• Mossberg Owners is in the process of upgrading the software. Please bear with us while we transition to the new look and new upgraded software.

Drone strikes ok on citizens if they are bad guys

carbinemike

carbinemike

Global Moderator
Staff member
Global Moderator
"Philanthropist"
Is it me or is it a short leap to drone strikes on citizens inside our borders during a crisis? It's ok if they are believed to be “senior operational leaders” . Aren't they trying to get rid of castle doctrine laws because they don't like that kind of wording? About what I expect from them anymore. Much like Operation Fast and Furious I don't smell any accountability for mistakes.

A confidential Justice Department memo concludes that the U.S. government can order the killing of American citizens if they are believed to be “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida or “an associated force” -- even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S.

Link to article:
http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_new...egal-case-for-drone-strikes-on-americans?lite

PDF of Dept. of Justice memo:
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf
 
carbinemike said:
Is it me or is it a short leap to drone strikes on citizens inside our borders during a crisis? It's ok if they are believed to be “senior operational leaders” . Aren't they trying to get rid of castle doctrine laws because they don't like that kind of wording? About what I expect from them anymore. Much like Operation Fast and Furious I don't smell any accountability for mistakes.

A confidential Justice Department memo concludes that the U.S. government can order the killing of American citizens if they are believed to be “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida or “an associated force” -- even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S.

Link to article:
http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_new...egal-case-for-drone-strikes-on-americans?lite

PDF of Dept. of Justice memo:
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf
Click to expand...


This is wrong in more ways than I can even articulate.
 
Not only will you have to look behind you but now you better look up too... not that looking up would do anything. I guess make sure not to get labled as a "senior operational leader".
 
We can't deport illegals because it violates their rights.

We can't waterboard terrorists because it violates their rights.

We CAN kill an american citizen if we THINK they are a terrorist with no definition of exacy what defines them as a terrorist. Could someone refusing to obey an unconstitutional law fit this description.

Un freaking believable yet where is the media on this?

Sent from my Mossberg 930 using Tapatalk2
 
MikeD said:
We can't deport illegals because it violates their rights.

We can't waterboard terrorists because it violates their rights.

We CAN kill an american citizen if we THINK they are a terrorist with no definition of exacy what defines them as a terrorist. Could someone refusing to obey an unconstitutional law fit this description.
Click to expand...

I can't even find words to express my frustrations with this... :roll:
 
I just saw this reported on the news. They said they were talking about drones attacking in Yemen and Iraq and "over there". They didn't mention on US soil. But I have no doubt they are not already flying "over here".
This is just f***ed up. Like Mike said....we cant do crap to the ilegals here crossing the border......

It's going to hit the fan.....but when?
 
Yes, it's definitely overseas. It has me wondering though at what point does law enforcement and ultimately drone strikes start domestically. I don't see it near term but anything is just a crisis away.
 
ripjack13 said:
I just saw this reported on the news. They said they were talking about drones attacking in Yemen and Iraq and "over there". They didn't mention on US soil. But I have no doubt they are not already flying "over here".
This is just f***ed up. Like Mike said....we cant do crap to the ilegals here crossing the border......

It's going to hit the fan.....but when?
Click to expand...

Actually if you read the memo carefully, they cite some precedents that geographical boundaries are irrelevant. The entire planet is open under this doctrine.
 
Compared to some of the other things the NDAA opened us up to a drone strike wouldn't be too bad.

If you are unfamiliar with this little gem that was quietly passed into law early last year, buried as part of an appropriations bill, google National Defense Authorization Act. There are several sections of this act that deal with Presidential authorization of use of military force in regards to potential "terrorists" as well as provisions for the indefinite detainment of said "terrorists" either in the US or in a foreign country.......the act defines a "terrorist" as a member or supporter of Al-Qaida, the Taliban or any other group actively fighting the US or anyone who commits a "beligerent act" against the US. The act doesn't bother to define a beligerent act.

So it would be completely legal for the US government right now to jerk you out of your bed in the middle of the night, tell you and your family that you are suspected of plotting against the government and ship you to a prison anywhere on the planet and hold you until hell froze over without a trial.

I'd rather take a drone hit......
 
Dysfunctional said:
and how does an American's name get on this list and who puts it there?
Click to expand...

By owning a gun and speaking out against the current US policy? We are all domestic terrorists by one person's definition, aren't we? Any number of ways to get on it, I would imagine. And you won't know you're on it until you hear the hum of the prop...
 
Dysfunctional said:
and how does an American's name get on this list and who puts it there?
Click to expand...

Excellent question and one they will not answer directly.

How many times do the police screw up and bust into the wrong house? Even when they were absolutely 100% certain they were right until they clean up the aftermath.

I recall at some point a US Senators name, I want to say Ted Kennedy but am not sure now, got added to a list preventing him from being able to board a plane.

We have due process for a reason. it helps weed out mistakes and places a burden of proof on the accuser. Cutting through all else I see this as a way for the gov to target and terminate whomever they want. They contradict themselves when trying to articulate what an immemant threat is and never specifically state who has the power to order these strikes. The President is NOT judge, jury and executioner of any American I don't care what he is, was or will do. Our system is set up to prevent just this type of power. I can't believe we have gotten to this point.

The violation of freedoms perpetrated upon the American people in this "fight' on terrorism is mind blowing.

Edit: Sorry to rant, but this one has really got my blood boining.
 
Although the drone did not attack, they were present during the Alabama hostage according to various news reports.
Click to expand...
I saw that too. They brought in everything but the kitchen sink. I'd like to see the size of the camera they managed to get into the bunker and how they disguised it.

Since it was a lone guy in a bunker that wasn't going anywhere I'm not sure what value the drone provided other than practice for the pilot, wherever he may have been.
 
I heard they gave toys to the child when they got the his medicine down the air vent.

My guess, one was hidden in/on one of those toys.

But that is pure speculation on my part.
 
carbinemike said:
Since it was a lone guy in a bunker that wasn't going anywhere I'm not sure what value the drone provided other than practice for the pilot, wherever he may have been.
Click to expand...

I've got a long time friend who's a Capt in the Air Force who's heading to Navada to be a pilot for thier UAV's. I'm curious what she would say about all this, or weather they would think twice about "pulling the trigger" on American citizens.
 
This is frightening on a very large scale.

I too heard the part about no geographical limitations.

So pair this with the NDAA thing as well as recent new DHS definition guidelines of terrorism, terror suspects and potential terrorism. Its like its geared towards "future crime" and thought policing because the language is so vague it requires only suspicion and no solid proof.

Its so backwards the way all these people who support drone strikes rallied against much of what was being done to gather intelligence to be able to make precision strikes. They wanted to offer miranda rights to enemy combatants captured on the field of battle and give them trials but drone strikes based on suspicion and on American citizens doesn't phase them?

Tell me that ain't screwed up.
 
It's ok. We can all sleep soundly tonight. The FAA says that we will not have armed drones in our skies:

A top official with the Federal Aviation Administration reassured the public on Wednesday that, despite the fear and paranoia of some, no armed drones will be permitted to fly in U.S. airspace.

“We currently have rules in the books that deal with releasing anything from an aircraft, period. Those rules are in place and that would prohibit weapons from being installed on a civil aircraft,” said Jim Williams, head of the FAA's Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration Office, in an address to the drone industry’s leading trade group meeting this week in Northern Virginia.

“We don’t have any plans of changing [those rules] for unmanned aircraft,” Mr. Williams added.

But when pressed on whether drones could, for example, be armed with weapons when patrolling the U.S.-Mexico border, Mr. Williams deferred.

“Border patrol is the responsibility of [the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency]. I’ll let them answer that question,” he said.

The FAA also is grappling with privacy concerns associated with increasingly sophisticated and miniaturized unmanned vehicles. Those concerns have led at least 11 states, along with a growing number of local governments, to pursue laws to limit how drones can be used.

The FAA cited privacy concerns last year when explaining delays in its congressionally-mandated integration schedule, but Mr. Williams said the agency actually can’t do much of anything about those concerns.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top