Talk of drones patrolling US skies spawns anxiety

[freeatlast]

Woody this is not about training missions. This is about a government that is going seriously wrong.

 

[Sapper Woody]

Woody this is not abouit training missions. This is about a government that is going seriously wrong.

Like I said, I am neither defending nor condemning the government in this conversation. I am simply stating that, based upon what I see and know, the government won't use drones for surveillance on a mass scale.

I also think that it is highly unlikely that they would use them on a smaller scale, especially when there are better methods already in place should they wish to do so.

 

[freeatlast]

Like I said, I am neither defending nor condemning the government in this conversation. I am simply stating that, based upon what I see and know, the government won't use drones for surveillance on a mass scale.

I also think that it is highly unlikely that they would use them on a smaller scale, especially when there are better methods already in place should they wish to do so.

Woody I am trying to come up with some information that is simply shocking. It may take a couple days if I can get it.

 

[Don]

Woody,
Ever hear of the term "mission creep"?

Why assign them to stateside reserve component if they're only really going to be used overseas?

Your comparison of being trained in using individual firearms training is comparing apples and oranges.

It's one thing to have, say, a maintenance man trained in the proper use of his hand tools that he may use on his daily job (a better comparison in my book), but it's quite another thing to have an entire, basically civilian, stateside unit (a wing in the USAF might be comparable to a brigade or larger Army element) operating aerial platforms whose cost no one really knows for sure along with their associated maintenance and support personnel and equipment seems rather cost prohibitive to me, especially in these times of rather drastic cuts in the DOD's budget.

The last part that I bolded for emphasis, is exactly why the DoD would transfer these assets to a state unit. The Guard is funded through the State; thus, the DoD keeps the capability, but the money comes from state revenue instead of out of the DoD budget.

Additionally, you should ask your state senators/representatives this question; more likely than not, they're the ones that wrangled this agreement in order to keep jobs in their state.

 

[ktn4eg]

The last part that I bolded for emphasis, is exactly why the DoD would transfer these assets to a state unit. The Guard is funded through the State; thus, the DoD keeps the capability, but the money comes from state revenue instead of out of the DoD budget.

Not all of the Guard's budget comes from the state. Some of it is funded by the feds too--most of it is hidden in the reams of defense authorizations.

Additionally, you should ask your state senators/representatives this question; more likely than not, they're the ones that wrangled this agreement in order to keep jobs in their state.

Surely you're not suggesting for one minute that politics plays any role in defense authorizations are you???? Actually our US congressmen and senators play a big role in assigning assets to Guard facilities too. I'm sure that politics on the federal level went into the decision to move our C-130's out of TN. I'm sure it's merely coincidental that most of them are going to KY--the home state of senate minority leader McConnell.

 

[Don]

Surely you're not suggesting for one minute that politics plays any role in defense authorizations are you????

LOL

Actually our US congressmen and senators play a big role in assigning assets to Guard facilities too. I'm sure that politics on the federal level went into the decision to move our C-130's out of TN. I'm sure it's merely coincidental that most of them are going to KY--the home state of senate minority leader McConnell.

Your sarcasm is duly noted.

 

[blackbird]

Like I said, I am neither defending nor condemning the government in this conversation. I am simply stating that, based upon what I see and know, the government won't use drones for surveillance on a mass scale.

I also think that it is highly unlikely that they would use them on a smaller scale, especially when there are better methods already in place should they wish to do so.

Germany had their GESTAPO(German State Police) who had the ability to trace "Paper Trails"----they stored all of their information on little 5x7 index cards ----- their main source of collecting/gaining information was not by any sort of "Spy" drone or satallite----but by the average citizen

The average citizen would witness or suspect some sort of unusual activity and was encouraged to "report" it to the authorities

"ZIE VOULD VANT TO REPORT ZOMSING TO ZOO IF ZIE CAN!!!"

The best spy that can be had for the money----was their next door neighbor!!!!----its still the best source!!!

 

[poncho]

Germany had their GESTAPO(German State Police) who had the ability to trace "Paper Trails"----they stored all of their information on little 5x7 index cards ----- their main source of collecting/gaining information was not by any sort of "Spy" drone or satallite----but by the average citizen

The average citizen would witness or suspect some sort of unusual activity and was encouraged to "report" it to the authorities

"ZIE VOULD VANT TO REPORT ZOMSING TO ZOO IF ZIE CAN!!!"

The best spy that can be had for the money----was their next door neighbor!!!!----its still the best source!!!

"If you see something say something" or how the DHS wants America to become a Stasi police state.

And it looks to be working.

“After issuing a statement denouncing Krauthammer’s remarks as “irresponsible” and “dangerous,” (Michael) Toscano said the AUVSI would go on the offensive against critics. While the strategy is still being shaped, Toscano made it sound like something straight out of a crisis-management textbook — or Orwell. The AUVSI wants to bombard the American public with positive images and messages about drones in an effort to reverse the growing perception of the aircraft as a threat to privacy and safety,” reports Salon.​

Toscano, president of the Association of Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, is eager to keep the PR nice and simple. “You have to keep repeating the good words,” he said, adding that the word “drones” should also be dispensed with because of its negative connotations and replaced with the term “remotely piloted vehicles”.http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/7/coming-to-a-sky-near-you/print/​

Congress recently passed legislation paving the way for what the FAA predicts will be somewhere in the region of 30,000 drones in operation in US skies by 2020.​

Privacy advocates have warned that the FAA has not acted to establish any safeguards whatsoever, and that congress is not holding the agency to account.

In addition, a recently uncovered Air Force document circumvents laws and clear the way for the Pentagon to use drones to monitor the activities of Americans.

Incidents involving the drones in recent months have hardly provided positive spin for the industry.​

Last week a mystery object, thought to be a military or law enforcement drone, flying in controlled airspace over Denver almost caused a catastrophic mid air crash with a commercial jet.​

Last summer, police in North Dakota used a Predator drone to spy on a family who refused to give back three cows and their calves that wandered onto their 3,000-acre farm.​

SOURCE​

Woody I am trying to come up with some information that is simply shocking. It may take a couple days if I can get it.​

Constitution? What constitution? Privacy? Thing of the past. Due process? Not for terrorists! Who's a terrorist? We all are according to our own corupt corporatized government.

Defending our freedom still Sapper? What for it's already gone. Thanks for nothin.

 

[LadyEagle]

I used to believe that the US military would never turn on US citizens on US soil because the US military is comprised of our sons, daughters, fathers, husbands, etc. That was before the 30,000 drones passed Congress. Tennessee senators Corker and Alexander voted for these. (both are Republicans) The drones were attached to the FAA funding bill and could have been amended out, but weren't.

Anyway, I no longer believe the US military would not turn on US citizens on US soil. My next question is when the drones will be armed and how many of us "enemies" of obama (his words) who have already been called terrorists by the left - will be eliminated via video game/drones.

Per NYTimes:

Large or small, drones raise questions about the growing disconnect between the American public and its wars. Military ethicists concede that drones can turn war into a video game and, with no Americans directly at risk, more easily draw the United States into conflicts. Drones have also created a crisis of information for analysts on the end of a daily video deluge.

So, as the domestic use evolves, how many of us will be on the obama "kill list?"

This reeks of Nazi Germany.....

 

[Don]

I used to believe that the US military would never turn on US citizens on US soil because the US military is comprised of our sons, daughters, fathers, husbands, etc. That was before the 30,000 drones passed Congress. Tennessee senators Corker and Alexander voted for these. (both are Republicans) The drones were attached to the FAA funding bill and could have been amended out, but weren't.

Anyway, I no longer believe the US military would not turn on US citizens on US soil. My next question is when the drones will be armed and how many of us "enemies" of obama (his words) who have already been called terrorists by the left - will be eliminated via video game/drones.

Per NYTimes:

So, as the domestic use evolves, how many of us will be on the obama "kill list?"

This reeks of Nazi Germany.....

Lady, you still have people like Sapper in the military. Do you believe he'll turn on his fellow countrymen?

There are still those of us in the military - more than you're giving us credit for - that will stand up if/when such things happen. I won't be here much longer; but I know that most of the people I've had dealings with over the last 24 years would never dream of being used against their own sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, grandparents, friends, neighbors, etc.; would refuse such orders if given; and know that any officer who does issue such an order is more worried about their career progression than doing the right thing.

 

[LadyEagle]

Lady, you still have people like Sapper in the military. Do you believe he'll turn on his fellow countrymen?

There are still those of us in the military - more than you're giving us credit for - that will stand up if/when such things happen. I won't be here much longer; but I know that most of the people I've had dealings with over the last 24 years would never dream of being used against their own sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, grandparents, friends, neighbors, etc.; would refuse such orders if given; and know that any officer who does issue such an order is more worried about their career progression than doing the right thing.

Don, thank you. :flower:

 

[Sapper Woody]

Don't bother there's no amount of tyranny that'll shock ole Sapper. As long as his corporate dictator boss assures him it's keeping us all safe by "fighting terrorism" he'll go along with it.

Constitution? What constitution? Privacy? Thing of the past. Due process? Not for terrorists! Who's a terrorist? We all are according to our own corupt corporatized government.

Defending our freedom still Sapper? What for it's already gone. Thanks for nothin.

Your personal attack and negative implications of my character have been reported. You have a problem with something the government does, that is fine, by all means speak out against it. It's your protected right. But don't dare to assume that since I am military that you know me, or anything about me. I have stated several times now that I am neither defending or condemning the government in this conversation, up until now. I was simply stating that my opinion, based upon what I know, is that the government will not use UAVs for mass surveillance.

Now, since you can't seem to understand what I say, I will say it very simply. I am against big government. I think that there are several things wrong right now that need to be fixed. I think the TSA has too much power. I think that the masses of sheeple in the US are comfortable losing freedom in exchange for a feeling of safety, even though I am not.

I am for gun rights. I am for free speech. I am for "innocent until proven guilty". I am for the right to trial by a jury of your peers. I am for the right to privacy, and the right to not be unlawfully searched. I am for the right to not be put in double jeapordy. I am for freedom.

However, I do not feel the need to belittle every person who has a differing view than me. I also do not feel the need to use the terrorist tactic of creating mass hysteria and panic by predicting horrible outcomes everytime the government starts to move in a direction I don't like.

I email my senators. I email my congressmen. There are ways to get things done that are actually productive, instead of turning everything into a conspiracy theory. If you are unhappy with the current state of government, then there are measures in place to deal with it, and change things. Attacking me personally on this forum because you think I stand for things that I do not is not a way to get things changed.

For the record, even though I don't think it will happen, if UAVs are used for surveillance on the general populace, I believe that is an invasion of privacy, and is wrong. However, I am not against allowing UAVs in US airspace, as there is so much good that they can do. I think they should be used for border patrol. I think they should be used in national parks for scientific research, or for search and rescue operations.

I would keep going on, but the thoughts I want to type out would be crossing the line into personal attacks. And I will not allow myself to be goaded into stooping to your tactics.

One thing I did find interesting in one of those links was the phrase

All of the surveillance occurred without a search warrant because the Supreme Court has long ruled that anything visible from the air, even if it's on private property, can be subject to police spying.

Can anyone shed more light on this? I am sure that the intent was that police could do stakeouts without it being considered an invasion of privacy.

 

[Sapper Woody]

Lady, you still have people like Sapper in the military. Do you believe he'll turn on his fellow countrymen?

There are still those of us in the military - more than you're giving us credit for - that will stand up if/when such things happen. I won't be here much longer; but I know that most of the people I've had dealings with over the last 24 years would never dream of being used against their own sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, grandparents, friends, neighbors, etc.; would refuse such orders if given; and know that any officer who does issue such an order is more worried about their career progression than doing the right thing.

This is one of those things kind of like asking someone if they would die for what they believe. Almost without reservation most Christians will say "yes, I would die for what I believe", or "I would die before renouncing Christ". But you never really know until it happens.

I don't think that the military will ever be told to turn on the American people. But I'd like to believe that at the very least the Christians in the military would refuse such orders. Personally, I've already made my choice that if I was ever told to turn on American citizens I would refuse that order. I can speak for a whole company of Sappers out here that would say the same. And these guys aren't even Christian. But they have honor and integrity, even though some here on the board would have you believe otherwise. In fact, part of the "indoctrination" of the military is that you are honor bound to refuse an order like that, and that "I was just obeying an order" does not excuse you from a crime.

 

[InTheLight]

All of the surveillance occurred without a search warrant because the Supreme Court has long ruled that anything visible from the air, even if it's on private property, can be subject to police spying.

Can anyone shed more light on this? I am sure that the intent was that police could do stakeouts without it being considered an invasion of privacy.

The concept is known as "reasonable expectation of privacy." For example, courts have ruled the use of cameras in the work place is acceptable, but the use of cameras in the bathrooms of workplaces is not acceptable since there is a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in a bathroom.

In today's age of satellite imagery, airplanes, helicopters, and now drones, there is probably no reasonable expectation of privacy if something is out in the open in someone's backyard. I'm not sure if the SCOTUS has actually ruled that "anything visible from the air" is fair game, but I think it would fail the reasonable expectation of privacy concept and thus be allowable.

 

[poncho]

Your personal attack and negative implications of my character have been reported. You have a problem with something the government does, that is fine, by all means speak out against it. It's your protected right. But don't dare to assume that since I am military that you know me, or anything about me. I have stated several times now that I am neither defending or condemning the government in this conversation, up until now. I was simply stating that my opinion, based upon what I know, is that the government will not use UAVs for mass surveillance.

Now, since you can't seem to understand what I say, I will say it very simply. I am against big government. I think that there are several things wrong right now that need to be fixed. I think the TSA has too much power. I think that the masses of sheeple in the US are comfortable losing freedom in exchange for a feeling of safety, even though I am not.

I am for gun rights. I am for free speech. I am for "innocent until proven guilty". I am for the right to trial by a jury of your peers. I am for the right to privacy, and the right to not be unlawfully searched. I am for the right to not be put in double jeapordy. I am for freedom.

However, I do not feel the need to belittle every person who has a differing view than me. I also do not feel the need to use the terrorist tactic of creating mass hysteria and panic by predicting horrible outcomes everytime the government starts to move in a direction I don't like.

I email my senators. I email my congressmen. There are ways to get things done that are actually productive, instead of turning everything into a conspiracy theory. If you are unhappy with the current state of government, then there are measures in place to deal with it, and change things. Attacking me personally on this forum because you think I stand for things that I do not is not a way to get things changed.

For the record, even though I don't think it will happen, if UAVs are used for surveillance on the general populace, I believe that is an invasion of privacy, and is wrong. However, I am not against allowing UAVs in US airspace, as there is so much good that they can do. I think they should be used for border patrol. I think they should be used in national parks for scientific research, or for search and rescue operations.

I would keep going on, but the thoughts I want to type out would be crossing the line into personal attacks. And I will not allow myself to be goaded into stooping to your tactics.

One thing I did find interesting in one of those links was the phrase Can anyone shed more light on this? I am sure that the intent was that police could do stakeouts without it being considered an invasion of privacy.

Was Your Oath Sincere?

Reckon it's alot easier to report me than to face the truth and honor your oath, eh? I see you're still willingly taking orders from the criminals destroying that which you swore to protect and defend despite all your emailing prowess.

Pardon me for not being brainwashed enough to worship people in uniform. That is what you expected when you joined this board right? Everyone else here might be but not this American. That must be what irks you the most huh, running into one that can see.

I think in you're heart you know I'm right.

In fact, part of the "indoctrination" of the military is that you are honor bound to refuse an order like that, and that "I was just obeying an order" does not excuse you from a crime.

To bad you're "indoctrination process" didn't include questioning orders in illegal (unconstitutional) wars. There are no legal orders if the war itself is illegal.

You serve the United Nations and NATO now not the U.S. government or the people. You're bosses have publically admitted as much. They no longer even attempt to make it look like they follow the constitution and yet you still follow their orders. How is that possible for a guy who claims to have so much honor and integrity?

So you go right ahead and report me again for telling you the truth. I'm probably the only one here that has enough courage to do it. You should be thanking me instead of reporting me. This is the difference between you and I Sapper. If I get banned from BB just for telling the truth then so be it. At least I took a stand for liberty instead of being an enabler for those who would see it destroyed.

Take a gander at the big knife your "superiors" have put in your back and the back of the people of the United States . . . http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=79345

"killing just to get more grass, helluva sorry sight" Capt. Woodrow F. Coll

How does that make you feel about your honorable "mission"? You're bosses are openly funding, training and arming the very terrorists you're supposedly fighting to protect us all from!!! Now ain't that a kick in the head? How many more of your comrades in arms and my countrymen have to die and be maimed for the lie that is the "war on terror" before you and the rest here wake up to the sick truth of this giant scam?

You see anyone else here that has the gall to show you this truth? No you don't! They're all to afraid of being labeled a nut or being called un patriotic for that. Evidently it's patriotic to keep your mouth shut when the government is openly using terrorists to murder people all over the planet or worse as in your case, typing up long winded righteous sounding excuses for it all.

Go ahead and report me for that! It'll serve me right for exposing you and everyone else here to the dark truth of it all.

 

[Sapper Woody]

Was Your Oath Sincere?

Reckon it's alot easier to report me than to face the truth and honor your oath, eh? I see you're still willingly taking orders from the criminals destroying that which you swore to protect and defend despite all your emailing prowess.

I reckon it's easier to stay in your own close minded box and attack people based upon your predetermined prejudices rather than look at what others have to say and weigh their words thoughtfully. Try reading my post again, but this time try to set aside your hatred for the government and military while doing so.

Pardon me for not being brainwashed enough to worship people in uniform. That is what you expected when you joined this board right? Everyone else here might be but not this American. That must be what irks you the most huh, running into one that can see.

I think in you're heart you know I'm right.

I know in my heart that you have no clue what you're talking about. Am I proud of what I've done? Yes. But why would I expect anyone to worship me? That's absurd. And for your information, the first time I joined this board was under a different user name, back in 2002, well before I joined the military. (I didn't post on the board for a few years, and forgot all my login information, so just started over later). So, no, that's not what I expected.

To bad you're "indoctrination process" didn't include questioning orders in illegal (unconstitutional) wars. There are no legal orders if the war itself is illegal.

You serve the United Nations and NATO now not the U.S. government or the people. You're bosses have publically admitted as much. They no longer even attempt to make it look like they follow the constitution and yet you still follow their orders. How is that possible for a guy who claims to have so much honor and integrity?

Ok, let me try once again to get this through your bias. My orders, whoever they come from, are honorable. My job is to clear routes of IEDs in order to allow the locals to drive without fear of being blown up. Ooh, that's so evil!

So you go right ahead and report me again for telling you the truth. I'm probably the only one here that has enough courage to do it. You should be thanking me instead of reporting me. This is the difference between you and I Sapper. If I get banned from BB just for telling the truth then so be it. At least I took a stand for liberty instead of being an enabler for those who would see it destroyed.

So, what you're saying is that you lack the ability to tell the truth without attacking me personally? Let me correct your statement: This is the difference between you and I, Poncho. I don't attempt to use negative situations to draw attention to myself as if I am the only one who has the truth and everyone around me is too foolish to see it. Again, I also choose to stay away from the terrorist tactic of inciting and spreading mass hysteria in order to accomplish my goals. You know that's the very definition of terrorism, right? Using fear to control people in order to accomplish your goals.

Take a gander at the big knife your "superiors" have put in your back and the back of the people of the United States . . . http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=79345

How does that make you feel about your honorable "mission"? You're bosses are openly funding, training and arming the very terrorists you're supposedly fighting to protect us all from!!! Now ain't that a kick in the head? How many more of your comrades in arms and my countrymen have to die and be maimed for the lie that is the "war on terror" before you and the rest here wake up to the sick truth of this giant scam?

No matter the prior circumstances, my mission is honorable. Like I've said in previous posts, I am not pointing the finger at previous people's actions out here. I know the history of the area, and who armed and trained who. Right now, my goal is to help these people. My mission is to keep them from being blown up by terrorists. You seem to think that I am a mindless sheep, blindly following and believing anything I am told. I will not take the time here to gloat of my intelligence scores and accomplishments. But suffice to say, I am much more aware than you give me credit. But my mission, again, is honorable, whether you like to think so or not.

You see anyone else here that has the gall to show you this truth? No you don't! They're all to afraid of being labeled a nut or being called un patriotic for that. Evidently it's patriotic to keep your mouth shut when the government is openly using terrorists to murder people all over the planet or worse as in your case, typing up long winded righteous sounding excuses for it all.

Go ahead and report me for that! It'll serve me right for exposing you and everyone else here to the dark truth of it all.

I never report people for telling the truth. Attacking me personally, yes. I will report that everytime. And what I don't get is how you can possibly call my post a "long winded righteous excuse". I freely let you know my stance. And I must point out that I was able to do so without attacking you personally. I attacked your methods of propoganda, yes. But not you personally. And now you decide to attack not only me, but call everyone on this board a coward by saying that no one has the gall to expose truth. Just because others choose to go about change using the proper methods instead of ranting pointlessly on the internet which doesn't accomplish anything does not make them cowardly, and does not mean that they don't have the "gall" to expose lies.

Again, I urge you to lay aside your bias against he govenment and military for just a few minutes, and re-read my post. If you were honest with yourself, I think that you would see that you and I (and many people on this board) agree with a lot of things. We just have decided to use the proper channels of enacting a change instead of the improper methods of ranting on an internet board and personally attacking anyone who does not embrace your methods.

 

[ktn4eg]

An interesting article that appeared in the June 25,2012, issue of the New American (www.newamerican.com [search under Raymond Odierno]) reports that the current Army chief-of-staff wrote in the May/June issue of Foreign Affairs, published by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) (not exactly a bastion of conspiracy theorists) in which he proposes that the Army be used to plan, command, and carry out domestic police missions.

This would be in direct violation of the Posse Comitatus Act which prohibits such actions.

Although the use of drones isn't particularly specified in the article, their use isn't ruled out either. While Gen. Odierno writes that it would be in conjunction with civilian law enforcement, it doesn't take too much to envision that in the future this could be used against anyone the local sheriff deems a "security threat," the definition of which is solely up to the discretion of that particular sheriff.

While this is just in the proposal stages right now, neither the DoD nor the DoJ has voiced any opposition to this proposal by the Army's top commander of the Army.

(Oh yes, BTW, Sapper Woody, from a retired military veteran, I want to thank you for your service in the military.)

 

[freeatlast]

An interesting article that appeared in the June 25,2012, issue of the New American (www.newamerican.com [search under Raymond Odierno]) reports that the current Army chief-of-staff wrote in the May/June issue of Foreign Affairs, published by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) (not exactly a bastion of conspiracy theorists) in which he proposes that the Army be used to plan, command, and carry out domestic police missions.

This would be in direct violation of the Posse Comitatus Act which prohibits such actions.

Although the use of drones isn't particularly specified in the article, their use isn't ruled out either. While Gen. Odierno writes that it would be in conjunction with civilian law enforcement, it doesn't take too much to envision that in the future this could be used against anyone the local sheriff deems a "security threat," the definition of which is solely up to the discretion of that particular sheriff.

While this is just in the proposal stages right now, neither the DoD nor the DoJ has voiced any opposition to this proposal by the Army's top commander of the Army.

(Oh yes, BTW, Sapper Woody, from a retired military veteran, I want to thank you for your service in the military.)

This is going to happen even though some are trying to blind the eyes of the people so they cannot see it coming.

 

[Sapper Woody]

An interesting article that appeared in the June 25,2012, issue of the New American (www.newamerican.com [search under Raymond Odierno]) reports that the current Army chief-of-staff wrote in the May/June issue of Foreign Affairs, published by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) (not exactly a bastion of conspiracy theorists) in which he proposes that the Army be used to plan, command, and carry out domestic police missions.

This would be in direct violation of the Posse Comitatus Act which prohibits such actions.

Although the use of drones isn't particularly specified in the article, their use isn't ruled out either. While Gen. Odierno writes that it would be in conjunction with civilian law enforcement, it doesn't take too much to envision that in the future this could be used against anyone the local sheriff deems a "security threat," the definition of which is solely up to the discretion of that particular sheriff.

While this is just in the proposal stages right now, neither the DoD nor the DoJ has voiced any opposition to this proposal by the Army's top commander of the Army.

(Oh yes, BTW, Sapper Woody, from a retired military veteran, I want to thank you for your service in the military.)

I just came back from working out, and as such had to read your post a few times before comprehending it :tongue3:. Nothing against you, but I was still in a high heart rate mode. But now that I've read and understood, I feel the need to restate that I am against the military executing any police actions against US civilians.

While working out, I came up with two questions. They might warrant another thread, but I'll post them here:

1. People who are against drones: should drone usage be allowed by a civilian police force with a warrant, granted that the police force only keep footage of the property in question?

2. At what point does the military need to step in and act on US soil? Is it when a foreign Army attacks us and tries to occupy us? What about if a known terrorist is found hiding in the US - would that need to be a police action or a military action?

I am not advocating military use against civilians in clear police actions. For instance, even if we were under attack by a foreign power, the military shouldn't arrest a thief. That's the police' job. (Interestingly enough, that's how it is over here. We are not to step in to stop crime except to save life, limb, or eyesight.) Just some food for thought.

 

[freeatlast]

Sapper Woody;
While working out, I came up with two questions. They might warrant another thread, but I'll post them here:

1. People who are against drones: should drone usage be allowed by a civilian police force with a warrant, granted that the police force only keep footage of the property in question?

Yes I would think that would be acceptable.

2. At what point does the military need to step in and act on US soil? Is it when a foreign Army attacks us and tries to occupy us? What about if a known terrorist is found hiding in the US - would that need to be a police action or a military action?

I am sure you are familular wiht the Posse Comitatus act which is being ignored more and more. Woody it seems like there is always some scenario so as to get the military in control of policing the civilians. This has increased in the last 20 years at a dramatic rate. The military should never be used in any police action other then a declared emergency such as with the national guard and even then there should be strict guidelines. The attempt is to strip away all the restraints so that the military can take control and it is going to happen. In regards to the terrorist hiding. That could easily fall under the local authorities or the FBI but no military personnel should be used.

I am not advocating military use against civilians in clear police actions. For instance, even if we were under attack by a foreign power, the military shouldn't arrest a thief. That's the police' job. (Interestingly enough, that's how it is over here. We are not to step in to stop crime except to save life, limb, or eyesight.) Just some food for thought.

The best and safest way to insure our freedoms and rights is no military action at all on home soil unless we are under direct attack in time of war.