LL> Hello Bob,   
      
    MM>>> Was Rand Paul wasting his time, or did he have some claim   
    MM>>> to his argument about the domestic use of drones?   
      
   BK>>He was right. Drones are questionable, and need to be restricted   
   BK>>in any event.   
      
    LL> Senator Paul was wrong.  He questioned AG Eric Holder about   
    LL> the use of armed drones over American soil.  Holder   
    LL> answered "No" to that question, explaining that only in an   
    LL> emergency event dealing with national security (such as   
    LL> Pearl Harbor or 9-11) would drones be considered to be used   
    LL> as such.   
      
    I disagree with that. I can think of other circumstances where   
    armed drones could be considered. Such as against the Sovereign   
    Citizen movement in a shootout with police.   
      
    LL> However, Senator Paul failed to ask the more   
    LL> pertinent questions, such as unarmed drones flying over   
    LL> American soil, and under whose authority should drones be   
    LL> placed?   
      
    That has crossed my mind. I don't like the idea of even recon   
    drones flying around looking over out shoulders. Too much big   
    brother there by far.   
      
   BK>>Armed drones have very very limited justification inside this   
   BK>>country.   
      
    LL> The CIA oversees how drones are used.  Senator Paul failed   
    LL> to question this.  In my view, drones should be placed   
    LL> under the Department of Defense.  That way, there could be   
    LL> Congressional oversight, with the ability to place controls   
    LL> on that program.   
      
    Though "Congressional Oversight" doesn't much impress me, I do   
    agree about armed drones being under the DOD. The CIA should be   
    intelligence gathering, any shooting should be under the   
    military. So recon drones could be run by the CIA, but not armed   
    attacks by drone.   
      
    LL> I do not like the idea of the CIA conducting operations   
    LL> inside of the United States, on American citizens.  It   
    LL> would make me feel as if I were living inside the Soviet   
    LL> Union of old.  Or worse.   
      
    Exactly. And it's illegal.   
      
    LL> A president issuing executive orders to "terminate with   
    LL> extreme prejudice" those he does not like, without ever   
    LL> having to answer to anybody for his actions, used to be a   
    LL> storyline thought up only by science fiction writers such   
    LL> as Philip K. Dick, Robert Heinlein, Aldous Huxley, and   
    LL> George Orwell.  But in today's modern world, with its   
    LL> technological marvels, those visions have in many ways   
    LL> already become reality.  The only question remains is where   
    LL> does it all stop?   
      
    As long as the target is actively engaged in making war on the   
    US I have little problem with it. However, all attacks should be   
    on record. For history if nothing else, but just because any   
    competent military unit does keep records also.   
      
      
   BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn   
      
   ... Paul Ryan is still the same flimflamming fiscal phony he always was.   
   --- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]   
    * Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 Join Us: www.DocsPlace.org (1:123/140)