Holder: Drone strike against Americans in the U.S. possible

page: 2
22
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by phantomjack
 


I want to believe they never would, I really do. However, look at all of the drone bases,
and all of the police departments that have applied for permission from the FAA,
and all of the other para military operations going on, it speaks volumes as to what
is coming.

Do we really imagine that drones in the sky operated by police, and they are never going
to kill someone that has commited a questionable act without due process?

Or for that matter, an entirely innocent person? What about collateral damage here
in the U.S. ....kind of like those innocent women who were gunned down while the police
were looking for Dorner?

I am really saddened, has the world lost its mind???




posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 11:25 PM
link   
Well this is classic. All of those drone supporters I argued with, told me they were fine with drones being here because the U.S. would never use them to kill Americans on U.S. soil.

So, they (kind of) win their argument. And then we find out afterwards that the whole argument was invalid!

I have said in the past, that I will draw the line of legitimate government once they have used a drone to kill an American without trial on U.S. soil. This is assassination / capitol punishment, and it definitely deserves a trial.

I believe if this point is reached, the government will not last longer than 30 more years.

Although, I've been told on here that my theory of a corrupt and totalitarian government not being able to sustain itself could be wrong. And that's not good.
edit on 5-3-2013 by darkbake because: (no reason given)
edit on 5-3-2013 by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by jerico65
So, someone wanna run past me again why Obama is such a great man for the US, and Bush sucked soooo badly?

Just askin'.


They both suck. Do you honestly think it would be any different if Bush ran & won a 3rd term, and why not, 4th term?

It would have been even worse. But like I said, they both suck.



posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 01:58 AM
link   
reply to post by phantomjack
 


Lets see, Drones, billions of bullets, thousands of guns, light armored tanks, military training in joint operations in cities with local police, pushing disarming of veterans and the people in general etc etc etc. Anyone who still thinks they are not preparing to drop the hammer soon on the American people is nothing short delusional if you ask me... Sigh!!!


edit on 6-3-2013 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 02:16 AM
link   
reply to post by phantomjack
 


Explanation: S&F!

@Mr Holder (you sux btw
) ...


“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 individual people to authorize and use lethal force within the territory of the United States against the ruling dictatorship in the WH and or the Congress!“


Personal Disclosure: What is good for the goose is also good for the gander!


@Everybody ... Apply the 2nd amendment ok!




Let no one forget that these politicians and public servants are your representatives and not your rulers and "We The People" retain rulership ok!



posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 02:33 AM
link   
So what if that American Citizen was piloting a plane and was heading directly into an office building?

Again Holder does mention that the only way that a drone attack on a US Citizen on US Soil would only occur under extraordinary circumstances.

I'm not defending drone strikes, but I am keeping an open mind.



posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 02:50 AM
link   
reply to post by muse7
 


Don't we have a TSA to prevent that exact scenario?



posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 03:29 AM
link   
reply to post by muse7
 


why in the world would you want to find a scenario where this would be ok? Armed drones over U.S. cities is about as unacceptable as it gets my friend. What happens if the drone strike misses the plane and hits a bus full of school children. Collateral damage?


SERIOUSLY? This madness has GOT to stop, for the love of life itself!



posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 06:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by GreenGlassDoor
reply to post by muse7
 


Don't we have a TSA to prevent that exact scenario?

The TSA that just announced that they will be letting airline passengers start to carry knives on board planes again?

KTVQ Billings News

What sense does this make???



posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 06:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost375

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000


Now Holder sees...somewhere in that and decided issues like Posse Comitatus, the theoretical circumstance?!? Well, perhaps in the event of FOREIGN INVASION but that is quite literally the ONLY circumstance Federal Troops are supposed to EVER be using lethal force inside the U.S..

So wouldn't it be okay for the government to use the drones in this case?
I think it was likely he was talking about situations like that. I don't think he was implying they were going to start using drones to bomb people who frequent ATS....


He didn't really specify who he was going to strike, did he?

As far as your supposition that he was referring to a foreign invasion, I think the fact that he was talking about American citizens on US soil, kind of rules the foreign part out.



posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 08:19 AM
link   
I called my Congressman's office in Washington this morning, about the topic in this thread.

They didn't seem to have a clue as to what I was talking about. They said they would pass the message on to the Congressman.

I guess they don't read or listen to the news.



posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost375

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000


Now Holder sees...somewhere in that and decided issues like Posse Comitatus, the theoretical circumstance?!? Well, perhaps in the event of FOREIGN INVASION but that is quite literally the ONLY circumstance Federal Troops are supposed to EVER be using lethal force inside the U.S..

So wouldn't it be okay for the government to use the drones in this case?
I think it was likely he was talking about situations like that. I don't think he was implying they were going to start using drones to bomb people who frequent ATS....



Assuming that a politician did not mean anything stupidly ridiculous with the words he used is a naive and dangerous hobby.


If a politician says something like this and leaves it so open to interpretation then the dumbest thing to do is just assume it is all a-ok,He would have been more specific to that one scenario wouldn't you think? They would just love to be able to fly drones over the country as much as they love to have camera's all over the place but these ones can have gunsz too00.


edit on 6-3-2013 by Rubic0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 08:52 AM
link   
what did everyone think they were going to do, invite us to the white house for a beverage?

what he meant to say was "when they come to drag us off to the gallows, we will be using our drones on them"

i wouldn't worry too much about their toys, after all everything they make can be hacked, by some brainy kid somewhere. imagine obummers look when his own drones come for him.



posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by phantomjack

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

In the letter, Holder said “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. “


Where the hell are they selling the copy of the Constitution these clowns are going by? Pelosi actually has found the whole 'Constitutional Basis' question funny by outright laughing when asked to justify something.

Now Holder sees...somewhere in that and decided issues like Posse Comitatus, the theoretical circumstance?!? Well, perhaps in the event of FOREIGN INVASION but that is quite literally the ONLY circumstance Federal Troops are supposed to EVER be using lethal force inside the U.S.. Ever. .....EVER. Every "but but but" exception weaseled since has been a little chip away at our rights to reach THIS outrageous point.

We need a new Attorney General who KNOWS the law. First it's Mexican citizens he doesn't care about putting in harm's way for an agenda. Now it's Americans. Umm.. Huh?!

You'd think all these educated men would know things like this were decided downright decisively after the Civil War, in particular. No, No and just for good measure....No again, says this citizen.


Here are the events that I see that have lead us to where are today:

1. Creation of Homeland Security
2. Fema purchasing tens of thousands of caskets and body bags
3. DHS purchasing 1.6 million rounds of ammo
4. DHS purchasing 2700 armored vehicles
5. Deployment of Drones

Add to that Louis Farrakhan calling for all black men to arm themselves, Obama wanting to form a national security force as equally strong as our military, "and as well funded," and a run away president and government spending money like there is no end.

That all adds up to Civil Unrest if you ask me.

We are all trapped like mice. There is nowhere to run, nowhere to hide.
I agree with your post, but I must let you in on something, MOST black people are not into Farrakhan, AT ALL. Believe me, I know this.



posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Rubic0n
 




If a politician says something like this and leaves it so open to interpretation then the dumbest thing to do is just assume it is all a-ok,He would have been more specific to that one scenario wouldn't you think? They would just love to be able to fly drones over the country as much as they love to have camera's all over the place but these ones can have gunsz too00.


Yes, isn't it interesting that the military has specific rules of engagement that prevents them from endangering noncombatants (most of the time), but when it comes to drones....

Obama and Holder can't seem to give us specifics.



posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 10:20 AM
link   
Look how far we have come. (degree by degree, the water grows hotter)

What has been scoffed at before is now a reality. (the frog doesn't notice)

First drones in foreign lands.
Then just surveillance drones in the US
Now armed drones-but just for the really really bad guys!

America, just behave, obey, and shut your damned mouth.

#%@$ the Constitution!

Obama did a rewrite!



posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 10:21 AM
link   
They have already established the precedent of a lethal drone strike on American citizens without due process by the judicial branch albeit located overseas originally (but later expanded) on the rationale that an attack against American interests was imminent. Would not a "terrorist" already on American soil conceivably be a more imminent threat? Ipso facto.



posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 10:37 AM
link   
Anyone know if Holder has defined "extraordinary circumstances"? I love the vagueness of his comment.

The thought police will soon be conducting drone strikes in a suburb near you. Can those drones deliver directional/targeted EMP's over someone's house?.....



posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by jibeho
Anyone know if Holder has defined "extraordinary circumstances"? I love the vagueness of his comment.

The thought police will soon be conducting drone strikes in a suburb near you. Can those drones deliver directional/targeted EMP's over someone's house?.....

All depends on the Emperor's mood on a given day.

Robbing a bank isn't extraordinary, but let's say that the robber wore an unflattering Obama mask.....

Well now, that might make it extraordinary!



posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by MajorKarma
Eric Holder: Drone strikes against Americans on U.S. soil are legal
Attorney General Eric Holder can imagine a scenario in which it would be constitutional to carry out a drone strike against an American on American soil, he wrote in a letter to Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.

“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 replied in a letter yesterday to Paul’s question about whether Obama “has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial.”

Paul condemned the idea. “The U.S. Attorney General’s refusal to rule out the possibility of drone strikes on American citizens and on American soil is more than frightening – it is an affront the Constitutional due process rights of all Americans,” he said in a statement.
SOURCE: Washington Examiner





new topics
top topics
 
22
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join