).
No strikes will be allowed on the borders.
No drone strikes except "only if they get away with it "
to tommyboyesq: Are You For Real Moron??? Now it's "Hope they don't hit the wrong house on my block"!! you and FU CK Over me gotta be bedmates.........
yeah, these are the 'advertised' uses of the drones. What else might they be used for under the cloak of night? Hmmm.
And we are paying for these how?
All power will bring evil works......
I can't say what I feel. I'll get arrested. If you didn't see something like this comming, your blind.
he used the magic words "9/11 terrorist attacks". It is now cool Holder, you boss Obama may do as he wishes.
Mary say what you feel and show the world what a true nutjob you are/
Only in exceptional circumstances.
Like only on Republicans? Another Obummer gray statement. Who determines what is exceptional? What constitutes exceptional? What are the checks and balances? Does only one person decide? Is this the Presidents personal revenge tool?
thats why men gave their life to fight hitler
What are you all so afraid of? Are you plotting something against the State or planning a terrorist attack? Are you afraid that you're going to be targeted by a drone for some reason that the cops need to know about? I mean, heck, usually the only people who are afraid of the law are the lawbreakers, ya know?
Also, you all talk like drone pilots will just fly around shooting Hellfire missiles at people for the fun of it. I don't see cops, who carry guns, running around picking people off just for the fun of it. I don't see the A-10 Thunderbolt pilots who fly circles all day on patrol around the Air Force base here in Tucson using civilians for target practice. You guys are like seriously, seriously paranoid. Haldol, anyone? LOL
What could Obama and Holden do to make a US Citizen a "terrorist"? Protest Gun Control? Not accept Obama care? Own a gun? Oppose anything Obama or his wife try and pawn off on us citizens? Say or write anything derogatory about the President or Democrats? Guess they will sending out the drones on a regular basis if Obama has his way. This way he can say the Obama Guard is shooting anyone.... Yet! He wants us to be good little minions. Trouble is there is still too many people out there who are free. Unlike the sheeple he is already controlling. The sheeple are afraid of the threat of drones and will comply.
J.P. Dogly
Being afraid or being a criminal is two differnet things. What I am saying is the drones are a direct violation of my Constitutional rights to be a free man. With drones being available there is always the possibility to be used against a US citizen and thereby the governemnt becoming a tyranical government. The first time the government will say it was an accident. By the time they are being used regularly it will be too late. The government will say that these American Citizens were, in fact terrorist. But because of National Security they won't tell you why or what proff they have. They will shun out the courts and you and your family will not have any recourse to follow. We need to stop this while it is in it's infancy or it will be too late. They now have the drones in place, the US militia in place and once they get our guns away from us there will be no stopping him.
J.P. Dogly. If I were you I would look very hard at what you said and proposed. If you really look hard at all that is really known, you should be afraid, VERY afraid. Be vigilant.
If I was in charge, and I knew about Timothy McVay's plans, no way he would ever get close to Oklahoma City. Remember those two bank robbers in California, in broad daylight. The had full auto AK's with very large magazines, they wore full body armor, they shot up policemen and civilians for several hours. Bring on the drones. I remember the pictures of the dead children being brought out of that wrecked federal building. I don't care if Sen. Paul is afraid of the drones, he is just another t-party $hithead, like all the other t-party $hitheads, thinking the government is coming after them for being too stupid to live. Well they are stupid, using an AR-15 to fight off a drone. Our country is like the Titanic heading for the iceberg, everybody can see it, but nobody has the power to turn the ship. After we hit, hopefully, only the bad guys will drown!!
@Barlow: The problem is, who decides who the bad guys are? With this administration we all saw the "watch list" of potential domestic terrorists. Will you still feel the same way if an extreme right wing president gets into office? Wrong is wrong, and I don't care if the previous or previous 50 administrations did it. We keep playing down to the lowest common denominator and maybe taking it just a bit lower. What happens when we get down to a denominator of zero, as in zero individual rights or zero accountability?
@Realist17
I would assume that was because the alternative was a guy that wears magic underwear and believes he'll own his own planet some day after he dies.
I'll take Carter over that insanity any day.
i much as i don't trust this administration with anything, never say never. there might be a circumstance where it could be prudent.
This should NEVER be allowed. We have law enforcement to go after bad guys we don't need some lame excuse to start flying drones around and spying on us all and that is just what this is. How would a drone had helped on 9/11? Its BULLSH*T!
I can think of more than a few people I've met through the years who deserve to be visited at home by Government drones. Arranging for SWAT teams to visit went out of style last year!
Sorry, Mr. Paul....but what's "more than frightening" to me is the thought of another 9/11.
You can eliminate another 9/11/2001 by properly investigating it, for the first time, and by promising that if another one happens, we will have another complete investigation, and this time, those who fail to do their jobs efficiently and competently will be charged with dereliction of duty and professional negligence.
Stop believing allegations, and start demanding PROOF of what the government claims.
How times have changed.... if Bush had even HINTED about domestic attacks the left would have thrown a tizzy-fit...... just goes to prove..... only the "right" can be wrong if you are left..........
First of all Holder is the most worthless lying pond scum on the face of the earth. He is a monster and will do anything. Just returned from Helena, Montana where the DEA at Holder's direction attacked a medical marijuana facility some 2 years ago. A handicapped man was thrown on the ground and held there by boots on his head he is now in a rest home as he never recovered. Erick Himmler Holder should be tried convicted and executed for war crimes. That is why I will not give up my guns. Every patriot in this country should shoot first if you see those letters on a jacket or uniform DEA
If such a day arises that a president has to contemplate a drone attack against US citizens on US soil, may God help us all....
If it does happen, there will be numerous pictures coming from the Situtation Room, bids on a new movie, have an Ambassador tell the story at the U.N., and have the DOJ and DHS on Sunday's political broadcasts defending the action.
BTW: it is ALREADY sad day in America with this administration running around like a chicken with it's head cut off.
Civil War Is on The MENU!!!!!!!!!
Won't be you eating.
Why are these treasonous SOBs still in Washington? Is Congress so impotent that these traitors can't be charged? Where do we get these so called politicians, the dollar store? America has gone so far from it's roots that it is almost impossible to recognize. If and when these drones show up in our neighborhoods I hope Americans will stand up and take them out of the sky. How do we know if they are ours or someone elses? How much more will Americans take before they fight to get our freedoms and liberty back. It starts in our backyards with our local politicians. We must vett them every hour of the day until they do what they swore to God to do, protect the Constitution.
Well now lemme see if I can get this 'merkin pseudo-patriotic-racist-ninny-scared-of-its-own-shadow mind-set figgered out... OK... So If Eric Holder told you the sky was falling you wouldn't even bother to look up...
But if'n he refused to tell you that it absolutely couldn't fall... well THAT would mean it was comin' down fer shurrrr huh??
Worse than stupid... transparently mindlessly stupid...
If he told you it was noon you'd call him a liar. If he refused to give you the time he'd be gettin' all uppity. And you wonder why tornadoes hit mobile home parks... It's the finger of God.
Run Forrest, Ruuuun!!!
why the fk would you use "merkin" in your rant, do you even know what it means?
merkin
A merkin (first use 1617) is a pubic wig. Merkins were originally worn by prostitutes after shaving their genitalia.
i ask because ive seen quite a few lefties throw that term around like it is suppose to be insulting or something. are you calling them pubic wigs? or did someone take a defined word and change it to suit their wants?
American, condensed down to merican becomes a merkin. A fake US patriot. Usually a misguided tool.
Then I guess Mr. Holder must be merkin then. You can pick which definition to use.
merkin might be bad pronunciation for american but in no way is of any insult to anyone. when i hear merkin i think of pubic wig as i am not some robot who cannot think for himself nor have any understanding of proper definitions. slang is for the gutter and has its place, trying to insult someone with a plagiarized obscure slang word is just silly and very telling of who they listen to.
i thought it interesting, the use of merkin as some sort of insult against repubs when its historical reference is to a bad pronunciation of american. maybe if you said his hair looked like a merkin, then i would see its point but being fake does not describe a merkin, as merkins can be made of real hair.
Yeah it is. It directly points to someone's lack of intelligence while they are proclaiming to be a Patriotic American. You know... like Dumbya used to say how "proud (he was) to be a merkin." Seems to me that to be compared to Dumbya is indeed, an insult. Or how some people don't know what a <Shift> is used for. Or maybe they don't know how to "operate" the <Shift> key? Someone who complains about "slang" should be able to properly communicate. You apparently cannot. And just "who (do) they listen to" if they use slang?
lol the sign of a loser is when they resort to nit-picking and petty insults, to imply bush jr. is somehow dumb is very dumb of you. while you may not like him i know he has done far better than you will ever be, being president and all is quite an accomplishment regardless of how good he was. you gonna be president someday?
i have more food in my feedbag
Well he certainly accomplished a lot.
Eric Holder so emboldened that he willing adds a caveat to his response indicating that it could happen under the right circumstances? What is there to worry about then :)
Everyone has different definitions of 'right circumstances'. haha.
Holder already has American blood on his hands in "Fast & Furious". Whats a little more? :-)
Hey Tony FaF was started under the previous admin they just renamed it for this administration.
BP:: you are out in left field,Bushy had no border guards killed !
BP - Fast n Furious was not started until August of 2009.. Bush ended gun running in 2007 with no guns or lives lost. Quit getting your talking points from MSNBC
Tony Amodeo
Holder already has American blood on his hands in "Fast & Furious". Whats a little more? :-)
Seriously?!?! Shall we start discussing the huge amount of American blood on Bush and his cronies hands...as well as private citizens blood...If there was EVER an administration that needed to be investigated it would be the BUSH disaster of 8 years! Bsuh and his cronies are the traitors of recent years...
Pretty strange that there was never an plane parts found at the "plane crash" site at the Pentagon...there are ALWAYS plane parts a crash sites...just not the Pentagon crash site...I wonder how that could be?
Stop smoking that sh!t "chrisk196"or put a helmet on. because when you hit your head, it makes you say stuff like this.
The nonsense is asking is there any possibility we'd ever attack on American soil. If we had a drone handy and a plane was flying toward the Pentagon of course we'd use it. This is kind of like asking a guy looking at the ugliest woman on earth if he'd do her if she was the last woman on the planet. You put the bag on and take care of business.
The Pentagon is supposed to have better methods for defending itself than stationing armed drones around its proximate airspace. Armed drones in American airspace is a bad idea.
How'd that work on 9-11?
It worked exactly the way that Cheney and Rumsfeld had set it up to work. The FDR for Flight 77 indicates it never hit the Pentagon. You've been punked for more than a decade. Larry. Time to wake up.
Not true. You made that up.
When someone has information that you haven't bothered to investigate, you tell them to stop making stuff up. You're like a lazy 12 year old.
The FOIA request for the FDR was provided to PILOTSFOR9/11TRUTH. When the FBI was informed that the FDR indicated that flight #77 was at too high an altitude to strike the Pentagon and thet they had therefore misinformed both Congress and the 9/11 Commission, they refused to devote any time or resources to clearing up the discrepencies. The spread sheet data file for the FDR also appeared to have been altered and did not match the accompanying file.
Your willful ignorance is something akin to being an accessory after the fact to mass murder. Rather than saying that information new to you gives you pause and makes you think we should look more deeply into what we have merely been told by people who always refused to provide the corroborating evidence for their tales, you always want to claim that even though you don't know anything about the information new to you, it shouldn't make you question what you have been led to believe as a matter of faith. Faith in authority has no place in any investigation of a crime in which those same authorities could have played a facilitating role through derelition of duty or reckless negligence. Covering up your failures is not the lawful purpose of secrecy classification.
Didn't happen. I've seen the actual data, and you're wrong. Or lying.
Which one is it?
What didn't happen? The FDR was allegedly recovered from the Pentagon. The FOIA request was indeed "technically" honored. How, pray-tell, did you see the data? Where did you acquire the decryption code?
Sounds like you are the one who is lying.
So, is everything you don't understand necessarily the result of some insipid conspiracy?
How about the moon landing? I guess they faked that too, right?
They very well could have. You wouldn't know.
Please explain how you got to see the FDR data from flight #77.
You first.
I already explained how the information was obtained; FOIA request, industry analysis. Now explain your lie that you claim to have seen the data after somehow decrypting the file yourself.
We could argue ad infinatum if we are going to be unable to resolve this in a legal setting with power of subpoena and threat of perjury penalties..Some of us are demanding that kind of resolution, while people like you tell lies to avoid, at all cost, the illegally classified facts from ever being exposed to the sheeple.
First, you tell us exactly where you saw the data that allegedly indicated that the flight was too high. Oh, and if the flight didn't hit the Pentagon, where did it go, and how did its FDR end up in the Pentagon?
You tell us. You're the one who claimed to have seen the data personally, not me. But since you are lying, and then asking disingenuous questions which you should have demanded answered by the investigative body you didn't support 10 years ago, I can't expect you to debate this issue in good faith. Don't you Christians claim to understand that bearing false witness is a sin?
So, you have nothing to substantiate your claim at all? No idea where the plane actually went, or how its FDR ended up in the wreckage of the Pentagon? Why should we believe you? How high was the plane, and who said so? Why do you assume I'm a Christian, and what does that have to do with anything?
If the Pilots for 9/11 Truth wackos are all you've got, well, say so and we can all consider the source, and move on.
And please, do try to be civil. There's no reason to call people names. With nothing to support your claim, I could just as easily call you a liar and any number of other names, but it isn't productive.
We've been going around in circles on this, seemingly forever. You keep asking disingenuously, "Where is your proof?" I keep explaining that I cannot have proof without a legal setting in which proof can be established. You allegedly want substantiation of things, but don't, never requiring that the government do exactly that substantiation before making drastic changes in the way we Americans can live our lives.
You say you've seen the FDR data for flight #77, tell us the altimeter reading at the instant of impact and the jet's air velocity and the thrust level of the port side engine. If you can't answer those questions you are a LIAR.
I didn't ask for proof. I just asked where you came up with this stuff, but you keep ducking the question and calling me names. Just show us where you got this information.
You know, not everything you read on the Internet has to be true, like that TV ad. It's particularly questionable when the website's name actually includes the word 'truth'. Pilots for 9/11 Truth, for example.
Eh, bonjour.
;-)
So you've seen the data, allegedly, but can't answer the most basic information related to it, which if you could would serve to "substantiate" your own claims.
We are on the internet. If nothing can be proven or substantiated on the internet, why do you keep asking for a source? You just want to attack the messengers instead of having them subpoenaed and allowed to testify about what they know. You've already done so multiple times with the name calling of people you don't even know or had any interaction with. You're a sad clown of a liar. That has been proven, here.
That's ok. I get it. I'm sure if you actually had any legitimate source for this, other than the moonbats at "Pilots for 9/11 Truth" you would have provided it by now. Maybe the aliens told you, who knows.
Never mind.
I'm sure it's a waste of time to point this out to you, since you'll undoubtedly claim anything that conflicts with your point of view must be part of the conspiracy, but for anyone else who still has the patience to read this far, there is some interesting background and data here (among others - this one just gathers much of it together in one place):
www.911myths.com
You know, just because you may not understand all the details of any particular event, that doesn't mean there must be a hidden conspiracy keeping the truth from you and the rest of the world.
You say that nothing can be believed on the internet, but then you send people to a web site on the internet. You're completely illogical, and a liar to boot.
I understand that what we were told happened on 9/11/2001, with no proof provided, was physically impossible to accomplish in the way it was described. You are the one lacking in understanding. I will provide you with mu sources of information when you worked to set up an investigative commission with the powers to arrive at the truth; subpoena power, witness protection power, grants of immunity to those who have chosen to break their National security pledges, and security clearances for those doing the investigation. These powers were not afforded to anyone who was allegedly tasked to "investigate" 9/11 to this date, eleven years later and counting.
What was the altimeter reading?, liar.
Really? When did I say that? It shouldn't be hard for you to provide a reference for that one. Unless...
Bull@!$%#. You don't have any real information at all.
"not everything you read on the internet has to be true."
So why would anything you read on 9/11myths.com be taken as true, by anyone but you?
Again you are back to relying on faith, rather than proven facts, derived from testimony given while under oath and threat of perjury penalty.
You're still lying about having seen the data from the FDR from flight #77. Proven, right here on the internet.
Apparently you don't understand the difference between 'not everything has to be true' and 'nothing is true.'
You don't know what you're talking about. In fact, you can't even read.
Frankly, I think you're just a troll - posting any wild-ass crap you can come up with to irk someone into responding, and I'm tired of your sophomoric games.
Grow up.
You should grow up, and stop believing demonstrable falsehoods. Learn to be skeptical of an "official" story delivered without any corroborating facts or proven truths. When they rig the "investigation" by limiting its powers and budget, and narrowing its scope beforehand, any adult thinking person should recognize that they have set it up as a whitewash, so they can say that "we had an investigation".
I do understand the difference between the two statements. But your inference was that some things can be believed without evidence, if you agree with them on faith, and other information which challenges your belief and faith is to be dismissed, rather than investigated. Illogical and childish.
You have a bad habit of not answering questions which would help you prove that you are not a liar.
The Altimeter reading,please. Or just STFU.
Only the reader/listener can infer something. Whatever inference you may have had was of your own doing, but I implied no such thing. Even a child knows that there are both credible and non-credible sources of information on the Internet, but you seem to lack that level of critical thinking entirely.
An ironic statement, since you've refused to answer any questions, don't you think? I provided a source for my position (the NTSB), but before you do the same, you insist that first I must...
The convenient dodge of a transparent fraud.
You're obviously not going to actually participate in the discussion other than this kind of howling at the moon, again. I doubt anyone takes you seriously - I surely don't, and so I'm done with you.
"credible"
You've made my point for me. You give 'credibility' to some internet sources, which you agree with, and dismiss the credibility of internet site information that you have been conditioned to reject. I explained quite a while back that on matters that involve mass murder you are NOT supposed to take any information ON FAITH. The sources of dis-mis-information will always trade on their perceived "credibility" with the masses. That is the point.
In what comment did you cite the NTSB as the source of the FDR data that you claim to have seen, but don't recall the altitude of the plane at impact? The NTSB doesn't just hand out that information in its original format to just anybody. When was your FOIA request applied for and fulfilled?
Demands for a proper forum for the revelation of sources is not a dodge, it is the only logical practice in a mass murder investigation with conspiratorial underpinnings. We're not playing some parlor game.
9/11/2001 could not have been accomplished in the way it was described by our own government. They rigged the "investigation" so sheeple like you would believe their story and then spread their lies for them. And since you are a proven LIAR, it should come naturally to you, Christian or not.
That's good to know....especially coming from you Mr. Holder .......because you have always been forthright with the American people.
Still waiting on Holder's TRUTHFUL comments about "Fast and Furious" and why he will NOT prosecute States which allow Sanctuary Cities.
IDO:: Its called campaign money ,the root of all eval!
What is with people's irrational fear of drones? I sure hope that the president, whoever is in office at the time, would use every available means to stop a direct attack on the USA similar to 9/11.
Those irrational fears you speak of could in reality be rational if one were to be flown over your home and it crashes into one of your windows.Some local law enforcement agencies have drones.They can chase the bad guys with them instead of endangering anybody in a high speed chase and oops we shot out the wrong car on the freeway.
Ask Pakistani civilians how irrational the fear of drone strikes is. People who ignore their principals in times of trouble because it's hard are the people who are ruining the country. NEVER should a U.S. citizen be targeted for death without due process. EVER.
**********************Lessons on How to get rid of a Pariah Neighbor********************
Like in the Woody Allen Film "Sleeper": Psssstt!! hello police??? the Guy down the road works for AlQuaeda!! And I saw him with an unregistered baseball bat and chainsaw!!!! Yeaa! that's Him!!! at 210 maple st.!!!
I am guessing you believe in the mythical "precision drone strike". Reality is that drones kill 80+ innocent people for every one terrorist killed.
" people's irrational fear of drones", This is a perfect example of the complacency the Federal government is counting on. Let me guess your around 25-35 right?
If our police shoot and kill a man for holding a Pepsi can (wrong address on warrant), then I certainly do not trust drones within our borders.
Police helicopters work just fine.
This has gone too far, we need to start impeaching people.
Killing an American on American soil without due process (trial by jury) is called MURDER. Holder. Try practicing American Law instead of Sharia law.
If an American was 20 miles out from the city you live in with a nuke in the back you'd support taking him out whatever it took. They take American citizens out all the time without due process. Why do you think every major city has SWAT teams?
What makes you think that the hellfire missile stops the nuke from going off? The scenario is preposterous.
For armed drones to be more effective than other methods of interdiction they have to be up an on station 24/7. No right thinking American should think that armed drones perpetually over our heads is a good idea, especially when it invites abuse, mishaps, and eventual atrophy of the proper methods for dealing with domestic threats.
SWAT Teams are not supposed to be assassination squads. The perp is supposed to be allowed to surrender to them when they have him surrounded.
WOW!! I thought there was a law against the US military operating in the US -- guess I'm wrong if AG says it's OK!
Nope, no such law. In the 1950s, the U.S. military had to get inolved in enforcing racial integration in schools, when several southern governors tried to nullify federal law.
Why would there be a law against our military operating here? That would be just about the dumbest law possible, it would say to other countries "come invade us, we aren't allowed to defend our country." The things people say sometimes.... wow.
Our military operated here during the September 11 highjackings. Go on youtube and search "Rumsfeld says flight 93 shot down."
The Posse Comitatus Act is the United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152) that was passed on June 18, 1878, after the end of Reconstruction and was updated in 1981. Its intent (in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807) was to limit the powers of Federal government in using federal military personnel to enforce the State laws. Contrary to popular belief, the Act does not prohibit members of the United States Armed Forces from exercising Law enforcement agency powers within a State, police, or peace officer powers that maintain "law and order"; it requires that any authority to do so must exist within the United States Constitution or Act of Congress.[1] Any use of the Armed Forces under either Title 10/Active Duty or Title 10/Reserves at the direction of the President will offend the Constitutional Law also known as Public Law prohibiting such action unless declared by the President of the United States and approved by Congress. Any infringement will be problematic for political and legal reasons.
The Bill/Act as modified in 1981 refers to the Armed Forces of the United States. It does not apply to the National Guard under state authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within its home state or in an adjacent state if invited by that state's governor. The U.S. Coast Guard, which operates under the Department of Homeland Security, is also not covered by the Posse Comitatus Act, primarily because the Coast Guard has both a maritime law enforcement mission and a federal regulatory agency mission.
Clotho
Actually it was the National Guard... Seems they got involved at Kent State also.. a very important reason there IS a law restricting the use of US or ANY military force within the USA.
Posse Comitatus Act of June 18, 1878 updated 1981 allowing National Guard to perform police duties within their own state.
Look up Ben Franklin.. he had a thing to say about giving up freedom for a little security.
Trust_Verify, the law is against using military as a policing force. It is not against all military operations in the U.S. as CME mgmt states he believes it is. What do you think our military would do if let's say Russia invaded the United States, sit there like civilians and watch our National Guard and Law Enforcement get picked off? Our military can and has operated in the United States before, have you ever heard of War Games or Joint Military Exercises? What do you think they are preparing for when they practice those operations here in the United States? They are preparing for reacting to an invasion.
riverboy21
While there is NO question about the US Military responding to a FOREIGN military threat the QUESTION IS about using the US Military against US Citizens on US soil.
Again look at my response referring to Dec 7... strictly a military situation.
I do HOPE you are correct in that they are preparing for "invasion" and not something else. So far though the entire "Hope and Change" thing just has NOT panned out.
Every time I am directed by a friend to check out a specific article's comments it AMAZES me how uneducated and flat out stupid some posters are. All military operations are against the law on U.S. soil? I'm sorry but that is just so stupid, all of you really believe that our own military isn't allowed to defend it's own country? There are laws against using the military to enforce federal law, but nothing stating it is illegal for the military to operate in the United States. Our military operates in the United States on a daily basis, have any of you heard of the Air Force?
What about this recent article from a few months ago?
Just absolutely down-right stupid if you think our own military can't operate in the United States.... I seriously can't believe so many people think that and your completely incorrect statements are actually getting votes! The ignorance of us Americans is truly sad when you deny deny deny something that occurs on a daily basis.
That is what the article is about, but it is not what CME mgmt or Clotho posted about. CME mgmt said "I thought there was a law against the US military operating in the US." There is no such law, and Clotho and myself replied to that, not to the article. What about when a plane is hijacked and then escorted by fighters jets? A plane flying to Seattle got escorted by fighter jets when a passenger freaked out the crew a few months ago, that's not responding "FOREIGN military threat." The military can do whatever operations it needs to do to protect the country, no laws stop them. Once again, the laws concern enforcing laws with the military.
I HOPE I'm misunderstanding you concerning your last statements. Do you think that when they do a Joint Military Operation specifically designed at responding to an invasion of the East Coast and they scramble dozens of fighters jets, aircraft carriers, Navy destroyers, submarines and coordinate it all... you suspect that might be in preparation to attack our own citizens? Tinfoil hat, crack pipe, etc, etc, lay off them.
the military and police have been conducting joint exercises in the last few years .- wonder why? Wonder why they have the FEMA camps? Wonder why they are stockpiling guns and weapons and YOU, a legal citizen, can't find any?
Wake up!!
the head of the NSA admits they are violating the 4th Amendment, but they don’t care…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-signs-secret-cybersecurity-directive-allowing-more-aggressive-military-role/2012/11/14/7bf51512-2cde-11e2-9ac2-1c1452669c3_story.html
http://www.alipac.us/f19/leaked-u-s-army-document-outlines-plan-re-education-camps-america-256657/
http://www.infowars.com/media-characterizes-military-invasion-of-south-florida-as-cool-tourist-story/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ri9ioCbqJCU&feature=share
These are just two examples, but they have been held all over the US.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/03/obama-dhs-purchases-2700-light-armored-tanks-to-go-with-their-1-6-billion-bullet-stockpile/
http://www.infowars.com/dhs-purchases-21-6-million-more-rounds-of-ammunition/
People, connect the dots, right and left, conservative and liberal - this is about an out of control government getting ready to do who knows what, but it isn't good!!
I remember back during the racial school discord when the National Guard was pulled into Alabama to help "keep the peace"; there are circumstances where the US military have been called for reinforcements within this country and to my knowledge there has never been a law against military being used in the US...that would be a little foolish, especially if we were to be attacked on our soil!!
Those instances were the National Guard. The military can definitely operate within the US but not as law enforcement. Part of the military's duty is to protect the country from an enemy invasion, upon performing that duty they would be used against a foreign aggressor, not against US citizens.
As a citizen of the USA I am entitled to a jury by my peers. To encroach on my rights a Judge must make a ruling based on evidence, for example a search warrant. This provides a check and balance against abuse.
For Example:
There is plenty of evidence that if Lee Harvey Oswald had gone to trial, he would been acquitted. A trial is designed to prevent the vigilante crowd mentality. This is also sometimes called civilization.
A drone shooting at Americans bypasses a Judge standing up for our rights, gives tremendous opportunity for abuse, follows vigilante mentality and simply bypasses civilized society.
This gives us significant insight into the attitude of our Presidential administration. Get ready for some more BIG CHANGES, just like he promised. (Careful of what you ask for you may get it).
Why are people so concerned over this? We have bigger problems to worry about. Our government is weeks from shutting down yet again. This started as a statement about using drones to kill Americans. If they are deemed terrorists overseas, they should be blown away by any means necessary. Americans working with terrorists join the enemy and are the enemy. Stateside, use them to track them and send in law enforcement. I have no problem with them using whatever means necessary to prevent another 9/11. Evidently, the public has forgotten the images of that day. That can never be allowed to happen again.
...because it becomes a slippery slope - specifically on what the government can do and will try to get away with. In case you haven't noticed, our rights are being slowly and surely chipped away at.
It's just another step towards a totalitarian police state, that's why.
Gunner What you are saying is fine but they didnot do that on the 911 attack in 2001 our defense systems were shut down by some strange coincedence. It should have never been allowed to happen in the first place. There is more to the 911 attacks than our government wants us too know. The state of our nation changed forever. Our constitutional rights are being systematically stripped away from us while we sit on our hands and do nothing to stop it. America needs to wake to the fact that if something is not done to stop them from stripping our rights away then we will become their slaves unable to defend ourselves.
Totally wrong!! There is no "bigger problem" than a government who uses the Constitution as toilet paper!
We do have bigger problems than this. They will never attack with drones on our soil. This is just a big ploy to get people off the real issues. Our country is going bankrupt and our military is being dismanteled. If you all want to live under the Chinese flag or the Muslim Brotherhood keep following this smoke screen and miss the real plays. Me,I am stocking up.More to 9/11, yes, they did not prosecute the idiots at the flight schools who never questioned why someone would not want to learn to land a plane. If profiling is racist, i am the biggest one on the planet. There was no 9/11 conspiracy. Our own people, idiots, taught these morons how to fly. They took over flights because we are a country of sheep, except for 96, with box cutters. They destroyed symbols of our freedom. The wars were justified and Saddam had WMDs,I saw them in 2007. Keep your eyes one the real play people. We are being turned over from the inside and because people will not vote out all who can't do the job we pay them to do, it will continue to be their way, not our way. They work for us, but no one holds them accountable for getting a job done. Everyone in Washington is destroying our country to line their own pockets. WAKE UP!!
I question whether someone can take over a commercial airline with a box knife. Sounds like a really good way to get the @!$%# kicked out of you. 9/11 has some serious questions. I get suspicious because every time our Fascist seeking government wants to take more of our freedoms and rights away they throw 9/11 in our faces, and the cowards cower and say go ahead.
So.......the government wants to deploy flying robots with laser beams and guided missiles over us to make us feel safer! They will probably be made in China. Or worse yet be made by the same people that believe the Second Amendment is no longer relevant
So if we're attacked INSIDE our national boundaries, we're NOT supposed to use our own military to defend us? What does Rand Paul suggest we do instead?
The question was about whether he would use them on U.S. citizens, which Holder didn't rule out.
Howie... the issue is using US Military Against US citizens....
If we are attacked by the green men from Mars... that is a different story
DingleB, markw207
Timothy McVeigh was a US citizen. I'd have no problem with a Drone killing any American on American soil that was intent on committing a terrorist act.
I don't understand why you would want to protect a terrorist.
Jake,
Because, he or anybody else has a right to due process...there is this little thingy called the Constitution..
McVeigh didn't act alone, and his bomb wasn't powerful enough to do the damage to the Murrah building. You have internet. Try doing some research on the reports of multiple bombs found in the ruins of the building, and a guy named Brescia.
@vol, Your Due process argument is out of touch with reality. Due process does not apply in cases where the person poses a direct and immanent threat against life. If it did cops could not shoot back at armed suspects. Also in the case of those who actively align and participate with an organization that has openly and actively declared war on the U.S. ( and in most cases they openly renounce their citizenship) they have made themselves enemy combatants. What do you want, Marines asking the group of Taliban if there are any Americans in their group before shooting back?
Now I am not saying there doesnt need to be oversight and clear rules. Ruby Ridge and Waco showed us that part is needed. Those were clear cases where a claim of Due Process could be made.
And clear examples of government overstepping it's authority. The point is not to allow the potential for abuse of power by the government in the first place. Those in positions of power have proven over and over again that they cannot be trusted and will do anything they can get away with and more until they get caught.
As a citizen of the USA I am entitled to a jury by my peers. To encroach on my rights a Judge must make a ruling based on evidence, for example a search warrant. This provides a check and balance against abuse.
For Example:
There is plenty of evidence that if Lee Harvey Oswald had gone to trial, he would been acquitted. A trial is designed to prevent the vigilante crowd mentality. This is also sometimes called civilization.
A drone shooting at Americans bypasses a Judge standing up for our rights, gives tremendous opportunity for abuse, follows vigilante mentality and simply bypasses civilized society.
This gives us significant insight into the attitude of our Presidential administration. Get ready for some more BIG CHANGES, just like he promised. (Careful of what you ask for you may get it).
It is now and always will be legal to arrest or kill a person that is in the act of committing a crime...
So If the US Government KNOWS that person X is driving to place Y and they have a truck load of explosives...I do not have a problem with them sending police, a drone, the United States Marines, or the FBI....
HOWEVER - if person X is sitting in their home THINKING about or TALKING about a committing a crime... I do not want a DRONE striking them
Why would an armed drone be required in any of these scenarios?
How does the President and Mr Holder define "extraordinary circumstance"? We will never know when the next Pearl Harbor attack and 9/11 attack happens so the President has that much leeway to make that call without congressional approval? Wow! I do not buy it!
The drone program has killed over 1000 innocent people in countries abroad and now this administration is claiming under "extraordinary circumstance" they have the authority to kill people in the US?
I thought we were living in the USA not some rogue country like Venezuela.
Has anyone read Fahrenheit 451 lately? Remember thepolice dog robots with needles on their noses that hunted criminals and injected them with poison?
I never read the book, but I liked the movie. They left the robotic dogs out of the movie though. I'll have to look for a copy of the book.
Summary executions... GREAT. Two things that gov'ts have been shown unable to handle is power and money.
And we thought Barry was going to be better than GWB? Same guys, just a darker tan on one.
As much as I dislike both Bush and Obama, I'm not really all that concerned about Obama using drones on U.S. citizens. What is concerning is the precedent they have set for future leaders. The power they have given the executive branch will come back to bite us in the future. That power will act as a magnet for the evil minded and corruptible.
What would Willard Romney do if he had a dron... Oh that's right! He introduced us to her!
Sarah Palin thought a drone strike was when hubby hit back.
The republicans can't use drones... They don't understand anything controlled by any means other than fear.
When John Boehner was asked what he thought of drones he insisted that his were perfectly legal and that we could come to his house and check their papers while they worked...
The Democrats think the best use for a drone is a targeted kill of an al qaeda operative... The republicans think its voting...
The last election showed clearly that we're already around 47% drones in the U.S. ... So what's a few more?
@chick binder,I don't believe that there is anything I could say that would be allowed on the post to explain how I feel about your mouth. Let's just say I think your a mfposcskinpis@a%t,and let it go at that.
Is Holder ever going to admit he knew about the 'gun walking' scheme to arm the cartels of Mexico? Is he ever going to be charged with allowing people to break the laws of both countries by transporting illegally bought weapons into a country that does not allow private gun ownership? Is he ever going to admit that not one of those guns ever let to an arrest of anyone in the drug cartels?
Does this mean that we can drone strike the radical extremist republicans??
Yes ....and radical socialist liberals as well .....That would leave only us Libertarians. Yaaaayyyyy!
Certainly, if we can drone strike the radical extremist democrats as well. An eye for an eye they say.
leroy brown
You don't have sense enough to build a Model Plane so we aren't to worried about Dumbocrats.
Simple, we live under the best C.I.C since Roosevelt. If our enemies plan on attacking, killing civilians in our country, President Obama takes them out. I am sick and tired of republicans HIDING behind the flag and doing nothing. I say, go Reaganites, attack Grenada again. Remember the Marines in Beirut---
leroy brown
"Does this mean that we can drone strike the radical extremist republicans??"
Excellent question Leroy!... I think we need to develop a cannibal drone first, because the current drones are programmed NOT to strike other drones...
and you morons want to let the government take your guns away.
Let's be realistic: Guns ain't gonna stop a drone. You won't get a single shot off before the missile comes screaming through your home/bunker. And they didn't stop this authority from being claimed.
Pragmatic-3918582
The first VICTIM may not get off a single shot but 80 million others will have a response, unless disarmed.. The possibility of those 80 million responses do a LOT to prevent that drone from making the strike. And you gun control types will be the first ones BEGGING for a response.
Right ON ! This guy is a FOOL! He thinks they can do anything!
Don't you just love how the Lefturds readily admitt that during a crisis, they would just curl up in the fetal position, suck their thumbs & piss their pants. The pussification of American men continues.
Still not buying it. Gun vs drone means drone wins. On a wider scale, let's think about revolt. Do you believe 80 million will take up arms to possibly throw their lives away over a philosophical outrage? I wouldn't bet on it, not while there's food on the table, something on TV, and something to lose like family and quiet living of your life. I hear tough talk, but not a one of these 80 million has stood up to stop the wholesale stripping of our rights so far. Belief that the government won't do something because of the threat of armed insurrection hasn't stopped them from doing whatever they want so far. Why should I think it will now? What reason can you give me?
Who said I was a gun control advocate? I'm just being realistic and shattering the foolish convoluted macho fantasy of keeping an out-of-control government at bay. If a government wants you dead, you are dead. They have tanks, planes, artillery, nukes, and bombs that will neutralize you from beyond the horizon. Your only hope in such a situation is that the military who owns those tanks, planes, artillery, nukes, and bombs won't fight for a despot.
I have a whole rant on this but it won't go the way you think. Confidence is a character trait that comes from true courage. It does not come from jumping at every bump in the night like a terrified little lamb and clutching cold metal to make yourself feel better like a toddler clutches a security blanket.
@NavyVet98: You SAID It All....Didn't hitler and stalin take the guns away from their citizens??????
Pragmatic- :: There was a drone shot down with small arms,but I guess you missed it reading your lefty news paper.
trust_verify........that's exactly the type of reasoned reply that needs to be given! I'm glad you're being vigilant and smart about about your responses. That's the biggest defense we have.
Phantom beast:: That is correct and that is how the Russians kept the iron curtain for 50+ years!
You mean the low-flying $300 toy owned by an animal rights group shot down by hunters? You're going to compare that to an armored full-sized military drone flying at 10,000 ft? You really think you can take one of those down shooting straight up with a muzzle velocity of around 1,600 ft/s at a moving target over a mile away? Or are you still believing that foolish macho fantasy?
How does this not violate Posse commentates?
You mean posse comitatus.
Nancy said "pussification"... While screaming MIMI about her imaginary machismo under assault!
Dudes... you can't figure out why no one takes you seriously? You sound like kin-folk to the "pipple" on "Doomsday preppers". Dig a hole! Hide frum da gubment!! Take their cheez witcha!!!
ragmatic-3918582
apparently you need it spelled out.. I never stated the guns would be used against the drones... with 80 million (or more) potential respondents shooting the drones is a non issue, unless you intend on using drones against 80 million targets at once (nukes maybe?) Before you get on your little band wagon about how the US military, being the ultimate power on the planet, could wipe the floor with those 80 million gun owners perhaps you should look to Afganistan where they have managed to hold off not only the US military but are doing so AFTER taking on the USSR with far fewer arms.. and there the US Military is not killing their own relatives.. not likely to happen very long here.
While I have a DIM view on US society in general I wouldn't see using drones against US citizens on US soil a philosophical issue, but perhaps you do see it as politics as usual.. thus my dim view of society.
Perhaps you have not been listening? A lot of those 80 million are current or former military as well. So far a lot of talk by both sides but I trust that IF (hoping we never reach when) it were to come to it that a LARGE percentage of those 80 million would put up... what they speak about.. for now it is enough that certain elements of the government believe enough of them would.
I disagree with that.. in that I believe to a LARGE degree it HAS kept things in check.. NY state and Chicago are exceptions that prove the point as others in government have NOT followed suit and actually done just the opposite.
1. you have NOT denied you are. 2. you use the standard argument of "IF they wanted you dead they have all this military hardware"
Wish you would at least attribute comments to who made them.. rant all you like but at least rant in the right direction. TVM
I do need it spelled out. Are you talking about deterrence through ownership or are you somehow suggesting that all 80 million gun owners will be able to hit a fast-moving armored target over a mile away with small arms?
We were fighting a moral war, which is a contradiction. Trying to get the bad guys and sparing the innocents. We could have carpet bombed the whole country, killing every single person, and nobody would have stopped us.
As I say, this is your best hope in an actual government-gone-wild scenario.
I sure wouldn't, but I know others would.
If this and that, nobody has done anything. The fourth amendment is all but buried. The first has one foot in the grave. The sixth has been eroded pretty severely. When does it get bad enough that somebody will make a stand? It's just tough talk. Nobody will throw their life away until it impacts them directly in a major way. The general complacence during these erosions of our rights is the proof.
And I disagree with that assertion. And I know that the gutting of our rights does not fall along a single party line.
You haven't denied that you're a pedophile serial rapist, but it would be foolish to assume you are just because you haven't denied it. That's the same kind of ridiculous false logic employed by Glenn Beck. I may use that argument, but it is an observation of fact. For the record, I don't think gun control is a good idea without hard data supporting it, and even then the constitutional rights must be considered first. Also for the record, I am not a pedophile serial rapist.
Apologies. I was just being lazy.
So mostly,because we haven't overthrown our form of government,we're a bunch of gutless cowards?
Pragmatic-3918582
Vietnam proved that worked so well. Next we will hear you state something along the lines of bombing them into the stone age.. not realizing that most of the people living there are barely above that level already and the combatants are living in caves already.
yes it is deterrence. some may attempt and even succeed in hitting a drone but there are "better" targets that are easier to "remove" should it ever come to it.... and the military having families HERE would quickly make them have 2nd thoughts.
we seem to agree on our rights being eroded on by many parties with their own agendas. I think you would agree that is it's own discussion even though this is a small part of that debate.
wow... not even part of the debate and you are making accusations.. so lets get that out of the way.. I am not a criminal in any way shape or form now that you are asking/accusing. You did come out stating you had not claimed to be one.. only now are you saying you are not comfortable supporting gun control without hard data... Speaking of false logic seems you just attempted to employ that tactic here.
apology accepted..
trust_verify,
Vietnam was another moral war. We were trying to get the bad guys and spare the civilians. In WWII we bombed the ever loving crap out of Germany and Japan until they screamed uncle. Didn't matter who was killed, civilian or military.
I'm well aware of it. Hence why I was talking about killing every human being in a country and not breaking shiny infrastructure (of which there is very little.)
All you have to go on is faith, which doesn't satisfy my tastes. I can easily envision a scenario where boys from Nebraska are sent to fight civilians in NY. Partisan rhetoric could easily be a vehicle to enable this kind of thing ("the liberals have finally gone off the deep end and its your job to stop em!") Sure, not everybody will do it, but there will always be loyalists. Recent conflicts in the mid-east have shown this. (And I base my analysis on the fundamental human condition, which knows no nationality.)
Besides, the principle operator of drones is the CIA. While I don't think they could wage war by themselves, they sure could kill quite a few Americans single handedly. All it takes is a label of terrorist to make most people not give a damn.
I would agree with that.
It was deliberate to emphasize the point. I never carried any belief that you have every committed a wrong nor do I think it has anything to do with the discussion at hand. I just don't carry much appreciation for the type of false logic employed, and I carry deep resentment for the notion of "it's not the facts, it's the seriousness of the charge." Facts matter most from my perspective.
Thanks. I don't really think we disagree on many core issues that have arisen out of this topic. My fundamental points are: the erosion of our rights knows no party, and placing faith in the 2nd amendment to stop it probably isn't well-placed.
R.Bondy,
Here's what I'm saying: The threat of a revolt hasn't stopped big government from eroding our rights. Nobody has actually taken a stand on the issue of these rights backed up by that threat. I'm forced to conclude it's just tough-guy talk. I back this up with a realistic assessment that nobody will willingly throw their lives away while they can life a quiet peaceful life with family, even if its under an oppressive government. A label of terrorist is enough to placate people from crossing that line from peaceful quiet life into a situation where they may die. Odds are the government has also done this assessment and knows exactly how far they can go before they cross the line.
This assessment comes from observation of people. People said if Bush was elected they would move to Canada. The number of people who followed through on this promise was less than 100. And we're just talking about moving (disruptive sure, but not fatal), not staging a revolt that could kill you and everybody you care about. (I'm not speaking to you personally.)
I would like to know what Holder deems an extraordinary circumstance to be?
Any time 2 or more people gather on a street corner to hold a friendly conversation.
Or anytime the Repulicans in Congress refuse to raise taxes for Obama.
A Republican National Convention ....
Let 's say a guy named Joe smacks holder up long side the head. Now those would be extraordinary circumstances. So Joe goes home to his 10 kids and wife and extended family. They are all setting around the fireplace when the predator fires a missile down the chimney. Simple they got their terrorist. The other people hey they are just collateral damage.
First sane idea NimmyJumbers has ever had... Hope it didn't hurt, and congratulations Jimbo!
Since we are getting rid of the second, forth and fifth admendment and part of the first, why don't we eliminate the other half of the first and sue the media for malthresants and fraud and shut it down for it's abetting the president in his lying to the public and prosecute it for it's treasonist acts against this Country!!!!!!!!!!
It surely has been duplicite with this president in eliminatic the republic by being the propaganda machine for Herr Obama's attept to destroy these parts of our Constitution and has tried to turn this REPUBLIC into a SOCIALIST state!!!!!
I say we jail the anchormen/women who can be proven to have underreport facts, overplayed opinions and ignored any questions which might have protected the two party system.
As for Holder/Obama's stamdard for using the drones against Americans on American soil??? Well I would say to bypass due process and kill the enemies of the state. In just the same fashion Hitler did using his Guestopo!!!!! If you have the ability to hamper HIS edicts, or HIS way of law then bang your dead!!!!!!!!!
I love the libs....."why are you people so concerned" ..."whats the big deal " .......You guys are REALLY, REALLY BRAIN DEAD...LOL
Yea. Right. AND if you believe that one, I've got some ocean front property in Colorado for sale.
What's next, We can lock up an ethnic group or race or neighborhood because they might be terrorists?
Stop using 911 for any intrusion into America's freedoms. I will take my chances because risk has always been a part of freedom.
It wouldn't be the first time the Democrats locked up/persecuted an ethnic group. FDR imprisoned 110,000 American citizens just for being of japanese descent.
You must be a historian!... Let it also be known that taking historical events out of their historical context and using the oddly minted version as an example of a comparison to a fantasy is the work of...
Well, that would be insulting to imbeciles so I'm not going to say it.
And exactly how is the attack on Pearl Harbor being used to imprison 110,000 American citizens any different from using 9/11 and terrorism as an excuse to assassinate American citizens because they may be terrorists?
Both are infringements of our rights as set forth by the Constitution under the 5th Amendment. Does the term Due Process mean nothing to you?
The biggest difference between the two is that not a single citizen in these internment camps was ever found to be a spy for the japanese gov't.
Absolutely correct, except you left out that Hoover was against this act, FDR was for it as was Earl Warren then Governor of California.
Warren Court: Brown v. Board of Education. 9-0 decision.
You do realise that until Lyndon Johnson betrayed his conservative base that Democrats were the right wing conservative party right? No, you probably don't? Republicans prior to that were the liberal party. So every time you bash past democratic presidents you're bashing your conservative friends. Those of us that are educated will know better and you already have the ignorant on your side.