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
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?
"'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"?
You know what happened the last time Congress passed a law restricting the power of the executive branch?
The White House simply ignored it.
Consider that our theory of law is supposed to be: Powers are granted to the government through constitution or law, any powers not expressly granted are reserved. Laws that ban the government from doing something aren't how it's supposed to work. If we didn't authorize them to do it, they aren't allowed. This is why the incredibly broad interpretation of the original 9/11 AUMF is so dangerous.
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?
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.
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
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.
Or they could ban spying and murdering of US citizens. Why does it matter if they use a UAV?
Or they could ban spying and murdering altogether.
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*".
The critics think that Congress deserves a lot of blame for not even trying to hold presidents accountable for that.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
Now its the republicans we have to fall back on to look out for our civil liberties.. Liberals are the new republicans.
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.
Well, the fact that the three main opinions on the Constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution/Act appear to be:
(1) it is an unconstitutional delegation of reserved Congressional power to the Executive, and therefore void, or
(2) it is an unconstitutional intrusion on Executive power granted by the Constitution, and therefore void, or
(3) Some provisions are as described in (1), and some provisions are as described in (2)
Its probably not a wonder that every President since it was adopted has treated it as a nonbinding request by Congress, and no Congress has ever sought to enforce its provisions.