Sign up before Midnight to watch our video,
“Biggest Ponzi Scheme in U.S. History to Crash,”
and get our daily e-letter Investment Contrarians.
We respect your privacy!
We will never rent/sell your e-mail address.
That’s a promise! And you can opt out at any time.
The Department of Homeland
Security recently advanced a plan to deploy “public safety” drones in the
skies over America, an action Congress authorized last year and called
for the deployment of 30,000 drone surveillance vehicles by 2020.
First of all… there’s never been
a drone used on an American citizen, on American soil.
We respect and have a whole bunch of safeguards in terms of how we conduct counter-terrorism operations outside of the United States. The rules outside of the United States are going to be different than the rules inside of the United States.
…
I am the head of the Executive branch and what we’ve done so far is to try to work with Congress on oversight issues.
Part of what I’m going to have to work with Congress on is to make sure that whatever it is we’re providing Congress, that we have mechanisms to also make sure that the public understands what’s going on, what the constraints are, what the legal parameters are.
That’s something that I take very seriously.
I am not somebody who believes that the President has the authority to do whatever he wants or whatever she wants, whenever they want, just under the guise of counter-terrorism.
There have to be checks and balances on it.
While DHS head Janet Napolitano says the primary mission for domestic drones is for situational
awareness in “large public safety [matters] or disasters”, President Obama may
have a different idea for how best to implement this next generation of frightening
surveillance technology.
Well known for his obsession with remote drone attacks, reportedly going so far as to personally
sit in on unmanned aerial vehicle missions, the President was recently asked
about concerns from American citizens about the possibility of extra-judicial
military drone strikes within the borders of the United States.
Obama has not only failed to deny that he has such plans, but
makes it clear that his administration is working closely with Congress to
develop a legal framework that will allow the Chief Executive and his
subordinates the leeway to initiate strikes right here at home.
We respect and have a whole bunch of safeguards in terms of how we conduct counter-terrorism operations outside of the United States. The rules outside of the United States are going to be different than the rules inside of the United States.
…
I am the head of the Executive branch and what we’ve done so far is to try to work with Congress on oversight issues.
Part of what I’m going to have to work with Congress on is to make sure that whatever it is we’re providing Congress, that we have mechanisms to also make sure that the public understands what’s going on, what the constraints are, what the legal parameters are.
That’s something that I take very seriously.
I am not somebody who believes that the President has the authority to do whatever he wants or whatever she wants, whenever they want, just under the guise of counter-terrorism.
There have to be checks and balances on it.
One can only conclude that military
and law enforcement drone strikes will soon be business as usual, and likely
the preferred method for dealing with, as the Patriot Act outlines, those who “intimidate or coerce the
civilian population” or attempt to “influence government policy” – pretty much
anyone who disagrees with what the government is doing.
As Chris Carrington rightly points out about pre-emptive government prosecution, under the National Defense Authorization
Act “individuals who have committed no crime can be arrested and incarcerated
at the will of the government without proven cause.” Will this new legal framework
now expand on Patriot Act and NDAA to allow for a militarized government
response to potential threats?
For those who would call for such extreme action as firing a
military grade remote Hellfire missile at a domestic target, as the media
recently suggested we should do during the hunt
for Chris Dorner,
consider that Global Research recently reported that over 40% of drone casualties are
innocents – often children.
But such collateral damage would never happen in America, right? The NYPD, for
example, would never randomly open fire in the middle of a busy street and shoot civilians. Likewise, the
LAPD would never overreact and send a barrage of bullets at two
innocent newspaper carriers who happen to be in a vehicle matching the
description of what a suspect may be driving.
With drones, such incidents would be reduced or all but eliminated
right? This legal framework being developed by President Obama’s administration
with the help of Congress would ensure that no innocents will be killed, right?
Law enforcement and military would never target criminals or terrorists if it
would endanger innocent Americans who might be in their direct vicinity, right?
And never would they be used to target American citizens unless
actionable intelligence of an impending threat was real and confirmed by, as
President Obama notes, a “whole bunch of safeguards.”
To paraphrase President Obama, Diane
Feinstein and the many Congressional representatives who support a safer America,
it’s time we start disarming those who have access to these weapons of mass
destruction. These military style assault weapons have no use in hunting or
sporting, and have no business being on the streets of America.
Sign up before Midnight to watch our video,
“Biggest Ponzi Scheme in U.S. History to Crash,”
and get our daily e-letter Investment Contrarians.
We respect your privacy!
We will never rent/sell your e-mail address.
That’s a promise! And you can opt out at any time.