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.

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

That was all localized.

Undercover feds were there just to know what's going on.

I'd rather them be there taking notes than demonizing a group from afar.

across the country using the same tactics and legal strategies.

Were those military personnel? I don't think so. I think you'r aiming at the wrong target.

Grade A paranoid conspiracy theory woo.

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.

but.... I also believe there needs to be some "meat on the bones" of such a policy that would define, even in broad terms, what constitutes an "imminent threat" that would serve as justification for such action.

We would get bogged down just in defining the word 'imminent'.

The best process, I believe, is to have a chain-of-command consisting of at least three people, all of whom would need to agree, before force can be used.

And then a public review afterwards.

It means exactly what they say it means.

It creates unity and keeps these morons on edge making them easier to manipulate.

The teabaggers identify with these "patriot" groups and don't want Obama to fight back if they do start a civil war.

and there you would have the level of outrage (mirrored by the "liberally-biased media", no less) should Obama take out 1 U.S. citizen with a drone.

(Mind you, prior to Obama assuming office, Rand Paul didn't give a rat's ass about any "U.S. Citizen" mistreated by the government if they were SUSPECTED of being sympathetic to al Qaeda ... read: Zacharias M ...)

People do not think that the President cannot use the military to put down a revolt or uprising.

and said yes, during extraordinary circumstances. People reacted as if that was not the case I saw frequent post how this was "unconstitutional" or a "violation of due process" or generally reacted as if this was a massive power grab. My point was point was 1) that all presidents had these powers and 2) they had been used in situations of revolt. The scenarios of just bombing some terror suspect neighbor is completely out of line with history.

They are just as bad as the teabaggers screaming how evil the gubmint is all the time.

no problem.

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

kill a fellow citizen. I would'nt want to do that.

If an attacker has a bomb in his truck and is driving toward the target, most of us would call that "imminent". What if he's just buying supplies for an attack? Is that imminent? Reading books on bomb-making? Plotting with his fellow whackos?

If you call any of that imminent, I'd start to worry. That would open the door for all kinds of assassinations that could be later justified by saying he was planning an imminent attack. I don't see Obama ordering that kind of abuse of power, but what about the next guy? What if President Gingrich decides that OWS is an imminent threat and orders drone strikes on the park?

Always be mindful of the power you allow to a President, and imagine how your worst enemy could use that power.

if a drone is about be used on a citizen. They're just not buying supplies, history says it's going to be WAY worse than that.

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.

Impeachment can assign punishment as necessary.

The only added factor to consider, then, is secrecy. Which is why I think there needs to be at least a 3 person chain of command before force is approved. And a public review afterwards.

We've used drones to kill people sitting in their houses, walking down a sidewalk, and driving down the highway in their cars overseas. The government has justified it by claiming that the deceased are active terrorists who can't be arrested.

So, the question is simple: If the U.S. government had strong evidence that a particular citizen (let's say, the head of a "patriot" group) was planning an attack on a U.S. target, and the government has been unable to find and arrest them but gets confirmation that they are sitting in their car in a parking lot somewhere, does the government have the right to drone strike them on U.S. soil? We do this EVERY DAY overseas.

There's no serious question that the President has the right to quell domestic insurrection. But does he have the authority to order the execution of a citizen who is merely planning an insurrection? Or who is part of a group that is rebelling, but isn't actively fighting? Where is the line?

No President in history has ever claimed that power.

If we know where someone is, and they are simply sitting in a car, why would anyone send a missile to take them out? That's what FBI agents are for.

There is no purpose in using a missile to take that person out, though we do that type of thing every day in other countries. This whole flap started when the administration was asked whether those same actions could take place on U.S. soil. A proper answer would have been: "No. We would use FBI agents to arrest them in that situation."

But that wasn't the answer that was given.

There is NO valid cause to drone strike a citizen in a non-combat situation. EVER. There are no extraordinary circumstances that would justify it, because we have the domestic law enforcement capacity to take that person into custody directly. Holder should have responded that way, but instead attempted to avoid being pidgeonholed on what is really a fairly simple issue. That's NOT a question that a public servant is allowed to be vague on.

But another scenario was proposed elsewhere: that of a jet entering U.S. airspace (or perhaps going way off course) and heading directly for the White House.

Would military force be acceptable then? I maintain that it would be. You're right, Holder did not explain himself very well but these pontificating politicians aren't proposing any legislation to deal with clarification. They just want to make as much noise as possible.

A foreign (or even a domestic) aircraft that is on a course inbound to the White House is an active combat threat beyond the power of domestic law enforcement to deal with. Like John Brown's insurrection, that would justify military intervention IMHO. At that point, the threat is no longer "imminent" or "potential" but active.

Or, to put it another way: When John Brown staged his raid, he committed an act of war against the United States government that justified the military intervention used against him. But what if history had played out a bit differently? What if John Brown had escaped, and the government intercepted a letter indicating that he was planning a second raid? Would President Buchanan have been justified in sending a squad of Army snipers to chase him down and shoot him from a distance? I'd say no. Shooting him to supress his active rebellion is one thing, but killing him while he's on the lam simply because it's more "practical" is another.

It sounds like the whole thing is moot now anyway. Holder has issued a statement saying that the President can't order a drone strike on U.S. soil in a non-combat situation. He could have saved a lot of people a lot of aggravation by just saying that in the first place.

"The Obama administration, Holder said, rejected the use of military force where "well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat."

Under your scenario if the location of suspect became known there'd be no reason a drone would be unnecessary. My point was to show that if the President is using the military on citizens, that it's been in very extreme situations like domestic insurrection.

I have a question about this drone stuff and the targeting of citizens.

How is this really any different from the Feds using a helicopter or squad car armed with a really crack shot agent with a gun to take out someone who doesn't want to be apprehended?

Of course it's preferable to try to arrest someone and bring them to trial but that only works if they can catch the person or get him to turn himself in.

How long do you think it would take to put 200 FBI agents anywhere in the country? A few thousand state and local police to back them up.

You want to dispatch a 6000member armored division with no battle plan or rules of engagement? Hard to imagine a eventuality requiring such a large force and enormous amount of firepower. And one that is going to patiently wait for the DOD to do all the necessary prep work to be able to interact with the domestic civilian population in a way that would be palatable.

Federal and local law enforcement better be doing their job to stop it before it happens though.

The United States Congress has enacted a number of exceptions to the PCA that allow the military, in certain situations, to assist civilian law enforcement agencies in enforcing the laws of the U.S. The most common example is counterdrug assistance (Title 10 USC, Sections 371-381). Other examples include:

The Insurrection Act (Title 10 USC, Sections 331-335). This act allows the president to use U.S. military personnel at the request of a state legislature or governor to suppress insurrections. It also allows the president to use federal troops to enforce federal laws when rebellion against the authority of the U.S. makes it impracticable to enforce the laws of the U.S.

Assistance in the case of crimes involving nuclear materials (Title 18 USC, Section 831). This statute permits DoD personnel to assist the Justice Department in enforcing prohibitions regarding nuclear materials, when the attorney general and the secretary of defense jointly determine that an “emergency situation” exists that poses a serious threat to U.S. interests and is beyond the capability of civilian law enforcement agencies.

Emergency situations involving chemical or biological weapons of mass destruction (Title 10 USC, Section 382). When the attorney general and the secretary of defense jointly determine that an “emergency situation” exists that poses a serious threat to U.S. interests and is beyond the capability of civilian law enforcement agencies. DoD personnel may assist the Justice Department in enforcing prohibitions regarding biological or chemical weapons of mass destruction.

http://www.northcom.mil/About/history_education/posse.html

These days John Brown would be handled by the FBI, not the Marines...oh and it was the army. The commanding officer of the cavalry unit was Col. Robert E Lee

not the US military

A right-wing militia inspired by the Tea Party movement has taken over the city of Darlington, South Carolina, arrested the local government, and declared that the federal government should be overthrown. As the militia establishes checkpoints across I-95, other extremist groups across the nation rush to declare their support. South Carolina’s governor – a Tea Party supporter – declines to send in law enforcement to quash the militia, but quietly asks for federal intervention. The President invokes the Insurrection Act to authorize the use of federal troops, as the Pentagon prepares for war at home….

.....

Make no mistake, this isn’t the Pentagon providing military support to hurricane victims, or even sending troops to support local authorities as during the 1992 Los Angeles riots. This is a war. There will be casualties. Refugees from the fighting must be housed and fed. But it’s a strange kind of war. Thus U.S. forces begin, as any combat forces would, by attempting to collect intelligence on enemy forces – but then have to erase the intel within 90 days after operations are completed, in order not to run afoul of federal privacy laws. They will be eavesdropping on “enemy” communications, but only with a court order. They must depend on local law enforcement for information on the rebels, but the local cops may be rebel sympathizers. There will be “information/influence operations designed to present a picture of the federal response and the inevitable defeat of the insurrection.”

Curiously, the authors don’t really delve the fundamental issue of American soldiers firing on American civilians, except to note that troops would have to comply with standing rules on force, which require graduated levels of violence. Civil support in South Carolina makes counterinsurgency in Kabul look like a picnic.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelpeck/2012/11/15/how-the-u-s-military-would-crush-a-tea-party-rebellion/

Usually it's better to use normal police than sending in Team America World Police.

It was things like Harper's Ferry that got the law passed in the first place.

How many people would it take, if YOU were President... how many people attacking an armory before you sent in troops and/or drones?

20?

What was the population at the time of John Brown's raid that made 20 rebels worth sending TROOPS to put down?