Sultan Knish/Daniel Greenfield Ping List (notification of new articles). FReepmail or drop me a comment to get on or off.
Tell that to Andrew!
Paul made his stand and it was fun to watch,but it really doesn’t change anything.
He got an answer out of Eric Holder that really has no meaning.
If Obama decides to send a drone to kill an American he will do it , and Holder will make an excuse for it at that time.
The way this bunch in Washington lies should be proof to anyone that their lies change with the times.
Instead of using Limbaugh, you could use Gregory Rodriguez instead.
Dan presents a whole new perspective on “drones”. He makes a lot of sense. The Fed doesn’t need a million dollar mosquito-sized drone to take me out. All they have to do is threaten me with a tax audit!
First, we are becoming a fascist state. Second, the main problem people have with drones is their ability to spy. That contributes to fascism.No needto speed this journey along. Need to do everything we can to slow it down.
” There is a distinction between “due process” and “judicial process”,
saying they “are not one and the same” in terms of national security.
“The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process,” ~ Eric Holder 03/05/12 Chicago’s Northwestern University School of Law
A DRONE is just “due process” according to Supreme Potentate Eric Holder.
What I want to know is “WHO” determines what is , and what is not national security ...
Today it is no longer the Taliban ,..
but next week ..... maybe Conservatives ?
1. Compartmentalization.
2. Stealth.
3. Deniability.
1. Only a handful of men are involved in the operation of a drone, and only two men need to know the actual target: the operator and his immediate commander. A successful sting operation (or air strike) would require numerous people to be read-in.
2. Basically nobody knows that anything is going on until the target goes boom.
3. This is a less sure advantage, but alternate explanations (gas explosion, bomb-making operation gone wrong, etc.) are easy to contrive and the govenrment has powerful leverage over LEOs and first responders. At any rate, if the Feds don't scruple over fraggng their political enemies what might they do to whistleblowers? Better to "see nothing" and clam up.
Should a president wish, all he has to do is claim that his life was threatened by any individual. Thus would begin a multi-year, multi-million dollar ordeal for the citizen. Hey, the citizen might even get convicted.
I disagree.
I’m thinking the feds would more resort to setting a timed IED to kill opponents, since drones are now getting some attention. How difficult would it be to enter a residence, set the device, and after detonation, send in compliant FBI types who will “conclude” it was a criminal act perpetrated by someone at a local level.
Who says it will be a military drone?
“Surveillance drones are going to be used extensively at home, and that is a serious issue, but armed drones are not likely to be because the United States is not hostile territory.”
Ha! We shall see.
This video might have been around for awhile but I first seen it a few days ago. It’s Quantico from 17,000 feet and it’s called ARGUS.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13BahrdkMU8&feature=player_embedded