...   
      
    BK>> The most obvious answer, is, I did not say they had any   
    BK>> justification for operations against any person in this country.   
      
    LL> The use of armed drones inside this country should be very   
    LL> rare. Only in cases of absolute national security.   
      
    I disagree. In a case of mass murder attack, such as the one I   
    gave as an example, shooting at a town with a machine gun on a   
    hill above the town. However, the chances of having an armed   
    drone available is low. A helicopter with a sniper is more   
    likely the choice.   
      
   BK>>They do have justification for training.   
      
    LL> Where will we drop the bombs?  We no longer use Hawai'i or   
    LL> Puerto Rico as a testing site.  Too many natives objected.   
    LL> And Alaska is far too cold for any serious bombing.   
      
    Where do they drop them now? And Alaska is not too cold all year   
    long.   
      
    LL> Especially since those nasty environmentalists would throw   
    LL> a fit.  Maybe the governor of Ohio might lease out some   
    LL> land for that purpose.   
      
    Used to have an artillery range East of here a ways.   
      
    LL> It would give him a chance to wipe   
    LL> out Cleveland and create new green space.  I mean, you are   
    LL> talking about a city that once set a river on fire.   
      
    That was 40+ years ago. And a lot of rivers in this country were   
    that bad then. The clean water act has cleaned them up a lot.   
      
   BF>>However, I would add, if I was flying an armed drone, and   
   BF>>spotted you sitting on a hill above a town, with a machine gun,   
   BF>>firing at the people in the town, I would fire the missile at   
   BF>>you.   
      
    LL> It depends on what people.  If the people he was firing at   
    LL> were al-Qaeda terrorists, it might be best to wipe out the   
    LL> town rather than the person taking potshots at them with a   
    LL> rifle.   
      
    Silly response.   
      
    And I said, machine gun, not rifle. Though a rifle would count   
    too. A whole town of Al Qaeda terrorists would require a full   
    scale military response, not one civilian with a machine gun.   
      
    PF>>> Followup question -- do those conditions exist   
    PF>>> today?   
      
   BK>>I don't know. I am pretty sure they didn't exist in this country   
   BK>>yesterday, but today is a new day.   
      
    LL> Conditions change with each and every passing day.  So what   
    LL> do you do?  Carpe Diem!  Seize the day!  That is the ticket   
    LL> for success!   
      
    I believe that's about what I said.   
      
   BK>>The use of leathal force is severly restricted in the US.   
      
    ...   
      
   BK>>Only in a case involving immediate danger of bodily harm to an   
   BK>>innocent person. At least, AFAIK. Whether it's an armed drone or   
   BK>>a crossbow does not matter for that purpose.   
      
    ...   
      
   BK>>BTW, I previously expressed support for Rand Paul's effort. I   
   BK>>have since learned, Holder had responded to a congressional   
   BK>>committee before Rand Paul began his filibuster, and said they   
   BK>>could not use armed drones against suspects not involved in   
   BK>>attacks at the time. Rand Paul was informed of that during his   
   BK>>filibuster, and he kept on talking.   
      
    LL> You have to forgive him.  He's from Kentucky.  And his   
    LL> father is from Texas.   
      
    No, I don't have to forgive him.   
      
   BK>>It was all showboating.   
      
    ...   
      
   BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn   
      
   ... Reality... An illusion induced by a lack of imagination...   
   --- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]   
    * Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 Join Us: www.DocsPlace.org (1:123/140)