Fillibuster

[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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

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

you do seem to be a wacky confused foreigner living in America with many of your comments


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?

were these guys an imminent threat?
October 01, 2011

U.S. drone strike in Yemen kills U.S.-born Al Qaeda figure Awlaki

The lethal strike that killed Anwar Awlaki marked the first known case in which the Obama administration tracked down and killed a U.S. citizen. The raid also killed a second American, Samir Khan.
A two-year hunt for an American-born Muslim cleric accused of inspiring and plotting terrorist attacks on Americans, including the deadly shooting at an army base in Texas( hey, sooo inspired by a terrorist but not terrorism, just workplace violence(broader concept)...thats wacky and we smoked him while essentially sitting in a field reading a book.....go figure), ended when he was killed by a Hellfire missile fired from a drone aircraft operated by the CIA. over northern Yemen.

The lethal strike that killed Anwar Awlaki was backed by U.S. special operations forces and Yemeni authorities, and marked the first known case in which the Obama administration tracked down and killed a U.S. citizen. The raid also killed a second American, Samir Khan, who had produced virulent, English-language online propaganda for Al Qaeda.

I know that they were bad and all....but this is exactly what you describe is it not? I think Obama has a long list of named terrorist that he has ordered dusted while sitting wherever they happened to be and posing no iminent threat....is he ignoring ROE?

WIKI_ On September 30, 2011, in northern Yemen's al-Jawf province, two Predator drones, based out of a secret CIA Base in Saudi Arabia,[233] fired Hellfire missiles at a vehicle containing al-Aulaqi and three other suspected al-Qaeda members.[234][235][236] A witness said the group had stopped to eat breakfast while traveling to Ma'rib Governorate. A Predator drone was spotted by the group, which then tried to flee in the vehicle.

I didn't know that we whacked his kid too....was he an imminent threat?


Two weeks later, al-Aulaqi's 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman al-Aulaqi, a U.S. citizen who was born in Denver, was killed by a CIA-led drone strike in Yemen.[39][40][41] Nasser al-Aulaqi, the father of Anwar, released an audio recording condemning the killings of his son and grandson as senseless murders



-spence -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. Rand didn't ask about this scenario...you injected it to be wacky I guess


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

-spence

........................................



wacky would describe many of your statements which it appear to be leaving many here and most experts are quite shocked

'imminent threat'- Obama Administration Style

US Launched Deadly Drone Strike From Saudi Arabia: Reports - ABC News
However, the document says that by "imminent threat," the DOJ does not mean the U.S. government actually has to have "clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future," but rather a "broader concept of imminence" must take into consideration terrorists who are we know that napolitano has a very "broad concept" of who terrorists are and are likely to be...

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Wednesday that she was briefed before the release of a controversial intelligence assessment and that she stands by the report, which lists returning veterans among terrorist risks to the U.S.

The Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) issued April 7 the nine-page document titled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.”

“The document on right-wing extremism sent last week by this department’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis is one in an ongoing series of assessments to provide situational awareness to state, local and tribal law enforcement agencies on the phenomenon and trends of violent radicalization in the United States,” Ms. Napolitano said in her statement.

Rightwing extremism,” the report said in a footnote on Page 2, goes beyond religious and racial hate groups and extends to “those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely.”

“It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration,” said the report, which also listed gun owners and veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as potential risks."


"continually planning" attacks and the typically limited window during which a lethal operation may be conducted.




love that...."broader concept of imminence"...yada yada yada

Definition of IMMINENT
: ready to take place; especially : hanging threateningly over one's head <was in imminent danger of being run over
'
im·mi·nence (m-nns)
n.
1. The quality or condition of being about to occur.
2. Something about to occur



broader definition...that's great....these guys have a broader definition/concept for everything that they deem appropriate

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

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...

-spence

hindsight...noone knew that the first two were intended for the towers, you could say that the third should have been shot down as we then knew that the intention was to kill all on board and cause massive damage as a result of the fate of the first two but if the first one or two had been shot down not knowing where they were actually headed and given the history of hijackings....I think there would have been quite an uproar

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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



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?


Not speculation, it's simple reason.


The two scenarios are not analogous.


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.


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

-spence

"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":

See, once again, you are making things up as you go along. According to the Geneva Convention, it is absolutely acceptable to kill enemy soldiers, even if they are asleep and thus not an imminent threat. Drone strikes aren't launched to kill terrorists who are literally in the act of trying to kill anybody, they aren't that precise (that's what snipers are for).

Spence, do you think that soldiers can only kill other soldiers in self defense? Those are the ROE's for police departments, not the standards in time of war.

Where do you get your "information"? Have you no shame? None at all? Spence, if you're going to make up jibberish, try not to invent jibberishthat is so demonstrably false. Try to at least fabricate something that might fool a 6 year-old.