House Passes Ban on Drone Strikes Against US Citizens

[Red James Cash]

House Passes Ban on Drone Strikes Against US Citizens

truther June 17, 2013

AP

An amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2014 that will ban drone strikes against American citizens passed in the House on Friday.

However, the amendment does contain an exception for Americans “actively engaged in combat against the United States”.

Below is the full amendment:

SEC. 12l. PROHIBITION ON USE OF DRONES TO KILL UNITED STATES CITIZENS.

(a) PROHIBITION.—The Department of Defense may not use a drone to kill a citizen of the United States.
(b) EXCEPTION.—The prohibition under subsection shall not apply to an individual who is actively engaged in combat against the United States.
(c) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘‘drone’’ means an unmanned aircraft (as defined in section 331 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (49 U.S.C. 40101 note)).

The 2014 NDAA now heads to the Senate.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[GMD52]

They actually needed to pass a law to define the obvious? Are these people in Wash. paid by the bill? It is totally ridiculous that they waste time and money on the obvious and can't pass a Fed. Budget! It's time to find some new Congressmen/women, and get back on track, and stop worrying about what other Countrys think and need, It's time to start taking care of our own!

 

[Red James Cash]

They have to make it look like theyre actually doing something

 

[Bum Luck]

This is of course is still bad news for Americans “actively engaged in combat against the United States”.

 

[jeff of pa]

They have to make it look like theyre actually doing something

Covering their tracks over the Leak ?

most likely at the same time they were passing this version for the public
the TOP SECRET Version where anything go's was being passed behind closed doors

When you live in a world where TOP SECRET Documents & Meetings exist,
how can you believe anything that is put before the public ?

this is eactly why I do not watch World Disinformation news on TV

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

This is of course is still bad news for Americans “actively engaged in combat against the United States”.

The problem is in who classifies the person as " actively engaged in combat against the United States ”.

The government can claim any person who is opposed to any current administration's policies as an enemy in secret. There should be judicial overview of any american the government makes a claim against.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

[Bum Luck]

The problem is in who classifies the person as " actively engaged in combat against the United States ”.

The government can claim any person who is opposed to any current administration's policies as an enemy in secret. There should be judicial overview of any american the government makes a claim against.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

TH, I had my tongue in cheek, but I absolutely agree.

 

[Red James Cash]

Heres the bad part.The list DHS has that lists activities that put you,me,everybody,into the category of being under suspicion of domestic terrorism.They could easily twist it.Walking down the street with your hands in your pockets (which is on the DHS list of suspicious activities),might soon make you a target.

 

[Bum Luck]

Heres the bad part.The list DHS has that lists activities that put you,me,everybody,into the category of being under suspicion of domestic terrorism.They could easily twist it.Walking down the street with your hands in your pockets (which is on the DHS list of suspicious activities),might soon make you a target.

Not on board this statement though. No one can 'drone' someone in the US for that. I've never seen a DHS person, but plenty of police, and they can stop you if they have probable cause; at times it may include just that. I don't think I need to elaborate.

 

[Red James Cash]

Ive seen quite a few fema agents around here.

and they can stop you if they have probable cause; at times it may include just that.

Give em time,theyre working on it.If they can detain you indefinitely just because you seem suspicious,dont put it past them that they wont pop you.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Not on board this statement though. No one can 'drone' someone in the US for that. I've never seen a DHS person, but plenty of police, and they can stop you if they have probable cause; at times it may include just that. I don't think I need to elaborate.

Police is some states, pull you over to check for alcohol, if you refuse to take breath test they call a judge, get a search warrant, strap you to a gurney against your will and forcibly take your blood. They can now take your DNA on simple ticket if they want.

Both violate our rights per our constitution yet people just accept it.....

I

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Police in some states, pull you over to check for alcohol, if you refuse to take breath test they call a judge, get a search warrant, strap you to a gurney against your will and forcibly take your blood. They can now take your DNA on simple ticket if they want.

Both violate our rights per our constitution yet people just accept it.....

We lose our rights a step at a time and they can get away with it because we don't stand up.

Obama had already stated he has right to kill Americans on american soil under pretense of being a terrorist, yet doesn't have to prove it to anyone.......

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

[Bum Luck]

Police is some states, pull you over to check for alcohol, if you refuse to take breath test they call a judge, get a search warrant, strap you to a gurney against your will and forcibly take your blood. They can now take your DNA on simple ticket if they want.

Both violate our rights per our constitution yet people just accept it.....

Taking your blood against your will can happen in my state, and I support that. I DO NOT think that violates your rights under unreasonable search and seizure. I want drunks off the road, including Steve the lawnmower guy. By getting a license and driving, it implies you gave consent for officers of the state to test you for alcohol. That's the case in all the states, by the way.

Here's the statutes in Florida:
Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

[SIZE=-1]Any person who accepts the privilege extended by the laws of this state of operating a motor vehicle within this state is, by so operating such vehicle, deemed to have given his or her consent to submit to an approved chemical test or physical test including, but not limited to, an infrared light test of his or her breath for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of his or her blood or breath if the person is lawfully arrested for any offense allegedly committed while the person was driving or was in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcoholic beverages. [/SIZE]

Refusing is an additional misdemeanor.

Arguing that driving drunk, then getting arrested for it constitutes self incrimination is like shooting someone and then arguing you can't get arrested simply because you have a smoking gun in your hand that ballistically matches the bullet in his body. Good luck with that.

 

[Bum Luck]

Ive seen quite a few fema agents around here.

I can't find any even on Google. Get some pictures of them and post them, huh?

 

[Red James Cash]

I can't find any even on Google. Get some pictures of them and post them, huh?

I run into them every once and a while going into a dunkin donuts for an ice coffee when I'm working.That in itself is pretty funny lol.In fact a friend of mines wife use to work at the dunkin donuts down the street from my house.She had a few words to say to him.

 

[mustangpalmer1911]

“actively engaged in combat against the United States”. Well IF they follow the constitution the government is NOT the United Stated, the people and the ideals of the constitution are the United States.................

 

[mustangpalmer1911]

Taking your blood against your will can happen in my state, and I support that. I DO NOT think that violates your rights under unreasonable search and seizure. I want drunks off the road, including Steve the lawnmower guy. By getting a license and driving, it implies you gave consent for officers of the state to test you for alcohol. That's the case in all the states, by the way.

WOW!

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Taking your blood against your will can happen in my state, and I support that. I DO NOT think that violates your rights under unreasonable search and seizure. I want drunks off the road, including Steve the lawnmower guy. By getting a license and driving, it implies you gave consent for officers of the state to test you for alcohol. That's the case in all the states, by the way.

Here's the statutes in Florida:
Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

[SIZE=-1]Any person who accepts the privilege extended by the laws of this state of operating a motor vehicle within this state is, by so operating such vehicle, deemed to have given his or her consent to submit to an approved chemical test or physical test including, but not limited to, an infrared light test of his or her breath for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of his or her blood or breath if the person is lawfully arrested for any offense allegedly committed while the person was driving or was in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcoholic beverages. [/SIZE]

Refusing is an additional misdemeanor.

Arguing that driving drunk, then getting arrested for it constitutes self incrimination is like shooting someone and then arguing you can't get arrested simply because you have a smoking gun in your hand that ballistically matches the bullet in his body. Good luck with that.

This is what is wrong with our country and so frustrating to so many of us, too many citizens readily just give up their rights.

What would our fore fathers have said about the Kings men forcing open citizens mouth to take a DNA sample or tying them down to a table to forcibly take their blood.

Oh wait they did say something about it, it was called The Bill Of Rights........


Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

---

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

 

[golden ray]

Doesn't matter what the house or congress says. The different policing agencies Local, FBI, NSA, US Marshalls, ETC.
will do what they want. And of course make up lies to cover their a**
Its not just the occasional rogue anymore, now its the accepted way of doing things.
AND THEIR PROUD OF IT !!!!!!!!

 

[Bum Luck]

WOW![/QUOTE

That is the law in 50 states. Like it or not.