Mostly because almost all of this originates from India and the Phillipines, not from within the US. The scammers are almost never associated to any US entity. The spam telemarketers that work for US companies that are beneficiaries are kind of a different sort of deal, although should also be penalized.

Why can't the military send drones with missiles after foreign enemies attacking our residents in our territory?

(Answer: the military doesn't serve the public.)

Or maybe because it would be an act of war and a war crime to drone-strike civilians in a foreign country because of them committing a criminal act? We generally arrest criminals and put them on trial, we don't summarily execute them by raining fire from above.

I hate robo-callers and scammers as much as anyone, but I don't think drone-striking them is the proper response.

If you take the stance that these calls are impacting the US infrastructure and falls under the Homeland Security umbrella, these robocall farms would be stopped with appropriate resources. Right now, violating DNC (the various lists) is not a criminal violation.

I get something to the order of 60-100 spam calls a day regarding medicare benefits (my number has somehow been associated with a retiree who shares my name). I fully support drone strikes on overseas call centers.

Drone strikes on call centers would punish the poor employees with little to no power for the unethical choices of their bosses.

You should be ashamed of this kind of call for violence, even if you intended it as a joke.

The people working in these call centers know what they're doing by defrauding the most vulnerable members of our society and should be considered enemy combatants if their host government is unwilling to act on their crimes.

The people working those call centers are more vulnerable than rich Americans.

We need to stop letting accessories off the hook like they don't know exactly what game they're playing. They're just as culpable.

You pay taxes to the US government. You are an accessory. Should victims of USA aggression blow up the building where you work?

no violence needed:

We made a Drone to Toilet Paper houses!

https://yt.artemislena.eu/watch?v=QMb1FH_YEME

Please remove the "robocall" from your suggestion, and then it sounds perfect to me.

The US views company owners as royalty

Because nobody passed a law that says the government can do that, and if the government did it anyway it'd be tyrannical as hell?

I hardly think it's tyrannical to jail someone who made literally billions of attempts to defraud people.

It's tyrannical to put people who knowingly break the law in jail?

Break the law to get $100, it's a crime, break the law to get a million, it's a write-off.

You take it as a given that what they did broke the law just because the government claims it was illegal. However, that is not what the settlement proposal actually says.

There was no trial, there was no conviction, and the telemarketers admit to no wrongdoing.

They also agree to pay the full $13m if they fail to comply with a whole host of reporting and reform, including stopping their part of the calls.

Okay, first off, this is the comment you replied to:

>Why can't we just start putting the CEOs of robocall companies that break the law in jail?

I take it as a given because it was given in the premise.

Anyway, I read the settlement proposal. There was no trial because the company waived their right to it. Because they know they're getting a slap on the wrist compared to the potential fines they could face. They're getting told they got away with all the illegal acts they previously committed (and yes, some of those things are definitely illegal), as long as they stop it now.

Imagine if someone steals hundreds of TVs, gpus, and laptops, then when they finally get caught, the courts say "Naughty naughty. We're fining you 100 dollars, but you can keep everything you stole. Now don't do it again or we'll actually punish you". It's absurd.

Literally not given in the premise, and these people haven’t been convicted of anything, so your analogy is flawed (they didn’t steal or get caught doing anything).

Then why don't we pass that law?

Go for it. I'd vote for such a law (or more accurately, consider voting for a representative who supported such a law), depending on the specifics.