Posse Comitatus essentially forbids the Federal government from calling up the US military for domestic purposes. Obama’s already promised a new sort of “security detail” for America, and I’d bet the farm that this is step #1 in that implementation.
America’s dominated all of the wars in which She’s engaged because she owned the air and the sea. If the Feds own the air with drones, any attempts by civilians to rise against the Federal government will be met with drone attacks.
This is checkmate, really. I’ve seen the post that answers “what good is one citizen with a gun against an army?” That answers the question for ground operations, but owning the air... I’d like to see a corollary to that.
I disagree that this is checkmate. There isn’t any information yet that drones will be armed. And, Afghanistan is an example of what committed people, no matter how wrong, can stand up to this kind of technology. Despite drones and all the other technology we are bringing to bear, we will end up leaving that place just as the Russians did.
Drones are dependent on their ground based pilots, communications, and having a place to return too.
Still its a significant advantage when seeking to control a population. They’ve already used drones in South Dakota (maybe North) during an investigation of cattle theft.
The Myth of Posse Comitatus
Major Craig T. Trebilcock, U.S. Army Reserve
Written Prior to 9/11
http://www.homelandsecurity.org/journal/articles/Trebilcock.htm
NOW understand
The statute only addresses the US Army and, since 1956, the US Air Force. It does not refer to, and thus does not restrict or apply to, the National Guard under federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States. The Navy and Marine Corps are prohibited by a Department of Defense directive (self-regulation), but not by the Act itself.[1][2] Although it is a military force,[3] the U.S. Coast Guard, which now operates under the Department of Homeland Security, is also not covered by the Posse Comitatus Act.
If we had actually won in Iraq and Afghanistan, you may have a point. Drones are a useful tool, but nothing more. The PR fallout from dropping JDAMs in the U.S. and the video winding up on YouTube would quickly outweigh the benefits of doing so. The effects on the Iraqi, Afghan and Pakistani media in turning support away from U.S. efforts is instructive in this.
>America’s dominated all of the wars in which She’s engaged because she owned the air and the sea. If the Feds own the air with drones, any attempts by civilians to rise against the Federal government will be met with drone attacks.
>
>This is checkmate, really. I’ve seen the post that answers “what good is one citizen with a gun against an army?” That answers the question for ground operations, but owning the air... I’d like to see a corollary to that.
No, it’s not checkmate.
You cannot, I say again, CANNOT control a land with only airpower.
Consider for a moment the derringer, nice small concealable gun. (And there ate the one-shot zip-gun constructions of the design to consider.)
Imagine your local bureaucrat/overlord walking along and you have one of these; what is to stop you from ending his life with it. (Or even a knife, or a piano-wire...)
You might think that the man’s security would prevent it; but here’s the rub they don’t want you to realize: 1) the government DOES NOT have the manpower to provide security for every one of its agents; and 2) security is by no means a sure counter to an assassination attempt.
No, it wouldn’t be “honorable,” but it would get the job done.
{All of the above is also considering only a “lone gunman” situation... but it applies even moreso to a mob.}