House Passes Ban on Drone Strikes Against US Citizens

page: 1
4

log in

join

posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 04:54 AM
link   


An amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2014 that will ban drone strikes against American citizens passed in the House on Friday.


Source: House Passes Ban on Drone Strikes Against US Citizens

Link to full amendment

Did they really need to pass a law on this? Well, i guess so, since many of the power-psychopaths could easily have requested this kind of action.

Absolutely disgusting!




posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 05:13 AM
link   
From the document itself.


(b) EXCEPTION.—The prohibition under subsection (a) shall not apply to an individual who is actively engaged in combat against the United States.


Have they defined those terms yet? Seems like a legal 'out' to me.



posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 05:15 AM
link   
Great to see the House endorsing Obama's position on this matter.

If it was left to Rand Paul, you'd have drone strikes on US citizens by next week.




posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 05:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by khimbar
From the document itself.


(b) EXCEPTION.—The prohibition under subsection (a) shall not apply to an individual who is actively engaged in combat against the United States.


Have they defined those terms yet? Seems like a legal 'out' to me.


To normal people that means somebody who is fighting with gun in hand against American soldiers. But the politicians will probably redefine what the word combat means.



posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 05:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by dizzie56

Originally posted by khimbar
From the document itself.


(b) EXCEPTION.—The prohibition under subsection (a) shall not apply to an individual who is actively engaged in combat against the United States.


Have they defined those terms yet? Seems like a legal 'out' to me.


To normal people that means somebody who is fighting with gun in hand against American soldiers. But the politicians will probably redefine what the word combat means.


Exactly. Once they broaden that definition I don't think it really matters what this says.



posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 05:30 AM
link   

The Department of Defense may ot use a drone to ...


Well its nice that the DoD cant use a drone, but what about everyone else.

A quick google search, and this page says:


...the Department of Homeland Security and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) own and operate drones overseas (in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and other locations) and along the U.S.-Mexico border.

The CIA has about 30 Predator and Reaper drones, which are operated by Air Force pilots from a U.S. military base in an unnamed U.S. state.
The Department of Homeland Security has at least nine unarmed Predator drones with a tenth purchase planned for September 2012


If the President want you dead, no stupid bill is going to stop him.
edit on 17-6-2013 by alfa1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 05:36 AM
link   
How do you broaden the definition of combat? Let's hear some examples, please.

Combat doesn't have to be physical. It could be support, logistics, shelter given to an enemy.

So how many of you really think it's wrong to take out an enemy of your country just because they were once a citizen? They gave up those privileges the minute they turned on their own. These same people will kill their own children if they don't support their cause.

Riddle me this, how do you try an enemy combatant who's living in a foreign land? And if you can't capture them and try them what do you suppose the best plan of action is? Allow them to continue planning and executing crimes against your citizens? Ignore them and hope they change their minds and surrender?

Just because they were once a citizen doesn't give them a free pass to be able to commit crimes until they can be caught. If elimination is the only option you take it.

The sad truth is sometimes a few must be sacrificed to save the whole. You sometimes have to cut off a hand to save the body.
edit on 6/17/2013 by EViLKoNCEPTz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Sankari
 


In case it escaped your notice, much of our bitterest experiences so far have been a result of Obama's habit of saying one thing and doing the exact opposite. As far as I'm concerned, he just gave a statement as to what exactly he DOES intend to do....

ETA: I find it particularly creepy--and more than a little scary--that he found it necessary to specify shotguns in there. Holy cow. Makes you wonder what they've got in store for us....
edit on 6/17/2013 by Ex_CT2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by alfa1
 


The DoD encompasses both of those organizations. If the DoD can't use them that means none of their subsidiaries can either. That would include all of the armed forces, CIA, DHS and any other group under the DoD umbrella.



posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sankari
Great to see the House endorsing Obama's position on this matter.

If it was left to Rand Paul, you'd have drone strikes on US citizens by next week.



You were called out recently on this very same issue, yet continue on with what seems to be deliberately lying! Rand is OPPOSED TO DRONE STRIKES ON US CITIZENS, which is why he had a 13-hour filibuster:

"...I rise today to begin to filibuster John Brennan's nomination for the CIA. I will speak until I can no longer speak. I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important, that your rights to trial by jury are precious, that no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court..."

AND
"...Paul, a longstanding opponent of the administration's controversial targeted killing policy, expressed his outrage in a statement following his receipt of the letter and continued that tirade on the floor today.

"That Americans could be killed in a cafe in San Francisco or in a restaurant in Houston or at their home in bowling green, Kentucky, is an abomination," [said Paul]..."

www.cbsnews.com...
-------------------------------------------------------
The ban still has to pass the Senate...and the wording and definition of said wording can make the whole point null and void. I, for one, am sick of slick lawyers writing bills... Here's hoping for the best, eh?!



posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sankari
Great to see the House endorsing Obama's position on this matter.

If it was left to Rand Paul, you'd have drone strikes on US citizens by next week.



Yes because we all know that Senators fillibuster bills that they really really want to pass....






new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join