Legal case for drone strikes on Americans: Swingers Discussion 2164301091

155
Legal case for drone strikes on Americans: Swingers Discussion 2164301091

Busy Swingers Forum - everything you always wanted to know about swingers.

SwingLifeStyle Swingers Personal Ads. | SwingLifeStyle Swingers Clubs

Busy Swingers Forum

Everything you always wanted to know about swingers.

Create A Free Account

TOPIC: Legal case for drone strikes on Americans

GoTo Page: Less ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Start

91 to 96 of 96

User Details are only visible to members.	when you fly over some one house to look on them you need a search warrant .....BS
Kingston TN			Username hidden (1912 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	Drones: I hope Obama can give the echelons below him all the power they need to kill anyone working for, with or even so much as enabling our enemies. If you leave the safety of civilized nations for the insecurity of uncivilized nations, so to hang with our enemies, I do not want to hear your cries... You chose your fate, now accept the 70 or so virgin sheep. Warrantless surveillance: Hate to be the bringer of bad news, but the US government has always been able to monitor your home without a warrant. (from the outside) Noise which travels outside your home (no matter how slight) is free for anyone to listen to. May this noise be light (you in front of a window) or sound, it is all fair game without a warrant.
Hazle Township PA			Username hidden (4774 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	yea ok
Berryville VA			Username hidden (1428 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	“They can put drones outside our windows, drones can listen in on our phone calls," Hover-drones? Unknown to many, al Qaeda also has a humanitarian branch, not involved in anti-American activities. They take jobless youth from poor Muslim communities and educate them for a productive life; and shortly these underprivileged souls are enjoying 70 virgins in the afterlife.
Flat Rock NC			Username hidden (2787 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	Steve Watson Infowars dot com Feb 4, 2013 Legislation to stave off the use of drones by law enforcement and government agencies in Virginia has advanced in the State Senate, as well as the House, bringing closer a two-year moratorium on the unmanned craft. A House panel approved sending their version of the bill, HB2012 sponsored by Del. Benjamin L. Cline, to the floor by a 9-4 vote, while the Senate Courts of Justice, also endorsed the legislation Monday. While the House bill advocates a blanket ban on the use of drones, the Senate version has an exception where missing person searches are concerned. Delegate Todd Gilbert, who sponsored a similar drone bill last year said that strict limitations should be imposed upon the use of drones, including requiring search warrants for surveillance or collecting evidence for criminal investigations. Claire Guthrie Gastañaga, executive director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia noted that “All of us are about to sacrifice our privacy to this new technology.” “The Fourth Amendment should be the floor to protect our privacy, not the ceiling.” Gastañaga added. At the House hearing, law enforcement groups argued that warrants may not be able to be obtained in time to use the technology effectively. Russell County Sheriff’s Office said it had already purchased two drones, and argued against the introduction of stipulations. Last year, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell described warrantless drones as “great”, citing “battlefield successes”. “If you’re keeping police officers safe, making it more productive and saving money… it’s absolutely the right thing to do.” McDonnell said on the deployment of drones in the State. Residents seem to disagree, particularly in Charlottesville, where the City Council is considering making the city a no-drone zone. Over the weekend, anti-drone activists led by resident David Swanson, held a rally, complete with a giant model of a drone, to educate more people on the matter and pressure the Council to act. “They can put drones outside our windows, drones can listen in on our phone calls, drones can spy on us in ways that will be far too tempting to any police department and they’re already openly saying that’s what they need it for,” Swanson said. “We have police departments across the country picking up the use of drones with tear gas, with rubber bullets to control crowds,” he added. “We don’t think we need to be controlled, we think such police departments need to be controlled.”
Berryville VA			Username hidden (1428 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	A confidential Justice Department memo concludes that the U.S. government can order the killing of American citizens if they are believed to be “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida or “an associated force” -- even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S. The 16-page memo, a copy of which was obtained by NBC News, provides new details about the legal reasoning behind one of the Obama administration’s most secretive and controversial polices: its dramatically increased use of drone strikes against al-Qaida suspects, including those aimed at American citizens, such as the September 2011 strike in Yemen that killed alleged al-Qaida operatives Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan. Both were U.S. citizens who had never been indicted by the U.S. government nor charged with any crimes. The secrecy surrounding such strikes is fast emerging as a central issue in this week’s hearing of White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, a key architect of the drone campaign, to be CIA director. Brennan was the first administration official to publicly acknowledge drone strikes in a speech last year, calling them “consistent with the inherent right of self-defense.” In a separate talk at the Northwestern University Law School in March, Attorney General Eric Holder specifically endorsed the constitutionality of targeted killings of Americans, saying they could be justified if government officials determine the target poses “an imminent threat of violent attack.” Instead, it says, an “informed, high-level” official of the U.S. government may determine that the targeted American has been “recently” involved in “activities” posing a threat of a violent attack and “there is no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities.” The memo does not define “recently” or “activities.” As in Holder’s speech, the confidential memo lays out a three-part test that would make targeted killings of American lawful: In addition to the suspect being an imminent threat, capture of the target must be “infeasible, and the strike must be conducted according to “law of war principles.” But the memo elaborates on some of these factors in ways that go beyond what the attorney general said publicly. For example, it states that U.S. officials may consider whether an attempted capture of a suspect would pose an “undue risk” to U.S. personnel involved in such an operation. If so, U.S. officials could determine that the capture operation of the targeted American would not be feasible, making it lawful for the U.S. government to order a killing instead, the memo concludes. The undated memo is entitled “Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen who is a Senior Operational Leader of Al Qa’ida or An Associated Force.”
New Kensington PA			Username hidden (2126 post)

GoTo Page: Less ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Start

91 to 96 of 96

TOPIC: Legal case for drone strikes on Americans