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."
The National Guard does have law enforcement powers in their state. The federal military does not.
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.
of conservative groups by the IRS? that's just one which came to mind.
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.
You have no idea the Orwellian things coming down the pike.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
"there's not much Spam in it!"
Who put this thing together? Me, that's who.
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."
The article is referring to the US military drones. Not everyone else's.
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! --
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! --
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
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
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
Shh. Don't wake up the serfs.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
I'm not changing the subject. That's exactly what I was talking about in the parent.
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.
A link to the story/article, etc would be rather useful.
-Styopa
Nobody wants Pease. Corn, maybe, but not pease!
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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."