Anyone else think this is all jacked up?

Is anyone else bothered that it now appears that the current regime thinks it's O.K. to use Drone strikes against U.S. Citizens on American soil?

Obama Administration Says President Can Use Lethal Force Against Americans on US Soil | Mother Jones

Where are the Constitutional protections?

So who is to decide who is sufficient enough of a threat to be taken out by UAV?

Could Bob Woodward be taken out for reporting something the Administration doesn't like? This is a bit of a stretch, but are we really going to open the door? Once we do it's up to THEM to decide where the line is drawn.

 

I think its a sound principle...Helos have been shadowing crims for decades...just now its armed...And we have been watched on CCTV for at least a decade too...so, its a bit late to talk about privacy and civil liberty...

 

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

 

Okay before we get into a conspiracy story...The cell phones are monitored by computers...One must remember that the funds and resources of organisations like the FBI -CIA -ASIO -ASIS are limited, they REALLY dont want to be waisting there precious resources on "you hang up - no you hang up" phone calls or messages...There arent people monitoring every phone people...and if you arent doing anything then they dont want to know you...they arent boogey men...just men like you and me.
And as has been said...a policeman cant just shoot a person now...only if being shot at (if he/she thinks his/her life may be in danger) or if they observe someone else's life endangered...i would think the rules would be similar...the helo doesnt call a unit in, it takes care of business itself. I wouldnt be too worrid about this...mis-use would be suicidal to the user organisation.

 

No worries...im shocking at picking sarcasm... : )

 

Don't be naive. Our government does some screwed up stuff (as do many governments). The CIA in particular, has no ethics, whatever furthers whatever game they're playing at the moment, friends, enemies, they're all the same. Pawns in their bigger game. I know that most times we didn't worry about being tasked with Dod missions. You were always fairly confident that the situation and mission was as you were briefed and if things went south you'd be supported or pulled out. When tasking came down from the CIA or some other OGA, you always worried that there may be other agendas and you were readily expendable (to them) to further those aims. No patriotism, no honor, no morals, no scruples, no loyalty, no sense of right and wrong.
I do not trust the Federal Government to use whatever additional powers we give it in an altruistic manner.

 

Oh dont worry...i know the shenanigans these organisations get up to...my piont was that the average person living in a suburb has nothing to worry about...for all their lack of "patriotism, no honor, no morals, no scruples, no loyalty, no sense of right and wrong." - They still dont want to know somebody thats not doing anything wrong...Never trust an intelligence agency...If you know what they are up to, they've failed.

 

This administration doesn't recognize the 2nd Amendment, so why should they recognize the 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments?

 

Of course it is and has been. You are old enough to have seen the "Wanted Dead or Alive" posters on TV. I think there were even some in the post office when I was growing up. The Youngers recieved their reward that way as did Bonnie and Clyde. Police snipers aren't there just to scare the bad guys either.

 

Those people are a little different than the average citizen that has committed no crimes. Except ones that the government might think that they have. And police snipers will not be up there to zip citizens that haven't done anything wrong either.

 

You guys do know that the day before the attention getting Paul filibuster, Eric Holder answered that question with a flat "no". Don't you?

 

Errr....is it too late to say...errr...told you so...

 

That was after the filibuster. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/03/07/white-house-obama-would-not-use-drones-against-u-s-citizens-on-american-soil/

 

I wasn't referring to the "letter", but to Holder's reply to the judiciary committee the day before Rand Paul started his grand-standing. Holder had gone down a couple of hypothetical paths, wherein in "might" be legal to target an American on American soil. However, when asked if any other circumstances could bring this about, the answer was "no". So Holder said no twice, the day before in committee, and after the filibuster by letter.

 

And that's what was unacceptable. If the attorney general of the United States can't grasp simple concepts like posse comitatus, then congress needs to jerk his chain pretty hard. The correct answer was "No, the United States military can not attack an American citizen on US soil under any circumstances."

Holder is a disgrace.

 

His hypothetical situations at the judiciary committee hearings included a 9/11 type national emergency, or a Pearl harbor style attack. However under situations of less immediate need for response, the answer was a simple "no", the suspect should be arrested and taken to court. This was the Tuesday before the Paul filibuster.

 

And the simple answer is again, that the US military can not attack US citizens on US soil even in a 9/11 type emergency. If you have a foreign invasion shoot the hell out of them, but if it's US citizens send in the cops. Period. The civil authorities have all the resources they need to deal with some group of Islamic nutcases.

I support Obama on the drones in the middle east. And I even support his killing of US citizens in the middle east - as far as I'm concerned, once you join a Jihadi outfit that has declared war (Jihad), you've renounced your citizenship. Maybe that's a legal question that should be addressed, but until they do I'm going to support sending a rocket right down their throat.