Slashdot Mirror


Pentagon Admits Deploying Spy Drones Over US, Claims All Were 'Lawful' (msn.com)

lightbox32 writes with this excerpt from MSN News confirming what many people suspected with the proliferation of military and law-enforcement drones would happen, already has: A report by a Pentagon inspector general, made public under a Freedom of Information Act request, said spy drones on non-military missions have occurred fewer than 20 times between 2006 and 2015 and always in compliance with existing law. ... The use of unmanned aerial surveillance (UAS) drones over U.S. surfaced in 2013 when then-FBI director Robert Mueller testified before Congress that the bureau employed spy drones to aid investigations, but in a "very, very minimal way, very seldom." The inspector general analysis was completed March 20, 2015, but not released publicly until last Friday. ... The report quoted a military law review article that said "the appetite to use them (spy drones) in the domestic environment to collect airborne imagery continues to grow, as does Congressional and media interest in their deployment."

86 comments

  1. Who in the military used them? by jfdavis668 · · Score: 2

    The National Guard does have law enforcement powers in their state. The federal military does not.

    1. Re:Who in the military used them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but can operate them (unarmed) on behalf of federal law enforcement in some circumstances. Granted federal LEO's would have to be present but the military would be the operator.

    2. Re:Who in the military used them? by Alien+among+you · · Score: 2

      The National Guard does have law enforcement powers in their state. The federal military does not.

      No they don't. Not in ANY state. When the governor activates the NG they support law enforcement. Even when we did bridges & tunnels missions (when Blade II came out) we could not arrest anyone.

    3. Re:Who in the military used them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The National Guard only has law enforcement powers if the Governor authorizes those powers. They cannot just take it upon themselves to start policing the state.

  2. Should we really be surprised this is legal? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

    As far as I know, aerial photography has been legal for a very long time. And ultimately, that's all a UAV is doing here.

    Perhaps there should be tighter restrictions, or at least stricter rules on disclosure - but at the moment there simply aren't.

    1. Re:Should we really be surprised this is legal? by Anubis+IV · · Score: 5, Informative

      As far as I know, aerial photography has been legal for a very long time. And ultimately, that's all a UAV is doing here.

      While aerial photography is legal, use of the military to enforce domestic policies within the US is generally illegal under the terms of the Insurrection Act and Posse Comitatus Act. With only a handful of exceptions (e.g. a state's National Guard forces can act at the request of their governor, MPs can enforce the UCMJ against military personnel, there's the threat of a nuke going off, etc.), the US military is barred from acting in any sort of law enforcement capacity within the borders of the US. Surveilling or gathering intelligence on civilians in the pursuit of aiding law enforcement is not in the list of exceptions.

    2. Re:Should we really be surprised this is legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As far as I know, aerial photography has been legal for a very long time. And ultimately, that's all a UAV is doing here.

      Perhaps there should be tighter restrictions, or at least stricter rules on disclosure - but at the moment there simply aren't.

      The fastest way to determine legality is to turn the fucking camera around.

      It's also the fastest way to prove the real issue here, which is the utter destruction of privacy for all.

    3. Re:Should we really be surprised this is legal? by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      As far as I know, aerial photography has been legal for a very long time. And ultimately, that's all a UAV is doing here.

      Aerial photography is legal. Law enforcement is legal. Aerial photography by the military for military purposes is legal. Aerial photography by the military for law enforcement purposes is emphatically not legal, and for very good reasons. If military personnel were involved in operating these drones, and they were being operated for law enforcement purposes, they were in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act.

      We can probably assume that usage of the drones over US soil by the military was for military purposes, not law enforcement purposes, if there really were just 20 flights in the past decade. The military is acutely aware of Posse Comitatus. Now if there were more than 20 flights, I'd start to get suspicious. It's hard to imagine the military having a military need for all that many flights. They've been fine with satellite imagery of the US for many years for their planning purposes.

    4. Re:Should we really be surprised this is legal? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      fewer than 20 missions a year could amount to a combination of training, research, and special non-law enforcement taskings.

      Keep in mind that a training flight is still a "mission", it's just not an operational one. Still, let's figure that training & research are still considered "military"

      Some 'non-military' uses I can think of that are also not law enforcement.
      National Forestry service wants some updated imagery of one of it's parks. Solution: Run a drone over it real quick, done. Other options include virtually every other department. You have a fire situation that you're trying to keep track of? Request a drone flyover. Need some imagery of the highways? Done. Etc...

      They could also assist in other R&D things - keeping track of a self-driving off-road vehicle race, etc...

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    5. Re:Should we really be surprised this is legal? by tnk1 · · Score: 5, Informative

      The military can be called on to assist law enforcement efforts in a support role, such as operating equipment like this. What they absolutely may not do is run these flights under their own authority or for their own purposes and without the direct supervision of a Federal law enforcement agency.

      These are not military flights, they are FBI flights "contracted out" to the military for their ability to operate the equipment. The FBI still has to follow the law for their recon activities and the military still cannot do any of this in the US without civilian LEO involvement.

      This is not illegal under Posse Comitatus. The District Court ruled in US. v. Red Feather (1975): http://law.justia.com/cases/fe...

      "It is clear from the legislative history of 18 U.S.C. 1385 and the above cases, the intent of Congress in enacting this statute and by using the clause "uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise", was to prevent the direct active use of federal troops, one soldier or many, to execute the laws. Congress did not intend to prevent the use of Army or Air Force materiel or equipment in aid of execution of the laws."

      More specifically:

      "Activities which constitute a passive role which might indirectly aid law enforcement are: mere presence of military personnel under orders to report on the necessity for military intervention; preparation of contingency plans to be used if military intervention is ordered; advice or recommendations given to civilian law enforcement officers by military personnel on tactics or logistics; presence of military personnel to deliver military materiel, equipment or supplies, to train local law enforcement officials on the proper use and care of such material or equipment, and to maintain such materiel or equipment; aerial photographic reconnaissance flights and other like activities. Such passive involvement of federal military troops which might indirectly aid civilian law enforcement is not made unlawful under 18 U.S.C. 1385 and therefore is not relevant or material and not admissible to disprove the third element of the 18 U.S.C. 231(a) (3) charge against the defendants."

    6. Re:Should we really be surprised this is legal? by Firethorn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Surveilling or gathering intelligence on civilians in the pursuit of aiding law enforcement is not in the list of exceptions.

      With 20 missions over the past 10 years, I could see an average of 2 missions a year for 'non-military' purposes also being unrelated to law enforcement. Search & Rescue and map updating also aren't law enforcement use.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    7. Re:Should we really be surprised this is legal? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      I agree -- less than 20 times in 9 years is hardly "proliferation". "Military drone flight" does not equate to "law enforcement". And there are many more uses for such hardware than SAR and mapping. Disaster relief, for example. How much damage was done by that flood, and where?

    8. Re:Should we really be surprised this is legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting. So when the military finally produces a suitable robotic soldier, that "equipment" would be available for local law enforcement use.

    9. Re:Should we really be surprised this is legal? by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Strictly speaking, you may be right.

      However, again, the equipment would have to be in the pursuit of a criminal who was being pursued by actual LEO. I don't believe that such a robot would be able to be used autonomously, for instance. There would have to be some factor where the LEO are controlling the engagement, and I could see how a court might suggest that part of a LEO's training and duties is actual apprehension. If the apprehension were done by the actual military robot, I am not sure that would be legal.

      It does say that the law was specifically meant to preclude the use of actual troops in active enforcement. Since a robot is not a member of the armed forces, it might be considered to be okay to use. That doesn't mean that using a military robot to directly aid in a more active role would be considered legal. Those active roles are:

      "Based upon the clear intent of Congress, this Court holds that the clause "to execute the laws", contained in 18 U.S.C. 1385, makes unlawful the use of federal military troops in an active role of direct law enforcement by civil law enforcement officers. Activities which constitute an active role in direct law enforcement are: arrest; seizure of evidence; search of a person; search of a building; investigation of crime; interviewing witnesses; pursuit of an escaped civilian prisoner; search of an area for a suspect and other like activities. Such use of federal military troops to "execute the laws", or as the Court has defined the clause, in "an active role of direct law enforcement", is unlawful under 18 U.S.C. 1385 and therefore is relevant and material to disprove the third element of 18 U.S.C. 231(a) (3), i. e., that law enforcement officers were lawfully performing their duties."

      So... I think that the intent is that the military does not do the take downs or the actual face to face apprehension or search work, however, the ruling and the law clearly did not envision robots. It would be my opinion that a court *could* find that an active role for military robots is illegal, unlike drone surveillance which is passive, but that this is by no means certain and specific legislation should definitely be introduced to clarify that matter. I would not rely on the courts for a desirable ruling.

    10. Re:Should we really be surprised this is legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As far as I know, aerial photography has been legal for a very long time. And ultimately, that's all a UAV is doing here. .

      You actually believe that photography was all that was going on ?

      You are a gullible idiot.

    11. Re:Should we really be surprised this is legal? by Greyfox · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but as we all know, things are only illegal if you get caught. So as long as the Pentagon doesn't actually admit... whoops...

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    12. Re:Should we really be surprised this is legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sound like one of those primary school bullies who waves his arms around wildly and walks past people, hitting them, and professing he was just strolling.

    13. Re:Should we really be surprised this is legal? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      It's a little flaky. I was not an MP. I was a chaster/escort (transportation office) and we had a bunch of civilians on-base. One was drunk and belligerent and wanted to fight a bunch of Marines. He was initially detained by an MP. The MP loses authority when they step off the base with a civilian. The guy and I spent a few hours together while he was my prisoner. I waited for the locals to arrive. I filled out some transfer paperwork. They took my prisoner with them after I confirmed their ID and orders. If they'd not been arresting him, we'd have just dumped him out at the gate. Sorry buddy, I can't take you any further than this.

      Meh, he was harmless. I guess he'd always wanted to be a Marine but got into some trouble right out of high school and ended up a felon. It's one of the few instances where I booked and detained. I was entirely accountable for him once I accepted him as my prisoner. In the old days, if you were an escort/chaser and your prisoner got away, you served his time. It was not like that in my day. That was way back in the 60s that that ended. This would have been about 30 years ago when I had my only chance to observe/partake in anything of that nature.

      No worries, I got him to the bathroom and some food and water and I might have managed to let him have a beer out of his backpack before we went inside but I'm not admitting to anything. He even got a smoke. I had to keep him isolated and it was 1-on-1 observation status, 24/7 if needed. I found him a television to watch, uncuffed him the rest of the way, and found a deck of cards so we could play cribbage. It's not nearly as exciting as one might think. He was just sloppy/crying drunk. No biggie and no idea what happened t him. I know none of use were in a position to press charges but the MPs might have been able to. I assume he hit the drunk-tank and left the next morning.

      At any rate, the point of that is that it's a little vague at times. I had them detained (not legally arrested - I don't think) and I was active service, the MPs were active duty, etc... We housed him in our facility, fed him our food, and entertained him. I'm pretty sure that counts as law-enforcement. I know MPs have not stood idle while regular police had issues. I do not know how the UCMJ deals with that.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    14. Re:Should we really be surprised this is legal? by Atryn · · Score: 2

      I agree -- less than 20 times in 9 years is hardly "proliferation".

      It sounds even better if you say it was only 20 times since 1997. That's only 20 times in 18 years and just as true a statement! I'm more interested in the trend year-over-year. Is it increasing, at what rate and why?

      --
      Come play Moral Decay!
    15. Re:Should we really be surprised this is legal? by cavreader · · Score: 1

      "It's hard to imagine the military having a military need for all that many flights." Drone testing and training guarantees there will be quite a few drones flying around.

    16. Re: Should we really be surprised this is legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you need privacy? Are you a malfaisant? Are you (gasp!) a terrorist?

    17. Re:Should we really be surprised this is legal? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      I'm more interested in the trend year-over-year. Is it increasing, at what rate and why?

      A good question. I think what's going on is that the capabilities are increasing, cost is decreasing, and the 'total package' is becoming better known.

      For my example of military drones being used for S&R - The first use would be the hardest. However, once an organization has forged the ties with a local(enough) military base to get them to launch a drone for S&R, it becomes easier in the future. When word spreads, other S&R organizations could start reaching out.

      Because drones still aren't that common, and S&R isn't an every day thing in most areas, use is still limited, but increases. Same with updating mapping for various cooperating federal agencies. Sure, the process becomes known, but remains specialist.

      In addition, when the use is common enough or there are restrictions - such as for law enforcement, then they simply buy their own drones. So the S&R organization that initially used a military drone ends up with their own drone, and stop requesting to use the military's. So military requests remain low.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    18. Re:Should we really be surprised this is legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As far as I know, aerial photography has been legal for a very long time. And ultimately, that's all a UAV is doing here.

      Perhaps there should be tighter restrictions, or at least stricter rules on disclosure - but at the moment there simply aren't.

      Aerial photography is only legal to the extent that it doesn't violate rights the people choose to assert as being "retained by" them (9th Amendment), or "reserved to" them (10th Amendment), such as the right to privacy.

      Remember that the Bill of Rights is the highest law in the land. The 1st Amendment limits what Congress can do with respect to freedom of speech and the press, but limitations of the same CAN arise under the 9th and 10th Amendments. Congress, after all, is NOT the highest law in the land.

      Enough people believe in an individual right to privacy for it to clearly exist, and to the extent that any laws passed by Congress fail to recognize this, those laws are invalid and illegal.

      In short, there are limitations, primarily those involving common sense. Somebody who takes pictures of a naked girl swimming alone in her father's pool is in fact violating the law, even if those pictures are taken by means of a zoom from a drone and hence aerial photography.

      The whole point of having an open-ended Bill of Rights is to address situations like this, where the lawyers writing the laws didn't get them right. That kind of thing happens a lot.

  3. The U.S government is EXTREMELY corrupt. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    U.S. government agencies do what they want, ignoring good management and good government policy, and mostly operating in secrecy.

    Often the reason is that someone will make money. Perhaps someone in the Pentagon is related to someone in the company that supplies "Spy Drones".

    1. Re: The U.S government is EXTREMELY corrupt. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What kind of commie terrorist are you, anyway?

    2. Re: The U.S government is EXTREMELY corrupt. by jxander · · Score: 1

      20 flights in a decade really isn't stuffing anyone's pockets.

      Corrupt though they may be, this is certainly not monetary corruption on display here.

      --
      This signature is false.
  4. Not even one item you give the military by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That will not be used on you by your own or another's military.

  5. drones to aid investigations by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    of conservative groups by the IRS? that's just one which came to mind.

  6. Two words by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    Posse commitas. Google it.
    You are right about Feds. But The pentagon would not be allowed to use its national guard reserve authority to evade the restrictions on the Feds so that's not an out here.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Posse comitatus.

    2. Re:Two words by LWATCDR · · Score: 2

      Probably does not apply in this case. Getting aerial imagery for the use of law enforcement would be seen more as a supporting role than law enforcement. Kind of like using military radar to track a hijacked airliner over the US or using a the road on a military base as a shortcut by the police in a high speed chase.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    3. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no such thing as a shortcut through a military base. Everyone stops at the gate. Everyone.

    4. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How funny. One of my first jobs many years ago was working at a concession in the PX on post. Yes, it's true I came through a gate, but I did it at 45-55 mph along with everyone else. Stopping...must be a post 9/11 thing.

    5. Re:Two words by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Depends, even back then, on the base and current security levels. If they want to stop you, they can and will stop you. They used to stop us back in the day and I lived on base. This used to vary some but now it's a PIO state. I think it's called PIO. It has been a lot of years. Positive Identification Only. Not only are you going to stop, you're going to show valid ID now. Else, you're not getting on the base. I'm not even sure if the president would be allowed on base without someone showing some paperwork. Then again, they'll know the president is coming long before he gets there.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    6. Re:Two words by davester666 · · Score: 2

      The Federal Gov't doesn't do things that are illegal, because they are illegal. Therefore, whatever the Federal gov't does is legal. Q.E.D.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  7. 1983 by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 4, Informative
    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    1. Re:1983 by Gr8Apes · · Score: 2

      That is absolutely no different than keeping years of meta data about phones, phone locations, car license plates, CCTV photo/videos, etc. This is just one more implementation of the exact same concept. Record everything, then pinpoint through time who was there. Arrest said person, even if it's the wrong person. Orwell was prescient.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    2. Re:1983 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you mean, "coming"? This exists.

    3. Re:1983 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Argus is 1.8 gigapixel (see NOVA Drone special from 2013), a bit more than 44 mega-pixels.

  8. The military way to say "just the tip..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's all in how you say it.

  9. new hat for fishing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I see a new fad....
    hats with the opinion finger on top...
    Fishing, sports, mowing the grass, bicycling, walking...
    Better make that the Johnny Cash Finger...

    And they'll improve the resolution until they see it...

    And maybe an Eye-hat... looking back atcha...

  10. Reminds me of Spam, eggs, sausage and Spam... by UncleGizmo · · Score: 1

    "there's not much Spam in it!"

    --
    Who put this thing together? Me, that's who.
    1. Re:Reminds me of Spam, eggs, sausage and Spam... by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

      Sshh, dear, don't cause a fuss. I'll have your spam. I love it. I'm having spam spam spam spam spam spam spam beaked beans spam spam spam and spam!

  11. "Treason" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them

    Since Bush's use of war powers to justify committing acts of espionage against Americans through his warrantless wiretapping program was not arrested, it looks like the government took the second step down the slippery slope here to mobilize the US military against Americans.

    I guess if nothing else we still have the third amendment. "No Soldier shall, in time of peace..." Oh, wait, when was the last time we had a time of peace?

    1. Re:"Treason" by frnic · · Score: 1

      We have been engaged in combat for 214 of the last 230 years - or there about. We are the most war loving country in history despite claiming to want pease.

    2. Re:"Treason" by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Nobody wants Pease. Corn, maybe, but not pease!

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  12. 20? I think not by bkr1_2k · · Score: 1

    clearly they're not counting all those flying in counter narcotic operations, or those flying along the border watching for illegal border crossings. Or those flown by various police departments across the country. I guess those don't count as "spy drones".

    --
    "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
  13. Re:20? I think not by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

    The article is referring to the US military drones. Not everyone else's.

  14. There are different mil agencies by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    USNavy and Marines, USArmy, USAF and the 9 military spy agencies of which you have heard of five.

    Listen carefully to what they said. They're only talking about the first four.

    The other nine don't exist. And monkeys fly out of my butt.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  15. Re:20? I think not by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    Also doesn't include border control or Coast Guard. Those are different. Both can operate within 200 miles of the coast and navigable waterways of a certain size, and that includes inland. Think about how far that is.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  16. Thankfully happened under a Democratic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    administration or we'd never hear the end of it.

  17. Search for Obama's name in the comments by Bartles · · Score: 0

    Guess how many results are found? Zero as of this posting. There is one man that can stop this and who is ultimately responsible for this. You people make me sick.

    1. Re:Search for Obama's name in the comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry, he was probably just too busy to post on Slashdot this morning. He has many federal agencies to micromanage; cut the guy some slack. I'm sure he will be posting on here later today...

    2. Re:Search for Obama's name in the comments by ScentCone · · Score: 0

      There is one man that can stop this

      Stop what? Once ever couple of weeks, one civilian agency or another borrows a piece of specialized military hardware so they don't have to waste all of our tax dollars procuring that same piece hardware redundantly for only occasional use? Or would you rather waste your tax dollars on flying specially outfitted manned aircraft for when those agencies need some on demand aerial imagery?

      You people make me sick.

      Let me guess. You're one of the nearly half of the people in this country that pays no income taxes, so you'd rather those of us who do waste millions of dollars YOU don't have to pay for so that you personally won't feel all icky and scared when the Department of Transportation borrows a military camera platform to survey some infrastructure. Do you also get all panicky when local search and rescue teams borrow a truck or a boat from the military? Are you worried those are being used to hide alien autopsy secrets out in the swamps and whatnot? Come on. Get a grip. And get a job that pays enough so you feel some of the tax burden the rest of us do, so you'll be glad when one agency saves millions of bucks by leveraging another department's hardware and systems once in a while.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    3. Re: Search for Obama's name in the comments by Bartles · · Score: 2

      Remember when a million people marched in Washington DC to protest warrantless wiretapping? They knew who to blame then. Why does the commander in chief no longer bear any responsibility for the actions of the executive branch?

    4. Re: Search for Obama's name in the comments by ScentCone · · Score: 0

      So in other words you'd rather change the subject and rant about something unrelated in order to avoid addressing the actual topic at hand? No surprise.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    5. Re:Search for Obama's name in the comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guess how many results are found? Zero as of this posting. There is one man that can stop this and who is ultimately responsible for this. You people make me sick.

      I'm sorry did you just try and point to the man who enabled all this as the one who should stop it?

      Pull your head out of your ass before I bust another rib laughing.

    6. Re: Search for Obama's name in the comments by Bartles · · Score: 1

      I'm not changing the subject. That's exactly what I was talking about in the parent.

    7. Re: Search for Obama's name in the comments by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Right. You're avoiding the topic. One agency of the government borrowing equipment owned by another agency of the government is nothing more than common sense. Because you're fixated on a particular agenda, you can't wrap your head around the fact that dozens of federal agencies make use of aerial imaging in order to do what they do. Every time a camera in an aircraft takes a picture of something, it's not the Eeeeeevil Gubmint looking over your shoulder through your kitchen window to see which Japanese tentacle porn you're reading. Are you that out of touch with daily life? The government wastes way too much money. You should be glad that the EPA, the DoT, NASA, NOAA, and so many others can save a pile of my cash (you're obviously not a taxpayer) by being able to use another agency's equipment for occasional tasks.

      And yet you're talking about warrantless wiretaps. Yes, you're changing the subject. Because it bugs you that there are perfectly valid, entirely constitutional reasons why one piece of the government might use the resources already in place at a another piece of the government. Shocking! It's a conspiracy!

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    8. Re: Search for Obama's name in the comments by Bartles · · Score: 1

      I have no problems with government agencies sharing equipment. This story has nothing to do with that. This story is about the DoD surveilling Americans on American soil.

    9. Re: Search for Obama's name in the comments by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      I have no problems with government agencies sharing equipment. This story has nothing to do with that. This story is about the DoD surveilling Americans on American soil.

      No, it's not. You have a fundamental reading comprehension problem.

      This is EXACTLY about such equipment being put to non-DoD-surveillance use. You're pretending it's about something else because that helps you find a way to talk about the think you're obsessed about the evil gubmint doing despite your tinfoil hat, and such. Military aircraft have been used for such alternate tasks for as long as there have BEEN military aircraft. You just see the word "drone" and lose all critical thinking skills. Does that happen when you hear the word "antenna" or "truck" or "binoculars?"

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  18. The Lawful Fuck You. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "...Claims All Were 'Lawful'..."

    We say this as if we would expect any other answer.

    I mean we can't wait for the day when they're just honest with the American People and respond with "Fuck You. That's why.", but let's not pretend that we're there already.

  19. Obama's a Democrat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...So who cares? It's not like he's a Republican or a Koch brother or something.

  20. Re:20? I think not by Firethorn · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'll give people a hint: 99% of the US population LIVES within where they can go.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  21. "Lawful" needs more explanation by gurps_npc · · Score: 3, Insightful
    There is a huge difference between "lawful" as in 'We did nothing that any civilian could not also do, without any special authorization." and "lawful" as in "our lawyers, whom we pay and have previously said that drowning someone is an acceptable information gathering technique, claim is consistent with the law".

    Basically, the word "lawful" is not in any way helpful without further explanation. It's the equivalent of saying "Nah, nah, my mother said it's OK."

    You want to convince me it's lawful, state the supreme court ruling or specific law that allows it. Otherwise, don't talk about it being lawful, it just makes you look like a fascist.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    1. Re:"Lawful" needs more explanation by Atmchicago · · Score: 1

      Furthermore, if it's OK, then why do they repeatedly emphasize that the total number of employments was small? If it's lawful, then it doesn't matter how many times they did it.

      --

      You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it dissolve.

    2. Re:"Lawful" needs more explanation by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      You want to convince me it's lawful, state the supreme court ruling or specific law that allows it.

      What a sad world you live in that you want specific laws to exist to allow you to do something legally, instead of having specific laws to make specific things illegal.

      Otherwise, don't talk about it being lawful, it just makes you look like a fascist.

      Which system of government is it that would require a law to make something legal?

      By the way, nobody said that drowning anyone was legal. Hyperbole does not make your argument stronger.

    3. Re:"Lawful" needs more explanation by ScentCone · · Score: 1
      So your main problem is that you think the ACLU is under the control of the agencies who borrowed the equipment/systems? You think the ACLU was somehow forced to lie when they reviewed the FOIA-ed info and concluded that indeed there was nothing untoward in the use of the systems?

      don't talk about it being lawful, it just makes you look like a fascist

      You don't actually know what that word means, do you? Nor how to use it in any sort of useful context? When local search and rescue teams borrow a military truck in really foul weather, do you start screaming "Fascists!" every time? I hope that if you're about to die in a flood, that the Navy helicopter brought in to augment the Coast Guard's SAR teams, the helicopter and crew that could save your life, just fly right on by while you're screaming "Fascists!" and shaking your fists at them. The Supreme Court as already had multiple occasions to examine situations when civilian agencies make use of military resources. It's a shame that the ACLU has been corrupted by The Eeeeevil Fascist Gubmint, but at least we can thank you for breaking that story for us today.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    4. Re:"Lawful" needs more explanation by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Furthermore, if it's OK, then why do they repeatedly emphasize that the total number of employments was small?

      Because it makes the people who claim that this is a "proliferation" look like nuts. OMG, 20 times in nine years! The world is coming to an end.

    5. Re:"Lawful" needs more explanation by gurps_npc · · Score: 2
      You have radically misreprenesnted what I said.

      We have a multitude of laws preventing government espionage. I did not make the claim that what they did was unlawful, they made the claim that what they did was lawful.

      The said world we live in is a history of governments lying about what is lawful. As such, their blatant word must be supported, not the other way around. They gave no such support.

      Again, I don't think laws are necessary to make things lawful, that simply is a lie you said. I claimed and repeat the claim here that fascist governments routinely claim that what they do is lawful without any support for that claim - just like they did here.

      Multiple people claimed that drowning someone was a legal way to conduct an interrogation. Specifically, the person lawyer by the name of John Yoo made that claim, as did a bunch of republicans. John Yoo also claimed that "president's war-making authority was so broad that he had the constitutional power to order a village to be 'massacred'"

      At worst, I used a slightly different wording to describe a torture technique that was outlawed 20 years BEFORE John Yoo was born.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    6. Re:"Lawful" needs more explanation by gurps_npc · · Score: 2
      I do know what the word "fascist" means, but you don't have to know. You have made a major mistake by relying on definition instead of history. First and foremost, if you took your head out of your a$$, you would realize I did not say they were fascists, I said they sounded like facists - which is true.

      Historically, the fascists governments lied about what was lawful.That was the aspect of fascism I was referencing. They would routinely make claims about x being lawful. So anyone that just says "what I did was legal", without backing it up sounds like a fascists - even if they are a liberal commie pig instead of a fascist.

      Also, why did you bring the ACLU into it? I never mentioned them at all. They are a wonderful organization that has nothing to do with this discussion. The mere fact that the article claimed an un-named ACLU person accepted a blanket statement does not mean that the statement is true.

      Stop being a PC jerk, reacting to words you dislike and actually pay attention to how the words were used

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    7. Re:"Lawful" needs more explanation by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      You have radically misreprenesnted what I said.

      I quoted you verbatim. How can I misrepresent what you said when they are your words in the order you said them? I may not have gotten the meaning from them that you intended, but sir, I did not misrepresent you in any way. And from your response here, I know that I did not misinterpret them.

      Again, I don't think laws are necessary to make things lawful, that simply is a lie you said.

      You demanded that someone show you a law that makes what they are doing legal. It isn't much clearer than that. If you DON'T think that laws are necessary to make things legal, then how can you demand that someone show you one that does such a thing? (I know how -- you want a good rant about some perceived fascist government and you don't care if you can't prove they're doing something wrong, you want to prove they are doing something wrong because they can't quote you a law that doesn't exist.)

      We have a multitude of laws preventing government espionage. I did not make the claim that what they did was unlawful, they made the claim that what they did was lawful.

      And then you demanded that they show you the law that makes what they did legal. That's not how laws work in the US of A. That may be how you WANT them to work, but sorry, it isn't.

      And it doesn't work that way in the USA that you can leap from "military drones were requested to fly in US airspace" to "espionage." It is simply ridiculous to do that. It amounts to nothing more than assuming that which you need to prove, and then claiming you proved it because of the assumption.

      I claimed and repeat the claim here that fascist governments routinely claim that what they do is lawful without any support for that claim

      As do all governments that are doing things that are legal. If you want to show it is illegal, you need to come up with the law that makes it illegal. If there are thousands of laws that say it is, then you should be able to quote just one. You haven't. Nobody has. Less than twenty times in ten years -- and that's only how many times there was a request, not how many times it actually happened.

      As such, their blatant word must be supported, not the other way around.

      In other words, they must prove a negative to you, you aren't required to quote any law that says what they did was illegal. They must quote you a law that DOES NOT EXIST. That's ridiculous.

      Multiple people claimed that drowning someone was a legal way to conduct an interrogation.

      No, they did not. Waterboarding is not drowning someone, and it is a misrepresentation to say it is.

    8. Re:"Lawful" needs more explanation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the total number was probably a lot higher, given recent history with regard to the government's willingness to admit to pretty much anything related to spying.

  22. There are unjust laws... by evolutionary · · Score: 1

    As there are unjust men.- Gandi I'm getting tired of people using new (or old) unethical (and in many cases immoral) laws to justify bad behaviour. All of this basically means the government agencies are saying they can come onto your property with no cause, no warrant, and no reason. Just because they think you may be trouble. There is also the spirit of the law as well as the letter. Wonder what would have happen if a federal judge had to deal with this. Of course they respond to the political climate so...

    --
    "Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Einstein
    1. Re:There are unjust laws... by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Which bad behavior are you talking about? Which of the 20 uses, reviewed and blessed by the ACLU after the FOIA request, do you consider to be the "bad behavior" part of civilian agencies avoiding the huge expense of procuring specialized aerial imaging equipment or services for rare use by simply borrowing it from another department for a bit? Please be specific.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  23. Re:20? I think not by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 2

    Shh. Don't wake up the serfs.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  24. Military Has a Law Enforcement Presence by Etherwalk · · Score: 1

    The Military also has a law enforcement presence at extremely sensitive terrorist targets during times of heightened alert. For example, Grand Central Station in New York occasionally has a few soldiers on duty. Considering the ripple effect it would have on the world economy if you took it out at the wrong time of day, this is actually extremely sensible, but requiring them to work in coordination with law enforcement is entirely appropriate and consistent with the United States philosophy of a civilian-led military.

  25. things that are lawful by iggymanz · · Score: 1

    The U.S. government can and has used bacteria in experiments against the general populace that sickened and killed people...and it was legal. Putting natural born citizens in concentration camps on the basis of ethnicity, legal.

  26. Paraphrased by IWantMoreSpamPlease · · Score: 1

    From long ago
    __

    "I speak now, to the leaders and administrators of this county. You are not the first to have sought world supremacy, others have gone before you. And each has been finally brought down by very same disregard for the will of the people that you condone and encourage."

    Your time is coming...

    --
    So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
  27. As opposed to ? by metoc · · Score: 1

    Come on.

    When have you ever heard governments say they did anything illegal or say they didn't do something because it was wrong or illegal.

    At best they lose in court.

    1. Re:As opposed to ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good point.

      The rule of large organizations, management and public relations is,

      You can talk about a problem if at least one (but preferably several) of the following are true:

      - you can minimize the problem and portray any nay-sayers as petty and distracting;
      - you can claim that the problem existed but was entirely in the past, there's new management and 'right thinking' is now in place;
      - you can claim that old rules were absent, unclear, out of date and thus the problem wasn't actually a problem, procedurally speaking, at the time;
      - you can claim that 'times have changed' and the 'world is different now';
      - you can claim that the problem is really a matter of perception, but understand that current leadership agrees 100% with your perception that there was a problem (thus simultaneously minimizing the problem, aligning leadership with their critics and putting it in the past).

  28. editors, schmeditors by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    A link to the story/article, etc would be rather useful.

    --
    -Styopa
  29. Business opportunity! Home grown drone dome... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or more likely, some interesting ways to detect and down the high flying, jet driven ones. I can think of a several ways off the top of my head. If these things become popular, you can bet that a technologically able populace will create ways to end them.

    Final price point? I'm guessing anything under $1000 to neutralize a drone isn't a bad price.

  30. Wait a min... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did they say lawful or awful?

  31. And This is What the FAA Foot Dragging is About by Chibi+Merrow · · Score: 1

    People keep wondering why the FAA is being difficult about writing rules to allow unmanned aircraft operations in the US? This is why. The DoD is falling all over themselves out of desperation to get these things in the air. They won't be satisfied until there's a Global Hawk watching every inhabited square mile of the continental US 24/7. Safety for everyone else in the air be damned.

    --
    Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
    Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
  32. Re:20? I think not by bkr1_2k · · Score: 1

    Neither was I. Counter narcotics are operated, quite often, by the military. The border patrol stuff is operated from the same locations (in some instances) as other operations and include the same operators, oftentimes. I'll give you that the police don't fall under the military but is it really any different? The military develops these things and then we just hand them out to any government agency that comes up with a bullshit justification. This should scare the shit out of every citizen in the country. Hell, in the world.

    --
    "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."