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.
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
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
"'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.
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?
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?
s/"Use"/"Deployment"/
There I fixed it.
I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.
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...