Eric Holder On Domestic Drone Strikes: Eh, Could Happen
from the i-just-pooped-myself dept
The questions about drones keep coming. Much of the focus has been on the legality of their use overseas, or else the manner in which domestic law enforcement uses them here at home. Glyn Moody even recently wrote about how the World Wildlife Fund wants to use them to tackle those who would poach endangered species throughout the world. Some folks in government have a problem with all this, in particular the coupling of the President's power to kill Americans if the government deems them as terrorists with the use of flying metal death machines raining carnage from the sky.
Like Rand Paul, for instance, who recently sent a letter to John Brennan, nominated as director of the CIA, asking him to clarify how the administration would view their power to authorize lethal force. Eric Holder, Attorney General, took the time to respond to Paul, and included this gem.
Holder said it was possible, "I suppose," to imagine an "extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate" under U.S. law for the president to authorize the military to "use lethal force" within the United States. However, Holder said the question was "entirely hypothetical" and "unlikely to occur."You know, I'm typically one of those people who hates placing issues into absolute stances. For any situation, there are almost always outliers that need to be considered, so using words like "never", "impossible", and so on are usually the wrong approach...except when it comes to fire-bombing domestic targets from the sky in a country filled with law enforcement. This is one of those easy situations where we need to be able to get together as Americans and say, no, we don't think it's a great idea for our own military drones to be used domestically. The potential for collateral damage has previously been documented and should make this question easy on its face.
The study by Stanford Law School and New York University's School of Law calls for a re-evaluation of the practice, saying the number of "high-level" targets killed as a percentage of total casualties is extremely low -- about 2%.And that doesn't even begin to broach the subject of the constitutionality question. The rules for using lethal force in American domestic law enforcement are extremely specific and they're designed to protect LEOs and civilians in immediate harm that cannot otherwise be contained. To suggest that drones could strike domestically is to suggest that due process can be thrown completely out the window. As Senator Paul noted in his response to Holder:
"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 to the constitutional due process rights of all Americans," Paul said.Brennan, for his part, managed to, himself, say that the administration has "no intention" of using drone strikes on Americans in the United States...when there's a full moon or on weekends or something. Okay, so I added that last part, but why are we qualifying this at all? While Brennan also said that the CIA wouldn't have the authority to use drones domestically, it's not like there aren't those clamoring for more and more use of drones by the domestic alphabet agencies. Are we really okay with this?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: domestic killings, drone strikes, eric holder, presidential assassination, presidential authority
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Simple
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Well...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Well...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"He hasn't killed anyone yet."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Well...
We have military in place, we have law enforcement.
Every scenario I came up with, even the whole Texas decides it is a republic again scenario, I don't see why drones would need to be used, especially by executive order.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Well...
Of course, this assumes war. Get back to me on wartime powers after we've actually declared war on someone.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: "He hasn't killed anyone yet."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Response to: I approve of this on Mar 6th, 2013 @ 2:52pm
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Response to: I approve of this on Mar 6th, 2013 @ 2:52pm
Just because you may not like his tone, he speaks to what's been happening. Now if you want for that to change then do something about it other than calling him an asshole.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Well...
"authorize the military to "use lethal force" within the United States"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Well...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Well...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
For example:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
And what if we figured out brain transplants, is it the brain, or the body that represents citizenship?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Well...
It seems like a serious double standard for the author to go on about how he "hates placing issues into absolute stances." and then not consider every possible scenario.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
To be honest...
Of course, wasting a million dollar drone on a domestic issue is clearly uneconomical, so don't get your panties in a bunch. But in 10 years, when the drones are $1.95 each, then you should worry...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Well...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Do you really think the CIA is going to waste their time and money on random civilians? Do you really think they are going to expose themselves to constant attack by living in your country?
The people who have been kidnapping your friends and relatives are YOUR OWN GOVERNMENT. They use the CIA as cover, because we're the big bad guys with a secular government. (AKA evil Godless dogs).
One of the other problems you mention is lack of due process. I think that has more to do with corrupt officials than the CIA.
I'm more afraid of lunatic gunning me down because I forgot to use my turn signal, and I think you should be, too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Response to: I approve of this on Mar 6th, 2013 @ 2:52pm
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
It's a proven fact that the CIA has done these sorts of things in decades past. Why would they behave any differently now?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Thanks for the links!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: To be honest...
They could hit a license plate at that range.
Tell me again why I should be more afraid of drones?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
as unlikely as arming drug cartels against u.s. citizens?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RIP Aaron Swartz
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Well...
However, I'd like a very tight definition of an what imminent threat means (unlike the definition they are currently using in their overseas operations).
That being said, I still appreciate Rand Paul's grandstanding because this is an issue that needs more of a spotlight.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Well...
There are some, albeit only a few, situations where absolutes are warranted. For instance, if an action breaks our constitution, it's wrong....ALWAYS. This is simply one of those cases....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Well...
That should be reason enough to order their death.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
“To answer objections made to a power given to a government by saying it will never be exercised, is really admitting that the power ought not to be exercised, and therefore ought not to be granted.”
I think that sums it up better than I ever could.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: To be honest...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...
WITHOUT A TRIAL!
Holders answer: Yes
It is not that he did not answer. Brennan would not answer so Holder did it for him.
I posted the full text of Holders response in the story about the NSA facility yesterday.
Holder mentioning 9/11 and Pearl Harbor is laughable. What does he think drones could have done to change the outcome? Someone commented that they could shoot down the airplane heading towards a building. To that I ask, do you propose having drones constantly patrolling the skies in case a plane is hijacked? How could you be so certain that the plane will hit a building? What happens when the plane falls on another building or someone's house? Why not just use a fighter jet to shoot down the plane? I believe NORAD had planes in the vicinity of NYC but they did not engage the planes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Response to: I approve of this on Mar 6th, 2013 @ 2:52pm
This sentence from the article is a good illustration of this sad mindset:
"This is one of those easy situations where we need to be able to get together as Americans and say, no, we don't think it's a great idea for our own military drones to be used domestically." (emphasis mine)
The truth is, Americans should have come together long ago and said "It's not a good idea for our country to abuse whatever military power we have against foreign countries". And the reason Americans morally should have cared a little more about this is because they pay taxes to their government, which makes those drone strikes possible.
It will be hard to empathize completely with Americans if their government starts bombing them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Response to: I approve of this on Mar 6th, 2013 @ 2:52pm
and there was no one left to speak for them.
http://isurvived.org/home.html#Prologue
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
I do agree that in many cases other governments have been accomplices to the CIA. And these government need to be dealt with as well. However:
1) It does not excuse the part the CIA/the American government has played in these abductions.
2) Those foreign governments are not hiding behind the CIA to cover up their own responsibility. They're doing what the CIA asks (which is wrong in itself) and that means the CIA/US government are the engine that drive these abductions in the first place.
3) Finally, when it comes to the involvement of foreign governments and authorities, it's usually rogue elements who help abduct people. It's stupid local cops violating the law and helping the CIA abduct someone (without any government official asking them to), or some scumbag politician arranging these things behind everyone's backs and in violation of the law. These individuals are usually punished for their actions, as their actions are not condoned by their government. The CIA, on the other hand, gets a free pass from the US government.
So while it's good to assign the blame everywhere it belongs, what you seem to be trying to do here is excuse your own government on account of the faults of others. By using this kind of logic you could say "It's OK for Hitler to gas the Jews, after all Poland handed them over to Germany willingly!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Response to: I approve of this on Mar 6th, 2013 @ 2:52pm
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Why is it that our highly militarized police forces across the country are incapable of neutralizing this perceived threat and therefore drone strikes are required? The backward doublethink required in order to get to this conclusion is simply amazing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Of course drones will be used in American, as it makes it far more efficient for Americans to kill other Americans.
your right to defend your home will just be extended to the requirement for everyone to have their own drown just in case the King of England decides to invade you .....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: "He hasn't killed anyone yet."
That's an open door that Obama and Holder refuse to close...thus "yet" is in play.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
a police office (or possibly 2) were killed in the shootout with that guy (apart from the other he had already killed).
would it not have been better to vacate that area, and keep a drone overhead until he came out, and then shot him ?
I am sure there were lots of police officers in NY on 9/11 yet a significant terrorist attack occurred !
You can be the person who has to explain to the family of the police officer killed trying to stop this guy that his life is not as important as not having the ability to send in a machine to enforce the law, instead of being killed.
Is it only flying drones you are worried about, or any remotely controlled device, what about bomb disarming robots ? They have a shot gun inside them so they can disable bombs (or humans). Should they not be allowed on US soil ?
or would you rather volunteer to try to disarm a bomb ? so you don't have a drone to do it for you..??
you have an air force with F-16 fighters that will a word from your Pres can shoot down civilian aircraft on US soil.
So it is ok, for your government to order humans to kill other people as long as they put their own lives at risk doing it, and not ok to send in a machine with a remote human to do the job with a far lower risk of self harm.
when you consider the different to a drone strike and a person alone on the ground with NO oversight with a GUN, if he shoots someone it is not recorded and you have to 'trust' his word he did the right thing.
With a drone attack, the generals and bosses are standing behind the drone control panel, and it's all recorded with high accuracy, location, time, video.
Holder said it was possible, "I suppose," to imagine an "extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate" under U.S. law for the president to authorize the military to "use lethal force"
Welcome to the REAL WORK, he is 100% correct, it is impossible and will remain impossible, but it is well known that weaknesses within the system will be found and exploited. (ie, poor airline security, crazed bombers, highway snipers, Government buildings blown up, Waiko).
You cant predict what will or might happen, but that is no excuse for not doing your best to be prepared for all possible situations. Or in giving groups they may seek to harm the US opportunities to exploit those weaknesses.
he at least has a grasp of the real world, he is also 100% correct.
but hey, just send in someone's mother, or father or child to put their life at risk because sending in a remotely controlled machine leaves a 'bad taste' in your mouth. You can be the one that goes... or your mom, or son.
you also talk like this is something new, do you realise that BATTLESHIPS can just as easily be remotely controlled by someone in an office on the other side of the planet !!! Full war ships with missiles and guns and crews all remotely controlled by some pencil head in Washington !
They can read the radar, arm and launch missiles, (including nuclear), the crew is only there to keep the motor running, the ship can be remotely steered and every vital control can be fully done remotely..
They have had this system in place for well over 20 years, so get over it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Are these USAF UAVs or are they law enforcement UAVs?
The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 (last updated in 1981) and the Insurrection Act of 1807 (last updated in 2008) govern the use of the US military within the borders of the US. They prohibit the use of military resources in a law enforcement role with certain exceptions. Operating UAVs/RPVs would fall under these laws and some of the exceptions would allow for the military to operate "drones" in the US.
When UAVs/RPVs become available to federal, state, and local law enforcement, it will be a whole new world.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
FUCK YOU
The US has to deal with the fallout of your failed society. So if a Hellfire missile turns a bunch of fighters into so many grease spots on the road, so much the better. Maybe one less IED planted or fewer gang rapes of young children. Free speech is unknown in your shithole of a country. The place is run by psychotic religious zealots issuing fatwas to suit their own twisted vision of the Koran and call for jihad by their mindless followers, sending them to a certain death.
You brought this on yourself. Yours is one of the most ancient societies and yet is completely incapable of exercising rule of law or providing even the most basic needs of your citizens, And with a several thousand year head start, you have accomplished nothing: unless becoming the most corrupt, ignorant, violent, bigoted, lawless failed state is considered an accomplishment, Your government's soldiers are abject cowards who take a dive in almost every firefight and have to be threatened at gunpoint to return fire. Your officers are even worse, not elevated by merit but their tribal connections. You collude with terrorist criminals and traffick in narcotics all with the tacit approval of your so-called government. The Muslims I know are peaceful people who rightly interpret and live by their Koran. They don't shoot girls in the head for speaking out for education of women. They don't throw those engaged in free speech and political dissent from rooftops. They don't further persecute rape victims by ostracizing or stoning them. But's that what you savages do every day. Why don't you go martyr yourself in a fire, motherfucker.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: To be honest...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=VvBiH8U5OuY
I like how all of the stories end in a pink cloud.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Yeah, just don't be a bad guy. Or hang out with bad guys. Or be in the vicinity of a bad guy when he gets taken out by a drone. You can recognize the bad guys reliably and stay away from them in case the CIA finds them, right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: To be honest...
They could hit a license plate at that range.
Tell me again why I should be more afraid of drones?
At least if they have a sniper that good they'll only be taking out the person they intend to. With a hellfire, it's the target plus anyone around him. Oh those weren't bad guys too? Oops.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Indeed. That was written at a time when it was assumed the government would only use those powers it had actually been granted. When it was believed that if we didn't want a government doing something, it was enough to not grant it any legal authority to do that thing. Now we see that is not the case.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
To me, the problem is not with drones, it's with using the military on US soil against US citizens. It seems to me there should be very specific rules on when that is possible, crafted to make it as unlikely as can be*. Preferably with automatic punishments for everyone involved so they don't do it lightly. For example, if the president is willing to authorize the military to attack in America he should be willing to step down afterwards.
you also talk like this is something new, do you realise that BATTLESHIPS can just as easily be remotely controlled by someone in an office on the other side of the planet !!!
The US hasn't used battleships in about 20 years. I suspect you're mistaken about that anyway, and a google search for remote control battleship brings up lots of toys and no real battleships. Interestingly, there were people working with remote control of military vehicles since the early 1900s. However that doesn't mean the proliferation of drones (and we haven't seen anything yet) isn't a new phenomenon.
* so specific that pretty much every term has to be defined since the Obama administration has decided (as Jon Stewart pointed out) regarding drone strikes that "imminent" means "eventually"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Are these USAF UAVs or are they law enforcement UAVs?
I believe that has begun already.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: To be honest...
I'd like to hear from one single opponent who has actually served in the military...ever. Then maybe you'd understand that when you're a million miles from home and these pig-fuckers are trying to kill you and your buddies; you do what you have to to save them and yourself. If that means setting one of these cocksuckers on fire, so be it. Maybe if he wasn't such a cowardly, worthless piece of shit he'd tell any non-combatants to steer clear. That is what an honorable person would do.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Are these USAF UAVs or are they law enforcement UAVs?
This situation would be similar to one where a US Marshal, an FBI agent, or some other federal officer shoots someone because they thought that the person was about to harm them or someone else. Who reviews those actions before the agent pulls the trigger?
What we need to think about here is this: If law enforcement officers are sent to question or arrest someone, and that person is shot in the process, that's one thing. If the officers were sent to kill the person, that's something entirely else. That's what we are facing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
DDG's FFG's, frigates, attack craft and so on, all can be remotely controlled, and ARE EQUIPED to do that NOW..
Google "link 11" you might find something under that reference, unless it has not be de-classified yet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
"a sequential data exchange digital link. It exchanges digital information among airborne, land-based, and ship-board tactical data systems. It is the primary means to exchange data such as radar tracking information beyond line of sight. "
link 11 will be replaced by Link 22.
ie, REMOTE CONTROL of airborne, land-based, and SHIP BOARD TECTICAL SYSTEMS...... (it actually DOES ALOT MORE THAN THAT TOO)...
MIL-STD-6011
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
To me, the problem is not with drones, it's with using the military on US soil against US citizens.
fact is the US military have routinely, and will ALLWAYS routinely conduct military operations on US soil, and there is NOT WAY it is possible to create "specific rules" when it is impossible to determine the specific nature of the threat that may require assistance of the US military ?
What about a cyclone ?? or a flood, or an invasion ?
how can you even start to define rules regarding something you have no idea when it is or could possibly be ?
so you don't want military but it's ok for your President to give "shoot to kill" orders for looters in New Orleans ?
I also believe that the military would be more trusted to reject orders to kill fellow Americans than would be the various police forces within the US, who are trained and conditioned to kill ANYONE, if they feel it necessary.
in other words I would trust the military far more than some moron who likes to feel big by having a gun and being a cop.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ah yes, it completely proves your point invalid and false.
Keep chanting murca from the roof tops.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"The E-8C Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (Joint STARS) "
Attack radar means a system that can attack a target (with a missile) under radar control, remote means REMOTE, ie, from a long way away (say from Washington).
COMMAND and CONTROL, means COMMAND AND CONTROL, means they can not only look at the tactical information but they can COMMAND AND CONTROL those systems.
ie, a remote controlled DRONE..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: To be honest...
I've yet to hear a single coherent response to this from an overzealous American claiming to have served in the military.
Congratulations on endorsing the murdering of innocent civilians because, you know, it's easy.
Honour - you have no idea what that word means.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
If I am not sure about something, and KNOW it to be true, I do not say it, unlike many (if not all) the authors at TD I do not guess or assume or make things up, or 'mistaken'.
If find facts and the truth to form a much more compelling argument than guessing or assuming. I (as you can see from below) am willing and capable of supporting my statements by cold hard facts, again it's easy to tell the truth. As you can see for yourself, you can do the research and inform yourself, you don't need me, but at least learn how to do accurate google searches, Did you consider 'remote controlled battleships' to you past your local hobby shop ?
try "tactical data links" if you are actually trying to find out information about tactical data links, as opposed to remote control toy boats.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: To be honest...
And by the way, if you had been enlisted under my command or anywhere near me, comments like "bearded shitbags" (so I assume you are Army or Air Force) would have earned you an Article 15 or worse. I didn't put up with ignorance then and I certainly don't now. As an aside, have you ever looked at it from the "bearded shitbag" (my God what an assclown you are) perspective: why are these "beardless shitbags" in my country, fucking up my stuff, killing my family and friends? Of course not, you're a ground pounder, and you're not paid to think. That doesn't mean you can't try some time. These people are fighting for their homes and families, risking their lives without the benefit of flak jackets, kevlar helmets, heavily armored vehicles and super whiz-bang high-tech drones. You're just there so the oil barons can get richer, and you don't even know it. Don't make me laugh - what do you know about honor?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
And you wonder "why do they hate us"....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: I approve of this on Mar 6th, 2013 @ 2:52pm
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
This is fun!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Are these USAF UAVs or are they law enforcement UAVs?
Nobody. There's no time to have someone review the decision. There's plenty of review after the fact though (whether it's effective review I have no idea).
If law enforcement officers are sent to question or arrest someone, and that person is shot in the process, that's one thing. If the officers were sent to kill the person, that's something entirely else. That's what we are facing.
I'm as cynical as the next guy but I don't see law enforcement using this for assassination. I think there's even going to be enormous resistance to having these things armed at all and flying around in the US. I think it will be a good long while, if ever, before law enforcement has armed drones, or at least until they tell us they do.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: To be honest...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
COMMAND and CONTROL, means COMMAND AND CONTROL
Yeah, but that phrase doesn't appear in your quote.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Reference please? I couldn't find anything supporting this in a quick search.
What about a cyclone ?? or a flood, or an invasion ?
There is no reason to involve the military in natural disasters (other than National Guard). Obviously invasion would be one scenario when we would do so.
so you don't want military but it's ok for your President to give "shoot to kill" orders for looters in New Orleans ?
A. I never said I don't want military. B. I never said it was OK for the President to give such orders. If we're going to have a discussion, it would be nice if you didn't put words in my mouth.
I also believe that the military would be more trusted to reject orders to kill fellow Americans than would be the various police forces within the US, who are trained and conditioned to kill ANYONE, if they feel it necessary.
That is definitely possible, but soldiers are also trained to follow orders, even (maybe especially) unpleasant and dangerous ones. I would not feel comfortable counting on them to disobey.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
From what I've read so far, tactical data links are for exactly what their name implies: exchanging data. I haven't found anything that indicates they're used to remotely control anything bigger than a drone. I'm not going to spend hours reading every document on TDL but if you have a reference about remote controlling a warship I would be interested to read it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.fas.org/irp/program/disseminate/tadil.htm
"Link 4A TADIL C is one of several tactical data links now in operation in the United States Armed Services and forces of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Link-4A plays an important role by providing digital surface-to-air, air-to-surface, and air-to-air tactical communications"
"LINK-16 is DoD's primary tactical data link for command, control, and intelligence"
"In-theater Reachback: This application is used to transmit the air surveillance and ballistic missile information from a forward area of a theater to a remote command center located beyond line-of-sight of the forward JTIDS elements. 2. Inter-zone Connectivity: This application is used to transfer air surveillance and ballistic missile information between localized areas of a theater operations. "
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disturbances_and_military_action_in_New_Orleans_after_H urricane_Katrina
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
military are only the ONLY people around with the equipment, manpower and training to actually deal with large problems, apart from just war.
Who by the way built and maintains the levy system in New Orleans ? that would not be the US army Corps of Engineers by any chance ??
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Here's an interesting read on remote control and autonomous military vehicles: http://www.historynet.com/drones-dont-die-a-history-of-military-robotics.htm
Closest thing to a ship though is basically a remote control torpedo used by the Germans in WWII.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not too concerned about the National Guard. How about Army, Navy, Air Force or Marines conducting operations in the US? That is what you claimed, right? Or were you just talking about National Guard?
natural disaster training is a big part of your basic training, and dealing with natural disasters is one thing a well organised, self contained, self sufficient military unit can and does do very, very well.
I agree, but in the US we use the National Guard for that.
Who by the way built and maintains the levy system in New Orleans ? that would not be the US army Corps of Engineers by any chance ??
Sure, but I wouldn't consider maintaining levees a "military operation". Is that the sort of thing you were talking about when you said that?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Military and police powers
-- Commander Adama, Battlestar Galactica
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To be honest...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To be honest...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: I approve of this on Mar 6th, 2013 @ 2:52pm
Americans fund this drone program with their taxes, they have a responsibility to do a tad more than just sit in front on their computers and write "I don't like this" on the Internet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To be honest...
I grew disillusioned with the US military during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it feels good to see there are good people serving. Hopefully the qualities you displayed in your post will one day prevail in the military.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To be honest...
I'm neither American nor Iraqi/Afghan/Pakistani/A citizen of another country the USA are 'at war' with. I approach this with no bias either way. And I think you are displaying a lack of humanity here. I doubt you are much better than the people you criticize.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To be honest...
You wouldn't even have the balls to talk back to your NPC officer in Call of Duty.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To be honest...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To be honest...
Really? You mean reports that these Al Queda fucks are sworn to bring death and destruction to America are bullshit? Wow, I bet you believe 9/11 was engineered by the CIA too.
You're just there so the oil barons can get richer, and you don't even know it.
You mean like in Iraq?
Those who claim that the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003 to get control of the country's giant oil reserves will be left scratching their heads by the results of last weekend's auction of Iraqi oil contracts: Not a single U.S. company secured a deal in the auction of contracts that will shape the Iraqi oil industry for the next couple of decades.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1948787,00.html#ixzz2MtKyQJLS
So on top of being perhaps the softest pantywaist in the history of the United States military, you simply don't know what you are talking about.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Does the national guard have M-16's ?? locked and loaded and an expectation that they will shoot and kill ??
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"On the same day, Governor Kathleen Blanco announced the arrival of a military presence, stating that "they have M-16s and are locked and loaded. These troops know how to shoot and kill and I expect they will."[55] "
"By September 1, 6,500 National Guard troops had arrived in New Orleans, and on September 2 Blanco requested a total of 40,000 for assistance in evacuation and security efforts in Louisiana"
So it was the MILITARY and NOT the National guard, they were sent in MUCH LATER, then the military with M-16's locked and loaded, and knowing how to shoot and kill.
"Task Force Katrina Commander Army Lt. Gen. Russel Honore also charged the paratroopers to straighten out the evacuation situations at Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport, the New Orleans Convention Center and the Superdome. In all, 3,600 of the division's paratroopers were deployed to New Orleans to participate in Task Force All-American."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
the Navy (US Navy) is a part of the US MILITARY and NATO, this system is used BY ALL NATO forces and military including the US Navy, COMMAND means the ability to COMMAND a missile to launch, CONTROL mean the ability to control where it goes, intelligence means feedback to tell what to aim and shoot at.
The United States Navy uses the NATO designation, Link-16, when referring to Tactical Digital Information Link (TADIL). Link-16 is synonymous with TADIL J. The latter term is employed only by United States Joint Services. Similarly, Link-11 is synonymous with TADIL A and Link-4A with TADIL C.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
"Sir, we are not quite sure, but considering all the bullets coming from that building, he is probably in that one."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Are these USAF UAVs or are they law enforcement UAVs?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Military and police powers
"then the enemies of the state tend to become the people"
no, the enemies of the state are attacking the people, and as it's the job of the military (according to you) to fight the enemies of the state. They don't become the people..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
and how do you control something remotely, ??? with data exchange, you give commands, you give those commands to the command and control system, THE TACTICAL CCI system.
it is exactly about being able to lock onto, track and SHOOT and KILL.
What about a drone, how does it's missiles fire ?? by receiving A COMMAND TO DO SO, that is what remote control means.. (not real bright are you !!)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
and how do you control something remotely, ??? with data exchange, you give commands, you give those commands to the command and control system, THE TACTICAL CCI system.
it is exactly about being able to lock onto, track and SHOOT and KILL.
What about a drone, how does it's missiles fire ?? by receiving A COMMAND TO DO SO, that is what remote control means.. (not real bright are you !!)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Waco..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I did: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4207202.stm
" The incident in the already crippled city came after Louisiana's governor said 300 "battle-tested" National Guardsmen were being sent to quell the unrest.
"They have M-16s and are locked and loaded. These troops know how to shoot and kill and I expect they will," Kathleen Blanco said.
Washington pledged a further 4,200 guardsmen in coming days, and said that 3,000 army soldiers may also be sent to the city where violence has disrupted relief efforts. "
Does the national guard have M-16's ?
Yep. "As a soldier in the National Guard, the M16 assault rifle will be one of the most important pieces of equipment in your occupation."
http://www.nationalguard.net/360/the-m16-this-is-your-rifle/
locked and loaded and an expectation that they will shoot and kill ??
You want to believe the word of a politician on the readiness state and rules of engagement of a military unit? I don't.
In all, 3,600 of the division's paratroopers were deployed to New Orleans to participate in Task Force All-American.
Ah, there we have it! Army troops in New Orleans after Katrina. So it has happened at least once, but that doesn't mean it's a regular occurrence, which I understand is what you were saying. Correct me if I'm mistaken.
The article I found on defense.gov doesn't mention under what authority they were acting, which is what really interests me about it. Congress revised the Insurrection Act to allow such things but then repealed the revision. The posse comitatus act prohibits military used for law enforcement, which is very close to the "security" they did in Katrina but maybe different enough.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, come off it. Just because it's exchanging command and control data doesn't mean someone can push a button in Washington and fire a rocket in Afghanistan.
A Carrier is not a ship ??
I certainly didn't see anything about remote control aircraft carriers.
and how do you control something remotely, ??? with data exchange
Controlling something remotely involves data exchange. That does not mean all data exchange means remote control.
What about a drone, how does it's missiles fire ?? by receiving A COMMAND TO DO SO, that is what remote control means..
Hello, this whole article is about drones. This little side conversation is about remote controlled warships, remember? And I still haven't seen anything that says the Navy has them.
(not real bright are you !!)
Why do you feel the need to resort to personal attacks? Are you feeling threatened, or angry, or what?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Are these USAF UAVs or are they law enforcement UAVs?
I would not be AT ALL surprised that they are not being used now, or at least in an evaluation stage.
these drones also do not have to be armed, and would be a boon for things like fire spotting, poacher spotting, Search and rescue, surveys, border crossers, or any other function where an 'eye in the sky' would be an advantage.
imagine 10 unarmed drones flying around New Orleans after the storm feeding back position information of stranded people and levy breaches and problem area's !
or during the LA fires, spotting and reporting the area's that need immediate attention. or searching for someone lost in the desert !
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Military and police powers
I think you misunderstood the quote. The point is if the military is also the police, then they will start to consider the people to be the enemy of the state.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To be honest...
Besides, what was the original topic about? Oh yeah, drones on US soil. Are you really ok with drones patrolling our skies, searching for people to kill? If that is the case, the government is circumventing the Constitution, i.e. the high law of the land, and unilaterally declaring itself judge, jury and executioner --the absolute authority.
If they have no fear of the consequences for their actions by the people, that will all change eventually when they're standing before God Almighty. What did Jesus say? Oh yeah, "Blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy." Can't say that about this current government, can you? Also remember that the more that is given, the more is expected. Since these people are in positions of authority, should they choose to abuse their power, they will be held accountable.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Drone strikes against Americans in the US
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: To be honest...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tim, you seem to be saying it's less bad to kill me with a drone
Seriously, Bro, starting with your 3rd paragraph after the Holder quote you kind of suggest it's not OK for Americans but leave the rest hanging.
Maybe re-phrase of clarify?
[ link to this | view in thread ]