You can stop laughing now.

[exploited]

There is nothing quite like a deliberate and long term campaign to destroy the system of checks and balances in a country. So far, damned effective.

Obama has no intention of using drones on Americans within the United States. He is merely attempting to expand the powers of the Executive Branch, a goal shared by all President's for the past thirty years.

Almost all your problems seem to stem from this.

[Professor]

[Professor]

[Professor]

[eynon81]

[eynon81]

[Professor]

OK, I really must be missing something. Seems like a lot of people whose opinions and thought process I respect are against this.

The issue is that the Fed (and perhaps other governmental law enforcement agencies) are considering using drone aircraft here in America as part of their law enforcement duties. Right?

These drones are controlled by law enforcement individuals who have to abide by every single civil rights law currently on the books. They cannot enter a dwelling without a warrant. They cannot warrantlessly detain. They cannot shoot without probable cause. Et cetera.

Basically, instead of a Bell Ranger helo hovering over LA looking for baddies, you have an unmanned drone with a video camera. I don't understand the difference?

As for armed drones, I still don't understand. There is that same law officer controlling it. If a threat is identified, instead of sending up a pilotted aircraft, you send in one without a pilot. Same rules still apply, but there is no pilot in harm's way. If the perp surrenders, the drone's controller still can't shoot willy-nilly.

I really don't understand the outrage.

[Indy]

Because under the guise of "war on terror" all those checks and balances you cited can be easily tossed aside.

[eynon81]

[Professor]