Holder: drone strikes on citizens in U.S Legal

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by MH

Lets say there is car heading for Washington with big big bomb in it and it needs to be taken out , how would you prefer it done with f16 or Apache helicopter to make you feel better or the fearsome terminator drone?
Should you send hasty swat team and risk complications instead?
What would you do to make your self feel better asuming that this is not all some evil scheme of the government?
Also i see those post about drone surveillance while people don't mind their picters being taken every where they go by conventional cameras.
Just put world drone next to something and here we go.....

It's not the means that concern people. It's the fact that the executive branch can unilaterally act as judge, jury and executioner of American citizens on American soil.

[August]

Originally Posted by MH

Lets say there is car heading for Washington with big big bomb in it and it needs to be taken out , how would you prefer it done with f16 or Apache helicopter to make you feel better or the fearsome terminator drone?
Should you send hasty swat team and risk complications instead?
What would you do to make your self feel better asuming that this is not all some evil scheme of the government?
Also i see those post about drone surveillance while people don't mind their picters being taken every where they go by conventional cameras.
Just put world drone next to something and here we go.....

How do you know this car has a big bomb in it? What about everyone else on the road? Do you wait until he slows down at a crowded toll booth before dropping the hellfires?

As for cameras, big difference between a camera and a missile. Besides I know when a conventional camera is peeking though my window because it's impossible to miss the police helicopter it'd be mounted on. Not really possible with drone the size of a fly which is what they'll have before very long.

Best to create the limits and the prohibitions now before they hit the market.

[August]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

It's not the means that concern people. It's the fact that the executive branch can unilaterally act as judge, jury and executioner of American citizens on American soil.

Well said.

[MH]

It's not the means that concern people. It's the fact that the executive branch can unilaterally act as judge, jury and executioner of American citizens on American soil.

Yes it is something to be concerned with but i don't really thing that in current system the government could do it every Monday without being investigated.

How do you know this car has a big bomb in it?

...last minute intel or what ever.
Assuming your POTUS is not some evil bastard this is a difficult decision he would be faced with...if wrong he would be put to lynch if right would be a hero...probably.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by August

How do you know this car has a big bomb in it? What about everyone else on the road? Do you wait until he slows down at a crowded toll booth before dropping the hellfires?

Just as a quick pre-amble. I am not in support of civilian authorities use of drones as a surveillance instrument, however, I can see why it is done, and the major advantages that it brings.


The big sticking point is that if drone surveillance be it armed or otherwise can stop major loss of life through a large scale terrorist attack, then do the ends justify the means?

In fact, I think that THIS question, above all others (Do the ends justify the means) is the question that we are now facing as we enter the 21st century in a state of siege against radicalism. No matter what we do, there will always a countermeasure under development against it. At the moment drones have an advantage, but rapidly they are becoming vulnerable to spoofing and hijacking, there will be breakthroughs in the future in more secure drones, but equally there will be counter-breakthroughs in hacking.

Society itself, however, is becoming more and more open, people are, in the whole, more ambivalent towards surveillence than they used to be. Remember the big hoo-hah when CCTVs began springing up on street corners, nowadays people rarely give them a second thought but once upon a time people were concerned that it would be the start of a police state. Sites like Facebook and Twitter make it easier for the next generation to move into a very open society, on the internet there is no such thing as a secret, 4chan has proven this, if you wrong them, then they can find your address, your social security number, your place of work and telephone number within a day. A man once anonymously posted a photograph of himself standing barefoot in a crate of lettuce in a Burger King restaurant saying "This is what they serve you", and within a very short time, using just the photograph of his feet, the crate, the lettuce and the floor, 4chan were able to locate the place and the person.

Our generation will likely be the last to place such a high value on secrecy, as ease of access trumps security and the attitude of 'those things happen to other people, not me' grows. Although there may be a second rise of 'luddites' who shun the open web in fear of the invasion of privacy that it brings, the roots of this sort of movement are visible now in people who decide to disengage from social media and items such as 'Steam' because of a mistrust of the safety of their information.

The problem is, this is a natural progression, before the internet big companies already had your details, and before them, the government, and before that the local barons and lords. There has rarely been pure secrecy from those who would call themselves your superiors, unless you are one of the few who are able to live 'off the grid' or you've become a hermit.

So, coming back to the drones, I can't see them going away, and in fact I can see them getting smaller and more prevalent in our lives, and I can also see people getting used to them as a background object, not to be worried about until the day it directly impacts your life in a positive or negative manner. Certainly there may come a time when a major terrorist attack is foiled through the use of drones, and this will in the media and general public give a positive vote to their use and operation. The mantra will be 'If you haven't done anything wrong then you've got nothing to worry about', but in reality the drones will likely be more used to detect and prosecute minor criminal activity because the major players will have developed methods to foil the drones, as they are already doing in places like Mali, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Then it will be looking for the next great detection device, thought patterns? Detection of future crimes before they happen? ID cards? (very likely in my opinion within the next 100 years, although they will probably be chips rather than cards and will also tie into consumerism and finances, so to buy something you just wave your hand in front of a scanner and bang, done, or it can be used to unlock your door, or car, or gun.) There are many pros and cons in the future of surveillance, better public security and safety, but greater authority control over personal data, greater chances of personal data theft or duplicity. Is that a good thing, or a bad thing? Or is it a continuation of a trend that has been going since the dawn of society?

Time will tell, but I imagine that in a hundred years time, there will be people sitting on this forum, in some manner, debating over the new ID system, or the new weapons that the NYPD has that can seek out and take down a criminal simply by using his DNA. It is the logical trend, and will continue long after we and our children have left this Earth. As I said in another thread, there is no stopping this freight train.

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

It's a bit disconcerting when I find myself on the same side of an issue as yubba and Rand Paul.

Sweet jebus, the Mayans were right.

Yubba.
Mookie.
Rand Paul.

[yubba]

When they launch on me, I'll make sure I tap you on the shoulder.. I guess in the last few hours Holder admitted that it wasn't he had to be asked 3 times by Rand Paul who is in a filibuster as we speak.

[Bubblehead1980]

UPDATE:Under intense and repeated questioning by Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, Holder admits that it is not constitutional to use drones on us citizens on us soil who do not pose an "imminent threat", ie they can't order a drone strike on a citizen on US soil just because they have been labeled the "bad guys" by the government, the actually have to respect their constitutional rights.Sure Holder got a nice tongue lashing from obama for admitting the truth under pressue and not being intellectually dishonest to advance his agenda.

[razark]

So, since they can't use the drones, they'll be sending in the secret private army of medical professionals in armored cars instead?

BTW: Have you found the section of law that creates that private army yet?

[Bilge_Rat]

Holder is just stating an accepted legal principle. It is legal for the US government to kill US citizens without a trial on US soil.

The US government already does it. Police officers regularly kill US citizens, although always in very limited circumstances, i.e. self-defence or imminent threat to the security of others.

I dont see anything in Holder's reply that would imply otherwise.

[Platapus]

Law enforcement in most (all?) states/federal can kill "fleeing felons" if, in the opinion of the officer, the person poses a threat to the officer or to the public (Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)


Now the cogent point is what is a "fleeing felon"?

In some jurisdictions a person is a fleeing felon when

1. There is a felony warrant out for their arrest
2. And the person is aware of this warrant
3. And the person is actively trying to evade capture by law enforcement

This how the DHS (actually all federal law enforcement agencies) defines a Fleeing Felon

But in some state jurisdictions, no warrant is needed and the person only has to be suspected of committing a felony and is actively attempting to evade capture. Yikes, that's an ambiguous definition

What is really scary is that a person violating probation for a misdemeanor may, in some state jurisdictions, be considered a "fleeing felon".

(law.duke.edu/ aidsproject/ 400_01/ readings/ publicresources/ benefits/ Fleeing%20Felon/ Fleeing%20Felon_files/Who.doc)

Double yikes!

Honestly, I am more concerned with State law enforcement than Federal law enforcement.... especially depending on the state.

In any case, the point I am trying to make is that law enforcement legally killing US citizens without a trial/conviction has occurred and will continue to occur.

[Wolferz]

To start digging the bunker? The POTUS has a brand new one under the east lawn. In case N. Korea decides to launch a nuke at him I'd guess.

[Catfish]

And because a nutjob says it is legal, it is ?

I don't think so, and the american jurisprudence does not either.

It is illegal in the US, as it is illegal abroad - be it US citizens or others.
Killing US citizens because of US home law, and killing others because it violates international law.
Who decides who is a terrorist if no one but the OSS oops CIA 'knows' it ?

[Platapus]

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court probably won't issue certiorari until after a US Citizen has already been killed.

Unfortunately, Original Jurisdiction of the SCotUS does not apply here.
Any judicial review of this Executive Branch decision would have to be heard in a US District Court first, and until someone has standing, the district courts won't accept the case.

In the United States, properly enacted laws and regulations are presumed to be constitutional until it is demonstrated in court that it is not.

[August]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court probably won't issue certiorari until after a US Citizen has already been killed.

Unfortunately, Original Jurisdiction of the SCotUS does not apply here.
Any judicial review of this Executive Branch decision would have to be heard in a US District Court first, and until someone has standing, the district courts won't accept the case.

In the United States, properly enacted laws and regulations are presumed to be constitutional until it is demonstrated in court that it is not.

As I understand it obtaining standing sufficient to bring a case can be difficult to obtain. Just having your rights violated isn't enough, there has to be some measurable negative consequences.

IE a law that violates someones right to free speech cannot be challenged unless it has been used to actually deny someone from speaking.