Off-Topic :
Fairfax Underground
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Rand Paul (R) Domestic Drones Require Warrants, Helicopters OK
Posted by:
DrillBabyDrill
()
Date: June 12, 2012 09:38AM
I have no clue how republicans and "conservatives" make laws. A drone is unconstitutional and requires a warrant, a helicopter is ok. Drones are perfectly acceptable in foreign countries, no warrants needed there...???
There is no logic at all to creating yet another republican bullshit law.
http://dprogram.net/2012/06/05/police-using-military-drones-to-spy-on-americans-without-a-warrant/
New documents obtained from the US military by CBS news in Los Angeles reveals that the United States military is using drones to conduct aerial surveillance operations over US soil, which by itself is illegal with a few exceptions.
Once the military collects this data it is then being shared with law enforcement agencies that normally would be required to obtain a warrant to collect such information.
Normally these agencies would be required to obtain a court warrant to be able conduct such surveillance operations on their own behalf.
But since the information is being provided by a 3rd party who gained access to the information that was not required to obtain a warrant law enforcement agencies are able to use surveillance with military drones as legal loophole to circumvent the Constitutional protections that prevent such practices.
The document contains vague language that permits use of military drones in to assist local, state and federal law enforcement for the purposes of “preventing, detecting, or investigating other violations of law.”
The document also outlines in vague terms conditions which allows the Air Force to share intelligence information collected by military drones during routine operations with local, state and federal law enforcement agencies.
In any of these cases the 4th Amendment Protections Against illegal search and seizure and 5th amendment Due Process violations are being committed illegally by law enforcement and the military.
Air Force spokesperson Capt. Rose Richeson tells CBS news that the Obama administration has already distributed detailed guidelines instructing the military when and where to use military drones to gather intelligence or conduct surveillance for law enforcement purposes.
Capt. Richeson went on to explain that “a court order or warrant is not required in all circumstances.”
Additionally there are 13 different categories a person can fall under which allows the Military to conduct person specific surveillance operations. on a person without a warrant.
Aggravating the situation is the data being collected by the Military is amassed into a massive database and isn’t considered to be “collected” into it is has been “processed into intelligible form” and “received for use by an employee”
Once the data has been “collected” – actually accessed by a real person – it is then stored in a temporary database for up to 90 days during which a decision is made to purge the information from the system or keep it as permanently record.
During that time the military may share the data with several non-military law enforcement agencies including the FBI and various agencies that fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Homeland Security as well as state and local law enforcement officials.
The operating procedures requires any Air Force Intelligence collected by military drones that reveals information about any threat or crime must be forwarded the federal, state or local law enforcement agency responsible for handling the information..
Furthermore, the documents also reveals that military made be assigned “missions” to conduct operations on behalf of law enforcement.
There is no logic at all to creating yet another republican bullshit law.
http://dprogram.net/2012/06/05/police-using-military-drones-to-spy-on-americans-without-a-warrant/
New documents obtained from the US military by CBS news in Los Angeles reveals that the United States military is using drones to conduct aerial surveillance operations over US soil, which by itself is illegal with a few exceptions.
Once the military collects this data it is then being shared with law enforcement agencies that normally would be required to obtain a warrant to collect such information.
Normally these agencies would be required to obtain a court warrant to be able conduct such surveillance operations on their own behalf.
But since the information is being provided by a 3rd party who gained access to the information that was not required to obtain a warrant law enforcement agencies are able to use surveillance with military drones as legal loophole to circumvent the Constitutional protections that prevent such practices.
The document contains vague language that permits use of military drones in to assist local, state and federal law enforcement for the purposes of “preventing, detecting, or investigating other violations of law.”
The document also outlines in vague terms conditions which allows the Air Force to share intelligence information collected by military drones during routine operations with local, state and federal law enforcement agencies.
In any of these cases the 4th Amendment Protections Against illegal search and seizure and 5th amendment Due Process violations are being committed illegally by law enforcement and the military.
Air Force spokesperson Capt. Rose Richeson tells CBS news that the Obama administration has already distributed detailed guidelines instructing the military when and where to use military drones to gather intelligence or conduct surveillance for law enforcement purposes.
Capt. Richeson went on to explain that “a court order or warrant is not required in all circumstances.”
Additionally there are 13 different categories a person can fall under which allows the Military to conduct person specific surveillance operations. on a person without a warrant.
Aggravating the situation is the data being collected by the Military is amassed into a massive database and isn’t considered to be “collected” into it is has been “processed into intelligible form” and “received for use by an employee”
Once the data has been “collected” – actually accessed by a real person – it is then stored in a temporary database for up to 90 days during which a decision is made to purge the information from the system or keep it as permanently record.
During that time the military may share the data with several non-military law enforcement agencies including the FBI and various agencies that fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Homeland Security as well as state and local law enforcement officials.
The operating procedures requires any Air Force Intelligence collected by military drones that reveals information about any threat or crime must be forwarded the federal, state or local law enforcement agency responsible for handling the information..
Furthermore, the documents also reveals that military made be assigned “missions” to conduct operations on behalf of law enforcement.
Re: Rand Paul (R) Domestic Drones Require Warrants, Helicopters OK
Posted by:
tomahawk
()
Date: June 13, 2012 12:26AM
I agree. Ban police helicopters, too.
Re: Rand Paul (R) Domestic Drones Require Warrants, Helicopters OK
Posted by:
trogdor!
()
Date: June 13, 2012 01:06AM
DrillBabyDrill Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have no clue how republicans and "conservatives"
> make laws. A drone is unconstitutional and
> requires a warrant, a helicopter is ok. Drones
> are perfectly acceptable in foreign countries, no
> warrants needed there...???
I can differentiate the two. First off, we fly drones in foreign countries under the guise of war. We accept that war has different rules than normal life. So unless the US government is at war with its citizens, then the logic that "it's ok in Iraq, it should be ok here", doesn't work.
What's the difference between helicopters and drones? Well for starters, the purpose. Drones are made for long term surveillance (some have the additional ability to fire ordinance). Helicopters are not. A drone could fly over your house for many hours watching you without your knowledge. A helicopter could not.
Saying the two are the same is like saying that since a police officer can drive down your street and look at your house as he passes by, it's now 'ok' for the police to park a van in front of your house with high powered FLIR cameras pointed at it for 12 hours or more a day.
I can see the difference.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have no clue how republicans and "conservatives"
> make laws. A drone is unconstitutional and
> requires a warrant, a helicopter is ok. Drones
> are perfectly acceptable in foreign countries, no
> warrants needed there...???
I can differentiate the two. First off, we fly drones in foreign countries under the guise of war. We accept that war has different rules than normal life. So unless the US government is at war with its citizens, then the logic that "it's ok in Iraq, it should be ok here", doesn't work.
What's the difference between helicopters and drones? Well for starters, the purpose. Drones are made for long term surveillance (some have the additional ability to fire ordinance). Helicopters are not. A drone could fly over your house for many hours watching you without your knowledge. A helicopter could not.
Saying the two are the same is like saying that since a police officer can drive down your street and look at your house as he passes by, it's now 'ok' for the police to park a van in front of your house with high powered FLIR cameras pointed at it for 12 hours or more a day.
I can see the difference.
Re: Rand Paul (R) Domestic Drones Require Warrants, Helicopters OK
Posted by:
tomahawk
()
Date: June 13, 2012 01:40AM
DrillBabyDrill Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have no clue how republicans and "conservatives"
> make laws. A drone is unconstitutional and
> requires a warrant, a helicopter is ok. Drones
> are perfectly acceptable in foreign countries, no
> warrants needed there...???
>
> There is no logic at all to creating yet another
> republican bullshit law.
This is retarded. Rand Paul is almost a libertarian like his father, not a main stream conservative at all. And this bill is supposed to be pro-civil liberties, which is something you libtards supposedly stand for. More proof that libs and conservatives are all a bunch of phonies who drop all their principles to win an election or bash the other guy.
Just like how all you antiwar libtards suddenly vanished when Obama won the election, even though the Iraq and Afghan wars still haven't really ended, and GITMO still isn't closed, and the government still spies on you and holds people without trial.
You have no real principles to stand on. No better than any Limbaugh listener.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have no clue how republicans and "conservatives"
> make laws. A drone is unconstitutional and
> requires a warrant, a helicopter is ok. Drones
> are perfectly acceptable in foreign countries, no
> warrants needed there...???
>
> There is no logic at all to creating yet another
> republican bullshit law.
This is retarded. Rand Paul is almost a libertarian like his father, not a main stream conservative at all. And this bill is supposed to be pro-civil liberties, which is something you libtards supposedly stand for. More proof that libs and conservatives are all a bunch of phonies who drop all their principles to win an election or bash the other guy.
Just like how all you antiwar libtards suddenly vanished when Obama won the election, even though the Iraq and Afghan wars still haven't really ended, and GITMO still isn't closed, and the government still spies on you and holds people without trial.
You have no real principles to stand on. No better than any Limbaugh listener.
Re: Rand Paul (R) Domestic Drones Require Warrants, Helicopters OK
Posted by:
Rwolf
()
Date: June 17, 2012 11:22AM
Next: Police Drones—Recording Conversations In Your Home & Business To Forfeit Property?
Police are salivating at the prospect of having drones to spy on lawful citizens. Congress approved 30,000 drones in U.S. Skies. That amounts to 600 drones for every state.
It is problematic local police will want to use drones to record without warrants, personal conversations inside Americans’ homes and businesses: Consider the House just passed CISPA the recent Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act. If passed by the Senate, CISPA will allow—the military and NSA spy agency (warrant-less spying) on Americans’ private Internet electronic Communications using so-called (Government certified self-protected cyber entities) and Elements that may share with NSA your private Internet activity, e.g. emails, faxes, phone calls and confidential transmitted files they believe (might) relate to a cyber threat or crime (circumventing the Fourth Amendment) with full immunity from lawsuits if done in good faith. CISPA does not clearly define what is an Element; or Self-protected Cyber Entity—that could broadly mean anything, e.g. a private computer, local or national network, website, an online service.
Despite some U.S. cities and counties banning or restricting police using drones to invade citizens’ privacy, local police have a strong financial incentive to call in Federal Drones, (Civil Asset Forfeiture Sharing) that can result from drone surveillance). Should (no-warrant drone surveillance evidence) be allowed in courts—circumventing the Fourth Amendment, for example (drones’ recording conversations in private homes and businesses) expect federal and local police civil asset property forfeitures to escalate. Civil asset forfeiture requires only a preponderance of civil evidence for federal government to forfeit property, little more than hearsay: any conversation picked up by a drone inside a home or business, police can take out of context to initiate arrests; or civil asset forfeiture to confiscate a home/business and other assets. Local police now circumvent state laws that require someone be convicted before police can civilly forfeit their property—by turning their investigation over to a Federal Government Agency that can rebate to the referring local police department 80% of assets forfeited. Federal Government is not required to charge anyone with a crime to forfeit property. There are more than 350 laws and violations that can subject property to government asset forfeiture that have nothing to do with illegal drugs.
Police are salivating at the prospect of having drones to spy on lawful citizens. Congress approved 30,000 drones in U.S. Skies. That amounts to 600 drones for every state.
It is problematic local police will want to use drones to record without warrants, personal conversations inside Americans’ homes and businesses: Consider the House just passed CISPA the recent Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act. If passed by the Senate, CISPA will allow—the military and NSA spy agency (warrant-less spying) on Americans’ private Internet electronic Communications using so-called (Government certified self-protected cyber entities) and Elements that may share with NSA your private Internet activity, e.g. emails, faxes, phone calls and confidential transmitted files they believe (might) relate to a cyber threat or crime (circumventing the Fourth Amendment) with full immunity from lawsuits if done in good faith. CISPA does not clearly define what is an Element; or Self-protected Cyber Entity—that could broadly mean anything, e.g. a private computer, local or national network, website, an online service.
Despite some U.S. cities and counties banning or restricting police using drones to invade citizens’ privacy, local police have a strong financial incentive to call in Federal Drones, (Civil Asset Forfeiture Sharing) that can result from drone surveillance). Should (no-warrant drone surveillance evidence) be allowed in courts—circumventing the Fourth Amendment, for example (drones’ recording conversations in private homes and businesses) expect federal and local police civil asset property forfeitures to escalate. Civil asset forfeiture requires only a preponderance of civil evidence for federal government to forfeit property, little more than hearsay: any conversation picked up by a drone inside a home or business, police can take out of context to initiate arrests; or civil asset forfeiture to confiscate a home/business and other assets. Local police now circumvent state laws that require someone be convicted before police can civilly forfeit their property—by turning their investigation over to a Federal Government Agency that can rebate to the referring local police department 80% of assets forfeited. Federal Government is not required to charge anyone with a crime to forfeit property. There are more than 350 laws and violations that can subject property to government asset forfeiture that have nothing to do with illegal drugs.
Re: Rand Paul (R) Domestic Drones Require Warrants, Helicopters OK
Posted by:
Fight the Future
()
Date: June 17, 2012 12:40PM
Welcome to the totalitarian state. These people have Stalin and Hitler smiling in their graves. These people make Iran and North Korea look like the benevolent socialist government of Sweden.
The US is rapidly destroying all civil liberties under the guise of fighting terrorism. The real terrorists are the politicians. Mitt Romney makes bin Laden look like a piano teacher.
The US is rapidly destroying all civil liberties under the guise of fighting terrorism. The real terrorists are the politicians. Mitt Romney makes bin Laden look like a piano teacher.
Re: Rand Paul (R) Domestic Drones Require Warrants, Helicopters OK
Posted by:
Vexxxed
()
Date: June 17, 2012 09:27PM
Fight the Future Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Welcome to the totalitarian state. These people
> have Stalin and Hitler smiling in their graves.
> These people make Iran and North Korea look like
> the benevolent socialist government of Sweden.
>
> The US is rapidly destroying all civil liberties
> under the guise of fighting terrorism. The real
> terrorists are the politicians. Mitt Romney makes
> bin Laden look like a piano teacher.
You are an idiot.
Romney is not the president.
Romney has not had a thing to do with policy anywhere since 2006.
The guy that's perpetuated your "totalitarian state" is the same guy you're backing in the upcoming election.
Think before you type..someone could get hurt if you actually developed an original thought.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Welcome to the totalitarian state. These people
> have Stalin and Hitler smiling in their graves.
> These people make Iran and North Korea look like
> the benevolent socialist government of Sweden.
>
> The US is rapidly destroying all civil liberties
> under the guise of fighting terrorism. The real
> terrorists are the politicians. Mitt Romney makes
> bin Laden look like a piano teacher.
You are an idiot.
Romney is not the president.
Romney has not had a thing to do with policy anywhere since 2006.
The guy that's perpetuated your "totalitarian state" is the same guy you're backing in the upcoming election.
Think before you type..someone could get hurt if you actually developed an original thought.