RSS

Tag Archives: drone strikes

Of drones and assault rifles?

Twelve people are gunned down and 70 are wounded in a movie theater in Colorado, gun nuts scream about their rights to own whatever kind of weapon they want and rush out to buy assault rifles and high capacity magazines; Twenty-six people, including 20 first graders, are massacred in an elementary school in Connecticut, the same gun nuts become hysterical about their Second Amendment rights and start throwing around words like “revolution”.

The United States Attorney General says under “an extraordinary circumstance” the government might use drone strikes against its own citizens on U.S. soil, and now suddenly the exact same whack jobs are anxious about enacting legislation concerning what weapons can and cannot be used in the United States.

It seems the right for people to own weapons capable of murdering 20 six and seven-year-olds in a matter of minutes is OK, but targeting domestic terrorists is an outrage? Both are offensive and wrong, it’s time for Republicans, Libertarians and Tea Party types to pull their heads out of their collective fourth point of contact, to grow up and start acting like adults. The Constitution no more guarantees your right to own assault rifles and high capacity magazines than it provides for the Federal Government to target citizens to a blazing death from above.

3 Comments

Posted by PEB on March 8, 2013 in Drones

Tags: assault weapons, assault weapons ban, aurora colorado shooting, Aurora Theater Shooting, ban on assault weapons, drone aircraft, drone strikes, drone strikes against us citizens, drones, Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting, U.S. Drone Strikes

Drone Strike to Kill U.S. Citizen on American Soil Legal?

05 Mar

Holy time warp Batman, according to news reports the United States Attorney General thinks it could use military force to kill an American on U.S. soil in an “extraordinary circumstance”; no we’re not talking about George W. Bush’s administration here, we’re talking about President Barrack Obama’s, but fortunately it has “no intention of doing so,” at least according to a letter from General Eric Holder.

The letter was disclosed by Republican Tea Party (GOTP) Senator Rand Paul, who had asked whether the Justice Department believed the President had legal authority to order a targeted strike against an American citizen located within the United States.

According to Holder, while the President rejected the use of military force where “well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat.” Theoretically, it’d be legal for the him to order such an attack under certain circumstances, he claimed.

“The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no president will ever have to confront. 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 wrote.

“For example, the president could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances like a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001,” Holder continued, referring to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. Holder said he would “examine the particular facts and circumstances” if such an emergency were to arise.

On this issue the Attorney General needs his head thoroughly examined; there are no legitimate uses of drone strikes within the United States on its own citizen’s, period. There is no “theoretical” for which this would ever apply, period. Would the Attorney General also “theorize” there are legitimate times when the President would authorize the use of nuclear weapons by the government on American soil against its own?

Just as the Bush Administration was wrong on everything from failing to protect the United States against terrorists, to lying about WMDs in Iraq to approving water boarding and torturing of prisoners, so too is the Obama Administration wrong on this. Fix it Mr. President; if we’d wanted more of the same we’d have elected the other guy.

No Right Turns

14 Feb

To Drone, or not to Drone …

07 Feb

Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution

“The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”

When citizens become operatives for terrorists organizations they are in “rebellion” against the United States; further, the “public safety” of the citizens requires action being taken – as habeas corpus may be suspended in these circumstances taking them out by drone is not in violation of the Constitution. In short, we don’t have to bring them to trial. And yes, I know the difference between incarcerating someone and executing them, but the point is, the government can suspend certain “rights” under a given set of circumstances, “rebellion”, “invasion” or interests of the “public safety” being those times.

These two “citizens” had American blood on their hands, and I have no issue with the President having them “removed” from the world stage, nor do I have issues with drone strikes against terrorist leaders in Pakistan or elsewhere, the alternatives are do nothing – not acceptable – or sending boots on the ground, placing American lives at risk. The individuals in question chose to rebel, they chose their fate when they did so, and I will not support sending US troops into harms way on foreign soil to “arrest” someone who’s chosen to side with terrorism, sorry, but when they make that choice they’re denouncing their citizenship in favor of 72 virgins, and the Constitution nor its protected rights no longer apply.

We are not talking about drone strikes against tin foil hat wearing tea party members, we’re talking about drone strikes against known terrorists, there’s a big whopping difference. And if the tea party’s worried about being “taken out” they should be more concerned with Karl Rove than President Obama.

War is ugly, and innocent civilians are going to die, that’s why the United States should never go running gleefully into making war on anyone; however, conversely, the rest of the world should think long and hard before it makes war on us, or before it allows terrorist groups to establish training bases or safe havens within their borders. 9-11 changed forever how the United States will turn a blind eye to such activity. You don’t want drones raining missiles from the sky into your villages? Take out the terrorists yourselves, or better yet, don’t let them in to begin with.

Of course in an effort to make everyone feel better, I suppose we could just carpet bomb the villages like we did in WWII and Vietnam.

All-in-all, I think a drone strike is much more preferred.

The Liberty Tree