Obama: The rules for drone strikes are different here in the U.S. than they are overseas

posted at 6:01 pm on February 15, 2013 by Allahpundit

A nice catch by the Examiner’s Charlie Spiering, especially after Rand Paul threatened to block Brennan unless/until he provides a straight answer on whether drones can be used against U.S. citizens here in the United States. This doesn’t quite qualify as a straight answer but it’s the closest we’ve come yet:

“The rules outside of the United States are going to be different than the rules inside the United States,” Obama explained. “In part because our capacity to capture a terrorist inside the United States are very different than in the foothills or mountains of Afghanistan or Pakistan.”

I mentioned that in my post about Paul and Brennan a few days ago. Because infeasibility of capture is one of the three criteria for ordering a drone strike, in theory the DOJ could declare that a terrorist located inside the U.S. is always, by definition, within reach of law enforcement and therefore the infeasibility requirement can never be satisfied here. Obama’s hinting at that point — but he never quite makes it. And in hindsight, it amazes me that the “white paper” on using drones against Americans that leaked to NBC never explicitly states it either. The White House knew it’d take heat for its judgments on Awlaki once that memo came out; one way they could have reassured the public and bought some goodwill would have been by including a blanket rule that armed drones can never, under any circumstances, be used in American airspace. They didn’t, even though Obama’s vaguely insinuating here that that’s essentially their policy. How come?

If you haven’t yet, read Kevin Williamson’s take on the perils of letting the president decide unilaterally whether an accused terrorist has “taken up arms” against America. No one disputes that Awlaki was a bad guy and master propagandist; the dispute is over whether that’s all he was or whether he was moving jihadi pieces around the chessboard on the operational side, as the White House insists. (For details on his alleged role in planning Abdulmutallab’s attempted “underwear bombing,” see pages 12-14 of this PDF.)


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

And yet, somehow, I am unconvinced.

Cindy Munford on February 15, 2013 at 6:03 PM

“The rules outside of the United States are going to be different than the rules inside the United States,” Obama explained. “In part because our capacity to capture a terrorist inside the United States are very different than in the foothills or mountains of Afghanistan or Pakistan.”

Note that due process and other constitutional issues don’t figure into his reasoning.

obladioblada on February 15, 2013 at 6:04 PM

But will Obama pinky swear?

portlandon on February 15, 2013 at 6:06 PM

This is a ‘constitutional scholar’, an incredible Punk.

Schadenfreude on February 15, 2013 at 6:06 PM

So since it is now known that Dear Leader does not engage when there is a crisis…who would actually make the decision on who, when and where to drone strike?

d1carter on February 15, 2013 at 6:06 PM

“This is something I’ve struggled with throughout my presidency,” said Obama. “The problem is that I’m the president of the United States, I’m not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed.”

Schadenfreude on February 15, 2013 at 6:07 PM

Every American citizen is on double secret probation.

portlandon on February 15, 2013 at 6:07 PM

“The rules outside of the United States are going to be different than the rules inside the United States,” Obama explained. “In part because our capacity to capture a terrorist inside the United States are very different than in the foothills or mountains of Afghanistan or Pakistan.”

Because everything Obama says he always means.

The only difference between using drones on his enemies over there and using them on his enemies over here will be the GPS co-ordinates.

JellyToast on February 15, 2013 at 6:08 PM

The rules for drone strikes are different here in the U.S. than they are overseas

For today, anyway.

Step one – substitute ‘terrorists’ for ‘AQ’ in the Congressionally-approved AUMF. Not a big leap, right? These guys have all kinds of names. We shouldn’t be limited because of a name. A terrorist threat is a terrorist threat. No one argues.

Step two – define ‘terrorist’ to mean anyone actively opposing the government.

Ka-boom.

Washington Nearsider on February 15, 2013 at 6:08 PM

Wait just one damn minute here….

Obama has just said that the military/police/whomever will use drones to fire upon persons/US citizens/possible or probable terrorists inside the United States.

In what circumstances is this going to be possible?

There will be innocent collaterals…blown to smithereens.

Inside the United States.

And folks are fine with this?

Because the “rules” are not the same as they are in Pakistan?

Pakistan is a war crime waiting for somebody to step up to the plate and call it so…and then prosecute under any one of several laws/treaties and agreements on the subject.

Using armed drones inside the United States?

Oh, well.

That silly old Constitution thing written by those old dead white guys who probably owned slaves is totally meaningless in these modern forward-looking progressive times.

OK.

No biggie.

My bad.

coldwarrior on February 15, 2013 at 6:10 PM

who would actually make the decision on who, when and where to drone strike?

d1carter on February 15, 2013 at 6:06 PM

The Administration refuses to define the single individual who has the authority to pass sentences of death on Americans. They also refuse to define the requirements for getting one’s name on the list.

So we have an unnamed individual using an undefined set of rules to condemn American citizens to execution.

Does anyone else have a problem with that?

Washington Nearsider on February 15, 2013 at 6:10 PM

who would actually make the decision on who, when and where to drone strike?

d1carter on February 15, 2013 at 6:06 PM

Obama. Unless something goes wrong and it becomes a political liability, then it will have been the fault of somebody else. Likely the “Congressional Republicans”

forest on February 15, 2013 at 6:10 PM

“This is something I’ve struggled with throughout my presidency,” said Obama. “The problem is that I’m the president of the United States, I’m not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed.”

The fact that Obama describes this ^^ as “struggle” (he’s “struggled with” it) pretty well describes what he’s about. It’s a real struggle for him to be restrained and not to run completely amok with the nation, the lives of Americans, to be civil, to be reasonable, to be lawful, to be a servant such as he campaigned he wanted to be and would be if elected…

…it’s a “struggle” for him to be contained, to keep all that wrong-desire and wrong-want in check…struggling to be sane, struggling to be reasonable, to be observant of the job’s restraints, “struggling”…

Obama, the monster. That’s what that admission of his reveals, he’s monstrous. It’s a real struggle for him to try to hide it.

Lourdes on February 15, 2013 at 6:14 PM

Pybus said he is “very disappointed with the few people who use their SEAL cachet for self-serving purposes,

Yup. Couldn’t agree more and I am not former SF but it is a running joked that DevGru have a major problem in this area.

Julie linked sofrep – that says it all.

CorporatePiggy on February 15, 2013 at 6:15 PM

forest on February 15, 2013 at 6:10 PM

Oh, it’s OK…Obama will take full responsibility…until his Secretary of State or Defense or somebody takes full responsibility…then a handful of lower level GS-types will get fired..but they really won’t get fired, ‘cuz ya can’t actually fire them…but, rest assured…it is all good.

And, what difference does it make? Right?

Somehow, we’ve heard this all before.

coldwarrior on February 15, 2013 at 6:15 PM

What is the difference? Sounds like the policy on both is that he’ll do whatever he wants, irrespective of constitution or statute.

besser tot als rot on February 15, 2013 at 6:15 PM

Making it up as he goes.

petefrt on February 15, 2013 at 6:15 PM

The Obama terms in office are going to be known in future times as the U.S.A. Trials. If we survive him.

Lourdes on February 15, 2013 at 6:15 PM

I’ll probably catch hell for this, but I’m actually inclined to believe Obama here. I mean, really if they discover that there’s an Al Qaeda cell leader (regardless of citizenship status) hiding out in suburban Dallas, are they going to send the FBI to kick in his door and detain him for questioning or send in a drone and level half the neighborhood?

LukeinNE on February 15, 2013 at 6:17 PM

Stingers for everyone – natural consequence.

OldEnglish on February 15, 2013 at 6:17 PM

Somehow that doesn’t make me feel any better.

gophergirl on February 15, 2013 at 6:19 PM

LukeinNE on February 15, 2013 at 6:17 PM

Can’t use a drone to arrest somebody…so…I’ll take level half the neighborhood for $200, Alex.

coldwarrior on February 15, 2013 at 6:19 PM

Who is to ever say if Obama does use or ever has used drone-strikage against American citizens on U.S. soil?

I mean, how would we ever know if that has or will take place? Does anyone really think that information, should it or as it may have already occurred, would be revealed to the public?

Lourdes on February 15, 2013 at 6:19 PM

I’ll probably catch hell for this, but I’m actually inclined to believe Obama here. I mean, really if they discover that there’s an Al Qaeda cell leader (regardless of citizenship status) hiding out in suburban Dallas, are they going to send the FBI to kick in his door and detain him for questioning or send in a drone and level half the neighborhood?

LukeinNE on February 15, 2013 at 6:17 PM

Aside from an inherent drive to disbelieve anything Obama says, I’ll try to answer you using Obama’s record.

He’s never captured anyone he could kill. Ever.

Washington Nearsider on February 15, 2013 at 6:20 PM

I’ll probably catch hell for this, but I’m actually inclined to believe Obama here. I mean, really if they discover that there’s an Al Qaeda cell leader (regardless of citizenship status) hiding out in suburban Dallas, are they going to send the FBI to kick in his door and detain him for questioning or send in a drone and level half the neighborhood?

LukeinNE on February 15, 2013 at 6:17 PM

Honestly, if Hasan can be identified by Obama as having engaged in “workplace violence,” thus dismissing his obvious associations and incentives in his violence committed upon U.S. citizens/military, I doubt very strongly that Obama is too worried about possible or potential “Al Qaeda cell leader…hiding out in suburban Dallas.”

Obama is far more concerned with and about American citizens who go to church, read the Bible, own guns, aren’t on public assistance, things like that.

Lourdes on February 15, 2013 at 6:22 PM

Aside from an inherent drive to disbelieve anything Obama says, I’ll try to answer you using Obama’s record.

He’s never captured anyone he could kill. Ever.

Washington Nearsider on February 15, 2013 at 6:20 PM

Means, preventing further discovery.

Which I’m sure you recognize already, just saying.

Lourdes on February 15, 2013 at 6:24 PM

Obama is far more concerned with and about American citizens who go to church, read the Bible, own guns, aren’t on public assistance, things like that.

Lourdes on February 15, 2013 at 6:22 PM

Understood, but to the best of my knowledge, he hasn’t used drones to blow those people up yet.

LukeinNE on February 15, 2013 at 6:24 PM

Yeah, and no President has ever armed cartels with automatic AK-15 sooper assault cop killer weapons either, right? But sh!t happens.

antipc on February 15, 2013 at 6:25 PM

Obama: ‘There has never been a drone used on an American citizen, on American soil’

“The rules outside of the United States are going to be different than the rules inside the United States,” Obama explained. “In part because our capacity to capture a terrorist inside the United States are very different than in the foothills or mountains of Afghanistan or Pakistan.”

Congress has abdicated its responsibility.
The courts are increasingly politicized.
Obama and his clown circus are totally untrustworthy.

I am really not happy with the way this is trending.

I have no problem with the Awlaki strike and I think it was perfectly legitimate. He was Al-Qaeda and that is all it takes.

I suspect however that this administration may be trying to blur the actual reasoning behind the legitimacy of such a strike to give themselves greater latitude in the future. It should be justified purely on military grounds, and yet they keep trotting out reasons that are largely pointless unless he wants to establish that rationale as cause for action.

sharrukin on February 15, 2013 at 6:25 PM

I’ll probably catch hell for this, but I’m actually inclined to believe Obama here. I mean, really if they discover that there’s an Al Qaeda cell leader (regardless of citizenship status) hiding out in suburban Dallas, are they going to send the FBI to kick in his door and detain him for questioning or send in a drone and level half the neighborhood?

LukeinNE on February 15, 2013 at 6:17 PM

Our constitutional rights should depend on Obama’s whim.

And to add to Washington Nearsider’s rebuttal, I’d add: Waco.

besser tot als rot on February 15, 2013 at 6:26 PM

This whole drone thing over the U.S. is just a ton of SHINOLA.

ANYONE, ANYONE in Congress pitching a fit about it?

PappyD61 on February 15, 2013 at 6:26 PM

Old and Busted: SWATing
New Hotness: Droning

Christien on February 15, 2013 at 6:27 PM

Okay, I’ll throw one out here…..

Soros has been quoted as saying that the U.S. should be brought down in an managed decline.

So, taking away our guns, but……….but………having the Feds ammo up helps to accomplish what exactly?

PappyD61 on February 15, 2013 at 6:28 PM

Our constitutional rights should not depend on Obama’s whim.

besser tot als rot on February 15, 2013 at 6:26 PM

besser tot als rot on February 15, 2013 at 6:29 PM

Can’t wait for Holder and Napolitano to publish the new Nuremberg Laws Regulations defining terms….

In my lifetime, I never ever imagined that a sitting President of the United States would try to emulate every tinpot dictator I spent a lifetime operating against…using the same rationalizations…trashing the rule of law, Constitutional Law, and substituting Rex Lex to justify everything…

And, worse, having over half the population being perfectly fine with it…because…they got more important things to tend to…like Wednesday night being the worst ratings for American Idol ever…and their wonderful President is like sooo uber-cool and stuff…like awesome, even.

A true American tragedy.

And in another thread we are told that we have to be civil, and decent, and nice, and be friends with them…

People who are trying to kill you are not your friends.

People who support people who are trying to kill you are not your friends.

People who openly, willingly, brazenly trash the United States Constitution are no friends of the United States of America.

coldwarrior on February 15, 2013 at 6:29 PM

Rand Paul threatened to block Brennan

This needs to happen. Lose the threat Buddha and ice this ass hole. He’s bad news for the country. Buddha!!!

Bmore on February 15, 2013 at 6:31 PM

What a coincidence that Barky wants to confiscate our firearms at the same time that a “legal opinion” says it’s just dandy to kill American citizens with drone strikes. How conveeeeeenient.

Philly on February 15, 2013 at 6:33 PM

“The Administration refuses to define the single individual who has the authority to pass sentences of death on Americans. They also refuse to define the requirements for getting one’s name on the list.

So we have an unnamed individual using an undefined set of rules to condemn American citizens to execution.

Does anyone else have a problem with that?”

Washington Nearsider on February 15, 2013 at 6:10 PM

What, you don’t trust Big Sis?

Another Drew on February 15, 2013 at 6:37 PM

I’m totally persuaded Obama would love using armed drones in the US but Posse Comitatus prevents that. Any violation would likely not, for now, have much support.

But what if a large police department had a drone and rockets? They may not get Hellfires, which cost a mint per round, but I’m sure 2.75″ unguided rockets are cheap.

Obama doesn’t have to order the strike himself. He just has to look the other way if a police force uses armed drones.

Liam on February 15, 2013 at 6:37 PM

FWIW, DrewM from AOSHQ took Kevin Williamson apart on Twitter over this issue on Twitter this afternoon.

Purple Fury on February 15, 2013 at 6:38 PM

What, you don’t trust Big Sis?

Another Drew on February 15, 2013 at 6:37 PM

Obama?

Or Napolitano?

coldwarrior on February 15, 2013 at 6:39 PM

Liam on February 15, 2013 at 6:37 PM

Posse Comitatus ended at Waco.

Wesley Clark and a contingent from Fort Campbell were on scene as “advisors.” Provided some equipment, as well.

coldwarrior on February 15, 2013 at 6:44 PM

Headlines from the future on Obama’s Drone strikes on US Soil:

1. “A large natural gas line explosion destroyed a house today, killing all its occupants.”

2. “A natural gas pocket cause a large explosion today in rural area destroying a farm and killing 6.”

3. “A Semi truck hauling nitro glycerine caused a massive explosion in a commercial district today, destroying a building and killing 16.”

portlandon on February 15, 2013 at 6:45 PM

I’m totally persuaded Obama would love using armed drones in the US but Posse Comitatus prevents that. Any violation would likely not, for now, have much support.

Liam on February 15, 2013 at 6:37 PM

Why not? He’s violated the Constitution, federal law and campaign promises/public statements with zero squawking from his base. They’ll support anything he does. He’s pragmatic doncha know?

obladioblada on February 15, 2013 at 6:48 PM

What, you don’t trust Big Sis?

Another Drew on February 15, 2013 at 6:37 PM

I have yet to see anyone in this Administration act in a way that would lead me to believe I could trust them.

Washington Nearsider on February 15, 2013 at 6:50 PM

I’m totally persuaded Obama would love using armed drones in the US but Posse Comitatus prevents that. Any violation would likely not, for now, have much support.

Liam on February 15, 2013 at 6:37 PM

Waco.

Washington Nearsider on February 15, 2013 at 6:51 PM

portlandon on February 15, 2013 at 6:45 PM

And the envirowhackos will eat it up…fossil fuels kill!!!

Gotta ban them, ya know.

Not sure about hauling nitro in a semi, though….had a town just south of here (family connection it its founding) just disappear one afternoon about 100 years ago…small wagon load of nitro tipped over when a train spooked the horse team. [Big oil center around here before Spindletop first gushed.]

Ii would hope that they have tightened up on transporting the stuff…by now.

The alibi has to be plausible.

That’s how we got them to crack back in the day.

:-)

coldwarrior on February 15, 2013 at 6:52 PM

Obama explained. “In part because our capacity to capture a terrorist inside the United States are very different than in the foothills or mountains of Afghanistan or Pakistan.”

“Our capacity” …”are”???
This genius has a frequent problem with subject-verb agreement.

onlineanalyst on February 15, 2013 at 6:54 PM

Why not? He’s violated the Constitution, federal law and campaign promises/public statements with zero squawking from his base. They’ll support anything he does. He’s pragmatic doncha know?

obladioblada on February 15, 2013 at 6:48 PM

I keep hearing about that magical pragmatism, but never see it. But I saw a unicorn in the yard just the other day…

Right now, I can’t see a direct drone strike with a military controller guiding the thing. Of course that could change at any second, especially if Obama becomes convinced he can get away with it. I can’t say how many would oppose such a move, but I like to think there are enough to preclude him doing something like that. For now, at least.

Liam on February 15, 2013 at 6:55 PM

Those foothills in the Appalachians and the Cascades could be problematic, Obozo.

onlineanalyst on February 15, 2013 at 6:55 PM

Headlines from the future on Obama’s Drone strikes on US Soil:

portlandon on February 15, 2013 at 6:45 PM

An Atlanta Police Department interagency DHS Spydog drone was on hand to assist when a radical group calling for the overthrow of the US government was within hours of committing a terrorist act. 7 individuals of the extremist group are known to have been killed. Banned assault style weapons, explosives, and munitions have been found. Also found on scene are significant quantities of cocaine and child pornography.

sharrukin on February 15, 2013 at 6:55 PM

Waco.

Washington Nearsider on February 15, 2013 at 6:51 PM

As I recall, the FBI ran the assault with military help. But troops didn’t go in, far as I know. But you may well be right; I don’t like how that whole thing was done at all.

Liam on February 15, 2013 at 6:58 PM

Also found on scene are significant quantities of cocaine Bibles and child pornography home schooling materials, anti-abortion literature and NRA membership cards.

sharrukin on February 15, 2013 at 6:55 PM

Much better, now. :-)

coldwarrior on February 15, 2013 at 6:58 PM

“The rules outside of the United States are going to be different than the rules inside the United States,” Obama explained.

Going to be different? Going to be? When did the rules change?

Further, when Obama insinuates publicly that impossibility of capture is the distinction to be drawn between inside and outside of the U.S., you can be absolutely certain that in private there is no distinction at all. Especially since the kill list is secret.

He does in fact view himself as the Emperor of the United States.

Curtiss on February 15, 2013 at 6:59 PM

Also found on scene are significant quantities of cocaine Bibles and child pornography home schooling materials, anti-abortion literature and NRA membership cards.

sharrukin on February 15, 2013 at 6:55 PM

Much better, now. :-)

coldwarrior on February 15, 2013 at 6:58 PM

And Tea Party literature.

Liam on February 15, 2013 at 7:02 PM

coldwarrior on February 15, 2013 at 6:52 PM

The Wages of Fear?

OldEnglish on February 15, 2013 at 7:02 PM

Let’s see the rule book then, surely there is a document of some sort which spells out these rules.

Bishop on February 15, 2013 at 7:02 PM

Also found on scene are significant quantities of cocaine Bibles and child pornography home schooling materials, anti-abortion literature and NRA membership cards.

sharrukin on February 15, 2013 at 6:55 PM

Much better, now. :-)

coldwarrior on February 15, 2013 at 6:58 PM

To them the Bible would be child pornography, but seriously they would have no problem with flat out inventing whatever would smear and justify their actions.

sharrukin on February 15, 2013 at 7:02 PM

Lourdes on February 15, 2013 at 6:14 PM

Of course, it is a “struggle” (or as Michelle O says, ” shtruggle”). Obysmal said as much when he expressed dissatisfaction about the slow pace of the Senate. He wants to move his agenda lickety split.

onlineanalyst on February 15, 2013 at 7:03 PM

And if lil barry DID decide to use an armed drone against a “domestic terrorist” in the far reaches of the mountains of Idaho, or out in the middle of Montana or the Arizona desert reaches…who’s going to know about it? And who’s going to report it? The lsm obots?
Sure. Alex Jones and the rest of the conspiracy nutters will be all over the “rumors” of a drone strike…and who’ll pay attention?

Lil barry will use a drone to hit his domestic enemies as soon as he feels his position is secure enough to pull it off in secrecy and have any rumors of it put down to “conspiracy nutcases”.

Solaratov on February 15, 2013 at 7:03 PM

“In part because our capacity to capture a terrorist inside the United States are very different than in the foothills or mountains of Afghanistan or Pakistan.”

There are no foothills or mountains in the US that are not easily accessible for law enforcement.

LukeinNE. Dallas is accessible for law enforcement. There is lots of hostile terrain in the US that would make using an armed drone the method of choice. So just because he wouldn’t use a drone in a city doesn’t mean that drones in the US are off the table.

chemman on February 15, 2013 at 7:04 PM

OldEnglish on February 15, 2013 at 7:02 PM

South America…the 50′s…a bit more lax on workplace injuries and such back then.

Love Yves Montand, though. Haven’t seen that flick in decades.

coldwarrior on February 15, 2013 at 7:06 PM

Waco.

Washington Nearsider on February 15, 2013 at 6:51 PM

As I recall, the FBI ran the assault with military help. But troops didn’t go in, far as I know. But you may well be right; I don’t like how that whole thing was done at all.

Liam on February 15, 2013 at 6:58 PM

I’d argue that simply having military advisors on-station is a bridge too far. Hell, it wasn’t a big leap from advising to carpet-bombing in Vietnam.

Washington Nearsider on February 15, 2013 at 7:08 PM

“Are going to be”.
Not “are”

Keep in mind this is the guy who played with words about the directives he ordered *as soon as he heard* about what went on in Benghazi.

He never says he wouldn’t do it. He never says the rules are against it. Just the rules are doing to be different.

MayBee on February 15, 2013 at 7:10 PM

There are no foothills or mountains in the US that are not easily accessible for law enforcement.

chemman on February 15, 2013 at 7:04 PM

Eric Robert Rudolph.

Them Appalachians are still a good place to hide from “law enforcement.”

coldwarrior on February 15, 2013 at 7:11 PM

coldwarrior on February 15, 2013 at 7:06 PM

A rare movie – it had me in a cold sweat!

OldEnglish on February 15, 2013 at 7:11 PM

“On American soil”

No crap. Drones are used in the air, not on the ground, ya dummy.

drewwerd on February 15, 2013 at 7:12 PM

Eric Robert Rudolph.

Them Appalachians are still a good place to hide from “law enforcement.”

coldwarrior on February 15, 2013 at 7:11 PM

My thoughts too. On the other hand, Richard Jewell was very easy to capture.

Curtiss on February 15, 2013 at 7:14 PM

I’d argue that simply having military advisors on-station is a bridge too far. Hell, it wasn’t a big leap from advising to carpet-bombing in Vietnam.

Washington Nearsider on February 15, 2013 at 7:08 PM

I see your point; advisers could be that hair-splitting point lawyers would bicker about. Erring on the side of caution and liberty, I hope to never see a straight-up military vehicle used in a law enforcement standoff again.

Liam on February 15, 2013 at 7:15 PM

“On American soil”

No crap. Drones are used in the air, not on the ground, ya dummy.

drewwerd on February 15, 2013 at 7:12 PM

Well, he is the genius that talked about boats that go underwater.

onlineanalyst on February 15, 2013 at 7:19 PM

This is pathetic! The time has come for Conservatives to begin the ridicule of preeeezy. There is no price to pay. I saw it earlier today with Mary Katherine v Wrong Williams! Masterfully done! Also saw Steve Hayes up against that Charlie guy from the NYSlimes on Fox Report! Well done.

So much to ridicule about the preeezy with the skin thinzzzzeeeey.

dawndawn on February 15, 2013 at 7:19 PM

And if lil barry DID decide to use an armed drone against a “domestic terrorist” in the far reaches of the mountains of Idaho, or out in the middle of Montana or the Arizona desert reaches…who’s going to know about it? And who’s going to report it? The lsm obots?
Sure. Alex Jones and the rest of the conspiracy nutters will be all over the “rumors” of a drone strike…and who’ll pay attention?

Solaratov on February 15, 2013 at 7:03 PM

Exactly. Unless someone sees it, catches video/photo evidence, and manages to post it on enough places before the goon squads grab him and/or wipe everywhere he posted to (they will go so far as to nuke entire sites and blame it on hackers), who the h3ll will ever know?

Frankly I think everyone here should know how to upload stuff to the darknet. While the Internet is still operational, it’s a nasty little way to frustrate the feds.

MelonCollie on February 15, 2013 at 7:20 PM

Let’s see the rule book then, surely there is a document of some sort which spells out these rules.

Bishop on February 15, 2013 at 7:02 PM

Well…sure there is. All nice and legal and proper.

But you can’t see it. It’s a secret.

And, if we let anyone know the rules…then the terrorists win.

Solaratov on February 15, 2013 at 7:21 PM

Liam on February 15, 2013 at 7:15 PM

Can’t recall the DoD regulation number or whatever it is filed under, but,

Defense Support of Civil Authorities.

It is already here.

Once was the realm of hurricanes, floods, forest fires and such, National Guard, Reserves and even active duty helping out when the chips were down…that sort of thing.

Today…includes “law enforcement.”

Training. Advising. Logistics. Supplies and equipment. More.

coldwarrior on February 15, 2013 at 7:22 PM

Training. Advising. Logistics. Supplies and equipment. More.

coldwarrior on February 15, 2013 at 7:22 PM

Too much for my taste, I assure.

Liam on February 15, 2013 at 7:30 PM

Related topic: A Valentine’s Day late in offering advice for dating dictators:
http://www.thepeoplescube.com/peoples-blog/the-peoples-valentine-guide-to-dating-dictators-t10707.html

onlineanalyst on February 15, 2013 at 7:30 PM

Today…includes “law enforcement.”

Training. Advising. Logistics. Supplies and equipment. More.

coldwarrior on February 15, 2013 at 7:22 PM

http://www.northcom.mil/

Solaratov on February 15, 2013 at 7:31 PM

our capacity to capture a terrorist inside the United States are very different than in the foothills or mountains of Afghanistan or Pakistan.”

…or California?

KOOLAID2 on February 15, 2013 at 7:44 PM

The problem is that I’m the president of the United States, I’m not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed.”

Think about that statement.

Barred on February 15, 2013 at 8:10 PM

My job is to execute laws that are passed.”

Think about that statement.

Barred on February 15, 2013 at 8:10 PM

I can’t help but wonder exactly what he means by ‘execute’.

Liam on February 15, 2013 at 8:12 PM

Lourdes on February 15, 2013 at 6:22 PM

Understood, but to the best of my knowledge, he hasn’t used drones to blow those people up yet.

LukeinNE on February 15, 2013 at 6:24 PM

Like I wrote in comments after 6:22 PM, would any of us know if he had? How would we?

Lourdes on February 15, 2013 at 8:14 PM


Obama lays framework for purge of online opponents – National Conservative | Examiner.com

(a portion of this article follows but read the whole thing):

…It would be difficult to imagine this administration, with its radical leftwing mindset and agenda, viewing such widespread displays of defiance as anything other than a direct threat to its power, and thus, a perfect motivation for declaring such citizens to be potentially “violent sovereign citizens.”

Citizen militias that are formed to counter the administration’s push to negate Second Amendment protections of unfettered gun rights would also potentially come under the umbrella of “violent extremist groups,” given that these citizens have openly stated that while they would never start a civil war by opening fire on federal agents, they would, in fact, return fire if fired upon first by government forces or law enforcement.

Although the United States itself was born directly from armed and “violent” resistance to government tyranny as represented by the British empire at the time, in today’s climate such ideas are viewed by elitist educators, historians, and politicians as dangerous extremism.

Thomas Jefferson, the nation’s third president, would more than likely be deemed a homegrown terrorist in modern America with his well-publicized view that the federal government needs to be purged every generation or so with an armed insurrection aimed at ridding the government of anyone who undermines individual liberty and the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

Modern patriots who adhere to the philosophy of Jefferson represent a clear, direct threat to many within government who view the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as irritating roadblocks to their plans for complete government power over every sector of life.

America, thus, enters into a very dangerous phase of our history as increasingly it is becoming clear that our own government has set its sights against its own citizens.

Lourdes on February 15, 2013 at 8:19 PM

Waco.

Washington Nearsider on February 15, 2013 at 6:51 PM

As I recall, the FBI ran the assault with military help. But troops didn’t go in, far as I know. But you may well be right; I don’t like how that whole thing was done at all.

Liam on February 15, 2013 at 6:58 PM

But the ATF was used as the “troops” who stormed WACO. Just like Obama is using EO and federal agencies to enact, eradicate and ruin. It’s simply a substitution of terms, or, more specifically, a substitution of authorities.

Lourdes on February 15, 2013 at 8:28 PM

by including a blanket rule that armed drones can never, under any circumstances, be used in American airspace.

Because they can’t. Historical precedent indicates that weapons equivalent in strength to armed drones have been used against citizens of the United States in rebellion against our nation. Obama cannot state a blanket prohibition without curtailing his own power to act in cases of rebellion or secession.

The Civil War is a great case in point.

Every nation, faced with an existential threat from some portion of its citizenry, will use every armament in its arsenal to protect its continuation.

Imagine, if you will, Waco with fighter jets, or, if big enough, with tactical nukes. As for me, I don’t view the guys who opposed the Government at Waco as any kind of heroes. I view the Branch Davidians as being similar to the Jonestown people — even worse than Dorner, if you will. The people who cite Waco as being some sort of legitimate exercise in rights — I view themn with the same disdain that I feel for the Dorner-lovers.

unclesmrgol on February 15, 2013 at 9:57 PM

unclesmrgol on February 15, 2013 at 9:57 PM

I am no fan of David Koresh, nor what’s his name out at Ruby Ridge, but I am a huge fan of the Rule of Law and our Constitution.

When the federal government can kill any citizen without due process, that creates a problem.

Killing children, innocents, in pursuit of somebody some politician declares a threat…without due process?

Some people are OK with this?

When the federal government can use the armed forces, any part of them, to facilitate, assist, advise or arm local civil authorities without due process and select committee review and approvals, that creates a problem.

The civil war, you cite…in essence, those confederated states, starting with South Carolina, were, in effect, independent nations, and operating as such…as was initiated by the succession of each, legal or not.

To equate individual citizens as rebel states needed to be forced back into compliance with whatever it is that the federal government demands…without due process or having the threat of being blown to bits by some remote control operator in a van sitting at the end of the runway at Kirkland hanging over them…

No.

Each time the Constitution is used as a doormat for some politician or president to use to waltz through the door yet another abrogation of our Rights as citizens, that is a problem.

Thomas Jefferson was right.

So was Franklin.

A little rebellion once in a while to purge government of those who would use it for their own benefit over that of the citizenry…we are long overdue.

And allowing “government” to use every means at its disposal to protect the continuation of a tyranny?

That is why we have the Second Amendment enshrined in our Bill of Rights…to prevent such.

r

coldwarrior on February 15, 2013 at 10:46 PM

I have no problem with the Awlaki strike and I think it was perfectly legitimate. He was Al-Qaeda and that is all it takes.

sharrukin on February 15, 2013 at 6:25 PM

And when “Al-Qaeda” is substituted with “Tea Party” after someone somewhere does something stupid we’ll have you to thank.

alchemist19 on February 15, 2013 at 11:41 PM

And when “Al-Qaeda” is substituted with “Tea Party” after someone somewhere does something stupid we’ll have you to thank.

alchemist19 on February 15, 2013 at 11:41 PM

At that point do you really think that any precedent would matter? If they are intent on starting an internal war then not a God damn thing we say or do is going to change that and no court ruling against the use of drones will be adhered to.

Al-Qaeda deserves to be hunted down until the last of those SOBs have surrendered up, or died. I don’t identify with their ‘plight’, or have the slightest sympathy with them.

sharrukin on February 16, 2013 at 8:13 AM

different than the rules inside the United States

Bwahahahaha…..

Cause Them People R sub-human…. dontcha know!

What an EVIL POS!

roflmmfao

donabernathy on February 16, 2013 at 10:39 AM

“there has never been…”

Well, there’s always a first time.

Assessing “capacity to apprehend” is subjective, and subjectivity is Obama’s sweet-spot.

He and his supporters are lawless. They care no more for US citizens or their quaint Constitution than the laws of the countries they are adventuring in. Armed hostilities in foreign countries are acts of war and the President does not have the independent authority to do that.

It’s not about law, it’s about power its unimpeded exercise.

virgo on February 16, 2013 at 12:52 PM