Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Defense Dept. Directed To Disclose Domestic Drone Use

Posted by Soulskill on from the admit-to-using-them-to-do-beer-runs dept.

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.'"

7 of 190 comments (clear)

  1. So you don't waste your time... by canadiannomad · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
    1. Re:So you don't waste your time... by characterZer0 · · Score: 5, Informative

      "engaged in combat" is can be interpreted many ways.

      --
      Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
    2. Re:So you don't waste your time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      "Due Process" has become something different from what most people think as well.

      Most people believe that means the suspect would be taken into custody and have a fair trial but in an unguarded moment in an interview Holder said that "due process" now only requires some consideration from someone in the executive branch.

    3. Re:So you don't waste your time... by anagama · · Score: 3, Informative

      There is a world of difference between shooting a clocktower shooter out his perch, and shooting a person suspected of planning to be a clocktower shooter but actually engaged in having dinner or something. In the first case, lethal force is justified. In the second, arrest is justified and lethal force completely unconstitutional.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
  2. Wrong by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
  3. Re:What's really sad about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    You've been misled by the politicized summary.

    The reason Democrats voted against this bill (which is a gigantic bill that has nothing to do with drones for the most part) is not, as the anonymous submitter would like you to believe, because it would have required the DOD to disclose the policies regarding the use of drones. It is because it was a Republican-produced appropriations bill that reflects Republican fiscal priorities that Democrats hate. The tiny rider in the bill probably had nothing to do with it.

  4. Re:Not even close to enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    You know what happened the last time Congress passed a law restricting the power of the executive branch?

    The White House simply ignored it.