03-10-2013, 10:23 PM
I remember that there was some talk (media gossip, really) that a drone could be used to target the cabin that Christopher Dorner occupied in his final stand-off with police in Big Bear, California last month. If drone technology allowed for smaller and more cost-efficient weapons in the future, I could see them having viable applications on US soil against US citizens. An unmanned drone with precise targeting could accomplish the same goals perhaps as a full SWAT or ATF team with less risk and loss of life in some types of cases, like that of Dorner.
I don't think such an application of drone weaponry is likely to happen soon, but when it does, I'd feel more comfortable knowing that US drone use would be primarily for law enforcement purposes. I don't think drones should be able to be launched at US citizens at the President's sole discretion and I do believe that the situations under which drone strikes would be allowed should be clearly spelled out. If I understand the bill correctly, this is what Rand Paul and Ted Cruz want specified by law. Maybe it doesn't need to be specified at this time, but why not set boundaries proactively?
Rand and Cruz also, of course, wanna poke Obama and Brennan as hard as possible in the process. They're planning to tack the drone bill onto the budget spending legislation (Pentagon) and Rand agreed to finally vote on Brennan's Secretary of Defense nomination (he'd delayed the voting process for almost 15 hours, IIRC) after getting Atty General Holder to send a letter stating that Obama doesn't haven't authority to launch drone strikes at American citizens in the US. Lots of politics associated with this bill, as usual.
I don't think such an application of drone weaponry is likely to happen soon, but when it does, I'd feel more comfortable knowing that US drone use would be primarily for law enforcement purposes. I don't think drones should be able to be launched at US citizens at the President's sole discretion and I do believe that the situations under which drone strikes would be allowed should be clearly spelled out. If I understand the bill correctly, this is what Rand Paul and Ted Cruz want specified by law. Maybe it doesn't need to be specified at this time, but why not set boundaries proactively?
Rand and Cruz also, of course, wanna poke Obama and Brennan as hard as possible in the process. They're planning to tack the drone bill onto the budget spending legislation (Pentagon) and Rand agreed to finally vote on Brennan's Secretary of Defense nomination (he'd delayed the voting process for almost 15 hours, IIRC) after getting Atty General Holder to send a letter stating that Obama doesn't haven't authority to launch drone strikes at American citizens in the US. Lots of politics associated with this bill, as usual.