OK, maybe the headline is a bit over the top but then again, we are dealing with the Obama Regime. Attorney General Holder has said that he would not use drones except in an "emergency" like December 7, 1941 or September 11, 2001! Although those events were important neither involved an invasion by a foreign army or effected more than a small area of the country. Why would those events be examples that would trigger the use of drones?
We could not shoot down planes with drones. We could watch in "real-time" the destruction the enemy planes were causing, so we do not get the idea that these aircraft would benefit us in his idea of an "emergency."
Holder's idea is very scary. He is telling us that at the drop of a hat, he and/or the President could say this is an "emergency" and start using surveillance as well as killer drones on the American people. Could 10 people having a rally against ObamaCrapCare be enough to put drones in the air or one million protesting gun control on the Washington Mall be enough to bring out the flying guns?
Also what about posse comititus, does that no longer apply? These are military weapons and they are controlled by military personnel, should the concept not apply? Oh, we forgot, the Obama Regime does not follow those laws it does not agree with. Forgive us!
Someone asked us several weeks ago about our attitude toward drones and so we will tell you. We think they are great surveillance vehicles which give troops on the ground significant advantages, however, when they are armed and used to kill combatants, our support wanes. In a war zone, these are not surgical weapons, they end up killing non-combatants along with those targeted. It is a dangerous weapon that must be used with strict controls.
In the US or overseas when American citizens are involved (even if they are enemy combatants), we should not be using drones as killing machines. American citizens deserve to have their rights protected even if they are fighting us. Who knows whom the regime might call an "enemy of the state" which would allow the weapon to be used on them. Are gun rights protesters fair game? What about patriots who decide that it is time for another revolution, could they become a target?
Regarding surveillance in the US, this also comes with the need for us to be very circumspect when using this technology. Where do the rights of the citizen end and the rights of the state to protect us start? We are going to side against the government in most situations. If we need to know what is going on inside a house, officials MUST obtain a search warrant before entering and the same should be true for airborne snooping.
Drones are not going away, it is the government's new toy and all strata of politicians and law enforcement are going want to have their own. We need to have rules put in place to make sure that violations of our rights do not occur and time is short.
Conservative Tom
We could not shoot down planes with drones. We could watch in "real-time" the destruction the enemy planes were causing, so we do not get the idea that these aircraft would benefit us in his idea of an "emergency."
Holder's idea is very scary. He is telling us that at the drop of a hat, he and/or the President could say this is an "emergency" and start using surveillance as well as killer drones on the American people. Could 10 people having a rally against ObamaCrapCare be enough to put drones in the air or one million protesting gun control on the Washington Mall be enough to bring out the flying guns?
Also what about posse comititus, does that no longer apply? These are military weapons and they are controlled by military personnel, should the concept not apply? Oh, we forgot, the Obama Regime does not follow those laws it does not agree with. Forgive us!
Someone asked us several weeks ago about our attitude toward drones and so we will tell you. We think they are great surveillance vehicles which give troops on the ground significant advantages, however, when they are armed and used to kill combatants, our support wanes. In a war zone, these are not surgical weapons, they end up killing non-combatants along with those targeted. It is a dangerous weapon that must be used with strict controls.
In the US or overseas when American citizens are involved (even if they are enemy combatants), we should not be using drones as killing machines. American citizens deserve to have their rights protected even if they are fighting us. Who knows whom the regime might call an "enemy of the state" which would allow the weapon to be used on them. Are gun rights protesters fair game? What about patriots who decide that it is time for another revolution, could they become a target?
Regarding surveillance in the US, this also comes with the need for us to be very circumspect when using this technology. Where do the rights of the citizen end and the rights of the state to protect us start? We are going to side against the government in most situations. If we need to know what is going on inside a house, officials MUST obtain a search warrant before entering and the same should be true for airborne snooping.
Drones are not going away, it is the government's new toy and all strata of politicians and law enforcement are going want to have their own. We need to have rules put in place to make sure that violations of our rights do not occur and time is short.
Conservative Tom
REVEALED: HOLDER SAYS PRESIDENT COULD AUTHORIZE MILITARY DRONE STRIKES INSIDE U.S.
Credit: AP
This morning, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) told Glenn Beck’s radio team that he had some new information about the U.S. government’s drone program — information that some individuals might find troubling. Later in the day, TheBlaze obtained letters that were sent to the senator by Attorney General Eric Holder and President Barack Obama’s chief counter-terrorism adviser John Brennan.
It is select contents in Holder’s letter that citizens and political experts, alike, might find most problematic. After Paul sent an inquiry to learn more about the government’s drone program and to ask 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,” he received a response that is sure to be scrutinized.
The senator’s inquiry was certainly specific, however the government’s response was not so concise — or at least not pointed enough to put critics like Paul at ease.
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., testifies before a state legislative committee on the legalization of growing hemp at the Capitol Annex in Frankfort, Ky., Monday, Feb. 11, 2013. Credit: AP
In a response dated March 4, 2013, Holder wrote that the U.S. government “has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so.” The attorney general went on to note that federal officials believe that in areas where there is “well-established law enforcement,” these officials serve as the preferred mode of handling terrorist threats; military options inside U.S. borders are, thus, “rejected.”
“We have a long history of using the criminal justice system to incapacitate individuals located in our country who pose a threat to the United States and its interests abroad,” the letter reads. “Hundreds of individuals have been arrested and convicted of terrorism-related offenses in our federal courts.”
While this would likely set at ease anyone worried about the potential use of drones on U.S. land, Holder doesn’t conclude there. It is the next section of the letter that is the most contentious, as it leaves the door open for potential action in the event of large-scale terror attacks or other monumental disturbances.
“The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no President will ever have to confront,” the letter continues. “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.”
Holder said that the president could be faced with such a situation (“to authorize the military to use such force”) if the need to protect the nation arose during an attack similar to Pearl Harbor or 9/11.
“Were such an emergency to arise, I would examine the particular facts and circumstances before advising the President on the scope of his authority,” he concludes.
View the document, below:
Photo Credit: U.S. Government
In a separate letter dated March 5, 2013, Brennan responded to Paul’s request for the same information, taking a more conclusive stance — one that affirmed that the CIA would not have the power to conduct attacks on American soil.
In his note, Brennan wrote that the Justice Department would respond to legal questions surrounding the president’s authority, but he made it clear that the agency he has been nominated to lead does not have the authority to conduct these drone attacks (the Senate Intelligence Committee voted this afternoon to approve Brennan’s nomination).
“I can, however, state unequivocally that the agency I have been nominated to lead, the CIA, does not conduct lethal operations inside the United States — not does it have any authority to do so,” he wrote. “Thus, if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as CIA Director, I would have no ‘power’ to authorize such operations.”
Read Brennan’s letter to Paul in its entirety, below:
Photo Credit: U.S. Government
In the past, Brennan has been a staunch defender of drone strikes, as highlighted earlier today by TheBlaze. While he noted that they are used only as a “last resort,” he also said during his confirmation hearing that he had no qualms with the administration’s decision to use the tactic against U.S.-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan. Both of these men, killed in Yemen in Sept. 2011, were U.S. citizens.
Paul appeared this afternoon on Sean Hannity’s radio show, where the congressman discussed the letters. The two spoke candidly about Holder’s and Brennan’s responses to his questions. He characterized the attorney general’s answer as a “maybe” when asked about whether drone strikes would be acceptable on U.S. land.
“In that letter, he refuses to rule out using drone stikes on Americans, on American soil,” Paul told Hannity. “The reason this is troubling is that we’re not talking about someone holding a weapon, we’re not taking about someone with a grenade launcher. Many of these drone strikes are against people who are walking and talking, sitting and eating or sleeping in their house.”
Rather than attacking citizens who are suspected of terrorism or terror ties, Paul said that Americans ”need to be charged with something and get our day in court.”
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for commenting. Your comments are needed for helping to improve the discussion.