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?"
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
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.
You're not kidding. It's already been ruled by the SCOTUS that mere speech amounts to "material support for terrorism". I wouldn't be surprised if Holder argued that speech was combat as well.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Which essentially means they don't follow the Constitution. They'd never say that because then the illusion would crumble and people might wake up from their apathetic stupor and do something.
If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
If speech is material support, then banning material support is unconstitutional under the first amendment.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!