Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Terrorism and the war at home
LA Times ^ | March 8, 2013 | Masthead Editorial

Posted on 03/08/2013 11:43:07 AM PST by neverdem

The government continues to gain power to head off terrorism attacks at the expense of individual rights.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) waged a 13-hour filibuster on the Senate floor this week in a futile effort to set clear limits on the administration's use of covert military force. Specifically, Paul wanted the administration to concede that it couldn't legally assassinate Americans on U.S. soil. The idea that a president would approve a drone strike on a citizen sitting at a cafe in Boston or San Francisco or Wichita seems far-fetched, but even the least paranoid among us can't help but be troubled by the administration's less-than-definitive assurances.

This page has repeatedly expressed concern about the administration's open-ended approach to targeted assassinations around the world. This week's discussion shows again that the United States is sliding down a slippery slope, with the government gaining power to head off potential attacks at the expense of individual rights. And it's not at all clear where it will stop...

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Editorial; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: holder; obama
More perseveration about GWB...
1 posted on 03/08/2013 11:43:07 AM PST by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I foresee a really profitable market in illegal, black market drone killing drones.

Drone killers are possible because drones used for nefarious purposes by the government and others are limited by how high they can fly, except on the US borders, and their typical task is to fly slowly and hover around a limited area.

Drone killers could be in several sizes, with say a “Switchblade” sized drone to take out Predators and similar large, weaponized drones.

Ideally, the killer drone would just hack or block the larger drone’s command signals and returning video, then once it is flying autonomously, hit it in a vulnerable place so that it crashes. To its operators, it would appear to be a technical fault.

If there were ground personnel directing it, the killer drone would immediately attack it before they could take evasive maneuvers. If nothing else, just by flying into its engine or prop.

2 posted on 03/08/2013 12:33:16 PM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy (Best WoT news at
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
It's good to see that the Latimese didn't attack Senator Paul -- besides all this is nothing new. The Latimese even expressed some doubt about their Obama, Obama, Obama mmmm mmmm mmm. That's good -- of course they connected Bush to the current controversy four-plus years into Obama's dangerous joke of an administration.

This is from the link below: "The long-standing FBI shooting rule, by contrast, restricts the use of lethal force to protecting oneself or others from imminent harm." (1995)

I recall from watching the Ruby Ridge and Waco hearings -- the real ones forced upon Congress by years of demands from citizens -- I recall that federal agents claimed the right to shoot to kill to protect themselves and others if they simply suspected imminent threats. I cannot find the testimony though.

For the want of a little drone the decision had to be "shoot on sight [-- all on site]."

FBI Agent: Ruby Ridge Investigation A Ploy -- `Shoot-On-Sight' Controversy Needed `Damage Control'

WASHINGTON - The FBI field commander during the deadly 1992 Ruby Ridge siege told lawmakers today that the government's original investigation into the incident was little more than an attempt at political "damage control."

Senior FBI agent Eugene Glenn appeared alone before a Senate subcommittee just months after he prompted another probe into the 11-day standoff by writing a letter alleging he had been made the scapegoat for improper "shoot-on-sight" rules, even though his superiors approved them.

The standoff resulted in the shooting deaths of white separatist Randy Weaver's wife, his 14-year-old son and a deputy U.S. marshal. . . . Idaho prosecutor Randall Day [investigated] whether to bring state charges against federal agents for Ruby Ridge. [Some] alleged that top FBI officials concealed from internal investigators the fact that [FBI Deputy Director Larry] Potts approved special shooting rules for the agency's snipers at Ruby Ridge. Potts denies approving them. . . .

In a departure from FBI policy, the rules of engagement were rewritten to say that snipers "could and should" fire at any armed adult male spotted outside Weaver's cabin.

The long-standing FBI shooting rule, by contrast, restricts the use of lethal force to protecting oneself or others from imminent harm.

OK, so Mr Weaver failed to appear for some kind of hearing or something, a couple of U.S. marshals were in the woods secretly observing the Weavers' cabin, the agents shot the family dog, the Weaver's son and a family friend fired at the unknown killers of the dog . . . was Mrs. Weaver and the baby in her arms imminent threats standing there just inside the door?

I also heard an interview with someone on site (with others) that an apparent attempt to dump fuel on the cabin was waved off when the helicopter noticed the unauthorized observers. I believe it.

3 posted on 03/08/2013 12:45:01 PM PST by WilliamofCarmichael (If modern America's Man on Horseback is out there, Get on the damn horse already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson