View Full Version : This is why we have a 2nd amendment....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/05/us-drone-strike_n_2813857.html?utm_hp_ref=politics
The Obama administration believes it could technically use military force to kill an American on U.S. soil in an "extraordinary circumstance" but has "no intention of doing so," U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said in a letter disclosed Tuesday.
The founders saw it all coming...
VooDoo6Actual
03-05-13, 19:18
The fact that we are even having this dialogue & discussion is evidence of how far off the track we are...
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/A_U.S.%20news/US-news-PDFs/BrennanHolderResponse.pdf
Cagemonkey
03-05-13, 19:26
Just saw this on the Drudge Report. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. No need to worry, theirs nothing to fear. 1.6 Billion rounds and 2700 APC's for DHS. Persistent attacks on the 2nd amendment and the Bill of Rights etc. Those Tin Foilers are just Crazy.
PA PATRIOT
03-05-13, 19:29
Different world and different times, don't ever think that are fore fathers didn't bust a cap into a Americans ass back in the day for some messed up shit even after the Bill of Rights.
Today we are just considered a bit more civilized with a more defined court system but I would have not problem with the government taking out a American citizen who was transporting a nuke, massive truck bomb or some virus if it would save big time lives.
MountainRaven
03-05-13, 19:34
Gonna just go on ahead and be the Grammar Nazi....
We have a second amendment because two falls in between one and three and there are ten Amendments in the Bill of Rights.
We have the Second Amendment because of what you said.
;)
The purpose of the Second Amendment is to preserve all of the other amendments.
My heart just sank a little further. I'm afraid this is not going to turn out well.
Moose-Knuckle
03-05-13, 20:46
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a144/AKS-74/frog_boiling.jpg
gunrunner505
03-05-13, 20:56
This administration is terrifying. Complete disregard for the constitution, the population, due process, the rule of law and indeed the entire nation. The guy was scary in his first term and now that he doesn't have to worry about re-election he will be completely off the rails.
The 2nd amendment is the only one in the bill or rights that the framers felt was important enough to enumerate with the words shall not be infringed. They felt it was that important.
This administration, and this president, will go in the books as the worst in the history of the nation...
Cagemonkey
03-05-13, 21:07
I would have not problem with the government taking out a American citizen who was transporting a nuke, massive truck bomb or some virus if it would save big time lives. Maybe, but given this administration, I think the odds favor an alterer motive.
Different world and different times, don't ever think that are fore fathers didn't bust a cap into a Americans ass back in the day for some messed up shit even after the Bill of Rights.
Today we are just considered a bit more civilized with a more defined court system but I would have not problem with the government taking out a American citizen who was transporting a nuke, massive truck bomb or some virus if it would save big time lives.
I cannot recall in my lifetime an administration discussing such things. I wasn't there 200 years ago but with the contrast of "my lifetime" that is a truly frightening statement for an AG to make.
There are of course incidents like Ruby Ridge and WACO where US military personnel were present as "advisers" but even that is much different from what Holder just said.
GeorgiaBoy
03-05-13, 21:16
Whiskey Rebellion, 1794.
President Washington called on governors from several states to send a militia force to suppress the 500 rebels. 13,000 militia members responded to the rebellion.
Yeah, its definitely not the end of the world because of what Holder said in a letter that military force could possible used on civilians. It has. Right after the founding of this country.
I wonder if my tinfoil hat will deflect a Hellfire...
While it doesn't making Holders paper any less digusting, the U.S. military has been used repeadedly throughout our history to quell labor and racial disputes, slaughter Indians, and even burn out WW I veterans in D.C.
MountainRaven
03-05-13, 23:18
Whiskey Rebellion, 1794.
President Washington called on governors from several states to send a militia force to suppress the 500 rebels. 13,000 militia members responded to the rebellion.
Yeah, its definitely not the end of the world because of what Holder said in a letter that military force could possible used on civilians. It has. Right after the founding of this country.
Yes.
A militia was called on to quell what would today be called civil disturbance.
Not a standing army.
The militia under Washington only managed to kill people by accident (and those responsible were tried, gasp!, by civilian criminal courts). There was no clash of arms between the armed forces of the Federal Government and the rebels. The only fighting was between the rebels and federal revenuers (and a handful of regulars protecting them). And that fighting resulted in a whopping two or three deaths.
Ultimately, the taxes the government was trying to collect remained all but impossible to collect and every rebel who was caught and tried by the Feds was pardoned or acquitted. (Different story for those tried by the state of Pennsylvania, but no one was tried for anything other than criminal offenses of rioting and assault.)
The Whiskey Rebellion, which ultimately was a simple show-of-force by the militia is a far, far cry from using military drones to murder American citizens on American soil.
Whiskey Rebellion, 1794.
President Washington called on governors from several states to send a militia force to suppress the 500 rebels. 13,000 militia members responded to the rebellion.
Yeah, its definitely not the end of the world because of what Holder said in a letter that military force could possible used on civilians. It has. Right after the founding of this country.
The militia (especially the pre Dick Act militia of 1794) is NOT the US military. I can't stress how significant the difference is.
While it doesn't making Holders paper any less digusting, the U.S. military has been used repeadedly throughout our history to quell labor and racial disputes, slaughter Indians, and even burn out WW I veterans in D.C.
And as unfortunate as those events were, especially the Bonus March made up of US combat veterans, I thought we were long past this sort of thing.
It was supposed to end with Kent State. After Ruby Ridge and WACO it wasn't supposed to be tolerated ever again. And now we have an AG openly endorsing it. He should be removed from office immediately.
GeorgiaBoy
03-05-13, 23:51
Yes.
The Whiskey Rebellion, which ultimately was a simple show-of-force by the militia is a far, far cry from using military drones to murder American citizens on American soil.
I do not condone the use of drones on US soil for purposes other than search and rescue, never have and never will. I'm adamantly against it.
My point was that the conspiracy/tin foil that goes on here regarding this particular administration is getting ridiculously old. The fact of the matter is it is not a "new thing" to use military-type force against citizens. It doesn't mean we are about to turn into a dictatorship.
No, a militia is not a standing army. But military force is the same whether it is conducted by a militia or a standing military. Military force was used in the Whiskey Rebellion. That's my point.
Whiskey Rebellion, 1794.
President Washington called on governors from several states to send a militia force to suppress the 500 rebels. 13,000 militia members responded to the rebellion.
Yeah, its definitely not the end of the world because of what Holder said in a letter that military force could possible used on civilians. It has. Right after the founding of this country.
That was constitutional. The militia is allowed to suppress insurrections AGAINST the constitutional government .
Article 1, Section 8.15
"To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;"
That was constitutional. The militia is allowed to suppress insurrections AGAINST the constitutional government .
Article 1, Section 8.15
"To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;"
The militia is defined as all males not in active duty over 18 or close to that.
Eta I got that wrong, lol. It's 17 and nothing about active duty.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311
I do not condone the use of drones on US soil for purposes other than search and rescue, never have and never will. I'm adamantly against it.
My point was that the conspiracy/tin foil that goes on here regarding this particular administration is getting ridiculously old. The fact of the matter is it is not a "new thing" to use military-type force against citizens. It doesn't mean we are about to turn into a dictatorship.
No, a militia is not a standing army. But military force is the same whether it is conducted by a militia or a standing military. Military force was used in the Whiskey Rebellion. That's my point.
Please read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act
The Posse Comitatus Act is the United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152) that was passed on June 18, 1878, after the end of Reconstruction and was updated in 1981. Its intent (in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807) was to limit the powers of Federal government in using federal military personnel to enforce the State laws. Contrary to popular belief, the Act does not prohibit members of the United States Armed Forces from exercising Law enforcement agency powers within a State, police, or peace officer powers that maintain "law and order"; it requires that any authority to do so must exist within the United States Constitution or Act of Congress.[1] Any use of the Armed Forces under either Title 10/Active Duty or Title 10/Reserves at the direction of the President will offend the Constitutional Law also known as Public Law prohibiting such action unless declared by the President of the United States and approved by Congress. Any infringement will be problematic for political and legal reasons.
This isn't tin foil hat, this isn't Obama bashing, this is scary shit for an AG to advocate. Even Janet Reno didn't advocate such a thing in these terms and she was responsible for WACO.
This is an AG openly IGNORING a very significant limitation on government and stating his willingness to violate the law. This is a Federal government equivalent to "making a death threat against the President."
This is a very significant heads up.
At this point one has to ask, what the hell is it going to take for people in this country to wake up and at the very goddam least start questioning why? It's almost incomprehensible..
At this point one has to ask, what the hell is it going to take for people in this country to wake up and at the very goddam least start questioning why? It's almost incomprehensible..
A pearl harbor type incident. As in, a massive jolt. Not small things that can get swept under the rug and not warnings about possible abuse. It has to be real, without doubt, and huge in scale.
At this point one has to ask, what the hell is it going to take for people in this country to wake up and at the very goddam least start questioning why? It's almost incomprehensible..
When the vast majority get their food stamps, WIC checks, free day care, welfare checks, meals programs, section 8 housing and free cell phones from the government they tend not to ask a lot of questions.
The only one's saying WTF are the people like us who shoulder the burden. And if you say "boo" about any of it you are a racist, rich white person who controls all of the money and wall street while keeping the occupy crowd unemployed and destitute.
And quite honestly, the "free shit army" is just fine with the AG's threat because they know he isn't talking about shooting any of them.
Moose-Knuckle
03-06-13, 02:23
Please read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act
The Posse Comitatus Act is the United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152) that was passed on June 18, 1878, after the end of Reconstruction and was updated in 1981. Its intent (in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807) was to limit the powers of Federal government in using federal military personnel to enforce the State laws. Contrary to popular belief, the Act does not prohibit members of the United States Armed Forces from exercising Law enforcement agency powers within a State, police, or peace officer powers that maintain "law and order"; it requires that any authority to do so must exist within the United States Constitution or Act of Congress.[1] Any use of the Armed Forces under either Title 10/Active Duty or Title 10/Reserves at the direction of the President will offend the Constitutional Law also known as Public Law prohibiting such action unless declared by the President of the United States and approved by Congress. Any infringement will be problematic for political and legal reasons.
This isn't tin foil hat, this isn't Obama bashing, this is scary shit for an AG to advocate. Even Janet Reno didn't advocate such a thing in these terms and she was responsible for WACO.
This is an AG openly IGNORING a very significant limitation on government and stating his willingness to violate the law. This is a Federal government equivalent to "making a death threat against the President."
This is a very significant heads up.
Oh, don't trouble yourself with that out dated nonsense . . . "where there is a will there is a way".
According to legal experts, the wording of the new National Defense Authorization Act effectively repeals the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C. § 1385), which limits the use of federal military personnel to enforce laws within the United States. The Act allows for the imposition of martial law only where specifically authorized by the United States Constitution (invasion, insurrection, etc.) or Act of Congress. Under the provisions of the unamended NDAA, the president will have the power to impose martial law, and thereby suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus, on his own authority.
http://www.louisville.com/content/sen-rand-paul-fights-against-martial-law-legislation-arena
VooDoo6Actual
03-06-13, 04:54
Classic Ron Paul video w/ AR15 circa 1989
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORt_k7LjGDg&feature=player_embedded
When the vast majority get their food stamps, WIC checks, free day care, welfare checks, meals programs, section 8 housing and free cell phones from the government they tend not to ask a lot of questions.
The only one's saying WTF are the people like us who shoulder the burden. And if you say "boo" about any of it you are a racist, rich white person who controls all of the money and wall street while keeping the occupy crowd unemployed and destitute.
And quite honestly, the "free shit army" is just fine with the AG's threat because they know he isn't talking about shooting any of them.
Very well said. It's the taxpayers who are being targeted, not the tax eaters.
Magic_Salad0892
03-06-13, 09:57
Doesnt the NDAA that Obama signed (after saying it gives the POTUS too much power) state that he can suspend Habeus Corpus at any point in time?
Oh, don't trouble yourself with that out dated nonsense . . . "where there is a will there is a way".
http://www.louisville.com/content/sen-rand-paul-fights-against-martial-law-legislation-arena
Sadly the "time to start shooting" has come and gone and I didn't even know about it. Looks like we missed the revolution.
Let me just say "un****ingbelievable." They have officially crossed the Rubicon and most of us didn't even notice.
Rand Paul is on a mission! 4 hours and going strong. Watch live: http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN2/
"The fact that the Obama Administration has told a U.S. Senator that there is a circumstance where the government could target and kill an American citizen on American soil without charge or without trial is a stark example of an imperial presidency. This is what our founding fathers wanted to fight against. " Rand Paul.
Rand Paul is on a mission! 4 hours and going strong. Watch live: http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN2/
I fear he is a lone sheepdog in a den of wolves.
I fear he is a lone sheepdog in a den of wolves.
Sen. Ron Wyden and Sen. Mike Lee have been backing him.
But for the most part he's flying solo...
From a M4C SME.
Don't bother looking at "policy", there will always be an exception to policy written and acted upon.
If full disclosure of what has been going on above US airspace, with drones, was widely known, people would be horrified.
"cost effectiveness" .. haha, funny. that only matters for families, cities, states, or others who can't create money. It doesn't matter for a Federal Gov't that literally borrows/prints whatever is desired. We waste trillions at a time enriching corporate and other allies of whatever administration is in place. The questions that need be aired in open... are what exactly have drones been doing, for who, and under what auspices.
This and the other thread should probably be merged.
And Paul is probably about to be eaten...
StyerAUG, don't feel so bad. I'd be willing to bet almost all of us had no idea the point of no return had long been past and no warning light was installed.
We are stalling into sea, no chutes, no flotation, and definitely no rescue on the way. We better start thinking about how to save what's left of our ass.
And to think... this administration believes no American should have the right to own a Pmag but they believe THEY have the right to engage in drone attacks on US citizens on US soil who don't present an imminent threat without any due process.
But they assure us they don't plan on ever having to do it so it's ok.
But of course...
Don't you know...
It's CHANGE.
Good article on the happenings... http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/6/rand-paul-filibusters-brennan-nomination-cia-direc/ Some highlights...
Sen. Rand Paul took to the floor of the U.S. Senate just before noon Wednesday and vowed to stay there “at length” in order to filibuster John O. Brennan, whom President Obama has nominated to be the next CIA director.
The Kentucky Republican said he will hold up the nomination until he gets more information about the U.S. drone execution program, which has become a major sore point for many lawmakers on Capitol Hill.
“I will speak today until the president responds and says, ‘No, we won’t kill Americans in cafes. No, we won’t kill you at home at night,’” Mr. Paul said early on in the filibuster, that began at 11:47 and showed no signs of slowing more than four hours later.
Five hours into the filibuster, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid came to the floor to try to end it. He asked if Mr. Paul would agree to limit himself to another half-hour of remarks, and then the chamber would vote on the Brennan nomination — which likely has majority support.
Mr. Paul said he would be glad to end his filibuster immediately, but only if the administration would promise not to make Americans in the U.S. the subject of targeted killings.
Mr. Reid said he wasn’t in a position to speak for the administration and stalked off the floor.
“We’re through for the night,” he said, releasing senators who had stuck around thinking they might still vote on the Brennan nomination.
Speaking from his corner desk Mr. Paul, in red tie and gray suit and with a glass of ice water — within reach but rarely touched — spoke about political history and the origins of key constitutional precepts.
He was armed with binders full of information but rarely glanced at them as he rattled off important Supreme Court cases and names of lawyers involved in landmark race-relations lawsuits.
The old-style hold-the-floor filibuster is likely to heighten attention on Mr. Paul, who is thought to be mulling a presidential bid in 2016.
He has staked out a stance as a defender of constitutional rights and has not been shy about demanding votes on his priorities. But the single-handed filibuster is a more dramatic tactic, and he is using it to force attention to his opposition to the U.S. drone program.
Just hours before Mr. Paul began his filibuster, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. testified to a Senate committee that he believed it would be illegal for the government to kill an American who did not pose an imminent threat to security.
But he could not rule out the use of drones on American soil altogether, saying only that he doubted it would happen because it’s easier to capture people here.
The U.S. extrajudicial execution program has come under increasing scrutiny this year after some of the administration’s legal justification for the executions — most often carried out by drone strikes on terrorist targets overseas — leaked to the press.
Members of both parties on Capitol Hill have raised concerns about the program, which started under President George W. Bush and which Mr. Obama has greatly expanded...
If you're not watching you should be.
CarlosDJackal
03-06-13, 18:30
Why there is a Second Amendment (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQye33oaqIc)
gunrunner505
03-07-13, 21:45
Just heard a quote attributed to Mao Tse Tung, "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun".
When the government is armed and the people aren't.
History is replete with examples of this but hey, that can't happen here. Right?
Sent from my SCH-I510 using Tapatalk 2
This is the time when we stop wringing our hands and start looking at countermeasures.
These things are controlled remotely, surely there must be a way to interfere with the control signals?
Moose-Knuckle
03-08-13, 04:29
Just heard a quote attributed to Mao Tse Tung, "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun".
When the government is armed and the people aren't.
History is replete with examples of this but hey, that can't happen here. Right?
Sent from my SCH-I510 using Tapatalk 2
Mao Zedong (The Little Red Book)(1964) . . . "Every Communist must grasp the truth: Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” . . . —To Horace Kallen, 10 November 1913, The Letters of George Santayana
gunrunner505
03-08-13, 07:51
Mao Zedong (The Little Red Book)(1964) . . . "Every Communist must grasp the truth: Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” . . . —To Horace Kallen, 10 November 1913, The Letters of George Santayana
I knew i screwed that up somehow....but it's still very true....
Sent from my SCH-I510 using Tapatalk 2
Moose-Knuckle
03-08-13, 14:57
I knew i screwed that up somehow....but it's still very true....
Sent from my SCH-I510 using Tapatalk 2
Nah, your good man and spot on. :cool:
Meanwhile, in DC http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/brennan-takes-oath-constitution-without-bill-rights-205110620.html
Also: Sen. Feinstein Makes Wild Claim to Push Gun Control at Senate Committee Hearing (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/08/sen-feinstein-makes-bizarre-claim-to-push-gun-control-at-hearing-its-legal-to-hunt-humans-with-high-capacity-magazines/)
Pushing a ban on high-capacity magazines, Feinstein argued that it is “legal to hunt humans with 15-round, 30-round, even 150-round magazines.”
We have federal regulations and state laws that prohibit hunting ducks with more than three rounds. And yet it’s legal to hunt humans with 15-round, 30-round, even 150-round magazines.
During the same hearing, she also argued that a military veteran could be mentally ill and suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), therefore should be prevented from buying the semi-automatic weapons that would be banned in her bill.
Hunting humans is legal? Who knew but if that is the case I guess we should be thankful she didn't try to impose bag limits, afterall we wouldn't want the hoards of PTSD stricken vets to get carried away in their blood fueled rampages. Think of the children!
The woman is certifiably insane...
gunrunner505
03-10-13, 14:35
Hunting humans is legal? Who knew but if that is the case I guess we should be thankful she didn't try to impose bag limits, afterall we wouldn't want the hoards of PTSD stricken vets to get carried away in their blood fueled rampages. Think of the children!
The woman is certifiably insane...
This is the same broad who said you hold an AR at the hip and spray fire.
Say anything you have to, no matter how false, to make your case.
She has no idea what the hell she's talking about but because she's in congress she's an instant expert on everything, just ask her.
Where did this country go so wrong.
Sent from my SCH-I510 using Tapatalk 2
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.