Military use is fine against rethugs but obama will drone us hippies too-oh no!

[Tucker]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022473503

SpartanDem (4,164 posts)

View profile
Do people think President couldn't use the military if one of these "patriot" groups attacked?

Last edited Thu Mar 7, 2013, 02:38 PM USA/ET - Edit history (5)
First, the use troops on US soil is not without historical precedent take John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry it was the Marines who were called out to deal with the matter. But let's put it in modern terms we can understand, you may have seen a recent report by the Southern Poverty Law Center that the number of militia and patriot groups are at an all time high. What if these people, who've been stockpiling weapons for years, attacked a federal building thinking it's going to start the revolution? John Brown's raid consisted of 20 men, if 20 of these yahoos started shooting, I think the use of the military would be justified.

I think we have too many people having visions of the President just randomly bombing their neighbor. In his response, Holder sited Pearl Harbor and 9/11 and in my hypothetical scenario, these are situations in which the shit is literally hitting the fan. We're talking about situations bordering on war/insurrection. Presidents in the past have used these powers during "extraordinary circumstance" be it Washington during the Whiskey Rebellion or Buchanan at Harper's Ferry. So the idea that Obama was articulating some new imperial power is simply wrong.

UPDATE: AG Holder issued a statement today saying what I was trying to say with this thread.

Dear Senator Paul:
It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: “Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?” The answer to that question is no.

If obama wanted to use drones on US soil, which I believe he does, he would just fire Holder and get another puppet.

Kalidurga (4,449 posts)
1. My understanding is they have targeted Al Queda and the Taliban with the law...

View profile
But, I have no problem with the military force being used on any terrorist group. Bullets really don't care what the ideology of the shooter or the target is.

Keep that in mind when the bullets are coming at you.

FirstLight (8,302 posts)
13. my thoughts exactly

View profile
while I understand the drones, etc could be used to target the militia nuts....it's more likely these laws and actions would be used to squelch dissent... the hippies and peaceful protestors are always the first to be targeted, IMO

Actually a good deterrent for hippies is a firetruck and a hose.

TwilightGardener (38,807 posts)
3. If Clinton saw McVeigh coming, and law enforcement wasn't able to

View profile
apprehend him before he put his plan into motion, I would hope either the FBI or local law enforcement would have taken him out. Presidents do need to protect us from enemies foreign and domestic--they have always had that power. Obama isn't claiming any new powers to assassinate before any act is carried out, just because we have drone technology.

What happens when the President is the enemy?

The Magistrate (80,198 posts)
5. There Is No Real Question About This, Sir: The Military Can Suppress Insurrection

He needs to stop thinking that the policies of obamaville are national polocies.

He needs to understandPosse Comitatus.

Warren Stupidity (31,091 posts)
17. if they arrayed themselves for battle and engaged the government in war?

View profile
no problem.

Are they sitting around in their houses thinking about it? Problem.

bluedigger (9,278 posts)
21. I expect the President to act as needed to preserve the Union.

View profile
If his actions are thought unConstitutional after the fact he can defend them in a Court of Law and hope for jury nullification or face the consequences.

The stupid is strong with this one.

[DumbAss Tanker]

There are already far more militarized police in "Tactical" or SWAT units from Federal, State, County, and metropolitan agancies than there are military ground forces available within the US for any such madness, it seems incredibly unnecessary from the git-go.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

*cough* http://www.owsexposed.com/tag/terrorists/ *cough*

[Dori]

TwilightGardener (38,807 posts)
3. If Clinton saw McVeigh coming, and law enforcement wasn't able to

View profile
apprehend him before he put his plan into motion, I would hope either the FBI or local law enforcement would have taken him out. Presidents do need to protect us from enemies foreign and domestic--they have always had that power. Obama isn't claiming any new powers to assassinate before any act is carried out, just because we have drone technology.

Yeah, it's a real shame Clinton and Reno didn't have drones at Ruby Ridge.   

[Vagabond]

The military operating drones in a training role is okay.  The military and CIA using drones to conduct operations in the USA should be illegal except under extremely circumstances, such as a lit fuse or ticking time bomb.  That's reasonable.  Dissembling and giving evasive answers was a stupid thing to do on Holder's part.

Law Enforcement is another issue.  I can't think of a single good reason that any law enforcement agency should be operating drones at all.  It just isn't necessary.

If Law Enforcement were approved to operate drones, you can bet that they will still using them to make "compliance sweeps" in their jurisdiction using the drones to search and then getting warrants based on illegal searches.