Domestic use of Drones. Yes or No; and Policy ???

Well, I see you admit it; though offering a defense.

Look Dude, I've noticed not only that your comments have increasingly become insultive, but, (in my opinion) you've said things that would appear to me to invite negative comment. Who threw the first insultive rock (comment), I don't know. Moreover, I'm not going to waste my time trying to find out.
 
That's fine you think that way which is why I didn't direct my post today to you.

Anyone here can assess whether Holder answered if the President has the authority when he finally has the "intention" to target an American on US soil with no warrant.

And people can decide whether Alwaki was in combat when he got a missile up the ass.

Unless you're promoting that I misquoted him.

Well, since sometimes you appear to respond generally, instead of more specifically in a point-by-point fashion, I decided that I would break your comments down in separate posts -- hoping that I could get a more specific response so that it would, perhaps, be easier for each of us to keep to an issue.

I'm going to respond to your Awalaki comment, in time. It has not gone un-noticed and will not go unresponded to. I have some family responsibilities on weekends -- that I have to attend.


.
 
Well, since sometimes you appear to respond generally, instead of more specifically in a point-by-point fashion, I decided that I would break your comments down in separate posts -- hoping that I could get a more specific response so that it would, perhaps, be easier for each of us to keep to an issue.

I'm going to respond to your Awalaki comment, in time. It has not gone un-noticed and will not go unresponded to. I have some family responsibilities on weekends -- that I have to attend.


.
You could not.

There's no point in getting into Alwaki with this thread when the other thread had all the background and the administration's reasoning.

I posted in this thread because I didn't notice you broke it off from the other thread. You completely obliterate context, probably purposefully, every time you do that which is why I normally avoid those resultant threads.
 

icon14.gif
to Congressman Keith Ellison, here: Time for Congress to build a better drone policy


 
Randslide?

A year ago, as the presidential race was taking shape, The Washington Post's pollster asked voters whether they favored the use of drones to kill terrorists or terror suspects if they were "American citizens living in other countries." The net rating at the time was positive: 65 percent for, 26 percent against.

Today, after a month of Rand Paul-driven discussion of drone warfare, Gallup asks basically the same question: Should the U.S. "use drones to launch airstrikes in other countries against U.S. citizens living abroad who are suspected terrorists?" The new numbers: 41 percent for, 52 percent against.

The lede of the poll is even kinder to Paul, finding as high as 79 percent opposition to targeted killing in the United States. But that's a new question. On the old question, we've seen a real queasy swing of public opinion.
 
A year ago, as the presidential race was taking shape, The Washington Post's pollster asked voters whether they favored the use of drones to kill terrorists or terror suspects if they were "American citizens living in other countries." The net rating at the time was positive: 65 percent for, 26 percent against.

Today, after a month of Rand Paul-driven discussion of drone warfare, Gallup asks basically the same question: Should the U.S. "use drones to launch airstrikes in other countries against U.S. citizens living abroad who are suspected terrorists?" The new numbers: 41 percent for, 52 percent against.

The lede of the poll is even kinder to Paul, finding as high as 79 percent opposition to targeted killing in the United States. But that's a new question. On the old question, we've seen a real queasy swing of public opinion.



AND ???





You're concerned about the use of DRONES against Americans OVERSEAS who take up arms against other Americans in America; :yes: :yes: :yes:

But, you're not concerned about the use of GUNS by Americans IN AMERICA against other Americans. :smh: :smh: :smh:



Go figure . . . :hmm: :hmm: :hmm:


 



AND ???





You're concerned about the use of DRONES against Americans OVERSEAS who take up arms against other Americans in America; :yes: :yes: :yes:

But, you're not concerned about the use of GUNS by Americans IN AMERICA against other Americans. :smh: :smh: :smh:



Go figure . . . :hmm: :hmm: :hmm:


But the reverse doesn't apply to you?
 
Randslide?

A year ago, as the presidential race was taking shape, The Washington Post's pollster asked voters whether they favored the use of drones to kill terrorists or terror suspects if they were "American citizens living in other countries." The net rating at the time was positive: 65 percent for, 26 percent against.

Today, after a month of Rand Paul-driven discussion of drone warfare, Gallup asks basically the same question: Should the U.S. "use drones to launch airstrikes in other countries against U.S. citizens living abroad who are suspected terrorists?" The new numbers: 41 percent for, 52 percent against.

The lede of the poll is even kinder to Paul, finding as high as 79 percent opposition to targeted killing in the United States. But that's a new question. On the old question, we've seen a real queasy swing of public opinion.
I love how the opposition to targeted killing in the United States is only at 79%. One terrorist attack and I'm sure that will be quickly reduced to 2%.
 
But the reverse doesn't apply to you?

On the contrary Greed. I am concerned about BOTH.

But, your snide comment speaks for itself.

Like Lamar, you too are concerned about DRONES killing Americans;
but you're not concerned about GUNS killing Americans.



:smh: :smh: :smh:


 
But the reverse doesn't apply to you?

On the contrary Greed. I am concerned about BOTH.

But, your snide comment speaks for itself.

Like Lamar, you too are concerned about DRONES killing Americans;
but you're not concerned about GUNS killing Americans.



:smh: :smh: :smh:


 
On the contrary Greed. I am concerned about BOTH.

But, your snide comment speaks for itself.

Like Lamar, you too are concerned about DRONES killing Americans;
but you're not concerned about GUNS killing Americans.



:smh: :smh: :smh:


Even without a casual review of my posts, I'm going to go out on a limb and say I've addressed the practicality and morality of both as I see it.

I've pointed out before how you have a mindset where if someone post something you disagree with, then in your mind, they haven't posted anything at all.

And my earlier comment wasn't snide. I was just pointing out another instance where people display a very casual righteousness with their criticism while thinking it applies to everyone but themselves.
 
Even without a casual review of my posts, I'm going to go out on a limb and say I've addressed the practicality and morality of both as I see it.

I've pointed out before how you have a mindset where if someone post something you disagree with, then in your mind, they haven't posted anything at all.

And my earlier comment wasn't snide. I was just pointing out another instance where people display a very casual righteousness with their criticism while thinking it applies to everyone but themselves.

And my earlier comment wasn't snide. I was just pointing out another instance where people display a very casual righteousness with their criticism while thinking it applies to everyone but themselves.

You mean like this conservative/republican hypocrite?

<SECTION id=content class="grid-3-2 left PC1601"><!-- story : article.pbo : --><ARTICLE class="story story-130319424 clearfix">
GOP Sen. Rob Portman changes stance, accepting gay marriage
 
Even without a casual review of my posts, I'm going to go out on a limb and say I've addressed the practicality and morality of both as I see it.

You don't have to go out on a limb nor do you have to attempt practical and moral illusions; you've been quite clear with regards to your "Anti-Gun Control" position.


I've pointed out before how you have a mindset where if someone post something you disagree with, then in your mind, they haven't posted anything at all.

And I've pointed out to you on several occcasions how I admire your clairvoyant ability to read other people's mind. You seem to have a real knack for that -- albeit in error.

Nevertheless, I just re-read my comments immediately above -- and I don't see where I addressed you at all until, that is, you responded to my reply to Lemarr. Of course, everyone is free to respond to any post -- but I guess its okay if you respond FOR SOMEONE ELSE then read my mind. :smh:


And my earlier comment wasn't snide. I was just pointing out another instance where people display a very casual righteousness with their criticism while thinking it applies to everyone but themselves.

Cool. If you say it wasn't snide, then it wasn't. And again, I admire your clairvoyant abilities.

.
 
You don't have to go out on a limb nor do you have to attempt practical and moral illusions; you've been quite clear with regards to your "Anti-Gun Control" position.
So does this mean I do care about the issue of guns killing Americans since I've posted with clarity regarding my anti-gun control position? I'm confused, your mind is closed to me.
 
Have you not made it clear that guns don't kill people; people do ??? Hence, placing more regulations upon firearms is not the answer. Do I have that wrong ???
 
Can you explain thoughtone?

Rob Portman, conservative republican senator was vehemently against gay marriage, until his son came out and told him he was gay. This rightness tends to be prominent on the republican/libertarian/conservative side.
 
Have you not made it clear that guns don't kill people; people do ??? Hence, placing more regulations upon firearms is not the answer. Do I have that wrong ???

Drones don't kill people, the brave solider 2000 miles away in the bunker controlling the joystick does.

Of course the concern of some that killing innocents as collateral damage from drones is less of a concern than killing American citizens is also puzzling.
 
Have you not made it clear that guns don't kill people; people do ??? Hence, placing more regulations upon firearms is not the answer. Do I have that wrong ???
That's right.

Since I developed and articulated an opinion contrary to your own, does that mean I'm "not concerned" about the idea/concept/issue or however you see it?
 
Like Lamar, you too are concerned about DRONES killing Americans;
but you're not concerned about GUNS killing Americans.

[/size]

You got me, I am concerned about the drone activities because its a blatant attack on our civil liberties.

Que, what happened to "due process" in this debate?

As far as the guns, it doesn't matter that I'm not concerned....but Holder & his dept aren't too concerned either.

Obama's Justice Department has shown little appetite to prosecute what it considers low-level firearms crimes at the expense of time spent on sweeping investigations, officials with the department said.
 
Rob Portman, conservative republican senator was vehemently against gay marriage, until his son came out and told him he was gay. This rightness tends to be prominent on the republican/libertarian/conservative side.
My understanding of this event that I don't care about is, he was still against it for two years after the son came out to Portman. I wouldn't rate that as a casual righteousness against gay marriage. And he didn't make an exception just for his son when he was against it and he's for everyone being able to marry, not just his son. So I wouldn't say he tried to make it apply to everyone but his family.

Maybe you should try to understand things in terms of something other than the Republican and Democratic parties.

Drones don't kill people, the brave solider 2000 miles away in the bunker controlling the joystick does.

Of course the concern of some that killing innocents as collateral damage from drones is less of a concern than killing American citizens is also puzzling.
Is the concept of collateral damage puzzling to you or the concept of collateral damage from a drone attack?
 
Have you not made it clear that guns don't kill people; people do ??? Hence, placing more regulations upon firearms is not the answer. Do I have that wrong ???
By the way, this is another reason you should stop splitting off threads. I made my concerns clear in the original thread regarding judicial review and executive authority, and explicitly said that debating the existence of the drone program-which the Brennan hearing predictably turned into-didn't address anything substantial.

The context of the original thread solves the perception regarding method.
 
Now that we have that out of the way.




So that WE are clear, what exactly are the contrary opinions ???


.
One of us thinks inanimate objects kills, and the other believes beings with volitional consciousness kills.
 
One of us thinks inanimate objects kills, and the other believes beings with volitional consciousness kills.

No Greed, thats not where we disagree.

One of us believes that solutions to the human carnage caused by Drones and Guns are multifaceted -- that must involve both the human element and the instrumentality.

On the other hand, one of us believes that the instrumentality bears no blame.

We both know that without the human element, neither instrumentality, the GUN or the DRONE, are likely to cause harm. Yet, YOU would argue, and rightfully so, for policy constraints against the human users of the DRONE; and then hypocritically argue, as noted by T.O. just above, against policy constraints against the user of the GUN. :(


.
 
No Greed, thats not where we disagree.

One of us believes that solutions to the human carnage caused by Drones and Guns are multifaceted -- that must involve both the human element and the instrumentality.

On the other hand, one of us believes that the instrumentality bears no blame.

We both know that without the human element, neither instrumentality, the GUN or the DRONE, are likely to cause harm. Yet, YOU would argue, and rightfully so, for policy constraints against the human users of the DRONE; and then hypocritically argue, as noted by T.O. just above, against policy constraints against the user of the GUN. :(


.
This is in regards to American citizens.

Your policy constraints regarding guns do not make a distinction between gun owners that have done something wrong and those who have done nothing wrong.

Policy has to be applied equally to everyone in principle. I say in principle because that's not the way the world has ever worked and is not the way everything will ultimately turn out.

In principle, I'm against anything I view as punishment for people who have done nothing wrong.

Of course its hard to protect the rights of innocents while targeting criminal behavior. If politician can't do it then I would much rather hear about their resignation than see them target law-abiding people, just because they know they can get away it.

I don't see how that's inconsistent with my position on drone policy. People have rights that shouldn't be infringed upon if they haven't violated that principle for someone else. We're supposed to have a system where the status of people's rights can be determined by an impartial body.

Don't violate the rights of someone that hasn't been proven to be a criminal. Or even accused.

The real difference between us is I think the government should be subject to this principle as well.

Awlaki didn't even make it to the status of accused. I wasn't against the concept of killing someone with a drone, or an American. I'm against a trust me logic applied by the executive branch and the sign-off by the public.

It's wrong for a person outside of government to take a life (outside of an imminent threat) because an objective set of rules should apply to ensure that a person's rights are respected.

It's wrong for a person inside of government to take a life (outside of an imminent threat) because an objective set of rules should apply to ensure that a person's rights are respected.
 
This is in regards to American citizens.

Your policy constraints regarding guns do not make a distinction between gun owners that have done something wrong and those who have done nothing wrong.

While you side-stepped my comments above . . .

You're absolutely right. My policy constraints (a/k/a that ugly word you hate, "regulations") would apply to everyone equally -- because the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution mandates it. Hence, when regulations are applied to similarly situated people the same, no one can claim that the law discriminates against him or treats him differently than the next Joe.

Every Tom, Dick & Jane should be compelled to (1) submit to background testing; and (2) register his/her gun. Said differently, "People" (him and her are people, right?) should be required to do 1 and 2.

You want to make regulatory distinctions based on whether someone has been convicted of a crime. Any other categories you haven't mentioned Greed ??? Black or white; lighter, darker; short, tall; introverted, extroverted ??? The classes could be indefinite and the regulations unnecessarily varied when we're just talking about, "People." As we've seen too often, many of those committing crimes with guns weren't previously criminal anyway.

PLEASE BE REMINDED - that there is no freedom or right afforded by the Constitution of these United States that is without some kind of restriction. That is, there is no "absolute right." The right to bear arms, even assuming the founding fucks meant that everyone has the right to own a firearm; is too subject to reasonable regulation -- just like the Freedom of Speech, Religion, Assembly, etc.

Placing reasonable regulations on a right is not necessarily a violation of the right, they can be to protect or secure that right, for all.


What right do you know of, thats absolute ???



.
 
The real difference between us is I think the government should be subject to this principle as well.

Awlaki didn't even make it to the status of accused. I wasn't against the concept of killing someone with a drone, or an American. I'm against a trust me logic applied by the executive branch and the sign-off by the public.

It's wrong for a person outside of government to take a life (outside of an imminent threat) because an objective set of rules should apply to ensure that a person's rights are respected.

It's wrong for a person inside of government to take a life (outside of an imminent threat) because an objective set of rules should apply to ensure that a person's rights are respected.

Once again, stop trying to tell other people what they think !!!!! Without a doubt I believe that government too MUST be restrained.

Please point out where I have said differently.



.
 
While you side-stepped my comments above . . .
What was I supposed to focus on?
No Greed, thats not where we disagree.

One of us believes that solutions to the human carnage caused by Drones and Guns are multifaceted -- that must involve both the human element and the instrumentality.

On the other hand, one of us believes that the instrumentality bears no blame.

We both know that without the human element, neither instrumentality, the GUN or the DRONE, are likely to cause harm.
I thought the above was reasonably worded, so I focused on whether or not I "hypocritically argue" things, which, I thought was the point of this whole exchange.

You're absolutely right. My policy constraints (a/k/a that ugly word you hate, "regulations") would apply to everyone equally -- because the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution mandates it. Hence, when regulations are applied to similarly situated people the same, no one can claim that the law discriminates against him or treats him differently than the next Joe.

Every Tom, Dick & Jane should be compelled to (1) submit to background testing; and (2) register his/her gun. Said differently, "People" (him and her are people, right?) should be required to do 1 and 2.
Did I argue against that concept or those specific restrictions? I thought I endorsed them.

You want to make regulatory distinctions based on whether someone has been convicted of a crime. Any other categories you haven't mentioned Greed ??? Black or white; lighter, darker; short, tall; introverted, extroverted ??? The classes could be indefinite and the regulations unnecessarily varied when we're just talking about, "People." As we've seen too often, many of those committing crimes with guns weren't previously criminal anyway.
I didn't say this either. The government should target people who are engaged in criminal behavior. How does that translate to only target people who have already been convicted of a crime?

And why assert that I would lump a distinction like conducting criminal activity, that is derived from a choice, with things that are not a choice like skin color or personality? I want the government to target people who are doing something wrong, and you take it as I want to target arbitrary factors like height.

PLEASE BE REMINDED - that there is no freedom or right afforded by the Constitution of these United States that is without some kind of restriction. That is, there is no "absolute right." The right to bear arms, even assuming the founding fucks meant that everyone has the right to own a firearm; is too subject to reasonable regulation -- just like the Freedom of Speech, Religion, Assembly, etc.

Placing reasonable regulations on a right is not necessarily a violation of the right, they can be to protect or secure that right, for all.

What right do you know of, thats absolute ???

All rights are an absolute if it's properly identified as a right. People should be able to exercise something identified as a right without restriction and bear the consequences of their actions. The fact that humans, throughout history, have never valued their rights as they should doesn't make them negotiable, it just means there has never been a free society on this earth that has respected the individual.

I agree "that there is no freedom or right afforded by the Constitution of these United States that is without some kind of restriction." What does that say about this society's treatment of it's citizens?

I believe rights are absolute.
I don't equate constitutional rights with natural rights, although there is some overlap.
I don't value the Right to bear Arms as a natural right. I see this issue in the context of the right to self-defense, right to property, and the right to exercise your economic freedom to buy the gun. All of which doesn't hurt someone else to honor.

As a side note, I've always thought the Right to bear Arms is the worst written amendment. I think rights exist for individuals without cost to others because you're born with them. The right to bear arms doesn't make my list since someone else has to bear a cost to make the arms I'm entitled to. But that's just my little pet peeve.

Once again, stop trying to tell other people what they think !!!!! Without a doubt I believe that government too MUST be restrained.

Please point out where I have said differently.
Every argument you make doesn't denote restraint by government. Unless by restraint you mean government should only do what it's been directed to do by the will of the people, i.e. majority rule and polls.

Of course, that's not really restraint. Restraint is respecting people's rights despite what government can get away with.
 
FBI has received aviation clearance for at least four domestic drone operations

FBI has received aviation clearance for at least four domestic drone operations
By Craig Whitlock,
Published: June 20

The FBI has received clearance from federal aviation officials to conduct drone surveillance operations in the United States on at least four occasions since 2010, according to public records and U.S. officials.

The FBI began seeking permission in 2009 from the Federal Aviation Administration to fly drones domestically and received authorization for its first operations a year later, according to documents released Thursday by the FAA.

The documents provide virtually no detail on where the FBI has operated drones in U.S. airspace, for what purpose or how long the missions lasted. But they shed some additional light on the origins and extent of the FBI’s secretive drone program, which FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III revealed Wednesday in Senate testimony.

Mueller told the Senate Judiciary Committee that the FBI uses drones “in a very, very minimal way and very seldom.” He gave no other details, except to say that the agency has “very few” drones and “that our footprint is very small.”

The FBI, he added, is working to develop privacy-protection guidelines, a major concern for lawmakers who worry that drones could be used by the government or private companies to revolutionize spying in the United States.

Paul Bresson, an FBI spokesman, declined to say how many drones the agency has, where they are flown or how many surveillance operations it has conducted. He said the FBI always receives approval in advance from the FAA. “We don’t want to get into how many or the geographic locales,” he said Thursday.

In a statement after Mueller’s testimony, the FBI said it used a drone in Alabama in February during a seven-day hostage standoff. The documents released Thursday show that the FAA granted the FBI permission to fly three other drone operations in 2010 and 2011. The records were disclosed in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a privacy rights group based in San Francisco.

The FAA redacted the vast majority of the text, citing the need to keep law enforcement operations confidential. But the records suggest that in at least one operation, the FBI was flying a Puma AE, a lightweight drone with a range of about six miles. The Puma has a wingspan of eight feet and carries powerful infrared and electro-
optical cameras. It is made by AeroVironment, a California firm.

Drones, or unmanned aircraft, are generally prohibited from flying in U.S. airspace. The FAA has granted special exemptions to dozens of law enforcement agencies and universities, but authorization is generally limited to a confined geographic area and for a fixed period of time.

In June 2012, the Justice Department informed Congress that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives had six drone helicopters in its fleet and that the Drug Enforcement Administration had “two robotic miniature helicopters,” but made no mention of whether the FBI had any unmanned aircraft.

The Department of Homeland Security flies large surveillance drones along the borders with Canada and Mexico.

Congress has directed the FAA to open domestic airspace to drones by 2015. The agency is developing aviation standards and other safety guidelines for their use.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...40edb6-d9df-11e2-8ed8-7adf8eba6e9a_story.html
 
<iframe src="http://videos.mediaite.com/embed/player/?content=VCGHQJ0YC21PM05H&content_type=content_item&layout=&playlist_cid=&widget_type_cid=svp&read_more=1" width="420" height="421" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" allowtransparency="true"></iframe>
 
Rand Paul Was the Only 'No' Vote as Comey Gets FBI Director Confirmation

Rand Paul Was the Only 'No' Vote as Comey Gets FBI Director Confirmation
By Abby Ohlheiser | The Atlantic Wire
5 hrs ago

Rand Paul gave up his latest attempt at a drone-themed delay of senatorial business on Monday, clearing the way for James Comey to become the new FBI director. Ninety-three senators voted for Comey, with Rand Paul voting all by himself against him. Two senators voted "present."

Paul released his hold on Comey's nomination after receiving a letter from the FBI in response to his query on the domestic use of drones. The reply, describing the FBI's use of drones under "very limited circumstances," read:

Since 2006, the FBI has only used UAVs in 10 cases for surveillance to support missions related to kidnappings, search and rescue operations, drug interdictions, and fugitive investigations, including earlier this year in Alabama in the successful rescue of a 5-year-old child being held hostage in an underground bunker by Jimmy Lee Dykes. Further, the FBI does not, and has no plans to use UAVs to conduct general surveillance not related to a specific investigation or assessment.

However, the letter also detailed why UAVs don't necessarily need a warrant to conduct surveillance in areas deemed to be in public view. Paul took issue with that argument while agreeing to lift the hold:

The FBI today responded to my questions on domestic use of surveillance drones by saying that they don’t necessarily need a warrant to deploy this technology. I disagree with this interpretation. However, given the fact that they did respond to my concerns over drone use on U.S. soil, I have decided to release my hold on the pending FBI director nominee."

Comey will succeed Robert Mueller, who is stepping down as FBI Director in September. The Republican is known as a key figure in a Bush Administration tussle over warrantless wiretapping.

http://news.yahoo.com/rand-paul-only-no-vote-comey-gets-fbi-223546918.html
 
Justice Department spent nearly $5M on drones

Justice Department spent nearly $5M on drones
By PETE YOST | Associated Press
Thu, Sep 26, 2013

WASHINGTON (AP) — The FBI has been using drones to support its law enforcement operations since 2006 and has spent more than $3 million on the unmanned aircraft, the Justice Department's internal watchdog said Thursday.

The disclosure came in a new report by the Justice Department's inspector general, Michael Horowitz, who revealed that the department also has awarded $1.26 million to at least seven local police departments and nonprofit organization for drones.

In addition, the IG said another Justice Department component, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, plans to use drones to support future operations. To date, the ATF has spent almost $600,000, the IG report stated.

From 2004 to May 2013, the Justice Department spent almost $5 million on the unmanned aircraft.

In June, then-FBI Director Robert Mueller told Congress that the FBI occasionally uses the unmanned aerial vehicles but was developing guidelines in anticipation of issues that will arise "as they become more omnipresent." In one instance earlier this year, the FBI used drones at night during a six-day hostage standoff in Alabama.

In a letter in July to Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., the FBI revealed it had used drones 10 times since 2006 for surveillance in kidnappings, search and rescue missions, and drug and fugitive investigations. Among them was last winter's standoff between authorities and Jimmy Lee Dykes, who was shot to death after holding a 5-year-old boy hostage in an underground bunker in Alabama, the letter said.

The IG's report cited the Alabama case, but no others, saying only that a review of available records showed that the FBI appeared to be operating drones only after obtaining required approvals from the Federal Aviation Administration.

Civil liberties groups critical of domestic drone use say such operations could invade people's privacy. The government worries drones could collide with passenger planes or crash, concerns that have slowed more widespread adoption of the technology.

Paul, mentioned as a possible 2016 GOP presidential candidate, had been thwarting the Senate confirmation vote of Mueller's successor, James Comey, over his concerns about the FBI's domestic use of drones and had asked the FBI to address his concerns.

The FBI's letter to Paul also said that while the Supreme Court had not ruled on the use of drones, prior rulings on aerial surveillance held that court warrants were not needed because the areas monitored were open to public view and "there was no reasonable expectation of privacy."

The agency also wrote that a warrant would not be needed because drones don't physically trespass on private property.

The IG report, however, suggested that drones might present special challenges in the realm of civil liberties.

For example, said the IG report, drones have the "unique capability" to maneuver effectively yet covertly in the areas surrounding a home, where expectations of privacy are not clear or well-defined. In addition, said the IG, drones are capable of extended flight times of several hours or even days, which could have legal implications whether the tracking was performed on private or public property.

The IG recommended the formation of a Justice Department working group to determine whether drones require their own legal policy, distinct from those of manned aircraft. The deputy attorney general's office agreed with the recommendation.

Civilian versions of unmanned military aircraft that have tracked and killed terrorists in the Middle East and Asia are in demand by police departments and border patrol units. Justice Department officials told the IG's office that none of their drones were armed. Law enforcement agencies want drones for a bird's-eye view that's too impractical or dangerous for conventional planes or helicopters to obtain.

The drones purchased by the Justice Department are what the FAA calls "small UAVs," unmanned aerial vehicles that weigh up to 55 pounds.

The FBI has said its unmanned aerial vehicles are used only to conduct surveillance operations on stationary subjects. In each instance, the FBI first must obtain the approval of the FAA to use the aircraft in a very confined geographic area.

Two other Justice Department components, the Drug Enforcement Administration and the U.S. Marshals Service, have purchased drones for testing, but said they had no plans to deploy them operationally, the IG's report said. The Marshals service spent $75,000. The DEA acquired its drone from another federal agency at no cost, and said it planned to transfer the craft to another agency. The Marshals Service said it planned to destroy its drones because they were obsolete and no longer operable.

Regarding potential privacy concerns, both the FBI and ATF told the IG's office they did not believe there was any practical difference between how a drone collects evidence and how that's done by a manned aircraft, the report said.

The FBI told the IG that bureau guidelines require that agents get supervisor approval before conducting any aerial surveillance and comply with aviation laws and policies. As of May, the ATF said it was developing a checklist to guide how drone operators conduct flights.

"These officials did not believe that there was a need to develop additional privacy protocols" for drones, the IG's report said.

A senior policy analyst with the American Civil Liberties Union, Jay Stanley, said: "We urge the Justice Department to make good on its plans to develop privacy rules that protect Americans from another mass surveillance technology."

He added that Congress should pass legislation requiring law enforcement to get judicial approval before deploying drones, and explicitly forbid the arming of such machines.

Florida, Idaho and Tennessee require that law enforcement agencies obtain a search warrant before using drones for surveillance.

In April, Virginia enacted a two-year moratorium on drone use except in cases of imminent loss of life. Many other state legislatures and municipalities are considering similar measures.

In addition to the money spent by the FBI and ATF, the Justice Department has awarded $1.26 million for drones to at least seven local police departments and nonprofit organizations since 2007.

The Justice Department money was used by Eastern Kentucky University, the Sheriff's Association of Texas, the Center for Rural Development in Kentucky, the Gadsden, Ala., Police Department, the Miami-Dade Police Department, the North Little Rock, Ark., police department and the San Mateo County, Calif., Sheriff's Office.

Five of the seven grants were used to buy drones. The awards to Miami-Dade and San Mateo were provided solely to evaluate drones for use in the field.

The drones met with varying success. In 2009, the Gadsden Police Department attempted to use its drone for a surveillance mission. "However, Gadsden Police Department officials stated that during the mission the ground control station lost communication with the unmanned aircraft system, causing the UAV to collide with a tree."

The aerospace industry forecasts a worldwide deployment of almost 30,000 drones by 2018, with the United States accounting for half of them.

http://news.yahoo.com/justice-department-spent-nearly-5m-drones-212220839--politics.html
 
Back
Top