Justinian
Active Member
- Messages
- 888
Wouldn't matter. Repetetive motions of your own RC drone would still allow you to be pinpointed due to the radial patterns that you'd have to fly it in, from your base of operations.
Surveillance Drone in the US!
- Thread starter kurisu
- Start date
kcwildman
Beastmaster
- Messages
- 3,049
well boys and girls exactly as we suspected the drone were never intended to be for snooping on the drug dealer at the boarder but rather to be used against all who dare to say no to the gov.
EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americans - Open Channel
A confidential Justice Department memo concludes that the U.S. government can order the killing of American citizens if they are believed to be “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida or “an associated force” -- even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S
just a snipit of the artical that says your next on the list of bad guys folks
EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americans - Open Channel
A confidential Justice Department memo concludes that the U.S. government can order the killing of American citizens if they are believed to be “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida or “an associated force” -- even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S
just a snipit of the artical that says your next on the list of bad guys folks
BlastTyrant
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,598
Obama memo justifies drone-war killing of Americans | The Ticket - Yahoo! News
Does President Barack Obama have the right to order the assassination of an American anywhere in the world—without any oversight from Congress or the courts, and even if that U.S. citizen is not actively plotting a specific terrorist attack? His administration, in a stunning Justice Department memo laying out a broad legal rationale for the country's ever-expanding drone war, says yes.
The 16-page document, obtained by NBC News, emerged days before John Brennan, Obama's chief counterterrorism adviser and the foremost architect of America’s hugely controversial unmanned aerial vehicle war, goes before the Senate Intelligence Committee in a Thursday hearing on his confirmation as CIA director.
Obama campaigned in 2008 as a fierce critic of George W. Bush’s national security policies, but he has apparently learned to stop worrying and love nearly unfettered executive power—the literal power of life and death over fellow U.S. citizens overseas thought to be consorting with extremists groups that may be targeting America. So, under what circumstances does he have the right to act?
The memo says “an informed, high-level official of the U.S. government” must decide that the target is a "senior operational leader" of al-Qaida or "associated forces," “poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States,” and that an attempt to capture that individual is “infeasible.”
“Targeting a member of an enemy force who poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States is not unlawful. It is a lawful act of self-defense,” the document asserts.
"Imminent threat"? That seems reasonable and is a traditional standard for military action. Except that, as NBC investigative reporter Michael Isikoff notes, the memo adds that “the condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future.”
Instead, that previously mentioned "high-level official" can determine that the potential target was “recently” involved in “activities” posing a threat of an attack and that “there is no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities.”
Isikoff notes the memo does not define "activities" or "recently," leaving that up to the administration to determine on a case-by-case basis.
The memo notes that the president can order a strike against al-Qaida far beyond the battlefield of Afghanistan, and it makes clear that he will not be constrained by national sovereignty. Either a country will give the green light to drone strikes on its territory, or America will strike if that country is "unable or willing" to do so.
This is no surprise. Obama famously said in the 2008 campaign that he would order an attack inside Pakistan to get Osama bin Laden, whether or not Islamabad signed off. He made made good on that promise, ordering the raid on bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, on May 1, 2011, which killed the terrorist leader.
The memo is sure to trigger another round of questions from Congress about the drone war, which has been shrouded in secrecy. And it comes at a time when that campaign is powerfully unpopular overseas, according to a June 2012 Pew Research poll. While 62 percent of Americans approve of the approach, 44 percent of respondents in staunch ally Britain do. And the numbers plummet in countries with large Muslim populations: 6 percent in Egypt, for instance, and 9 percent in NATO ally Turkey.
That's in part the reflection of anger over civilian casualties from such attacks. Obama has grappled with that problem ever since the very first drone strike on his watch, a Jan. 23, 2009, attack that reportedly claimed the life of "an innocent tribal elder" in Pakistan. A May 2012 New York Times report said that the administration minimizes civilian casualties by counting "all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants."
The memo drew a withering response from the American Civil Liberties Union.
“This is a profoundly disturbing document, and it’s hard to believe that it was produced in a democracy built on a system of checks and balances,” said Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project. “It summarizes in cold legal terms a stunning overreach of executive authority—the claimed power to declare Americans a threat and kill them far from a recognized battlefield and without any judicial involvement before or after the fact.”
Does President Barack Obama have the right to order the assassination of an American anywhere in the world—without any oversight from Congress or the courts, and even if that U.S. citizen is not actively plotting a specific terrorist attack? His administration, in a stunning Justice Department memo laying out a broad legal rationale for the country's ever-expanding drone war, says yes.
The 16-page document, obtained by NBC News, emerged days before John Brennan, Obama's chief counterterrorism adviser and the foremost architect of America’s hugely controversial unmanned aerial vehicle war, goes before the Senate Intelligence Committee in a Thursday hearing on his confirmation as CIA director.
Obama campaigned in 2008 as a fierce critic of George W. Bush’s national security policies, but he has apparently learned to stop worrying and love nearly unfettered executive power—the literal power of life and death over fellow U.S. citizens overseas thought to be consorting with extremists groups that may be targeting America. So, under what circumstances does he have the right to act?
The memo says “an informed, high-level official of the U.S. government” must decide that the target is a "senior operational leader" of al-Qaida or "associated forces," “poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States,” and that an attempt to capture that individual is “infeasible.”
“Targeting a member of an enemy force who poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States is not unlawful. It is a lawful act of self-defense,” the document asserts.
"Imminent threat"? That seems reasonable and is a traditional standard for military action. Except that, as NBC investigative reporter Michael Isikoff notes, the memo adds that “the condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future.”
Instead, that previously mentioned "high-level official" can determine that the potential target was “recently” involved in “activities” posing a threat of an attack and that “there is no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities.”
Isikoff notes the memo does not define "activities" or "recently," leaving that up to the administration to determine on a case-by-case basis.
The memo notes that the president can order a strike against al-Qaida far beyond the battlefield of Afghanistan, and it makes clear that he will not be constrained by national sovereignty. Either a country will give the green light to drone strikes on its territory, or America will strike if that country is "unable or willing" to do so.
This is no surprise. Obama famously said in the 2008 campaign that he would order an attack inside Pakistan to get Osama bin Laden, whether or not Islamabad signed off. He made made good on that promise, ordering the raid on bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, on May 1, 2011, which killed the terrorist leader.
The memo is sure to trigger another round of questions from Congress about the drone war, which has been shrouded in secrecy. And it comes at a time when that campaign is powerfully unpopular overseas, according to a June 2012 Pew Research poll. While 62 percent of Americans approve of the approach, 44 percent of respondents in staunch ally Britain do. And the numbers plummet in countries with large Muslim populations: 6 percent in Egypt, for instance, and 9 percent in NATO ally Turkey.
That's in part the reflection of anger over civilian casualties from such attacks. Obama has grappled with that problem ever since the very first drone strike on his watch, a Jan. 23, 2009, attack that reportedly claimed the life of "an innocent tribal elder" in Pakistan. A May 2012 New York Times report said that the administration minimizes civilian casualties by counting "all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants."
The memo drew a withering response from the American Civil Liberties Union.
“This is a profoundly disturbing document, and it’s hard to believe that it was produced in a democracy built on a system of checks and balances,” said Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project. “It summarizes in cold legal terms a stunning overreach of executive authority—the claimed power to declare Americans a threat and kill them far from a recognized battlefield and without any judicial involvement before or after the fact.”
titorite
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,974
US citizens live in abject tyranny subject to death upon the whims of the current leader.
Rebels are having trouble mounting a sustainable resistance under the pressures of the pro regime forces.
They may revel in the confidence today, but they shall not win tomorrow.
Rebels are having trouble mounting a sustainable resistance under the pressures of the pro regime forces.
They may revel in the confidence today, but they shall not win tomorrow.
BlastTyrant
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,598
Ha
Hard to be a Rebel in this day and age when your resistance will be met with Lethal Force.
titorite
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,974
Your life is already forfeit. It doesn't matter to the state if you forfeit it on your knees or on your feet. With that in mind I hope it makes joining the rebellion in opposition of tyranny a much easier choice to make and support.
kcwildman
Beastmaster
- Messages
- 3,049
sadly with tears on my cheeks I watched from my hiding place on the hilltop as the people are herded into the boxcars, they were headed off to the behavor modification camps or so they were called. I knew deep down they would never return. the rumors of those camps had been floating around the inter net for years. then when the net was taken down for national security reasons, or should I say claims of it being used to plot acts of terrorism against the government. the claims of death camps went with it . then the troops just seem to show up, going into citys and towns at night with a list of people who have been deemed as nonproductive members of the community . round them up at gun point shooting any and all who resist in any way on the spot as an example to the others. whole towns have been ereased from the map. every one just taken off to someplace and never herd from again. no one even knew they were taken, well besides me and a few others who had the good sence to run for the hills when the internet went off line. the news medea claimed it was a cyber attack and told everyone not to worry it would be back up in a few days. that was over a year ago now, the world I live in now is nothing like the predictions of what it would be like if the shit hit the fan. when it all happened over the span of a couple months no one even noticed. when the net went down so did the power grid. everyone crowed around the few batt. powered units to hear what the news medea was reporting. they never saw the troops coming untill they were face to face with them. I tried to help as many as I could, but damn there's only so much I could do without being caught my self. the lights came back on after about two weeks but the internet was gone. the news said that the all servers had been currupted by the cyber attack and the virus used was such that they all had to be replaced and it would take a little time to get that done. the people lapped it up, there still waiting for it to happen thow. most have just gone back to there newly reorganized life's. they all seemed to accept without any question the jobs they were given/ordered to do when the power came back on. it's like they were so happy to have lived through the chaos of the first two weeks without any power, that they forgot how it was to choose there own way of living . they all seemed to like a life of serving at the whim of the government. well at least untill the few of us that had run for the hills started to say hello to the goons squads. we did our best to to take out the com. line's and towers, supply route bridges and storage sites for the troops. but there's just not enough of us to realy take back the country. we've all but given up that hope, and now have settled into a hide and servive mode. some of the leaders have sent out scouting and recon parties hoping to hook up with the rumored groups in Canada and mexico but it's been a couple months now and no word. the future looks grim at best and real shitty at worst............................so dies the last pockets of resistance to the evil empires take over of the late great planet earth....
TnWatchdog
Senior Member
- Messages
- 7,099
Well said KC...you really have a grasp for what is going on. The grid and internet going out will send everyone into a mass state of confusion, ready for the false sense of security. We need to keep this awareness out front and do some real soul searching for guidance.
kcwildman
Beastmaster
- Messages
- 3,049
you flatter me old friend.... I was just tring to insert a little reality check into the minds of all the gunghoe talk about whats going on.. it's like people have blinders on or something , everyone looks where the finger is pointing instead of at the other hand thats holding the club... it's very depressing sometimes....
titorite
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,974