US Gov can kill you w/ drones

[LocoJoe]

http://washingtonexaminer.com/eric-holder-drone-strikes-agai nst-americans-on-u.s.-soil-are-legal/article/2523319
http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/dr20130305-dhs-acqui res-2-700-mraps

So Eric Holder said it would be perfectly legal for the US Gov to kill citizens via drone. DHS has bought 2700 MRAPS and billions of rounds of ammo. Welp guys looks like something will happen soon.

[Spretznaz]

Please go back to the Ron Paul forums.

[Xenomit]

If this country does go into civil war/ anarchy, I will laugh in the face of all the liberal sissies who are against civilians owning guns while I easily defend my house with my arsenal, ordnance and military buddies

[Nor]

At 3/5/13 07:14 PM, Xenomit wrote: If this country does go into civil war/ anarchy, I will laugh in the face of all the liberal sissies who are against civilians owning guns while I easily defend my house with my arsenal, ordnance and military buddies

I doubt if this country went to war it would be on our homeland, but even then owning guns is a good safety measure.

[MrSoxfan]

Forgetting something?

[Mendou]

At 3/5/13 07:11 PM, LocoJoe wrote: So Eric Holder said it would be perfectly legal for the US Gov to kill citizens via drone. DHS has bought 2700 MRAPS and billions of rounds of ammo. Welp guys looks like something will happen soon.

Well, it looks like we better get back to occupying Wallstreet!

Grab your Macbooks, your nose rings, and your stash of weed! Because nothing screams 'REVOLUTION' like a bunch of self entitled hipsters who are working hard to implement new features and ideas to fix the infrastructure of America! What a bunch of Mendous.

[LocoJoe]

At 3/5/13 07:14 PM, Spretznaz wrote: Please go back to the Ron Paul forums.

A government official just said that the government will kill a US citizen with a drone if they want to.

Hurr durrr you're so crazy! You think the gubmint out to get us!

[Saen]

And you want it to happen don't you? It's your fucking government takeover/apocalypse wet dream isn't it? Quick go out and buy more guns and break tax revenue records!

[Ragnarokia]

If they wanted to kill people with the drones they would have done it already, these drones have been talked about for a long time and if they were intended to do such things then all they have done is wasted money by not killing. Thus they "can" kill people but clearly aren't being used for such things.

[Ceratisa]

At 3/5/13 07:25 PM, Ragnarokia wrote: If they wanted to kill people with the drones they would have done it already, these drones have been talked about for a long time and if they were intended to do such things then all they have done is wasted money by not killing. Thus they "can" kill people but clearly aren't being used for such things.

That really isn't the point. The point is the citizens of the United States of America have certain rights.

The comparison with police officers isn't actually valid because imminent threat/danger was redefined and broadened.

[RacistBassist]

At 3/5/13 07:19 PM, Saen wrote: And you want it to happen don't you? It's your fucking government takeover/apocalypse wet dream isn't it? Quick go out and buy more guns and break tax revenue records!

I just got my 2nd AR-15 of the past 5 days today thank you very much :)

[sweet21]

Just because they can doesn't mean they will. There's a difference.

[mandog]

At 3/5/13 07:14 PM, Xenomit wrote: If this country does go into civil war/ anarchy, I will laugh in the face of all the liberal sissies who are against civilians owning guns while I easily defend my house with my arsenal, ordnance and military buddies

Says the gay furry

[LocoJoe]

At 3/5/13 07:56 PM, sweet21 wrote: Just because they can doesn't mean they will. There's a difference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_al-Aulaqi

[sweet21]

At 3/5/13 08:40 PM, LocoJoe wrote:

At 3/5/13 07:56 PM, sweet21 wrote: Just because they can doesn't mean they will. There's a difference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_al-Aulaqi

That didn't seem intentional. Killing civilians 'just because' which is what you are suggesting is something the government will not do, that is if they still want to lead. There isn't much to elaborate on, so i'll ask this of you:
Give me a complete list where killing your own civilians for unnamed reasons is a good idea.

Now name a list wheres its a bad one.

[hecticjon]

At 3/5/13 08:52 PM, sweet21 wrote: Give me a complete list where killing your own civilians for unnamed reasons is a good idea.

if you want to control your people with fear

Now name a list wheres its a bad one.

if you're not fucking retarded

oh this is rhetoricaL?

[T3XT]

At 3/5/13 07:14 PM, Xenomit wrote: If this country does go into civil war/ anarchy, I will laugh in the face of all the liberal sissies who are against civilians owning guns while I easily defend my house with my arsenal, ordnance and military buddies

In a situation like that, all law and order goes out the window. No laws apply then.

While society is still intact (read: now) we agree to use laws for the good of everyone. You don't need a machine gun in a glass case with writing that says "In case of anarchy, break glass" on it

[o0-0o]

Police men will be out of work soon!

[Ganon-Dorf]

They thought about doing this with Dorner, it's old news and disgusting.

[Cynical-Charlotte]

My goodness, the amount of pseudo-informed drivel that oozes out of the majority of American's mouths makes me sick. How easy it is for you and your politicians to jump to conclusions without reading the fine print.

A more thorough discussion of this issue can actually be found in this thread. If you are truly open to the idea of fact-checking and logical explanation/elaboration, I suggest you join us there. However, I will still give you the introduction to my stance here, to save time and also engage more people in the debate. Regarding the actual official statements and implications on this issue:

It astounds me to see how many people are so willing to demonize even the slightest glimpse of executive power when given the opportunity. Please recognize the context and circumstances under which a lethal operation would be deemed necessary. (reference)

1) An informed, high-level official of the US government has determined that the target individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States.

I believe it is abundantly clear that these attacks would not be authorized for "passive" threats. In other words, simply being a member of a major terrorist organization would not justify this action. A specific individual - American or otherwise - must be presenting a threat that demands an immediate, effective response. A common argument is that terrorism is simply a form of criminal activity and can not be treated as a war entity. To this I say, law enforcement has been taking immediate, decisive actions in order to save lives for decades. I rarely ever hear complaints about SWAT operations or sharpshooters taking action after exhausting all other resources - especially when a criminal (American citizen, by the way) has taken hostages. The white paper is clearly specifying situations such as these, but on a national level. The target member of Al Qaeda must be an active threat.

2) Capture is unfeasible, and the United States continues to monitor whether capture becomes feasible.

Continuing from my previous statements and analogy, the threat presented by the target must be similar to having a finger on a trigger with the barrel aimed at the head of a hostage. If plans to rescue the hostage by killing the criminal are underway, the procedure can and should be aborted if the target exhibits a vulnerability that does not require lethal force. This is a basic synopsis of the "who" and "when" of targeted killing. An operation of this nature would only be considered as a last resort.

3 ) The operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles.

While the military has seen less than complimentary press about missed airstrikes and high collateral damages, it should be reasonable to assume that the United States would carry out this procedure intending to use the absolute minimum required force to successfully nullify the immediate threat. What we must understand is that war will never be fair - innocent lives will always be lost, and mistakes will be made by humans. There has been and will always be cases where operators receive incomplete or incorrect intelligence; however, while the possibility of misjudgment should be diminished by the best of our ability, the fear of it should certainly not prevent us from taking action.

I would also like to draw your attention to the first paragraph on page 3 of the pdf:

"Any operation of the sort discussed here would be conducted in a foreign country against a senior operational leader of al-Qa'ida or its associated forces .... The Supreme Court has held that the military may constitutionally use force against a U.S. citizen who is a part of enemy forces."

Unless you are an advocate of letting innocent people die in vital situations demanding immediate action, this idea of drone strikes on highly dangerous criminals is far from unreasonable.

[Ceratisa]

CC

"informed, high-level" official of the U.S. government must determine that the target has "recently" been involved in "activities" posing a threat of a violent attack and "there is no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities." The words "recently" and "activities" aren't defined, giving unlimited interpretive scope.

Less so is the vaguely defined use of the word "imminence;" the report explains that it "does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future." Which seems to undermine some of the guidelines that go before it.

http://gizmodo.com/5981708/leaked-doj-memo-justifies-drone-s trikes-on-us-citizens

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_W hite_Paper.pdf

So no defined requirement on recently, or involvement or activities.

[GrizzlyOne]

What kind of ammo? bombss, lead, or lazers?

[Ceratisa]

At 3/5/13 10:21 PM, GrizzlyOne wrote: What kind of ammo? bombss, lead, or lazers?

Typically Hellfire missiles.

[orangebomb]

At 3/5/13 10:08 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: My goodness, the amount of pseudo-informed drivel that oozes out of the majority of American's mouths makes me sick. How easy it is for you and your politicians to jump to conclusions without reading the fine print.

I'm not disagreeing with your point at all. It just seems like that some people only read the main headline of a story, and base their opinion off of just that, instead of reading the fine print and getting the full story. This may be part of the cause and effect of sensationalized journalism and our 24/7 OCD media culture that people have nowadays, or they're just simply dumbasses looking to get a response.

Maybe if people actually read the whole story instead of just the headline, then we would have more of an enlightened debate on NG, but then again, where's the fun in that?

[Elitistinen]

At 3/5/13 10:22 PM, Ceratisa wrote:

At 3/5/13 10:21 PM, GrizzlyOne wrote: What kind of ammo? bombss, lead, or lazers?

Typically Hellfire missiles.

Doesn't Hellfire cost like $2 millions per missile?

Killing Americans by using Americans' taxes, IRONIC!

[satanbrain]

I am not a US citizen.

I could still die though.

[Chdonga]

At 3/5/13 10:34 PM, Elitistinen wrote:

At 3/5/13 10:22 PM, Ceratisa wrote:

At 3/5/13 10:21 PM, GrizzlyOne wrote: What kind of ammo? bombss, lead, or lazers?

Typically Hellfire missiles.

Doesn't Hellfire cost like $2 millions per missile?

Killing Americans by using Americans' taxes, IRONIC!

And less Americans means they can increase the taxes to pay for more Hellfire missiles, with which they can continue to use to kill more Americans!

[Ceratisa]

At 3/5/13 10:34 PM, Elitistinen wrote:

At 3/5/13 10:22 PM, Ceratisa wrote:

At 3/5/13 10:21 PM, GrizzlyOne wrote: What kind of ammo? bombss, lead, or lazers?

Typically Hellfire missiles.

Doesn't Hellfire cost like $2 millions per missile?

Killing Americans by using Americans' taxes, IRONIC!

I don't think so on wiki it says Unit cost 68k

the Tomahawk is typically fired from ships or subs and costs like 1.4 million

[LionzNTiggerz]

At 3/5/13 10:34 PM, Elitistinen wrote: Killing Americans by using Americans' taxes, IRONIC!

Maybe they could send the bill to the families?

[YellowisCOOL]

SOMEBODY THINK ABOUT THE CHILDREN!!!!