You can stop laughing now.

[Precocity]

[Indy]

[Professor]

Responding to your last point, first, Eynon.

Similar to Indy, if we are eroding civil rights, then that is the problem. For instance, let's assume it's a civil rights violation to look into a dwelling using microwave radiation without a warrant. You have human-driven vans with the capability to do this, and drones that can do it. Why would we get upset about the drone, if the van is doing it too? The problem is the violation of civil rights, not the drone.

It matters not if the person violating your rights is in the van or in a control facility. The problem is that your rights were violated.

One caveat - if it is military personnel driving the drones, enforcing domestic laws, I have a problem. It has to be domestic law enforcement.

[Precocity]

[Professor]

Responding to your first part, Eynon. Meant to do it earlier.

You look at things from a legal POV, and I look from political. Neither is right and neither is wrong. Just 2 different views of reality based upon our backgrounds. And, forgive me if i put words into your mouth that you wish not to speak.

I believe that you, and others, would like to see some guidelines written down to ensure that certain law enforcement measures aren't abused. We all want that, in fact. But, I believe that you probably want more than I do. You see those laws, like the ones that would forbid usage of drones, as a way to ensure that power is not abused.

I see political pressure doing that. For instance, a President may look at a situation, review the laws, and conclude that he "can" do something. However, he's up for re-election in 2 years. If he does it, will be be re-elected? That reality is a check upon his usage of power. Along with impeachment and other things. A President will not begin to authorize the usage of drones all across the country, even if deemed legal, because the political pressure would kill him.

At their core, I believe that every President, and 99% of elected and appointed officials, do what they do for the betterment of our country. Bush enacted the Patriot Act because he believed it was best. We can disagree in retrospect, or even when it was happening. But, he was President during a horrible event, and people looked to him for answers. He may have acted like a child lashing out at imagined creatures in the dark. But, I believe that he was doing what he thought was best for the people. I believe that these drones would not be used by Holder or anyone else to make America worse. The day that I stop believing in the inherent "good intentions" of our government, I'll leave.

[Professor]

[Precocity]

[eynon81]

[eynon81]

[dontworrybehappy]