Drones

While Holder doesn't rule out drone strikes on citizens, does the constitution?

Holder does not rule out drone strike scenario in U.S. - CNN.com

I find the following excerpt the most interesting:

"Holder said a potential scenario might involve a president ordering such action "to protect the homeland" in a case like the 2001 al Qaeda attacks on New York and Washington or the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941."

Really? No mention of how much was spent on intelligence during the years leadiing up to 911, and how it amounted to zero gain? Exactly how would a drone have been applied? Downing the jets before they hit their target? I am guessing that would have required that an armed drone or two would have been in the areas. Okay, the japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor was, too, a "surprise" - if they had of all had the intelligence that the attack would occur and been able to put drones in the area...then it wouldn't have been a surprise!

I love the drones! I love that we can attack our enemies without putting our soldiers at risk.

As for targeting Americans who have taken up arms by joining with our enemies, they have revoked their citizenship by becoming enemy combatants.

Of the two killed, one planned and directed attacks that killed Americans, the other taught how to build and use bombs. Neither qualified for citizenship protections while driving around overseas with the enemy.

As for using them in this country....I bet I could think of a scenario, or two, where I would support it. We are already using them for surveillance.

Armed drones is what it is talking about, not surveillance. There are multiple things I love and admire the technological beauty of, and some I also think are just absolute works of art, such as an SR-71...even though I have zero interest aircraft - no one can deny its lines are just amazing - which is entirely separate from the intelligence that would have determined how/when/where they would have/could have been used for strikes on domestic soil.


Currently we seem to have an admin that has a problem w calling anyone a "terrorists". And, 14 million people have illegally crossed into this country from our southern border, but it is just magically decided (w/o intelligence) that none is a terrorist and all are harmless - and it would just be unacceptable to defend the border with available force. So, what would qualify as a "domestic enemy" by those in power?

Whether one supports the use of armed drones for surgical strikes or not, it brings up a lot of questions, including the constitutionality of it.

Drones can be a very good thing... I'd much rather see drones go in to another country than our servicemen/women. Also, used here in America for things such as assisting in police raids or chases, locating lost hikers/lost children (search and rescue), keeping track of wildlife or livestock, and so on. As for those Americans who are terrorists and want to side with America's enemies, better a drone than sending in our servicemen/women.

I agree, the tech has many, many "good uses" (e.g., surviellance). Most all tech can be a genie or a demon. The link is specifically addressing use for domestic strikes.

And, Ft. Hood shooter was not immediately (if ever) officially called a terrorist. So, one can imagine the legal/reaction/authority problems associated w identifying something as a terrorist (military force), or criminal (police).

Agreed for the 3 sentences, the last part about using them on US Soil for the purpose of killing, we do have due process and trial by jury..... but Holder does his own thing far too often.


I have heard about drones surveying large family farms, if they got shot down by the Farmer and I was on the jury, I would probably vote not guilty for the Farmer...lol...

.

Where I live we routinely have military and police helicopters flying over during the growing season to identify drug growers. So I support it? Sure do. I would NT support the farmer shooting them down. As far as I know, we may own property, but we do not "own" the airspace above it, so would be in the wrong to shoot it down. I don't believe we can create our very own "no fly zones".

As far as the drones-If they can be used to protect the homeland, I am for that too.

.

The article and video I saw, had small drones buzzing 50-75 feet above the ground scaring livestock.

That is a whole different story than a Human in a Helicopter cruising at 1,000 feet or more, that I support

.

Most surveillance activity does not bother me, but I am sure it could be abused in such a way that I would disagree with it. However, the proper use of anything generally isn't a problem.

I don't know about the farmer - it would depend on what were the "other circumstances", I guess, and case law concering "recreational" uav's.

Whether manned or unmanned, there is no difference between using a military manned aircraft or a military unmanned aircraft when it comes to striking on US soil. Since the advent of military aircraft, we have always had the capability to do so. I have just never seen anyone announce they have decided they might use that capability. It is a given that it can be used during wartime -are we at war?

So how big is a small drone and how much noise do they make?