I'm going to beat Unseen to this one!
So Eric Holder in a recent Congressional hearing has left the door open to preforming a drone strike against terrorists on American soil in an "extraordinary circumstance."
"Attorney General Eric Holder is not entirely ruling out a scenario under which a drone strike would be ordered against Americans on U.S. soil, but says it has never been done previously and he could only see it being considered in an extraordinary circumstance.
He began to winnow the list of those possible extraordinary circumstances Wednesday. In testimony Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, pressed Holder whether he believed it would be constitutional to target an American terror suspect 'sitting at a cafe' if the suspect didn't pose an imminent threat.
'No,' Holder replied."
Given the fact that there are people out there who want to kill us, who want to die for their cause, and who label themselves as an enemy to America, do you think that they Attorney General makes a valid point? Might there be some circumstance where a drone strike is the best option to prevent even more loss of life including that of law enforcement? Is he just plain wrong and this can't be permitted at all? As Senator Paul is now filibustering on the Senate floor and making the point, is there zero room for a lethal military/law enforcement drone strike on an individual? Might there still be a comparison with the use of lethal force by a police officer to a person that is known to be armed, dangerous, and looking to kill?
Will the second amendment cover the peoples right to own drones too? If not, then the peoples right to bear arms is going to be a bit futile when examined from its intended perspective.
We already have the right to own drones because they are not per se weapons. The question is whether and how much to limit those rights. They seem at this point more a threat to privacy than anything else.
Hahaha...well it is Texas..LOL
I live in Texas and people are crazy here but not that crazy. Plus there are a lot of libertarians here that would not let a law like that pass. It is already illegal to trespass on private property so no new law is needed. Everyone knows that the front of their house etc. it open to being photographed. Google does it all the time. hahaha
The right to bear arms comes from the history of the United States as a nation founded on self-reliance and responsibility. It was intended that the citizens themselves would fight with their very lives against all forms of tyranny with whatever means they had at their disposal. Violence against tyranny is very strongly built into our culture. In fact it is very much what the Civil War was fought over, more so than mere slavery/freedom issues; the southern states call it the "War of Northern Aggression" for a good reason. From their perspective the federalists were over-reaching and needed to be stopped in the very same sense that Britain's Tea Tax led to the event in that Boston harbor which served as an ignition point for the conflict to follow.
Our 2nd Amendment is the founder's guarantee us that we are allowed and encouraged to fight off tyranny, especially from our own government. In that vein we should be allowed as upstanding citizens to own ANY sort of weapon required to do the job - not just protect us from home intruders, but from armed military-style incursions into our homes and lives.
What is glossed over mostly is that the 1st Amendment is there so that we can solve the problem WITHOUT fighting... take it for what it is worth.
Unfortunately, Judith, it's the principle of "might makes right" in action. I recall that one of the definitions of justice given in Plato's "Republic" was that justice was the will of the stronger. I think that's exactly what we're seeing and it applies to both situations. The US government continues to use drone strikes in places like Pakistan and Yemen because it knows that no one who cares about getting them to stop is in a position to really do anything about it. If the tables were turned, there would be a cruise missile finding it's way into a command and control center and/or the satellites responsible for relaying the attack would be taken out of orbit. Whoever attacked America in such a way would find it difficult to do so again.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's right. I'm just saying that it is what it is.
I don't know. Why stop with drones?
What if some nation detonated a thermobaric bomb around the Amsterdam Arena during a major football match or a neutron bomb over Amsterdam creating a disaster similar to the 9/11 attacks. The Netherlands, you seem to imply, would not consider itself at war with the instigators and would just sit there weeping "Why us?"
"rubbing one off" for the pentagon.
So how many 'other deaths' will be tolerated, to catch just 'a few', 'bad people'?
What other targets could be authorized, given some corporate or government interest?
If they fly a drone over US soil, how will the locals responde?
"Bad people" covers a lot of ground. There are some pretty bad people in al qaeda. Today, a lot of these bad people purposefully hide themselves among civilians. Obviously, this doesn't provide perfect protection, but if they get killed along with some civilians, the civilians function as fodder for their propaganda efforts.
What other targets might be authorized? I don't think anyone here knows the answer.
Who is "they"?