You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘drones’ tag.
March 7, 2013 in Campaign 2008, Campaign 2012, Campaign 2014, Campaign 2016, Capitalism, Economy, Family values, Gun Control, patriotism, Politics, socialism, Terrorism, Uncategorized | Tags: drones, Due Process, Fourth Amendment, Homeland Security, Rodney Brossart, Secretary Janet Napolitano, US Constitution | Leave a comment
Recently uncovered government documents reveal that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) unmanned Predator B drone fleet has been custom 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.
February 5, 2013 in Campaign 2008, Campaign 2010, Campaign 2012, Campaign 2014, Campaign 2016, Family values, Gun Control, patriotism, Politics, socialism, Terrorism, Uncategorized | Tags: Barack Obama, Department of Homeland Security, drones, Homeland Secretary Janet Napolitano | 1 comment
Just food for thought……………
LONDON (AP) — British soldiers in Afghanistan have been issued with surveillance drones so small they can fit in the palm of a man’s hand.
The Scandinavian-designed Black Hornet Nano weighs as little as 16 grams (roughly half an ounce) — the same as a finch. The 4-inch (10-centimeter) -long helicopter is fitted with a tiny camera which relays still images and video to a remote terminal.
“We used it to look for insurgent firing points and check out exposed areas of the ground before crossing, which is a real asset,” said Sgt. Christopher Petherbridge, with Britain’s Brigade Reconnaissance Force. In a statement, he called the Hornet easy to operate and said it offered “amazing capability to the guys on the ground.”
The military said Sunday that the toy-like Hornet is capable of flying even in windy conditions.
It said the Hornet was developed by Norway’s Prox Dynamics AS as part of a 20 million-pound ($31 million) contract for 160 units with southern England’s Marlborough Communications Ltd.
Drones of all shapes and sizes have rapidly become a mainstay of U.S., British and other nations’ military operations around the world. Late last year the U.K. said it was doubling the size of its armed drone fleet in Afghanistan to 10 with the purchase of a new batch of Reapers.
June 8, 2012 in Campaign 2008, Campaign 2010, Campaign 2012, Family values, patriotism, Politics, socialism, Terrorism, Uncategorized | Tags: drones, Illegal search and seizure, Invasion of Privacy, military tribunals, surveillance, Thomas Jefferson, US Constitution | 1 comment
OpEd from FoxNews contributor Judge Andrew Napolitano:
For the past few weeks, I have been writing in this column about the government’s use of drones and challenging their constitutionality on Fox News Channel where I work. I once asked on air what Thomas Jefferson would have done if — had drones existed at the time — King George III had sent drones to peer inside the bedroom windows of Monticello. I suspect that Jefferson and his household would have trained their muskets on the drones and taken them down. I offer this historical anachronism as a hypothetical only, not as one who is urging the use of violence against the government.
Nevertheless, what Jeffersonians are among us today? When drones take pictures of us on our private property and in our homes, and the government uses the photos as it wishes, what will we do about it? Jefferson understood that when the government assaults our privacy and dignity, it is the moral equivalent of violence against us. The folks who hear about this, who either laugh or groan, cannot find it humorous or boring that their every move will be monitored and photographed by the government.
Don’t believe me that this is coming? The photos that the drones will take may be retained and used or even distributed to others in the government so long as the “recipient is reasonably perceived to have a specific, lawful governmental function” in requiring them. And for the first time since the Civil War, the federal government will deploy military personnel inside the United States and publicly acknowledge that it is deploying them “to collect information about U.S. persons.”
Did you consent to the American military spying on Americans in America? I don’t know a single person who has, but I know only a few who are complaining.
-It gets worse. If the military personnel see something of interest from a drone, they may apply to a military judge or “military commander” for permission to conduct a physical search of the private property that intrigues them. And, any “incidentally acquired information” can be retained or turned over to local law enforcement. What’s next? Prosecutions before military tribunals in the U.S.?
The administration has made little secret of its near-total reliance on drone operations to fight the war on terror. The ironies abound. Candidate Obama campaigned on narrowing presidential wartime power, closing Guantanamo Bay, trying terrorists in civilian courts, ending enhanced interrogation, and moving away from a wartime approach to terrorism toward a criminal-justice approach. Mr. Obama has avoided these vexing detention issues simply by depriving terrorists of all of their rights—by killing them. (emphasis added)
FYI; John Yoo worked for the Bush DOJ, and was one of those targeted by the Obama administration regarding their legal memorandums that greenlighted what the Obama White House has deemed “Torture”.
June 6, 2012 in Campaign 2008, Campaign 2010, Campaign 2012, Capitalism, climate change, Economy, Family values, Politics, socialism, Terrorism, Uncategorized | Tags: Barack Obama, drones, EPA, Illegal search and seizure, US Constitution | Leave a comment
The Environmental Protection Agency declined to answer questions this week as the Omaha World-Herald sought to clarify whether the agency had the legal authority to conduct overflights of cattle operations to determine if cattle are pooping in streams in the Midwest.
I don’t know much about bovine latrine habits, but I’ve been around enough pastures to know that cattle really aren’t that particular.
It seems to me that they let go pretty much wherever they are, stream or no.
So I think I can say with some authority, that, yes, cattle all around the Midwest are indeed pooping in streams, legally or otherwise.
That’s the kind of rugged individualists that cow herds appear to be now in face of the bullying- pun intended-cowards in the Obama administration. It’s gotten so bad that not content to rough up people, the Obama administration has to go do some environmental cow-tipping.
What’s supposed to be sport for drunk people, is now official policy