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."

Comments

Who in the military used them?

[jfdavis668]

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

Re:Who in the military used them?

[Alien among you]

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.

1983

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

You have no idea the Orwellian things coming down the pike.

Re:1983

[Gr8Apes]

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.

Re:Should we really be surprised this is legal?

[Anubis IV]

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.

Re:Two words

[LWATCDR]

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.

Re:Should we really be surprised this is legal?

[tnk1]

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."

Re:Should we really be surprised this is legal?

[Firethorn]

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.

Re:20? I think not

[Firethorn]

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

"Lawful" needs more explanation

[gurps_npc]

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.

Re:"Lawful" needs more explanation

[gurps_npc]

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.

Re:"Lawful" needs more explanation

[gurps_npc]

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

Re:20? I think not

[WillAffleckUW]

Shh. Don't wake up the serfs.

Re: Search for Obama's name in the comments

[Bartles]

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?

Re:Should we really be surprised this is legal?

[Atryn]

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?

Re:Two words

[davester666]

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.