1st American to shoot down a Drone will be an American Hero

[brotherplanet]

Yes, it's FOX, but before you bash it, Napolitano has gotten in trouble with the network for certain things he's said in the past (see my signature), and if you want to disagree please tell me where he's wrong...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fNP51hZtVI

Wait, Obama is the same guy who extended the Patriot Act and signed the NDAA.

Ahhh... Now I get it.

[Danzig in the Dark]

Yes, Obama did extend the Patriot Act and sign the NDAA. McCain would have done both had he won and Romney supports both. That's not a clear alternative. You hide your Republican bias like Adam Lambert hid his gayness. As for the drones, the court will have to sort out the legality, hopefully in the favor of our freedom, and anyone who shoots down a drone may or may not be a hero but certainly will be a badass shot.

[Luminiferous]

Yes, Obama did extend the Patriot Act and sign the NDAA. McCain would have done both had he won and Romney supports both. That's not a clear alternative. You hide your Republican bias like Adam Lambert hid his gayness. As for the drones, the court will have to sort out the legality, hopefully in the favor of our freedom, and anyone who shoots down a drone may or may not be a hero but certainly will be a badass shot.

Which is hilarious because McCain was one of it's biggest supporters, even pushing hardest for the indefinite detention..

Also..

"The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Pub.L. 110-181, H.R. 4986, 122 Stat. 3, enacted January 28, 2008) is a United States law to authorize funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, for military construction, and for national security-related energy programs.
It was President George W. Bush, together with Vice-President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and a host of other senior Bush administration officials who took the most radical and important steps toward establishing indefinite detention without trial as a mainstay of the US approach to fighting terrorism. But the Bush administration, preferring to act unilaterally, did not even bother to seek congressional sanction for its indefinite detention schemes. It established Guantanamo on its own, held American citizens without charge in the absence of a legislative mandate to do so, and fought judicial oversight tooth and nail.

In the signing statement, President George W. Bush instructed the executive branch to construe Sections 841, 846, 1079, and 1222 "in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President." However, his "instruction" is not legally binding, as the President does not decide how laws should be interpreted; the judiciary does. Nor can the President unilaterally change an Act of Congress; only Congress can do that."

Hey birtherplanetoid? Honest question: Did you support the Patriot Act when it was first signed into law in October 2001 and when it was amended in 2005 and 2006?

[DEATH ROW JOE]

if you want to disagree please tell me where he's wrong...

The 4th Amendment does not require the govt to acquire a warrant to conduct air surveillance. A citizen who shoots down a drone will simply be an idiot who is vandalizing govt property rather than a hero.


Florida v. Riley - 488 U.S. 445 (1989) held "the Fourth Amendment does not require the police traveling in the public airways to obtain a warrant in order to observe what is visible to the naked eye"

California v. Ciraolo - 476 U.S. 207 (1986) held the naked-eye police inspection of the backyard of a house from a fixed-wing aircraft at 1,000 feet was not a "search"

[brotherplanet]

Yes, Obama did extend the Patriot Act and sign the NDAA. McCain would have done both had he won and Romney supports both. That's not a clear alternative. You hide your Republican bias like Adam Lambert hid his gayness. As for the drones, the court will have to sort out the legality, hopefully in the favor of our freedom, and anyone who shoots down a drone may or may not be a hero but certainly will be a badass shot.

Good points all (except for the whole Republican bias jazz).

Yep, Romney supports both. Openly admitted he would have signed the NDAA back in one of the debates.

Hence why I'm not voting for either of these clowns come November. One of them will win, but not with my support.

[David_Lee_Halen]

Yes, Obama did extend the Patriot Act and sign the NDAA. McCain would have done both had he won and Romney supports both. That's not a clear alternative. You hide your Republican bias like Adam Lambert hid his gayness. As for the drones, the court will have to sort out the legality, hopefully in the favor of our freedom, and anyone who shoots down a drone may or may not be a hero but certainly will be a badass shot.

Good points all (except for the whole Republican bias jazz).

Yep, Romney supports both. Openly admitted he would have signed the NDAA back in one of the debates.

Hence why I'm not voting for either of these clowns come November. One of them will win, but not with my support.

...In which case, you automatically vote for the winner instead of finding some good reasons to vote for one over the other, even if they both support certain things that you disagree with..

[brotherplanet]

Hey birtherplanetoid? Honest question: Did you support the Patriot Act when it was first signed into law in October 2001 and when it was amended in 2005 and 2006?

Lets say I wasn't enraged, because we have a history of doing wacky stuff during a time of war. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and Roosevelt got the whole Japanese interment camps going. I figured the Patriot Act would be a short bit of insanity for us.

I was most incorrect and the longer it lasted the more pissed off at it I became.

When I voted for Obama I made another mistake. I believed him.

Now we've got drones.
We've got an extension of the Patriot Act.
The TSA is not only groping people at airports, but their powers have been extended. I even saw one checking bags in the NYC subway system about a month ago.
Guantanimo Bay is alive and kicking
The NDAA has been signed.

And of course if Romney wins he'll support all of this shit as well.

[brotherplanet]

Yes, Obama did extend the Patriot Act and sign the NDAA. McCain would have done both had he won and Romney supports both. That's not a clear alternative. You hide your Republican bias like Adam Lambert hid his gayness. As for the drones, the court will have to sort out the legality, hopefully in the favor of our freedom, and anyone who shoots down a drone may or may not be a hero but certainly will be a badass shot.

Good points all (except for the whole Republican bias jazz).

Yep, Romney supports both. Openly admitted he would have signed the NDAA back in one of the debates.

Hence why I'm not voting for either of these clowns come November. One of them will win, but not with my support.

...In which case, you automatically vote for the winner instead of finding some good reasons to vote for one over the other, even if they both support certain things that you disagree with..

I get your point, but I live in NYC and there's no way in Hell Obama isn't going to win my state and get the electoral votes.

During the last election I voted in a swing state for Obama, one that normally went Republican, so that time it felt like my vote really mattered. This time? Not so much.


As for certain things I disagree with. Most issues I can look at and say I'm going to support this guy because I agree with most of the things he stands for, but this time a line has been crossed. Our civil liberties are trampled upon and while we don't quite feel the government's collective anal probe up our asses, we're well on the way.

I can't vote for anyone who's helping this along.

[David_Lee_Halen]

Good points all (except for the whole Republican bias jazz).

Yep, Romney supports both. Openly admitted he would have signed the NDAA back in one of the debates.

Hence why I'm not voting for either of these clowns come November. One of them will win, but not with my support.

...In which case, you automatically vote for the winner instead of finding some good reasons to vote for one over the other, even if they both support certain things that you disagree with..

I get your point, but I live in NYC and there's no way in Hell Obama isn't going to win my state and get the electoral votes.

During the last election I voted in a swing state for Obama, one that normally went Republican, so that time it felt like my vote really mattered. This time? Not so much.


As for certain things I disagree with. Most issues I can look at and say I'm going to support this guy because I agree with most of the things he stands for, but this time a line has been crossed. Our civil liberties are trampled upon and while we don't quite feel the government's collective anal probe up our asses, we're well on the way.

I can't vote for anyone who's helping this along.

So why don't you throw your vote to a smaller party candidate that supports your views on some level? They'd be happy for your vote.

[brotherplanet]

So why don't you throw your vote to a smaller party candidate that supports your views on some level? They'd be happy for your vote.

Oh, yeah, that's what I'm going to do. I didn't mean to give the impression that I was sitting out the election.

[David_Lee_Halen]

So why don't you throw your vote to a smaller party candidate that supports your views on some level? They'd be happy for your vote.

Oh, yeah, that's what I'm going to do. I didn't mean to give the impression that I was sitting out the election.

[Drunk Kennedy]

if you want to disagree please tell me where he's wrong...

The 4th Amendment does not require the govt to acquire a warrant to conduct air surveillance. A citizen who shoots down a drone will simply be an idiot who is vandalizing govt property rather than a hero.


Florida v. Riley - 488 U.S. 445 (1989) held "the Fourth Amendment does not require the police traveling in the public airways to obtain a warrant in order to observe what is visible to the naked eye"

California v. Ciraolo - 476 U.S. 207 (1986) held the naked-eye police inspection of the backyard of a house from a fixed-wing aircraft at 1,000 feet was not a "search"

im curious...did they define at what distance the "naked eye" can no longer see clearly, and if the aircraft had been flying (say 2K ft) would it then have been inadmissible?

[brotherplanet]

if you want to disagree please tell me where he's wrong...

The 4th Amendment does not require the govt to acquire a warrant to conduct air surveillance. A citizen who shoots down a drone will simply be an idiot who is vandalizing govt property rather than a hero.


Florida v. Riley - 488 U.S. 445 (1989) held "the Fourth Amendment does not require the police traveling in the public airways to obtain a warrant in order to observe what is visible to the naked eye"

California v. Ciraolo - 476 U.S. 207 (1986) held the naked-eye police inspection of the backyard of a house from a fixed-wing aircraft at 1,000 feet was not a "search"

im curious...did they define at what distance the "naked eye" can no longer see clearly, and if the aircraft had been flying (say 2K ft) would it then have been inadmissible?

And I'd like to add... Florida v. Riley - 488 U.S. 445 was in 1989, long before the technology of 2012, where a drone can see much further than "what is visible to the naked eye" over American cities and neighborhoods and backyards.