Is it too much power for the president to be able to use a drone against an american citizen on american soil without judicial consent?

2015-10-10T05:29:43-04:00

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/why-drones-should-make-you-afraid-very-afraid/
Notice the source before crying conservative propaganda.

Response by CW4 Guy Butler made Oct 10 at 2015 6:11 AM

2015-10-10T06:11:09-04:00

Why do you only worry about the President and not the local police departments - which, BTW, is what the article is about.

http://mobile.pcmag.com/news/59302-are-nd-police-equipping-drones-with-tasers-bean-bags?origref=

There's an escalation for ya...

Response by SMSgt Tony Barnes made Oct 10 at 2015 8:01 AM

2015-10-10T08:01:51-04:00

Of course...no due process

Response by SSG Gerhard S. made Oct 10 at 2015 8:35 AM

2015-10-10T08:35:31-04:00

Yes, the Constitution requires due process. The term "Judge, Jury, and executioner" Comes to mind from your question.

Response by SSgt Alex Robinson made Oct 10 at 2015 8:43 AM

2015-10-10T08:43:26-04:00

yes, he is acting as judge, jury, and executioner... in direct violation of the separation of powers clause

Response by SN Greg Wright made Oct 10 at 2015 1:15 PM

2015-10-10T13:15:34-04:00

SrA Art Siatkowsky Kind of a no-brainer. The President can't walk out onto the street and shoot somebody in the head. A drone would be no different.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 10 at 2015 2:22 PM

2015-10-10T14:22:22-04:00

First you should note that it is a blog post in Scientific American, it's an opinion... Second, you should note that this opinion is over 2 and a half years old and I have yet to see police (other than Border patrol) use drones. Third, Obama has never argued for the right to kill terror suspects on American soil with drones.

In his opinion piece he does link to an actual article he wrote for National Geographic. In that article he spells out what he considers to be the risks:"Possible missions: patrolling borders, tracking perps, dusting crops. And maybe watching us all? (http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/03/unmanned-flight/horgan-text)

So let's address the issues he raises one at a time.
1. Patrolling Borders - Sounds good to me, less expensive than putting manned aircraft up over the border.
2. Tracking Perps - If they make police work a little safer that's a good thing.
3. Dusting Crops - I don't see a problem with that.
4. Watching us all - That is a valid concern. I support the ACLU's recommendations on the use of drones.

The ACLU recommends the following safeguards:

Usage Limits: A drone should be deployed by law enforcement only with a warrant, in an emergency, or when there are specific and articulable grounds to believe that the drone will collect evidence relating to a specific criminal act.

Data Retention: Images should be retained only when there is reasonable suspicion that they contain evidence of a crime or are relevant to an ongoing investigation or trial.

Policy: Usage policy on drones should be decided by the public’s representatives, not by police departments, and the policies should be clear, written, and open to the public.

Abuse Prevention and Accountability: Use of domestic drones should be subject to open audits and proper oversight to prevent misuse.

Weapons: Domestic drones should not be equipped with lethal or non-lethal weapons.

https://www.aclu.org/issues/privacy-technology/surveillance-technologies/domestic-drones

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Oct 10 at 2015 4:27 PM

2015-10-10T16:27:30-04:00

Two important discussions may arise from this question: (1) The one stated and (2) the one implied by the author in warning that we should "notice the source before crying conservative propaganda".

Allow me to deal with the second first. Science has been usurped by politicians and others in power (eg, the church) to provide some semblance of authenticity to their argument. In recent times, the Left has used this strategy to great advantage and we're all supposed to shut up and accept their control over our lives because "the science is settled". Science is never settled.

Now, as to the main question, I believe that there is a prima facie case against any President who would direct law enforcement or military agencies to use a drone against an American citizen without judicial consent...to a point.

What do you mean by "against"? Questions such as these are best answered in situational analysis. For example, what difference is there in using an armed drone vs an armed sniper in "taking down" a perpetrator engaged in an active shooting situation? So long as the operator of the drone is under the same direct control of a superior authority as a sniper, what is the difference? It would seem that drones could be used in searches under the same rules binding officers of the law. Some searches may be legal without first obtaining a search warrant from a judicial authority in exigent circumstances. Wouldn't the same rules apply to operators of drones?

We could go on but I think these few examples get my point across...

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 11 at 2015 1:08 PM

2015-10-11T13:08:34-04:00

Politics amaze me. Our politicians can take classified information home, deploy troops without congressional approval, pass laws through executive order, launch drone strikes anywhere in the world, listen to our phone calls and read our emails, cut the military while demanding we do more... I mean, do I need to go on?
People say only experienced lawmakers can be effective in Washington. Well, we've been driving that cool aid for a while now and I'm getting sick of it. We need more ex-military and community leaders to serve in government roles. Not pompous trust fund babies who have no idea what it's like to live and work in AMERICA.