Notice Charles was careful to repeat that he's not encouraging anyone to do this.... No doubt he had in mind what the feds did sending S Srvc agents to visit "Uncle Ted" recently.
I don't think any civilian cartridge (not even .50 BMG) would come close to the altitude these things fly. "I'd never encourage anyone try..." either. “Folk heroes” generally don’t live to be very old.
Charles is right though. These are instruments of the military and shouldn't be deployed in our country. They should be banned from use here.
There are already laws that allow limited drone usage within the US.
One recent example was when the Global Hawk was deployed during the California wildfires to use thermal imaging to locate hot spots for firefighters to know where to concentrate their efforts.
I think uses like this are great, but to expand the role of drones into our everyday lives is a HUGE problem.
I don't even like red light cameras because it's just another way for the government to try to get money. They don't really give a damn about safety, they just want a new way to pry $400 from your pocket.
So the drone issue. Don't tell me it's about safety, cause I don't believe you.
What they say: "Well, with all the budget cuts, this is a great way for us to save money"
What I heard: "It's really expensive for us to spy on you 24/7 and we'd like to make sure we can afford to watch you."
My last point is that we have NO idea what kind of capabilities these drones have. With thermal imaging I'm sure they could probably see us in our own homes... Unlawful search anyone?
Krauthammer responds by going hard-left .... this is NOT going hard left. Since when is minding the Constitution HARD LEFT. This from the Right Scoop? Perhaps the author of this article should go so far as to educate themsleves with the Federalist and anti-Federalist papers before they try to paint constitutional adherance as HARD LEFT OR HARD RIGHT.
Folk hero and I would even venture to say that person would be nominated as President, perhaps by both parties.
What if the use of drones had started when George W. Bush was in office? The screams of protests from the left would be deafening.
I can't see any good domestic use for drones. They are good to kill people with. Should not be flying in the USA.
This is one more proof that those in government are far more afraid of the internal threat (us) than of any foreign enemy. We have the power to take them out, and we'll do it in November.
If the drones are used by Homeland Securtiy to patrol the borders, I see no violation of constitutional protections here; the persons illegally crossing the border are, for the most part, not U.S. Citizens. IF on the other hand, they are used by the U.S. military to patrol American cities we have problems. However, any such use will probably be conducted by local law enforcement officials. In which case it is the electronic equivalent a cop walking the beat in his neighborhood.
Surely they won't be weaponized. They will just be like helicopters in police chases and such...and investigation methods. As long as they aren't weaponized I don't have a problem with them. The police can sit outside your house as long as they want or watch you from down the street. They can do it in a helicopter, too. This will just be unmanned and will be faster.
I'd imagine if you shoot one of these down you will be sent to prison for terrorism or something. It would be the same as shooting at a police car or a police helicopter....only more expensive as far as equipment goes.
Edit: this opinion only holds true if they will be used to help the police. If the government uses them to spy on us it's a completely different story.
kong - These aircraft are deployed and operated by the military. They're flow by military pilots remotely.
The problems include, but not limited to:
- Once you submit to military drones doing surveillance for some seemingly “good” reasons (e.g. law-enforcement), we’ve lost control of what else they’ll be used for.
- There will be no accountability or transparency of what, when and for what purposes they’re used.
- Every bit of information of that’s captured with them will be label “Classified” for homeland security reasons.
- B.O. has shown he’s more than willing to use these raining down hell-fire on anyone he’s deemed a threat overseas, even U.S. citizens. As bad as the things such citizens are accused of shouldn’t that still be proven in a court of law?
- Normal civilian law enforcement personnel and technology are fully capable of doing what’s allowed under the Constitution to be done.
Well, what you said would fall under what I said is government controlled, which I don't support. The story I saw said they will be owned by police.
The government cannot use military force inside the borders without martial law, so I wouldn't worry about them being used to blow people up in the states without a trial. Is it something to keep an eye on? You bet your arse. A dictator such as Obama will abuse the laws any way he sees fit.
You're in good company ABC. Mark Levin is dead set against it too. I don't trust any bureaucrat to have this power ... thermal imaging capability is not the least of it. Really scarey to think about possible abuses.
I'd feel the same way no matter who sat in the oval office.
Also disgusting to see that only 4 Repubs voted against this travesty. DeMint, Lee, Risch & Paul
Police already use thermal imaging from the air to find criminals hiding in the bushes. I don't have a problem with it if it's used for what they say it will be....to help the police. The problem is that they won't be owned or operated by the local police so there's too much potential for big brother to use it to spy on us instead of helping the police.
I stepped away for a minute and took a breather. I'm sure you didn't mean to come off as a condescending jerk. I'm all better now, lol. Sorry.
Alright, Creeper, just how stupid do you think I am? How would you like it if I asked you "Creeper, you do understand that your mother is a female?". No, Creeper, I did not realize the police were part of government.
Yes, they are part of government but they are not the IRS, the politicians or any other oversight or intrusional arm that wants to control us. The police have families like you and I, view the world much like you and I, and all they are interested in is catching criminals. Real criminals, not political enemies. Yes, they can be controlled by politicians but they can do that now. What makes you think a drone will make any difference? Do they not have helicopters they can use for basically the same purpose. Police are not bad people.
I apologize for the angry response, but give me a little credit. I'm not a 3rd grader for crying out loud.
WHO THE HELL IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT APPROVED THIS? WE SHOULD KICK THEM OUT! WE THE PEOPLE SHOULD VOTE ON THIS! ONE DAY I AWOKE AND REALIZED WE ARE LIVING IN A POLICE STATE.
Cool!! I am doing a study about the changes in effectiveness of CB radios with the increased CO2 output in the atmosphere. The truckers are a massive part of our national security and I need $2 ...(cough)...billion to conduct the research.
Trust me, I'm good for it.
U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade
The UN is planning on taking our guns away with the support of the obama commies and the American people are possibly going to be hunted by drones? So we will be defenseless.
A drone crashing into your next door neighbor's pool isn't going to make you the hero of the neighborhood, though. Maybe interfere with signals instead? Americans are an ingenious bunch. I'm sure we'll think of something.
Mark Levin had a great rant in his second hour on this. I'm listening to it right now on-line. He's also talking about Mexico, security, etc. Hopefully Scoop will post it.
Of course. A state/local law enforcement officer with proper jurisdiction is an absolutely essential element of ensuring your Constitutional Rights.
If you not know what your rights are and what protections have been built into our legal system, the Federal Government will surely remove them, and you deserve to lose them
I think CK was incorrect. The average Joe Blow citizen doesn't have the fire power to bring down a drone.
This is a very, very slippery slope. I'm not against drones on all of our borders for national security, or using technology to help local law enforcement in a "specific case" (lost child, or Alz. elderly person that wandered off, hikers lost in the mountains, etc.). But they need to turn off their dang cameras until they get to the area they are assisting!
I don't care who is in the White House. This is the government spying on its citizens, pure and simple. You're no safer when Reps do it than you are when Dems do and remember, the other party always eventually gets a shot at playing by the rules you set up.
I'd shoot one of those suckers in a New York minute if I had the chance.
Jefferson must be spinning in his grave.
BO abuses power, and is very dangerous. I want restrictions on civilian use, no matter WHO is president.
I can easily see some friends from back in WV, drunk as hell and trying to light one up. It is bs that they can do it here. CIA and NSA are not allowed to spy domestically. The law enforcement thing is just cover.
I have a quibble with his characterizing his own argument as "hard-left". I think it's a position that is related to big brother/privacy concerns. It cuts across right and left - people will have a problem with it for different reasons. It's not as simple as saying that us right-wingers support everything our military does. This breaks new ground because it is generally creepy and unsettling - it is a combination of surveillance and weaponry.
Here's a list of the pro-drone senators...bast@rds!
Dang, most of these don't surprise me, but Rubio voted for this?! THAT IS IT. I no longer trust him. It's been eroding for a while but this seals it for me.
I know, it's sad the number of RINOs that voted for this BS. I too was ticked off when I saw Rubio voted aye. The clowns in DC are completely out of control...