1984...?

[NCRAVEN]

Was George Orwell on to something?

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...-Carrying-Guns

[HoustonRaven]

Scary stuff for sure.

I'd say at least we still have due process, but after Holder declaring that drone strikes on US soil against US citizens is perfectly legal, I am not sure any more.

[NCRAVEN]

I am not some loon thinking the government is out to get anyone who disagrees with them, but damn with all the crap like this it's getting harder and harder not to be.

[HoustonRaven]

I am not some loon thinking the government is out to get anyone who disagrees with them, but damn with all the crap like this it's getting harder and harder not to be.

[wickedsolo]

The only reason they even have uav's is because of the Mexican cartels.

Sent from my DROID X2 using Forum Runner

[NCRAVEN]

The only reason they even have uav's is because of the Mexican cartels.

Sent from my DROID X2 using Forum Runner

Clarification?

[wickedsolo]

Clarification?

I'm not sure what you're asking.

Customs and Border Patrol have been using uav technology for a few years now along the Mexican border looking for weapons, weapons caches, drugs, immigrants, etc.

Drones being able to detect someone carrying a weapon is nothing knew. They can detect weapons caches buried in the ground among many things.

I think what really needs to be thought about here is whether or not the US government would specifically target US citizens. I cant honestly answer that, but if you are a law abiding citizen then I would like to think it wouldnt matter.

Sent from my DROID X2 using Forum Runner

[NCRAVEN]

I'm not sure what you're asking.

Customs and Border Patrol have been using uav technology for a few years now along the Mexican border looking for weapons, weapons caches, drugs, immigrants, etc.

Drones being able to detect someone carrying a weapon is nothing knew. They can detect weapons caches buried in the ground among many things.

I think what really needs to be thought about here is whether or not the US government would specifically target US citizens. I cant honestly answer that, but if you are a law abiding citizen then I would like to think it wouldnt matter.

Sent from my DROID X2 using Forum Runner

I was just asking you to clarify why the government has them because of the cartels, which you did.

And do I think the U.S. Government would target law abiding citizens? No, not really, I mean if they were to use a drone to kill a US citizen it would have to be done by another citizen who presses the button to fire whatever weapon it was armed with.

But as HR mentioned Eric Holder saying it's legal to use a drone on a citizen on US soil, at some point down the road, it could become a slippery slope.

[HoustonRaven]

I think what really needs to be thought about here is whether or not the US government would specifically target US citizens. I cant honestly answer that, but if you are a law abiding citizen then I would like to think it wouldnt matter.

Holder has already said the practice is legal. Why would he even make the comment if they were not planning on using drones in this capacity down the road?

Now combine that with the gun control panic and the new technology with drones having the ability to detect people who are carrying a gun (a practice that's perfectly legal in states not named Illinois), it's not very hard to connect the dots and see this is a recipe for innocent folks getting killed / hurt / persecuted when they've done nothing wrong.

[NCRAVEN]

Holder has already said the practice is legal. Why would he even make the comment if they were not planning on using drones in this capacity down the road?

Now combine that with the gun control panic and the new technology with drones having the ability to detect people who are carrying a gun (a practice that's perfectly legal in states not named Illinois), it's not very hard to connect the dots and see this is a recipe for innocent folks getting killed / hurt / persecuted when they've done nothing wrong.

The main thing it says to me when you add it all up, AT THE VERY LEAST is:

[wickedsolo]

Holder has already said the practice is legal. Why would he even make the comment if they were not planning on using drones in this capacity down the road?

Now combine that with the gun control panic and the new technology with drones having the ability to detect people who are carrying a gun (a practice that's perfectly legal in states not named Illinois), it's not very hard to connect the dots and see this is a recipe for innocent folks getting killed / hurt / persecuted when they've done nothing wrong.

A bit OT, but didnt you give me some flack last year when I posted some stuff about Obama's secret drone war?

Sent from my DROID X2 using Forum Runner

[Dade]

It's a slippery slope we're on. While I agree that better and new technology needs to be used to track down criminals, this is blurring the line of civil liberties.

Like the comic says "Who watches the watchmen?"

[HoustonRaven]

A bit OT, but didnt you give me some flack last year when I posted some stuff about Obama's secret drone war?

Perhaps. But I'd like to see the context. IIRC, it was in connection with using drones to catch a drug kingpin or something.

[wickedsolo]

Perhaps. But I'd like to see the context. IIRC, it was in connection with using drones to catch a drug kingpin or something.

No, it was basically drone strikes in foreign countries (Yemen, IIRC) that we werent even really engaged with. The issue, as I recall, was basically committing acts of war against other countries without the approval of Congress.

Wrong or right, there is a process that just doesnt seem to get followed.

Sent from my DROID X2 using Forum Runner

[wickedsolo]

It's a slippery slope we're on. While I agree that better and new technology needs to be used to track down criminals, this is blurring the line of civil liberties.

Like the comic says "Who watches the watchmen?"

Absolutely.

A lot of these programs are ridiculously classified too, so it isnt like anything could actually be proven IF civil liberties are being violated.

Sent from my DROID X2 using Forum Runner

[HoustonRaven]

No, it was basically drone strikes in foreign countries (Yemen, IIRC) that we werent even really engaged with. The issue, as I recall, was basically committing acts of war against other countries without the approval of Congress.

Wrong or right, there is a process that just doesnt seem to get followed.

I think debate changes when it's on foreign soil. An unarmed drone flew above UBL's compound the days leading up to his whacking. I am totally OK with that. And just as I'd be fine with a smart bomb being used to take out a terrorist riding down the road in some middle eastern city, ally or not. The War Powers Act and other corresponding acts of Congress gives the President (going all the way back to Kennedy) the power with limited military action sans Congressional approval.

Now using a drone to take someone out overseas may be a huge diplomatic debacle, but that's another debate.

When it's our own government, targeting US citizens, it's a completely different ball of wax. Even the biggest crook scum bag in the US deserves due process. That's guaranteed in the Constitution. The prospect of the Executive branch being judge, jury and possibly executioner of US citizens is incredibly chilling and totally unacceptable.

[NCRAVEN]

Everyone should check out Rand Paul filibustering and talking about NDAA, he may touch on drones too.

Good stuff.

http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN2/

[NCRAVEN]

Absolutely.

A lot of these programs are ridiculously classified too, so it isnt like anything could actually be proven IF civil liberties are being violated.

Sent from my DROID X2 using Forum Runner

I'd think detecting if I have a gun as I am walking down the street with no other reason than you can, would likely violate the 4th amendment, if only a little.

[wickedsolo]

I'd think detecting if I have a gun as I am walking down the street with no other reason than you can, would likely violate the 4th amendment, if only a little.

How do you prove that they are though?

If they're targeting us gun owners, do you honestly believe that information would be made available to the public?

This is similar to folks claiming the NSA monitors all of our cell phone conversations. Could they? Sure. The technology exists for them to easily do that. Are they? According to them and every other politician, nope and good luck proving otherwise.

Sent from my DROID X2 using Forum Runner

[wickedsolo]

I think debate changes when it's on foreign soil. An unarmed drone flew above UBL's compound the days leading up to his whacking. I am totally OK with that. And just as I'd be fine with a smart bomb being used to take out a terrorist riding down the road in some middle eastern city, ally or not. The War Powers Act and other corresponding acts of Congress gives the President (going all the way back to Kennedy) the power with limited military action sans Congressional approval.

Now using a drone to take someone out overseas may be a huge diplomatic debacle, but that's another debate.

When it's our own government, targeting US citizens, it's a completely different ball of wax. Even the biggest crook scum bag in the US deserves due process. That's guaranteed in the Constitution. The prospect of the Executive branch being judge, jury and possibly executioner of US citizens is incredibly chilling and totally unacceptable.

I guess it depends on one's interpretation of "limited" military action.

And I agree that the constitution is becoming a meaningless piece of paper with certain aspects.

Sent from my DROID X2 using Forum Runner