DHS Drones Designed to Identify Armed Civilians

Down and dirty debates (well, yeah, politics).
User avatar
scottm
Posts: 2763
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 7:00 pm
Location: Texas
Contact:

DHS Drones Designed to Identify Armed Civilians

Postby scottm » Wed Mar 06, 2013 8:01 am

Image

HOMELAND SECURITY DRONES DESIGNED TO IDENTIFY CIVILIANS CARRYING GUNS
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... rying-Guns

Recently uncovered government documents reveal that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) unmanned Predator B drone fleet has been customize designed to identify civilians carrying guns and track cell phone signals.

"I am very concerned that this technology will be used against law-abiding American firearms owners," said founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation Alan Gottlieb. “This could violate Fourth Amendment rights as well as Second Amendment rights."

The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) obtained a partially redacted copy of Homeland Security’s drone requirements through a Freedom of Information Act request; CNET uncovered an unredacted copy.

Homeland Security design requirements specify that its Predator B drones “shall be capable of identifying a standing human being at night as likely armed or not” and must be equipped with “interception” systems capable of reading cell phone signals.

The first known domestic use of a drone to arrest a U.S. citizen occurred last year in the small town of Lakota, North Dakota when rancher Rodney Brossart was arrested for refusing to return six of his neighbor’s cows that had wandered on to his property. Critics say the fact that domestic drones are being used in such minor matters raises serious concerns about civil liberties and government overreach.

"That drone is not just picking up information on what's happening at that specific scene, it's picking up everything else that's going on," says drone expert and Brookings Institution senior fellow Peter Singer. "Basically it's recording footage from a lot of different people that it didn't have their approval to record footage.”

Others, like progressive author Naomi Wolf, have warned that domestic drones may soon be weaponized. The military version of the Predator B drone carries 100-pound Hellfire missiles, but the Homeland Security’s Customs and Border Protection (CBP) says the 10 drones in its domestic fleet are unarmed.

Last month, NBC News uncovered a confidential 16-page Justice Department memo that concluded the U.S. government may execute a drone strike on a American citizen it believes to be a “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida or “an associated force.”

The Obama Administration defended the use of drones to kill Americans thought to be working with terrorists. “These strikes are legal, they are ethical, and they are wise,” said White House press secretary Jay Carney.


And you think that's bad enough? Combine it with this...

Eric Holder: Drone strikes against Americans on U.S. soil are legal
http://washingtonexaminer.com/eric-hold ... le/2523319

Attorney General Eric Holder can imagine a scenario in which it would be constitutional to carry out a drone strike against an American on American soil, he wrote in a letter to Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.

“It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States,” Holder replied in a letter yesterday to Paul’s question about whether Obama “has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial.”

Paul condemned the idea. “The U.S. Attorney General’s refusal to rule out the possibility of drone strikes on American citizens and on American soil is more than frightening – it is an affront the Constitutional due process rights of all Americans,” he said in a statement.

Holder noted that Paul’s question was “entirely hypothetical [and] unlikely to occur,” but cited the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks as the type of incidents that might provoke such a response.

“Were such an emergency to arise, I would examine the particular facts and circumstances before advising the President on the scope of his authority,” he concluded.

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, an attorney and Judiciary Committee member, told The Washington Examiner last month that the drone policy so far outlined by the administration is too vague.

“That has the potential to swallow the rule,” Lee said after the drone program white paper was leaked. “If you’re going to regard somebody as presenting an imminent threat of an attack on the U.S. simply because you have concluded that they are an ‘operational leader’ or they are involved in planning an attack in one way or another, you find yourself giving way to much discretion to the government.”

Lee said that the White House should release the formal legal analysis underpinning the drone program. “We know that in some instances where the government has released its legal analysis, it gets it wrong,” he said.


Our govt is building drones to intercept armed citizens and believe they can kill you without a trial.

What the heck is happening to our country? It's sounding more and more like a dictatorial regime. :evil:

User avatar
scottm
Posts: 2763
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 7:00 pm
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: DHS Drones Designed to Identify Armed Civilians

Postby scottm » Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:37 pm

WH: Obama Won't Use Drones to Kill Americans in America
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/wh-obam ... ns-america

(CNSNews.com) – A day after Sen. Rand Paul’s 12-hour filibuster, the White House Press Secretary Jay Carney asserted “The president has not and would not use drone strikes against American citizens on American soil,” and added, “whether the lethal force in question is a drone strike or a gun shot, the law and the Constitution apply in the same way.”

It was the most unambiguous point that the White House has made on the matter of using drone strikes in the United States against U.S. citizens not posing an imminent threat to the country after weeks of questioning from Paul.

Paul was filibustering the confirmation of Obama’s nomination of John Brennan to run the Central Intelligence Agency.

Attorney General Eric Holder sent a letter responding to Paul’s question that Carney read from the podium to reporters on Thursday.

A reporter asked Carney, “Does the president have an opinion on whether or not he has the constitutional authority to use drones against American citizens on U.S. soil, and under which circumstances?”

“I’m going to read directly from the attorney general’s letter today,” Carney said. “He has sent a letter responding to this question. It was transmitted to Sen. Paul within the last half hour or so. From the letter: ‘Does the president have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil? The answer is no.’ That is a letter that is signed by the attorney general sent to Sen. Paul and his office.”

Drone strikes have struck terrorists abroad, including a U.S.-born terrorist fighting for the Taliban.

Carney stressed that the president is limited by the Constitution, and that regardless of new technology, it does not change what he can do under the law.

“The president has not and would not use drone strikes against American citizens on American soil,” Carney said. “On the broader question, the legal authority that exists to use lethal force are bound and constrained by the laws and the Constitution. The issue here isn’t the technology. The method doesn’t change the law.

“The president swore an oath to uphold the Constitution and is bound by the law, whether the lethal force in question is a drone strike or a gun shot, the law and the Constitution apply in the same way,” Carney continued.

“That’s why I think there has been a great deal of confusion about the technology here. Technology is irrelevant to what the law and the Constitution say, and the president is bound by the Constitution, bound by the laws and is sworn to uphold them,” he added.


It took hard questioning by Ted Cruz (#CruzMissile) and a filibuster by Rand Paul (#StandWithRand) to FINALLY get a positive response from the White House. I guess they were hoping that ALL of the GOP was full of RINOs like McCain and Graham so that they would have no conservative opposition.

Thanks, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, for supporting the US people and the US Constitution!


Return to “Politics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest