BK>>  Armed drones have very very limited justification inside this   
    BK>>  country.   
      
    PF> Pray tell, what justification do we have for unarmed drones   
    PF> operating in the US against US citizens or foreign   
    PF> nationals?   
      
    The most obvious answer, is, I did not say they had any   
    justification for operations against any person in this country.   
      
    They do have justification for training.   
      
    However, I would add, if I was flying an armed drone, and   
    spotted you sitting on a hill above a town, with a machine gun,   
    firing at the people in the town, I would fire the missile at   
    you.   
      
    PF> Followup question -- do those conditions exist   
    PF> today?   
      
    I don't know. I am pretty sure they didn't exist in this country   
    yesterday, but today is a new day.   
      
    The use of leathal force is severly restricted in the US. Only   
    in a case involving immediate danger of bodily harm to an   
    innocent person. At least, AFAIK. Whether it's an armed drone or   
    a crossbow does not matter for that purpose.   
      
    BTW, I previously expressed support for Rand Paul's effort. I   
    have since learned, Holder had responded to a congressional   
    committee before Rand Paul began his filibuster, and said they   
    could not use armed drones against suspects not involved in   
    attacks at the time. Rand Paul was informed of that during his   
    filibuster, and he kept on talking.   
      
    It was all showboating.   
      
      
      
   BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn   
      
   ... ... If at first you don't succeed, then Skydiving is not for you.   
   --- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]   
    * Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 Join Us: www.DocsPlace.org (1:123/140)