The Obama lobbing drone missles at citizens party station

[Charlie Don't Surf]

"The Obama administration believes that executive branch reviews of evidence against suspected al-Qaeda leaders before they are targeted for killing meet the constitution’s “due process” requirement and that American citizenship alone doesn’t protect individuals from being killed, Attorney General Eric Holder said in a speech Monday.

“Due process and judicial process are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security,” Holder said. “The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process.”

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsme...of_targeted_killings_count_as_due_process.php


aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Soliloquy]

So... whatever process the White House takes in deciding to kill U.S. citizens is by default due process.

Thaaaat... doesn't sound frightening at all

 

[Mathias]

well that's a load of horseshit.

might as well roll in the KGB and be done with it.

 

[GasBandit]

Sounds familiar. "If the president does it, it's not illegal." - Richard Milhouse Nixon

 

[Soliloquy]

You know, if you're a diehard party-line democrat, I think the best thing to ask yourself in these potential abuse-of-power situations is "would I want to give a Republican president that power?"

Because some day, sooner or later, a Republican will be president again. And he will hold whatever powers the presidents before him had.

The inverse goes for diehard Republicans, of course.

 

[GasBandit]

You know, if you're a diehard party-line democrat, I think the best thing to ask yourself in these potential abuse-of-power situations is "would I want to give a Republican president that power?"

Because some day, sooner or later, a Republican will be president again. And he will hold whatever powers the presidents before him had.

The inverse goes for diehard Republicans, of course.

Not the inverse, the same. The same goes for republicans, I think you meant.

 

[Gared]

How about, if you're a diehard party-line voter from either party, the best thing to ask yourself is, "Should I continue to be a diehard party-line voter, or should I start thinking for myself and voting my conscience and learning about the decisions I'm about to make?"

 

[Krisken]

Wow. I still don't see how this administration is much different than the last.

 

[GasBandit]

On a related note, seems the FAA has been ordered to come up with policies to let drones fly in US civil airspace by the end of 2015. Huh. Wonder what happens in 2016 that (government) people could be so hot and bothered about it to make sure drones are in the air by then.
Added at: 17:55

Wow. I still don't see how this administration is much different than the last.

Ironic considering how McCain was the one cast as the "de facto 3rd term for Bush," eh?

 

[Krisken]

On a related note, seems the FAA has been ordered to come up with policies to let drones fly in US civil airspace by the end of 2015. Huh. Wonder what happens in 2016 that (government) people could be so hot and bothered about it to make sure drones are in the air by then.
Added at: 17:55

Ironic considering how McCain was the one cast as the "de facto 3rd term for Bush," eh?

Doesn't mean he would have been better, now does it.

 

[GasBandit]

Doesn't mean he would have been better, now does it.

But I thought what was important was change. That was, after all, the whole argument?

Never mind me, I'm still just the bitter forum Libertarian grumbling about our single-digit-if-we're-lucky returns.

Keep voting for John Jackson (D) or Jack Johnson (R) and pretending you actually have exercised a meaningful choice.

 

[Krisken]

But I thought what was important was change. That was, after all, the whole argument?

Never mind me, I'm still just the bitter forum Libertarian grumbling about our single-digit-if-we're-lucky returns.

Keep voting for John Jackson (D) or Jack Johnson (R) and pretending you actually have exercised a meaningful choice.

Oh, you're right. I should be voting for someone who I ABSOLUTELY DON'T AGREE WITH and wouldn't compromise for the betterment of the country. That's definitely a better alternative than how things are. Keep voting Libertarian and pretending you are the one spark of brilliance who knows what's best for the country.

 

[Gared]

Pfft. I've long since given up the idea that any vote I cast has any significance.

 

[Soliloquy]

Not the inverse, the same. The same goes for republicans, I think you meant.

So, Diehard Republicans should ask themselves whether they'd want a Republican president to hold those powers as well?

 

[Soliloquy]

On a related note, seems the FAA has been ordered to come up with policies to let drones fly in US civil airspace by the end of 2015. Huh. Wonder what happens in 2016 that (government) people could be so hot and bothered about it to make sure drones are in the air by then.
Added at: 17:55

Ironic considering how McCain was the one cast as the "de facto 3rd term for Bush," eh?

Wait, what? Seriously?

Okay... I really need to start making plans to be out of the country by 2016. I'm not even sure I'm joking.

 

[GasBandit]

So, Diehard Republicans should ask themselves whether they'd want a Republican president to hold those powers as well?

That's not the inversion, never mind, it's semantics

Oh, you're right. I should be voting for someone who I ABSOLUTELY DON'T AGREE WITH and wouldn't compromise for the betterment of the country. That's definitely a better alternative than how things are. Keep voting Libertarian and pretending you are the one spark of brilliance who knows what's best for the country.

Say what you will about them, a Libertarian wouldn't be using drones to kill US citizens while redefining due process.

 

[Soliloquy]

That's not the inversion, never mind, it's semantics

Would it be converse, then? I think that's more accurate...

Whichever one is equivalent to "vice versa." That's the one I mean.

 

[Krisken]

That's not the inversion, never mind, it's semantics



Say what you will about them, a Libertarian wouldn't be using drones to kill US citizens while redefining due process.

You're right. It's the other crazy stupid stuff they advocate which make my brain explode.

::Reads article:: Jesus fucking christ, where does it say the Obama administration is pushing for this?

 

[strawman]

On a related note, seems the FAA has been ordered to come up with policies to let drones fly in US civil airspace by the end of 2015. Huh. Wonder what happens in 2016 that (government) people could be so hot and bothered about it to make sure drones are in the air by then.
Added at: 17:55

Ironic considering how McCain was the one cast as the "de facto 3rd term for Bush," eh?

It's something radio control hobbyists have been pushing for years, but now companies with real lobbying money want to be able to fly drones. For instance, wouldn't it have been nice to have aerial coverage of Katrina damage that updated every few hours, rather than every day? Aerial cell towers. Land surveys. ETc, etc, etc.

I hardly think the military has any need for this legislation - they can fly drones here all they want, they are military aircraft with pilots (remote, but pilots, nonetheless) and flight plans properly filed, or processes to fly without flight plans when required.

This new legislation is primarily for commercial interests. Imagine google air view. They've been going pretty slowly with cars, but if they can start getting unmanned drones to fly the highways they can get realtime traffic updates that are much better than current techniques. They can 3d map buildings and regions much faster.

Weather ballons are currently allowed, but they drift with the wind, The weather service also has satellites, but they only take planes up for special weather patterns. Imagine if they could throw a few hundred $100 drones in the air for a tornado watch, and get significantly better data and warnings out.

People might need to start worrying about more privacy issues, since fencing won't be as seclusive, but it's hardly something to become paranoid about and consider conspiracy theories.

 

[Necronic]

“Due process and judicial process are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security,” Holder said. “The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process.”

I heard that quote this morning on the drive to work and I was like "Wait what?". That's a potentially terrifying precident.

 

[Gared]

See, this is why I like Stienman's perspective on things. I never even considered commercial applications for aerial drones, and with last Friday's tornado outbreak fresh in my mind, better weather system warnings would be very welcome indeed. Hell, they may even help out here on the coast, since several of NOAA's oceanographic weather tracking buoys have been lost in recent years and they're too expensive to replace all at once, which means that our weather has been less predictable recently.

On the other hand, there's that thing out of Texas where the Sheriff's department was attempting to show off their brand new $300k drone, and crashed it into one of their SWAT vehicles, so while I'm a little less concerned about privacy matters, I'm a little more concerned about safety. We don't all drive Bearcats, after all.

 

[GasBandit]

 

[Necronic]

If headcrabs are wrong I don't want to be right.

 

[SpecialKO]

*Reads OP*

...fuck.

 

[Soliloquy]

Well, if the combine's coming, I'm glad I recently invested in a crowbar. And for $10 at Big Lots, you too can protect yourself from headcrabs!

 

[fade]

That's not the inversion, never mind, it's semantics



Say what you will about them, a Libertarian wouldn't be using drones to kill US citizens while redefining due process.

I don't believe it for a second. They would immediately conform to the system like all the rest. After all, you should be able to make the same argument for a democrat.

 

[Eriol]

Well, if the combine's coming, I'm glad I recently invested in a crowbar. And for $10 at Big Lots, you too can protect yourself from headcrabs!

I think I'd be investing in a really spiky hat that I wore all the time.