Fillibuster

[spence]

I don't see how there's even a question. What's the difference between using a drone to kill an American on US soil vs using a police or FBI sniper? Are we now saying the police can't shoot someone they believe is about to cause significant harm?

Hell, that's all Holder was saying.

-spence

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

I don't see how there's even a question. What's the difference between using a drone to kill an American on US soil vs using a police or FBI sniper? Are we now saying the police can't shoot someone they believe is about to cause significant harm?

Hell, that's all Holder was saying.

-spence

Wow!!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

Wow!!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What's with the wow? Every police force in the country has this right.

-spence

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

I don't see how there's even a question. What's the difference between using a drone to kill an American on US soil vs using a police or FBI sniper? Are we now saying the police can't shoot someone they believe is about to cause significant harm?

Hell, that's all Holder was saying.

-spence

Posse Comitatus Act - that is the difference.

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Posse Comitatus Act - that is the difference.

I'm not sure that's really germane to the discussion.

Drones aren't exclusive to military use. Sure, there's limited permitting for domestic use today but the entire game is set to change in 2015 when the FAA starts to open thing up for real. While I wouldn't expect the average police drone to have kill capabilities it's almost a given for the FBI or other domestic government agency to put this in place to handle terror or other crisis response.

There's a reasonable discussion on killing Americans abroad and perhaps another on targeted killings in general (though I think we're way past that turning point. As for drone use on our own soil, I'm not sure what the big dilly really is.

-spence

[JohnR]

Armed drones are the military / CIA. Both are prevented by Federal law from conduction operations in the United States.

Police departments or the FBI are not using drones that will be armed. Maybe they could fly one into a citizen but that is a lot harder than it sounds.

It is precisely germane to the discussion.

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Armed drones are the military / CIA. Both are prevented by Federal law from conduction operations in the United States.

Police departments or the FBI are not using drones that will be armed. Maybe they could fly one into a citizen but that is a lot harder than it sounds.

It is precisely germane to the discussion.

Multiple issues here...

1) The Feds already have the ability to use deadly force as a means of last resort and this is precisely the scenario Holder referenced.

2) That the Feds don't have armed drones today doesn't mean they won't have them soon. Especially considering the explosion of drone activity we're going to encounter in a few years the FBI will have to have additional capabilities to counter potential drone based security threats.

With the increasing trend towards outside contracting drone support it would be easy to transfer liability to another organization...or...the FBI may already have them actually and we just don't know about it.

That the Administration's response put so many qualifications on the use of domestic drones makes the filibuster all the more absurd. We should start making up all sorts of hypothetical situations and demand concrete answers...

This is a long way from Obama ordering a Hellfire into the corner Starbucks to eliminate Karl Rove.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Multiple issues here...

1) The Feds already have the ability to use deadly force as a means of last resort and this is precisely the scenario Holder referenced.

2) That the Feds don't have armed drones today doesn't mean they won't have them soon. Especially considering the explosion of drone activity we're going to encounter in a few years the FBI will have to have additional capabilities to counter potential drone based security threats.

With the increasing trend towards outside contracting drone support it would be easy to transfer liability to another organization...or...the FBI may already have them actually and we just don't know about it.

That the Administration's response put so many qualifications on the use of domestic drones makes the filibuster all the more absurd. We should start making up all sorts of hypothetical situations and demand concrete answers...

This is a long way from Obama ordering a Hellfire into the corner Starbucks to eliminate Karl Rove.

-spence

Spence, do you ever, and I mean ever, look at things objectively?

to your #1...yes, the FBI and municipal SWAT teams have snipers. Those snipers can only use lethal force when faced with immediate lethal harm. These drone attacks can kill an unarmed guy (albeit a terrorist) reading a book in a field, who is no imminent threat to anyone. These drones can't be used in hostage situations when a terrorist is holding a gun to the head of an innocent person.

to your #2, that's pure, wild speculation on your part...

I'm curious, Spence, as to why it's so wrong to waterboard a terrorist who is not a US citizen, but it's acceptable to kill an American citizen on American soil.

As someone here posted...we actually have a President who thinks it's OK to kill an American citizen on US soil without due process, and at the same time, wants to give civilian trials (with all the rights therein) to foreign Al Queda terroists. So according to Obama, the constitution may apply to foreign-born Al Queda terrorists, but not to actual US citizens on US soil.

That's as perverse as it gets, and it's precisely what I'd expect from a 1960's Chicago radical who supports infanticide and goes to that deranged whackjob's church for 20 years. Somehow, we elected this idiotic, constitution-trampling, fascist twice, and therefore we deserve everything he's going to do to us. Unfortunately, Obama's policies will have a lasting painful legacy that will extend to our kids...

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, do you ever, and I mean ever, look at things objectively?

Always, that's probably why my posts look so foreign to you.

to your #1...yes, the FBI and municipal SWAT teams have snipers. Those snipers can only use lethal force when faced with immediate lethal harm. These drone attacks can kill an unarmed guy (albeit a terrorist) reading a book in a field, who is no imminent threat to anyone. These drones can't be used in hostage situations when a terrorist is holding a gun to the head of an innocent person.

Killing an unarmed terrorist reading a book in a field, who is no imminent threat doesn't even meet the ROE for a drone strike in Afghanistan. Why would it here at home?

to your #2, that's pure, wild speculation on your part...

Not speculation, it's simple reason.

I'm curious, Spence, as to why it's so wrong to waterboard a terrorist who is not a US citizen, but it's acceptable to kill an American citizen on American soil.

The two scenarios are not analogous.

As someone here posted...we actually have a President who thinks it's OK to kill an American citizen on US soil without due process, and at the same time, wants to give civilian trials (with all the rights therein) to foreign Al Queda terroists. So according to Obama, the constitution may apply to foreign-born Al Queda terrorists, but not to actual US citizens on US soil.

Nobody has ever said that, you're either making it up, are grossly misinformed or perhaps just a bit wacky.

Here's the rub. Would anybody have had an issue with the US Air Force shooting down one of the 9/11 planes? Nope. Would anybody have an issue with the US Air Force shooting down a plane loaded with explosives headed toward NYC? Nope...

Well, perhaps Rand would.

That's as perverse as it gets, and it's precisely what I'd expect from a 1960's Chicago radical who supports infanticide and goes to that deranged whackjob's church for 20 years. Somehow, we elected this idiotic, constitution-trampling, fascist twice, and therefore we deserve everything he's going to do to us. Unfortunately, Obama's policies will have a lasting painful legacy that will extend to our kids...

Ahhh, and out comes Mr. Hyde. I thought you were getting a bit wacky in that last paragraph.

-spence