Slashdot Mirror
Defense Dept. Directed To Disclose Domestic Drone Use
An anonymous reader writes "The U.S. House of Representatives has voted to make the Pentagon disclose whether military drones are being used in U.S. airspace to spy on U.S. citizens. This follows Rand Paul's filibuster on the floor of the Senate in which he demanded answers from the Obama administration as to whether drone strikes on U.S. soil were a possibility. (Senator Paul received an amusingly brief response (PDF) to his 13-hour question.) From the article: 'A requirement buried in a lengthy appropriations bill calls on newly confirmed Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel to disclose to Congress what "policies and procedures" are in place "governing the use" of military drones or other unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) domestically. The report is due no later than 90 days after the bill is signed into law. The vote on the bill, which was overwhelmingly supported by Republicans and opposed by Democrats, comes as concerns about domestic use of drones have spiked. ...The House's language stops short of requiring Hagel to disclose whether he or his predecessor have taken the step of approving the targeting of any U.S. citizens for surveillance.'"
if there's nothing to disclose, it just means they're not telling us!
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
The PDF download response is kinda funny... But basically not worth the download...
It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: "Does the
President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in
combat on American soil?" The answer to that question is no.
I'm glad... Now if hopefully they will keep it that way...
I won't hold my breath.
Hmm, the humour and sarcasm seem to have been be lost on you.
Seem that there is absolutely no problem on using drones in the rest of the world. US should have more right to use it in their soil than doing it anywhere else.
In 2007, it was the Democrats screaming for full disclosure about Bush's violations of civil liberties, while Republicans in Congress were doing everything they could to protect their dear leader. In 2013, the roles are reversed, but the play is basically the same.
Why is it that so few politicians are willing to say "All violations of civil liberties are wrong, regardless of who's party is currently in control of the presidency?"
I am officially gone from
How alliterative.
In fact, the US government has historically been more limited in what it does domestically than abroad. Voice of America, for example, is a propaganda broadcast that cannot be broadcast within the United States but which was famously broadcast along the USSR's borders.
Palm trees and 8
Is 90 days a normal time for a response? 48 hours seems more then enough...
If the authors of this bill really cared about the issue, they could introduce a bill to ban the use of UAVs to spy on or murder US citizens, rather than asking the executive branch to reveal their procedures for doing such things.
I predict that once the disclosures are made, the Republicans will seize on any embarrassing comments in them, but will not make any effort to fix the underlying problem, which is that the President thinks he can spy on and murder US citizens without oversight, and too many members of Congress agree with him.
Really? You couldn't come up with one more D word for "use"?
on the alliteration fella.
No one is reporting on how the ACLU are investigating the ever-increasing level of militarization in our police forces.
And as I recall the Air Force has used Predator drones for domestic surveillance (yes, the ones you can put missiles on) several dozen times in the past, which came to light during the whole Dorner thing. Where's the public outrage now?
How many weaponized drones are floating above our heads, even though they don't intend to use them.
They only use civilian drones to spy on us.
"'Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?' The answer to that question is no."
So what does "not engaged in combat" mean, and who gets to decide? Would you be surprised if a future executive order defines political opponents or whistle blowers as "engaged in combat"?
So what does "not engaged in combat" mean, and who gets to decide?
Well, the traditional definition is pretty black-and-white: If you're firing weapons at members of the U.S. armed forces, you're engaged in combat.
More troubling are the possible non-traditional definitions: E.g., if someone's coordinating a DDoS attack against a Pentagon server, does that fall under being engaged in combat? What if you're jamming GPS signals around your house?
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
Your honor, I swear that his brown bag looked like a gun in the dark ...
The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
This whole thing is a charade. Why is the question restricted to drones? The government has had a million ways to spy on citizens or kill them within US borders long before drones came along. It's not like drones make it more possible.
I will give Rand a +1 for actually trying to do a real filibuster instead of that new modern bullshit but he gets -5 for really just trying to make some political points with the tea party.
Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
Long answer: If the Pentagon were using drones to spy on U.S. citizens in the U.S., they'd run afoul of Posse Comitatus. Instead, they may or may not be flying drones that the Homeland Security Department, the FBI and other law enforcement agencies use to spy on U.S. citizens in the U.S. through the use of what are called fusion centers.
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
I remember not to long ago when the Tea Party made the US House of Representatives read aloud most of the Constitution (not the three filth's part or Prohibition). I guess you weren't paying attention or don't believe in it. Any Bigfoot sightings anyone?
ANYONE can be deemed an "enemy combatant" at any time thanks to the Patriot act. This means you no longer have rights to a fair and speedy trial, can be held indefinitely, and can surely be hellfire'd by a drone, no matter where you are.
I'm sure even if you were lounging in a hammock, they'd still fire on you, and any children around you in your back yard if you were an "enemy combatant."
His whole trite reply is full of weasel clauses.
'Does anyone other than the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American engaged in combat as we define it while on American soil, or for any reason whatsoever when not on American soil?' The answer to that question is HAHA you don't get an answer to that question.
s/"Use"/"Deployment"/
There I fixed it.
I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.
What continually shocks me is that the powers that be are so willing to keep pushing stuff like this so far that normal people start saying stuff like "Hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but..."
I've heard a lot of fear and extreme distrust of the government lately, to the point that there's even been talk of "revolution within our lifetime" from people that I'd never expect to hear that from. I know that positions of power attract the worst sorts of people, but can they really be this ridiculously stupid, too?
And how is ANYTHING in this conversation at all amusing? We're talking about the politically powerful being able to kill innocent people. The submitter's sense of humor is nauseating.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: "Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?" The answer to that question is no.
The key words here are: the president, weaponized, kill, American and on American soil. The answer is so direct that it actually raises many more questions:
There are more questions, but you get the idea...
WTF? When is enough, enough?
-- L8R, guitardood
It is that Napolitano's CBP and the CIA drone use. Obama needs someone securely on his side for dropping bombs on American soil and DoD ain't it.
You do realize that authority, in the executive branch, devolves from the President? If the President doesn't have it, neither does anyone underneath him.
Would you be surprised if a future executive order defines political opponents or whistle blowers as "engaged in combat"?
yes. I would be surprised if Obama (or some future president) declared John Boehner (or some future political opponent) as engaged in combat with the USA because he is a political opponent.
There are democrats who voted against. They voted against. Idiots.
According to the article, the House voted to put this language in a bill. That doesn't mean the Senate will approve it, and it doesn't mean the President will sign it. The House, by itself, can't "direct" or "order" the Defense Department to do this.
I do, but given recent history, I find that fact offers me less comfort now than ever before. The then-presidents didn't need to directly authorize Kent State, Waco, or Ruby Ridge, did they..?
Obviously, it needed to be "Defense Dept. Directed to Disclose Domestic Drone *Deployment*".
This is pointless considering the advances in high altitude and orbit based surveillance.
Now its the republicans we have to fall back on to look out for our civil liberties.. Liberals are the new republicans.
What about the rights of the individual states to kill their population?! You federal government fanatics sicken me.
Of course they don't broadcast VOA content here. They have a completely different line of bullshit for domestic consumption.
Posse Comitatus limits the use of military personnel for domestic law enforcement except... when insurrection is involved. What's a domestic terrorist, in not an insurrectionist?
This is wrong.
The President can deploy federal troops in any of the following circumstances (and this is not an exhaustive list, because there are other sources of authority besides the Insurrection Act, and this is just the ones in the main provisions of the Insurrection Act):
Disaster relief has a different set of rules, true.
... but 6 Ds in one title is more than I can handle.
also. TLDR.
We're getting pretty far, in years, from Waco and Oklahoma City - so we're forgetting why the administration prioritizes its right to fire on Americans when conditions require it. But if you're here commenting on slashdot, you probably caught the warning from the Southern Poverty Law Center, so you recognize that we've been approaching, for many years, a dangerous time in which Americans may begin to set off bombs inside America, or attempt organized armed actions, or bring street-justice to a community. But this isn't just surveillance and drones and new technology, because a guided munition fired from a drone is not legally distinct from one dropped from a plane, or an unguided one as came out the barrel of a smallarm with National Guard stamped on the receiver.
The administration is standing their ground here because the debate threatens the security of their legal position in an extreme scenario, during a time when an extreme scenario is getting kinda likely. Tinfoil-style, we won't budge Obama on it because it weakens the presidency and therefor the entire ruling caste. More charitably, it's an opening for the right to take things too far and cripple his office early in the first term.
The letter was completely dishonest and snarky
This started MONTHS ago. Representatives from the administration gave a number of inconsistent responses to a bunch of congressional questions which lead to further questions and the administration ultimately claiming it could kill anybody with a drone strike and, when pressed, the admin said that the whole world was now the "battlefield". This was the point where the younger Paul, observing that drone strikes had been used in the middle east to hit suspected hostiles while they were sitting in places like cafes asked if this meant the admin thought it could use a drone to kill an American within the US in (for example) a cafe while that citizen was not engaged in any hostile act..... and for MONTHS the administration has refused to give a straight answer. Holder, being dishonest as usual, then writes this letter claiming he's been asked a new question... There is nothing new about the question Rand asked, the only thing "new" was that Holder was finally willing to give an answer. The Obama admin has become very arrogant, toxic, and Nixonian; Obama himself is a sadist (looking to inflict PAIN on the taxpayers to teach them a lesson). Facing a slightly slowed rate of increase in federal spending, Obama seeks to do things that will hurt middle class taxpayers; instead of de-funding shrimp on treadmills, or robotic squirrels, or other dumb things he shuts off tours of the white House which are often part of a once-in-a-lifetime family vacation for middle class folks.
Remember: before becoming A.G. Eric Holder was a lawyer for terrorists, and after becoming A.G. he oversaw the transfer of thousands of "assault weapons" to mexican drug gangs and then he interfered with the congressional investigation and got held in contempt for it. The man is dirty and the only reason he's not in a prison cell right now is that his pal President Obama has (temporarily) protected him with a bogus claim of executive privilege (which will be in the courts for years)
Any government official who does not trust you with a gun, does not deserve your trust.