Homeland Security Drones to target civilians with guns [Archive]

Doc Safari

03-06-13, 09:23

I haven't had time this morning to scan other threads to make sure this hasn't already been posted, but to me this is important enough to warrant its own thread.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/03/05/Homeland-Security-Drones-Designed-To-Identify-Civilians-Carrying-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."

I do not think it is a coincidence that while this is going on the SPLC is tracking the rise in so-called "militias." I also do not think it's a coincidence that this happens while they are pushing assault weapons bans nationwide. I wonder if all of a sudden everybody's state CCW permit information will end up in the hands of DHS. Hasn't Missouri virtually crossed the line into potentially sharing that data with the feds?

Ten years ago I would have thought this was strictly Alex Jones Black Helicopter stuff.

I'm not so sure anymore.

Please, somebody, tell me I'm just paranoid. ;)

Mauser KAR98K

03-06-13, 10:29

Doc, I used to think the same thing.

The Government is out to monitor us. There is no need for this AT ALL!

gunrunner505

03-06-13, 10:46

Is anyone else concerned with just how closely this administration parallels facism?

Sent from my SCH-I510 using Tapatalk 2

kmrtnsn

03-06-13, 13:17

Wow! What amazing technology!! Seriously, you guys will believe anything, won't you? I mean, it is on the internet so it has to be true.

Magic_Salad0892

03-06-13, 13:21

Wow! What amazing technology!! Seriously, you guys will believe anything, won't you? I mean, it is on the internet so it has to be true.

I'm with you in this specific case, but it was reported on CNN, and FOX sites about what Holder said regarding drones.

I'm not sure if drones can even be used to single out people with guns, but I guess it's kinda believable.

kmrtnsn

03-06-13, 13:29

Why would Holder (DOJ) be talking with any authority about DHS drone capability?

What magical technology could be mounted in a drone to track guns?

does anyone understand that cellphones have altitude signal limitations or is there a brand new satellite interception technology secretly being inserted into iPhones.

I promise, wrapping your gun and cell phone in aluminum foil will jam the tracking devices.

gunrunner505

03-06-13, 13:29

Doc Safari

03-06-13, 13:34

SteyrAUG

03-06-13, 13:34

What magical technology could be mounted in a drone to track guns?

does anyone understand that cellphones have altitude signal limitations or is there a brand new satellite interception technology secretly being inserted into iPhones.

I promise, wrapping your gun and cell phone in aluminum foil will jam the tracking devices.

Well it said "customize designed to identify civilians carrying guns and track cell phone signals" and seeing as how those are two critical factors in places like Afghanistan I'm willing to believe that the technology has been developed with these applications in mind.

SteyrAUG

03-06-13, 13:36

Okay, I'll concede the point that there needs to be a better explanation of "how" this technology might work, but if it's classified how are you going to do that?

I'm sort of 50/50 on believing it or not. I distrust this administration so much that nothing would surprise me anymore.

If they've got drones that can read the newspaper in your hands, then why not some way to detect the metals in a firearm on your person or something?

I suspect the technology is just sufficient resolution to discern a rifle from an umbrella. I don't think it has any kind of matter identifier on board. All those guys with IRs mounted on their rifles might want to rethink that.

Alex V

03-06-13, 13:42

if you can carrying conceived the only way to see it would be with sensors other than ones that pick up visible light...

wonder what they would be using...

kmrtnsn

03-06-13, 13:42

Okay, I'll concede the point that there needs to be a better explanation of "how" this technology might work, but if it's classified how are you going to do that?

I'm sort of 50/50 on believing it or not. I distrust this administration so much that nothing would surprise me anymore.

If they've got drones that can read the newspaper in your hands, then why not some way to detect the metals in a firearm on your person or something?

Yet it is "unclassified" enough for Brightbarf to blog about it?

Doc Safari

03-06-13, 13:46

Yet it is "unclassified" enough for Brightbarf to blog about it?

We all know there are stealth fighters, but exactly "how" they work is classified. Same thing.

I'm with SteyrAUG: this is probably meant to detect long guns like those nasty militias have out in the sticks. It's not meant to detect your underarm BUG.

Logically, that's further evidence they are trying to detect and potentially take out "seditious" elements (seditious in their minds).

The only "iffy" part of this scenario in my mind is whether we are actually that far down the rabbit hole.

Magic_Salad0892

03-06-13, 13:47

The only "iffy" part of this scenario in my mind is whether we are actually that far down the rabbit hole.

Depends on weather or not the weapons sensors they'll end up placing in NYC will be deemed unconstitional.

PA PATRIOT

03-06-13, 13:53

I'm thinking FLIR Thermal Imaging Cameras as your body heat would also warm up the firearm being carried close to the body and be cooler then your outer clothing. They maybe able to profile the firearm that way.

As to cell phone signals I remember reading somewhere that they can be detectable up to 20 miles but I cant recall the source.

Magic_Salad0892

03-06-13, 14:20

As to cell phone signals I remember reading somewhere that they can be detectable up to 20 miles but I cant recall the source.

http://www.cracked.com/article_18771_6-new-spy-technologies-you-literally-cant-hide-from_p2.html

http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2007/08/wiretap?currentPage=all

Is that what you're referring to?

Alaskapopo

03-06-13, 14:22

Wow! What amazing technology!! Seriously, you guys will believe anything, won't you? I mean, it is on the internet so it has to be true.

I was thinking the same thing. Man the tin foil is strong here. The sad thing is I have friends who believe this kind of crap too.
Pat

kmrtnsn

03-06-13, 14:39

We all know there are stealth fighters, but exactly "how" they work is classified. Same thing.

I'm with SteyrAUG: this is probably meant to detect long guns like those nasty militias have out in the sticks. It's not meant to detect your underarm BUG.

Logically, that's further evidence they are trying to detect and potentially take out "seditious" elements (seditious in their minds).

The only "iffy" part of this scenario in my mind is whether we are actually that far down the rabbit hole.

The technology behind "stealth" is actually quite simple and there are mountains of open-source material available to explain it. There is nothing magical about it. Some materials are more "stealthy" than others, some coatings can help to mask those materials. The composition of those coatings and materials, and the technology used to make them are closely held but are reproducible, if you can afford it, hence our limiting of the trade knowledge. In the end it is all about absorption and reflection. To believe for a minute that some uber-classified defense technologies are going to skip military use and jump straight to Homeland Security usage is farsical. Next is where and how the FAA allows remotely piloted vehicles to operate is very limited, although there are talks ongoing to slowly loosen those restrictions it'll be a long time before RQs are mixing it up in the same airspace as civil/general aviation aircraft. Now we're supposed to believe that there is a bottomless black-ops budget for domestic operations without oversight? Sorry, I can't get funding for a normal T-3, let alone snatching phone calls over the air from a model airplane, on the fly.

Alaskapopo

03-06-13, 14:45

Believing in this conspiracy theory stuff is almost like a mental illness.

duece71

03-06-13, 14:46

My reaction to this is very similar to the first time I heard the term "gay marriage". Nope, no way, not gonna happen. Well, look where we are today.

Alaskapopo

03-06-13, 14:52

My reaction to this is very similar to the first time I heard the term "gay marriage". Nope, no way, not gonna happen. Well, look where we are today.

Who cares about gay marriage. There has always been gay people and now its just out in the open. This is an entirely different matter.
Pat

Doc Safari

03-06-13, 15:00

gunrunner505

03-06-13, 15:09

Alaskapopo

03-06-13, 15:13

Normally I would agree that most conspiracy theories are a bunch of horseshit, but we are not talking about some "weather weapon" or something here.

All we are talking about is whether a drone can see that people on the ground are armed or not and track them by their cellphones. That is nothing outside the realm of possibility IMHO.

To me this one does pass the smell test.

Why would they bother to use a multi millon dollar aircraft just to find out if your armed or not so they can charge you with some misdemeanor or low level felony charge and that is assuming your in a ban state where carry is no allowed. To me it is along the lines of the US government made up 911. Even if eveyrone in the government is as evil as you believe this is just not cost effective.
Pat

kmrtnsn

03-06-13, 15:17

Not a whole lot here that the News 9 helicopter isn't capable of doing.

Synopsis of Homeland Security procurement proposal: https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=3989160d4e23653fb8d18945a7d02b96&_cview=0

CNET article: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57572207-38/dhs-built-domestic-surveillance-tech-into-predator-drones/

EPIC documents: http://epic.org/2013/02/epic-foia---us-drones-intercep.html

Links are fine but please cut down on the length of your posts.

Voodoochild

jpmuscle

03-06-13, 15:17

Doc Safari

03-06-13, 15:24

Why would they bother to use a multi millon dollar aircraft just to find out if your armed or not so they can charge you with some misdemeanor or low level felony charge and that is assuming your in a ban state where carry is no allowed. To me it is along the lines of the US government made up 911. Even if eveyrone in the government is as evil as you believe this is just not cost effective.
Pat

I disagree. I believe the plan is to arm the domestic drones and to use them to "take out" what the administration deems to be "terrorist cells." Imagine a bunch of guys in the woods waking up to a missile strike. I don't believe the long-range plan is to "arrest" people.

And it's not that everyone in the government is evil, just enough of them.

Now, I will allow for this: the claim that the drones are able to detect armed people could simultaneously be a "false flag" designed to send the message "you American citizens better be afraid of what we can do to you" while also being a way to cover their asses in another Waco type raid by being able to tell the press "our drones knew these people had weapons and explosives stock-piled. We could hear them planning their terrorist attacks while they cleaned their AR15's."

No, you're not going to convince me this is tinfoil.

It may be a "bluff" and a "CYA" bit of disinformation, but I don't think it's something made up by a fake whistleblower or some over-eager reporter at Breitbart. And I also still maintain it's technologically possible. I'm not saying a drone is going to see your 1911 in your waistband, but if you and a bunch of guys are out in the desert shooting aluminum cans with your illegal assault weapons, I think it's entirely possible. Remember that not all drones fly at 30,000 feet or whatever.

Alaskapopo

03-06-13, 15:30

I disagree. I believe the plan is to arm the domestic drones and to use them to "take out" what the administration deems to be "terrorist cells." Imagine a bunch of guys in the woods waking up to a missile strike. I don't believe the long-range plan is to "arrest" people.

And it's not that everyone in the government is evil, just enough of them.

Now, I will allow for this: the claim that the drones are able to detect armed people could simultaneously be a "false flag" designed to send the message "you American citizens better be afraid of what we can do to you" while also being a way to cover their asses in another Waco type raid by being able to tell the press "our drones knew these people had weapons and explosives stock-piled. We could hear them planning their terrorist attacks while they cleaned their AR15's."

No, you're not going to convince me this is tinfoil.

It may be a "bluff" and a "CYA" bit of disinformation, but I don't think it's something made up by a fake whistleblower or some over-eager reporter at Breitbart. And I also still maintain it's technologically possible. I'm not saying a drone is going to see your 1911 in your waistband, but if you and a bunch of guys are out in the desert shooting aluminum cans with your illegal assault weapons, I think it's entirely possible. Remember that not all drones fly at 30,000 feet or whatever.
Dud that is way out there like right out of a movie. But hey believe what you want. But know this its very tinfoil.
Pat

Doc Safari

03-06-13, 15:39

Dud that is way out there like right out of a movie. But hey believe what you want. But know this its very tinfoil.
Pat

We'll just have to agree to disagree. By itself this news story doesn't sound like something our own government would actually do to its citizens, but when you've got Holder paving the way for drone stikes against US citizens on American soil, I don't see how you can discount it completely.

Ned Christiansen

03-06-13, 15:44

I'm thankful that some of the politicians are asking for clarification.

Given the absence of credibility of the AG, far as I'm concerned, tin foil or not, one way to keep the deviousness level down is to express concern and press for answers ("trust us" is not an answer). Going by what I heard of the Q&A today, I am not relieved.

Alaskapopo

03-06-13, 15:49

We'll just have to agree to disagree. By itself this news story doesn't sound like something our own government would actually do to its citizens, but when you've got Holder paving the way for drone stikes against US citizens on American soil, I don't see how you can discount it completely.

No problem on agreeing to disagree. I just don't see the US government using drone strikes against US citizens any time soon or ever.

Irish

03-06-13, 15:49

Rand Paul is getting it done. Live video going on 4 hours http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN2/

ICANHITHIMMAN

03-06-13, 16:02

How many of you have actually worked with this technology? Your fears are not outside the realm of possibility. I would not dismiss anything at all, the greatest trick the devil played was to convince the world he did not exists.

Litpipe

03-06-13, 16:25

"target" or "identify"?

Caeser25

03-06-13, 16:32

Believing in this conspiracy theory stuff is almost like a mental illness.

Is the theory that fast and furious was created so the enviroment for gun control legislation to pass a conspiracy theory, yes or no?

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/03/19/the-vetting-holder-fast-and-furious-and-gun-control

Alaskapopo

03-06-13, 16:37

Is the theory that fast and furious was create the enviroment for gun control legislation to pass a conspiracy theory, yes or no?

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/03/19/the-vetting-holder-fast-and-furious-and-gun-control

The Fast and Furious screw up is not even close to using drones to kill US citizens on US soil.
Pat

Irish

03-06-13, 16:42

Believing in this conspiracy theory stuff is almost like a mental illness.

The Fast and Furious screw up is not even close to using drones to kill US citizens on US soil.
Pat

Are you watching the filibuster right now? The one I linked to where Rand Paul's asking for some very simple answers concerning targeting American citizens with drones and NO ONE WILL ANSWER.

Caeser25

03-06-13, 16:48

The Fast and Furious screw up is not even close to using drones to kill US citizens on US soil.
Pat

Forget the drone issue. Is it a conspiracy theory, yes or no? Theres nothing more than a blurb on the mainstream media that it was an operation that went bad.

SteyrAUG

03-06-13, 16:51

Are you watching the filibuster right now? The one I linked to where Rand Paul's asking for some very simple answers concerning targeting American citizens with drones and NO ONE WILL ANSWER.

Been listening to it and I'm becoming convinced that Rand Paul is the most qualified person in the room and should have been the Presidential candidate in 2008.

This should be the ONLY news story for the entire week. This is a most frightening discussion.

Irish

03-06-13, 16:53

Been listening to it and I'm becoming convinced that Rand Paul is the most qualified person in the room and should have been the Presidential candidate in 2008.

This should be the ONLY news story for the entire week. This is a most frightening discussion.

I will campaign and do everything I possibly can in my limited power to get Rand Paul in the White House in 2016.

Litpipe

03-06-13, 17:09

I read the article and I dont see the part about "targeting" Americans. Its supposex to identify if a person has a weapon or not.

TAZ

03-06-13, 17:13

Having a drone track a subject using cell phone data (either GPS or tower triangulation) isn't all that difficult to accomplish. You don't have to have the drone itself receiving the cellphone data (although I know for a fact that cell service over Austin, TX does work at 35000 ft); the cell data can be relayed from a ground station that does the actual network trace. High resolution cameras can already discern the difference between an umbrella and an AK. High resolution FLIR could detect concealed items with different heat signatures than "normal". Are they accurate enough to tell a Glock from a piece of metal; who knows, but given the circumstances of the surveillance one could make decent enough conclusions. Tracking a drug dealer with a cold spot in his belt.... Safe to assume gun. Tracking a registered gun owner with a cold spot in his belt... safe to assume gun. Not sure why you guys are making this out to be high tech super secret NSA crap.

As for using drones against US citizens on US soil, I believe that we aren't that far down this path... Yet. However, the fact that some deuche wrote a policy to justify it means people are thinking about it. That door needs to be shut, barricaded, welded and anyone even looking that way in the future needs to be tossed in jail.

Irish

03-06-13, 17:13

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/6/rand-paul-filibusters-brennan-nomination-cia-direc/ Some highlights...

Sen. Rand Paul took to the floor of the U.S. Senate just before noon Wednesday and vowed to stay there “at length” in order to filibuster John O. Brennan, whom President Obama has nominated to be the next CIA director.

The Kentucky Republican said he will hold up the nomination until he gets more information about the U.S. drone execution program, which has become a major sore point for many lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

“I will speak today until the president responds and says, ‘No, we won’t kill Americans in cafes. No, we won’t kill you at home at night,’” Mr. Paul said early on in the filibuster, that began at 11:47 and showed no signs of slowing more than four hours later.

Five hours into the filibuster, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid came to the floor to try to end it. He asked if Mr. Paul would agree to limit himself to another half-hour of remarks, and then the chamber would vote on the Brennan nomination — which likely has majority support.
Mr. Paul said he would be glad to end his filibuster immediately, but only if the administration would promise not to make Americans in the U.S. the subject of targeted killings.

Mr. Reid said he wasn’t in a position to speak for the administration and stalked off the floor.

“We’re through for the night,” he said, releasing senators who had stuck around thinking they might still vote on the Brennan nomination.
Speaking from his corner desk Mr. Paul, in red tie and gray suit and with a glass of ice water — within reach but rarely touched — spoke about political history and the origins of key constitutional precepts.

He was armed with binders full of information but rarely glanced at them as he rattled off important Supreme Court cases and names of lawyers involved in landmark race-relations lawsuits.

The old-style hold-the-floor filibuster is likely to heighten attention on Mr. Paul, who is thought to be mulling a presidential bid in 2016.
He has staked out a stance as a defender of constitutional rights and has not been shy about demanding votes on his priorities. But the single-handed filibuster is a more dramatic tactic, and he is using it to force attention to his opposition to the U.S. drone program.

Just hours before Mr. Paul began his filibuster, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. testified to a Senate committee that he believed it would be illegal for the government to kill an American who did not pose an imminent threat to security.

But he could not rule out the use of drones on American soil altogether, saying only that he doubted it would happen because it’s easier to capture people here.

The U.S. extrajudicial execution program has come under increasing scrutiny this year after some of the administration’s legal justification for the executions — most often carried out by drone strikes on terrorist targets overseas — leaked to the press.

Members of both parties on Capitol Hill have raised concerns about the program, which started under President George W. Bush and which Mr. Obama has greatly expanded...

If you're not watching you should be.

kmrtnsn

03-06-13, 17:16

I read the article and I dont see the part about "targeting" Americans. Its supposex to identify if a person has a weapon or not.

Specifically,

"3.5.3.1.7 Shall (T) be capable of identifying a standing human being at night as likely armed or not (based on position of arms) at a slant range of one an a half times the specified Operating Altitude."

jpmuscle

03-06-13, 17:36

It never ceases to amaze me just how willing some people are to openly trusting their government... History always repeats itself, and we never seem to learn..

Moose-Knuckle

03-06-13, 17:37

Believing in this conspiracy theory stuff is almost like a mental illness.

Umm what "conspiracy theory"?

Did you not read AG Holder's repsone to Sen. Paul's letter?
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/A_U.S.%20news/US-news-PDFs/BrennanHolderResponse.pdf

News flash, throwing out accusations such as “conspiracy theory” and resorting to name calling like “tin foil hat” does not discredit a damn thing. But it does paint you and some others individuals here who show up and post on such topics as either clueless or a practitioner of topic dilution.

Alaskapopo

03-06-13, 17:39

Umm what "conspiracy theory"?

Did you not read AG Holder's repsone to Sen. Paul's letter?
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/A_U.S.%20news/US-news-PDFs/BrennanHolderResponse.pdf

News flash, throwing out accusations such as “conspiracy theory” and resorting to name calling like “tin foil hat” does not discredit a damn thing. But it does paint you and some others individuals here who show up and post on such topics as either clueless or a practitioner of topic dilution.

Actually people who believe this BS come across as paranoid and delusional.
Pat

D. Christopher

03-06-13, 17:40

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I'm at the opposite end of the spectrum. I haven't read this article but here are some things that may be of interest, or maybe not.

Over the last several decades we have spent billions to develop Beyond Visual Range (BVR) missiles and both active (RADAR) and passive (IRST) methods of detecting and tracking targets at those distances. This doctrine has driven our manned fighter development for over 40 years. In spite of spending all that money for the capabilities we have never used them. We have always required Visual Identification (VID) before permission to fire was given. That in spite of highly sophisticated IFF systems and our powerful search and track radars and infrared search and track sensors. The limitation has always been the VID, which is but a fraction of the distance that our Radar, IR, and IFF systems can reliably operate at.

With regard to tracking humans, simple off-the-shelf hardware that we have been using for some time on aircraft, aerostats, UAVs and space-based systems is all that is required for visual ID at fairly long ranges. Virtually every insurgent or HVT that we have killed in the last 20 years has been done using this. Somewhere in the chain of command a human looking at a display or screen VISUALLY identified a person that they believe is carrying a weapon of some sort. It is often done in some combination of wavelengths including optical, and IR or thermal. Most of the time they are identifying objects the size of an RPG-7 launch tube or a Kalashnikov sized rifle. We have identified and killed targets that were holding a handgun or a single hand grenade in their hand from distances of several miles. (Far enough that engines, propellors and rotor blades can't be heard by the target, even in a rural environment.)

As far as cell phone tracking goes, it's no mystery or big secret that your cell phone is a very effective tracking device. Even before most phones had WiFi and GPS capabilities they were used to find, track, and catch criminals using cell tower triangulation by simply comparing relative tower pings and signal strengths. Todays phones are easier to track and much more accurate. If you are in a car accident and then leave the scene, it's quite easy to look at what signals were present in that area at the time and begin the process of elimination and comparative analysis. Same applies if you get in a fight and then shoot someone and try to leave the area. Once an event like that happens turning off your phone does no good, and in fact turning it off AFTER the event makes it easier to identify you as a target of interest. If your phone doesn't have a removable battery then you can't really be sure turning it off will have the desired effect anyway. Your choices will be to turn it off and still possibly be tracked or found, and bagging it to prevent transmission or reception. Either way, if your signal disappears right after the event you will go straight to the top of the list for further investigation. It's just like shooting off a flare gun.

It doesn't take alien technology or magic to track us, when most of us are voluntarily providing the signals with our cell phones, computers, and vehicles. We have an ever growing number of security cameras in every business and many homes. We have traffic and red light cameras in more and more locations, and then add to that the coming wave of overhead surveillance including UAVs and you have a very effective multi layered system to track and find people. Some of it will be paid for with tax dollars that SOME citizens pay. Much of it will be paid for with private dollars that MANY of us spend with companies for their products and services.

With respect to cell signal tracking distances, a small, hard to see and hear UAV can fly at lower levels to collect, capture, and relay a vast array of signals through secured data-link to anywhere in the world. This can also be done using ground-based hardware as well. This is no obstacle so don't think of it as a limiting factor. It's a non-factor.

And finally, the largest percentage of U.S. entities applying for and receiving authorization to operate UAVs over U.S. soil right now are universities. That will no doubt change in the future but for now that's the way it stands.

Irish

03-06-13, 17:47

Actually people who believe this BS come across as paranoid and delusional.
Pat

With the above quote and your "tinfoil hat" comments, along with others like "citizens peeing down their leg", you sure are quick to throw out the insults and then turn around and soil your panties and cry "anti-LE" when someone disagrees with you and your positions on policing.

Typical whiny bully who wants to pick on others cause it's deemed "socially acceptable" in situations like this and then runs and cries when they come up against somebody who has a differing opinion on other matters.

You are a hypocrite.

kmrtnsn

03-06-13, 18:01

"1.1 Background
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Office of Border Patrol (OBP) has a requirement to conduct UAV operations for use in surveillance missions to confirm intrusions reported day and night by ground sensors, to survey pre-entry staging areas where groups are known to gather prior to crossing the border, to monitor post-entry “lay-up” areas and trails, and to support OBP “sign cutting” operations where agents search the area for signs of recent human activity. The UAV shall be integrated with OBP ground responders and air operations units for interdiction and apprehension operations. The UAV shall also be used to help locate lost and/or injured personnel and to assist OBP Search, Trauma, and Rescue teams in recovery operations. The UAV System shall cover a designated area of responsibility (AOR) defined as within 25 nautical miles of the U.S. Mexico border from Yuma, Arizona to El Paso, exas. The UAV system shall be available 24 hours per day, 7 days a week, with normal flight operations of 4 days per week averaging 14 hours per mission. Short deployments outside the AOR may be required to support other DHS missions. "

Now maybe it is just me, but I think that after reading the above having these specific capabilities is rather benign.

"3.5.3.1.7 Shall (T) be capable of identifying a standing human being at night as likely armed or not (based on position of arms) at a slant range of one an a half times the specified Operating Altitude."

3.5.2.3.2
Target Marking – Applicable payloads should be able to mark 8 (O) targets and then be able to automatically return to the marked target
after panning away from the target.

The only radio finding specification I can find is for the capture and maintaining of the telemetry data-link for vehicle (drone) control. Now, I am not a big fan of giant remote control planes zooming around the airspace, preferring instead manned platforms but I would agree that if one was going to operate such a vehicle, being able to ensure you had control of it would be really important. There is a really cool multi-band communications relay function, making the vehicle into essentially a radio repeater for CBP air or ground unit, an important function when operating down in BFE, how that can be construed as nefarious is beyond me.

Alaskapopo

03-06-13, 18:02

With the above quote and your "tinfoil hat" comments, along with others like "citizens peeing down their leg", you sure are quick to throw out the insults and then turn around and soil your panties and cry "anti-LE" when someone disagrees with you and your positions on policing.

Typical whiny bully who wants to pick on others cause it's deemed "socially acceptable" in situations like this and then runs and cries when they come up against somebody who has a differing opinion on other matters.

You are a hypocrite.
I was criticizing the idea not the poster. There is a difference.
Pat

Honu

03-06-13, 18:13

for some folks remember Drones to not have to be the big huge winged things we are used to seeing and be these huge multi million dollar devices
its the smaller ones in many ways that are going to be used I think for spying when they want

fixit69

03-06-13, 18:20

Exactly. Think remote control heli. And a camera and sensor array. Only about 3 ft maybe. Maybe less.

Moose-Knuckle

03-06-13, 18:36

Actually people who believe this BS come across as paranoid and delusional.
Pat

Typical. :rolleyes:

If someone questions big government and their insatiable thirst for power we simply paint them with the wide mental health brush as "paranoid and delusional" then flag them as a threat on one of the "lists" (NICS, No Fly, etc.).

Irish

03-06-13, 18:39

I was criticizing the idea not the poster. There is a difference.
Pat

People often criticize law enforcment's actions and not a specific poster yet you label them "anti-LE". You're arguing semantics and when you infer something with your posts at least stand up for it. If you weren't making insinuations than obviously I need to recalibrate my reading comprehension.

Honu

03-06-13, 18:42

I can see for events like political events a quad or octa copter comes out a few blocks away gains some altitude like 300-500 feet and then heads over a few blocks away to the event to SCAN for things on folks on or around the event area with most of them never even aware of what is just above them
do it out a normal van near buy so the operators can sit in comfort and have other gear on board a few of these in rotation would be very very easy for them to do and actually quite cheap on a local level

currahee

03-06-13, 18:46

It never ceases to amaze me just how willing some people are to openly trusting their government... History always repeats itself, and we never seem to learn..

There are people who blindly trust the government, no matter what they do. There are also minor players in the government machine.

Anybody who ever made a comment about how the police need certain things -vs- civilians immediately nullified any statement they may ever posit on the rights of individuals or the trustworthiness of the government.

If a person thinks the LE in ban states should have 30 round mags then of course they aren't going to get upset about the government having X number of MRAPs, buying Y number of bullets or having drones that can do anything.

Magic_Salad0892

03-06-13, 18:55

Am I the only one who finds D. Christopher's post unsettling?

brushy bill

03-06-13, 19:02

People often criticize law enforcment's actions and not a specific poster yet you label them "anti-LE". You're arguing semantics and when you infer something with your posts at least stand up for it. If you weren't making insinuations than obviously I need to recalibrate my reading comprehension.

Then both of us have reading comprehension problems, as I think your initial post is spot on. Recurring pattern in his posts. Anti-LE for slightest preceived slight and tin foil hat for anything that questions govt abuse of poser.

Litpipe

03-06-13, 19:11

Specifically,

"3.5.3.1.7 Shall (T) be capable of identifying a standing human being at night as likely armed or not (based on position of arms) at a slant range of one an a half times the specified Operating Altitude."

Title of this thread says "target", your text says "identify". That is my point, thank you for helping me prove it.

djmorris

03-06-13, 19:27

Then both of us have reading comprehension problems, as I think your initial post is spot on. Recurring pattern in his posts. Anti-LE for slightest preceived slight and tin foil hat for anything that questions govt abuse of poser.

THIS +1000

I understand if you don't want to follow some reptilian lizard conspiracy theory but it's getting pretty old to read "tinfoil hat conspiracy theorists!!" every time somebody dare question big government or overreaching law enforcement. Step down off the high horse and stop acting like some knight in shining armor.

At this point it's getting to be everybody on M4C versus "him".

Keep denying this shit all you want but 5 years from now we'll be the ones saying "we told ya so". The writing is on the wall and it has been for a long time... finally people are starting to come around. too little too late?

Alaskapopo

03-06-13, 20:23

People often criticize law enforcment's actions and not a specific poster yet you label them "anti-LE". You're arguing semantics and when you infer something with your posts at least stand up for it. If you weren't making insinuations than obviously I need to recalibrate my reading comprehension.

Perhaps I need to be more articulate. I personally believe that this is BS conspiracy theory stuff. I will leave off any lables for those that might believe differently.
Pat

Honu

03-06-13, 20:28

Perhaps I need to be more articulate. I personally believe that this is BS conspiracy theory stuff. I will leave off any lables for those that might believe differently.
Pat

The use of drones in the US is BS ?
Its happening !
Other technologies being used to track and spy on US citizens is happening !
Combining the two is happening !

Ironic how the tech to see if folks are wearing guns is real in some forms and in the other thread about one of those you said you were all for it !

Of course you quickly back pedaled
Kinda like our current pres does !

Iraqgunz

03-06-13, 20:47

I used to think that people were investing too much of their money in aluminum foil. Now I regret not buying more. The direction that the we are heading is very troublesome.

If Bush had tried this while he was in office, the Dems would have launched impeachment proceedings.

I am also becoming more and more concerned about the militarization of our police forces.

Alaskapopo

03-06-13, 20:51

The use of drones in the US is BS ?
Its happening !
Other technologies being used to track and spy on US citizens is happening !
Combining the two is happening !

Ironic how the tech to see if folks are wearing guns is real in some forms and in the other thread about one of those you said you were all for it !

Of course you quickly back pedaled
Kinda like our current pres does !

The use of Drones to kill people?
pat

El Pistolero

03-06-13, 21:29

Am I the only one who finds D. Christopher's post unsettling?

I'm with you. Technology has gotten disturbing and only helps enforcing a fascist police state by making it easier.

Belmont31R

03-06-13, 21:41

I am in love with Rand Paul, and his fight for us.

Drones are nothing new, though, be they manned or using Google maps images to cite people for violations.

Big brother is using every eye in the sky they can to lock people up.

Endur

03-06-13, 21:53

I am in awe at how many people can sit there and think a government will and would not do such things. Our government is no different from any other in history besides how it operates, we are just at risk to such evil as any of them. Ignoring history and being purposely oblivious to such is not a smart thing to do. Believe any fairytale you want but I would rather admit to being wrong than get told "I told you so".

Belmont31R

03-06-13, 21:56

Irish

03-06-13, 22:29

I am in love with Rand Paul, and his fight for us.
Coming up on the 12th hour.

DocHolliday01

03-07-13, 00:32

Belmont31R

03-07-13, 00:38

Pat, since when do they give a shit about being "cost effective?"

lol a good point. Pat is a union lover trying to get the most bennies possible despite the ability of the people to pay it.

kmrtnsn

03-07-13, 00:43

Pat, since when do they give a shit about being "cost effective?"

Cost effectiveness has a big impact on everything I do and my group does. Lack of funding and case priorities are why every case we do is not a wiretap case. More bang for the buck is why we do not, and can not present every douchebag to the U.S. Attorney for prosecution and why we we work to flip our way higher through an organization to the top, then indict and roll up the idiots. If I had an unlimited budget I'd be doing a lot more trap and traces, a lot more toll analysis, and issuing more subpoenas for phone info, emails, etc. Lack of funding is why I have to limit physical surveillance, as putting 6-8 guys on a target 24-7 costs a fortune in overtime. but since there really isn't an unlimited gravy train I have to be selective and let some targets go while I concentrate on others. I have the authority to direct the use of helicopter assets but I better be using those assets in a cost effective manner, prioritizing those uses. Budgets are a real part of my day to day operations. I'd love more money and I could be more effective with more money but those funds aren't there.

Alaskapopo

03-07-13, 00:53

lol a good point. Pat is a union lover trying to get the most bennies possible despite the ability of the people to pay it.

Really you found a way to try to bash me and unions all at the same time and off topic. You should get an award for most off topic post of the year.
Pat

Belmont31R

03-07-13, 00:55

Cost effectiveness has a big impact on everything I do and my group does. Lack of funding and case priorities are why every case we do is not a wiretap case. More bang for the buck is why we do not, and can not present every douchebag to the U.S. Attorney for prosecution and why we we work to flip our way higher through an organization to the top, then indict and roll up the idiots. If I had an unlimited budget I'd be doing a lot more trap and traces, a lot more toll analysis, and issuing more subpoenas for phone info, emails, etc. Lack of funding is why I have to limit physical surveillance, as putting 6-8 guys on a target 24-7 costs a fortune in overtime. but since there really isn't an unlimited gravy train I have to be selective and let some targets go while I concentrate on others. I have the authority to direct the use of helicopter assets but I better be using those assets in a cost effective manner, prioritizing those uses. Budgets are a real part of my day to day operations. I'd love more money and I could be more effective with more money but those funds aren't there.

How many of those cases are for BS like the WOD? How many officers there are trolling for speeding tickets?

We have by far the highest rate of incarceration in the western world. I am curious as to how locking even more people up will fix things or why funding is such a problem.

kmrtnsn

03-07-13, 01:01

Belmont31R

03-07-13, 01:09

We are a narcotics unit. Our typical minimum offense sentence is 60 months, federal. Since I started in this unit I have seized more money annually than my salary plus some. We don't work traffic offenses.

Ah so WOD. How much money does your organization give out in grants to other law enforcement agencies to fund things like 'interdiction'?

Keep in mind nothing I say is a personal attack on you. I just think the WOD is a failure, and is an excuse to erode rights just like all the other War's on ______.

Given our incarceration rate, crime stats, and immense Federal funding why do you think our current stance, or more funding, will finally win the WOD?

kmrtnsn

03-07-13, 01:15

Ah so WOD. How much money does your organization give out in grants to other law enforcement agencies to fund things like 'interdiction'?

Keep in mind nothing I say is a personal attack on you. I just think the WOD is a failure, and is an excuse to erode rights just like all the other War's on ______.

Given our incarceration rate, crime stats, and immense Federal funding why do you think our current stance, or more funding, will finally win the WOD?

I am not involved in the grant process so I could care less. I am involved in asset forfeiture sharing with the departments that I work with. We have funded and have saved canine programs, DARE programs, bought computers, cruisers, equipment, etc. War on Drugs is a misnomer and those that look at it only in those terms are missing the true issue. Just like any contraband, it is all about the money. It is about corrupting and cheating the system at the cost of those doing legitimate business. At the root, it is about the easy money and the lying, cheating, and killing to get it.

Honu

03-07-13, 01:16

How many of those cases are for BS like the WOD? How many officers there are trolling for speeding tickets?

We have by far the highest rate of incarceration in the western world. I am curious as to how locking even more people up will fix things or why funding is such a problem.

What interesting is hearing a prosecutor say so many of the things in front of him he tries to do alternate things for that are not critical and not block up the system unless they are a threat

But interesting how many cases presented to him vs how many really end up with incarceration

So agreeing with ya :) more saying its interesting at how many cases are presented and how many get deferred or alt things
Or as he says if we locked up everyone dojng crimes from drugs and such our society would shut down

Like he says a lot of folks make stupid decisions but 100 hours service is better for everyone than locking them up and cheaper :)
And insane how many cases are presented and how many just are flat out not able to prosecute or not worth going further

Belmont31R

03-07-13, 01:25

What interesting is hearing a prosecutor say so many of the things in front of him he tries to do alternate things for that are not critical and not block up the system unless they are a threat

But interesting how many cases presented to him vs how many really end up with incarceration

So agreeing with ya :) more saying its interesting at how many cases are presented and how many get deferred or alt things
Or as he says if we locked up everyone dojng crimes from drugs and such our society would shut down

Like he says a lot of folks make stupid decisions but 100 hours service is better for everyone than locking them up and cheaper :)
And insane how many cases are presented and how many just are flat out not able to prosecute or not worth going further

The WOD is stupid, and has bred an ultra violent drug cartel because people cannot sell legally in the US. So we force them to become black market, and cause the price of drugs to sky rocket so theres billions of dollars to be made...so people fight over market share of a multi-billion dollar industry. I can't fathom how people think the WOD is a good thing, and then all the incarceration costs, court costs, and being a waste of police resources.

We have thousands of officers who do nothing but 'interdiction' on interstates trolling for drug busts. We live in Austin, and I35 north out of Austin is chocked full of cops looking for a bust. How much of that is funded with Federal grants? Seizure laws which allow police to seize property without ever charging someone with a crime, and then if you want your property back you have to prove you are innocent before a court.

Of course LE supports it. They get grant money, keeps them employed, and they can put stuff on a table in front of the cameras to show what a good job they are doing. Its employment protection.

Belmont31R

03-07-13, 01:29

I am not involved in the grant process so I could care less. I am involved in asset forfeiture sharing with the departments that I work with. We have funded and have saved canine programs, DARE programs, bought computers, cruisers, equipment, etc. War on Drugs is a misnomer and those that look at it only in those terms are missing the true issue. Just like any contraband, it is all about the money. It is about corrupting and cheating the system at the cost of those doing legitimate business. At the root, it is about the easy money and the lying, cheating, and killing to get it.

All about the money, and then you are saying you are using seizure to fund canines, DARE, computers, cruisers, equipment, ect. So its an incentive for you to fight the WOD to fund more police stuff, and so people don't 'cheat the system'. What system is that? Whats wrong with easy money?

Don't you think by legally making it a black market, which is a multi billion dollar industry, fulfills a destiny of people fighting and killing for market share?

kmrtnsn

03-07-13, 01:33

Belmont31R

03-07-13, 01:40

"Seizure laws which allow police to seize property without ever charging someone with a crime, and then if you want your property back you have to prove you are innocent before a court"

Funny how people who haven't worked in several years alway seem to have $3-500,000.00 in vacuum packed bundles in a hidden compartment in their car. "How did that get there?". Innocent, now that is funny.

So? Then it should be easy to find a crime to charge them with, and use it as evidence. Instead the current laws allow the police to seize property just based on suspicion, don't have to be charged with anything, and then to get your property back you have to prove innocence.

Whats wrong with only seizing property if connected to an actual charge filed in court? What do you have against innocent until proven guilty?

Honu

03-07-13, 01:43

Like in the other thread I said the WOD does not exist ?
Its a feel good political BS thing gov says to try to make folks think they are doing something to make you safer and are just putting you in more danger for the reasons you say !
Its also a political tool politicians use to get money for themselves or a cause of theirs or use it as a bargaining tool and of course to come in get face time and try to make themselves seem important

As I say if its a war they should treat it like a war think of them as the Nazis of WWII and truly go to war with the drug cartels

I do know we have a drug problem but the current fake war is not working

Agree with ya for sure :) its stupid and has made things more dangerous

The WOD is stupid, and has bred an ultra violent drug cartel because people cannot sell legally in the US. So we force them to become black market, and cause the price of drugs to sky rocket so theres billions of dollars to be made...so people fight over market share of a multi-billion dollar industry. I can't fathom how people think the WOD is a good thing, and then all the incarceration costs, court costs, and being a waste of police resources.

We have thousands of officers who do nothing but 'interdiction' on interstates trolling for drug busts. We live in Austin, and I35 north out of Austin is chocked full of cops looking for a bust. How much of that is funded with Federal grants? Seizure laws which allow police to seize property without ever charging someone with a crime, and then if you want your property back you have to prove you are innocent before a court.

Of course LE supports it. They get grant money, keeps them employed, and they can put stuff on a table in front of the cameras to show what a good job they are doing. Its employment protection.

Belmont31R

03-07-13, 01:44

Hundreds, if not more than a thousand, people have been stopped under the interdiction program. From 2006 to 2008, police seized approximately $3 million from at least 140 people as part of the program. None of the ACLU’s clients were ever arrested or charged with a crime after being stopped and shaken down.

Officers who are defendants in the case testified that there were no limits on the searches and seizures conducted under the interdiction program. One of the defendants, Barry Washington, testified that he considered the ethnicity and religion of the motorists to be factors relevant to establishing reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Under oath, when asked what indicators of criminal activity might be, Washington testified:

http://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform-racial-justice/settlement-means-no-more-highway-robbery-tenaha-texas

Belmont31R

03-07-13, 01:49

Like in the other thread I said the WOD does not exist ?
Its a feel good political BS thing gov says to try to make folks think they are doing something to make you safer and are just putting you in more danger for the reasons you say !
Its also a political tool politicians use to get money for themselves or a cause of theirs or use it as a bargaining tool and of course to come in get face time and try to make themselves seem important

As I say if its a war they should treat it like a war think of them as the Nazis of WWII and truly go to war with the drug cartels

I do know we have a drug problem but the current fake war is not working

Agree with ya for sure :) its stupid and has made things more dangerous

As was just stated by an officer in this thread they use the money to fund more police stuff...so of course its incentive for them to do it. As I just posted this interdiction stuff is rampant, and it's not just drug dealers or criminals getting their stuff taken. A lot of these podunk low income places can make a lot of money taking stuff from people. Just take someones cash, and never even pursue charges. Then the person has to hire a lawyer, and go to court to get their money back. A lot of people don't even fight it. They take 2k from you, and it can take just that much in lawyer fees to get your money back.

I am not saying every seizure is like that...but theres clearly abuse of the system and I don't think its a kosher system even under 'legitimate' intended use of the law.

Koshinn

03-07-13, 01:54

does anyone understand that cellphones have altitude signal limitations or is there a brand new satellite interception technology secretly being inserted into iPhones.

At defcon a few yrs back, people were able to pick up wifi from a standard home router a dozen miles away iirc, using a modified antenna on the receiving end.

Cell phones are radios, just like WiFi routers. The vertical distance from drone to ground is much closer than a dozen miles.

While much of the gov'ts spying capabilities are TS, here's a rule of thumb: if you think a method of spying is possible with regards to physics, the gov't has probably already been doing it for years. If you think a method of spying is impossible with regards to physics, learn more about physics, because the gov't has probably been doing that for years too.

That's not to say they use those capabilities on us soil; much of those capabilities are DoD developed, owned, and operated, and the DoD is very strict on title 10 vs title 18 activities.

Belmont31R

03-07-13, 01:54

The stories were sad survivors' tales, each recounting a moment of unexpected financial ruin followed by years of mostly fruitless attempts to undo it. A pilot told of how the government destroyed his air charter business: The Drug Enforcement Administration seized his airplane when a drug dealer chartered it; $85,000 in legal fees later, the pilot filed for bankruptcy and became a truck driver. A landscaper testified that while on a purchasing trip, he had been stripped of $9,000 by an airport drug interdiction unit, then sent home without a receipt, on grounds that only drug dealers carry so much cash. Legislators also heard the tale of Mary Miller (a pseudonym), a 75-year-old grandmother dispossessed of her home for the sins of her fugitive, drug-dealing son.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/snitch/readings/hidden.html

kmrtnsn

03-07-13, 02:07

At defcon a few yrs back, people were able to pick up wifi from a standard home router a dozen miles away iirc, using a modified antenna on the receiving end.

Cell phones are radios, just like WiFi routers. The vertical distance from drone to ground is much closer than a dozen miles.

Yes, cell phones are radios, very low power radios working off of a network of closely spaced ground level repeater towers. Cell phones can now work in commercial airplanes flying at commercial altitudes, but to do so requires a system similar to relaying and trunking, utilizing equipment added to the aircraft to do so, which works like a giant in air router, which communicates to ground or satellites to relay the "cell" signal. Get in a light aircraft above 3,500ft, however, and now your cell phone does one of two things, it hits too many relays at once depending on your ground speed, or it hits none at all, rendering it useless for communication. In a search and rescue type scenario, scans can be made of cellular frequencies, to find a phone "pinging" for a tower, and triangulate to that faint signal but to intercept communications from that phone would require a ground based, not in air system.

Koshinn

03-07-13, 02:12

Yes, cell phones are radios, very low power radios working off of a network of closely spaced ground level repeater towers. Cell phones can now work in commercial airplanes flying at commercial altitudes, but to do so requires a system similar to relaying and trunking, utilizing equipment added to the aircraft to do so, which works like a giant in air router, which communicates to ground or satellites to relay the "cell" signal. Get in a light aircraft above 3,500ft, however, and now your cell phone does one of two things, it hits too many relays at once depending on your ground speed, or it hits none at all, rendering it useless for communication. In a search and rescue type scenario, scans can be made of cellular frequencies, to find a phone "pinging" for a tower, and triangulate to that faint signal but to intercept communications from that phone would require a ground based, not in air system.

You're confusing using a cellphone in the air which has an omnidirectional antenna and intercepting/receiving a cell signal with a directional antenna.

Using a cellphone at 3500 ft has nothing to do with the conversation whatsoever.

kmrtnsn

03-07-13, 02:20

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/snitch/readings/hidden.html

Remember, there are always two sides to every story.

Belmont31R

03-07-13, 02:38

You're confusing using a cellphone in the air which has an omnidirectional antenna and intercepting/receiving a cell signal with a directional antenna.

Using a cellphone at 3500 ft has nothing to do with the conversation whatsoever.

31R = Multi-Channel Transmissions Systems Operator Maintainer...

lol yes. A cell emits a signal in all directions. Wherever the tower is picks up that signal which is going up, down, front, back, sides, wherever. Miles up...The signal is most definitely going 3500ft up.

The way the towers work is best tower is selected, and sends the signal out using triangulation. A network like ATT keeps constant communication with the phone and the tower shoots the signal out towards where your phone is. Your cell phone doesn't do that. It sends its signal out all over the place. This way, as your moving, the next tower picks up the signal and the network selects the best tower to beam your phone stuff. As you move, say in a car, a network like ATT automatically shifts which tower sends the data to phone. Sprint has a lot of dropped calls because their network does not auto shift towers. Like one tower does a 'hand off' to another but on Sprint does a 'hard' handoff.

Phones are low power stuff, and it depends on what band/frequency you are on. LTE, CDMA, GSM, ect...all different bands and frequencies.

Just google IMSI catcher and there are all kinds of intercept stuff out there besides that.

Belmont31R

03-07-13, 02:39

Remember, there are always two sides to every story.

Sure...but there shouldn't be a story in the first place. Theres no due process in roadside seizures or any seizures not connect to a crime that goes before the courts.

Honu

03-07-13, 04:06

Sure...but there shouldn't be a story in the first place. Theres no due process in roadside seizures or any seizures not connect to a crime that goes before the courts.

Ditto only seizure should be of the criminals property after being found guilty or equiv value of use
If grandmas house was worth x amount then criminal owes x amount but grandmas house does not get seized
Has to be property owned or value

Moose-Knuckle

03-07-13, 04:20

It's not just cell phones, for those of you who haven't been keeping up . . .

Once again under the guise of "public safety" big brother needs "event data recorders" in your POVs . . . it's for the children.

Feds Requiring ‘Black Boxes’ in All Motor Vehicles
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/12/black-boxes-privacy/

White House Wants Black Boxes in Cars
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100291433/White_House_Wants_Black_Boxes_in_Cars

Feds Want 'Black Boxes' in New Cars, But Who Will Be Tracking You?
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/feds-black-boxes-cars-tracking/story?id=17918850

Latest RFIDs/GPS/etc. it's not hard to see where this is going.

Alaskapopo

03-07-13, 04:41

VooDoo6Actual

03-07-13, 06:28

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e225/teehee321/Dronemedals_zps566bd7ea.jpg

No.6

03-07-13, 06:52

Koshinn

03-07-13, 07:10

What's next "for the children"? RFID implants for all citizens? Sure would make proving your innocence in a crime a lot easier if the government could "prove" your "whereabouts" on the night of.... I mean it'd be no big deal if you aren't doing anything wrong, right?

Do you even know how GPS and RFID works?

No.6

03-07-13, 07:21

Do you even know how GPS and RFID works?

Yes I do. (deleted sarcastic response)

ICANHITHIMMAN

03-07-13, 08:08

I'm really enjoying this thread good info. I see this from two sides (the drug war) I worked counter drug interdiction ops in the navy and my wife is currently Working in le. I can empathize withe the narcotics guy but I also agree with mr. B. it's all about money, the war on drugs is not real. But it does keep the economy going to a small extent. I have personally witnessed hundreds of tons of drugs ( ship loads) be allowed safe passage to our shores. We had them cold, but were told not to board. The higher wanted to see where it went. In six month period we found over 20 ships the dea and columbian intel had actionable intel on. We were prohibited by south com from boarding. We wasted so much money out there and effected not one dam thing! We even had national geographic along for the ride. USs Estocin ffg-15 google it cd ops

30 cal slut

03-07-13, 08:17

http://phys.org/news/2013-01-york-police-x-ray-vision.html

Nightvisionary

03-07-13, 08:36

Yet it is "unclassified" enough for Brightbarf to blog about it?

Um Yeaa, beacause we all know classifed information NEVER gets leaked.:rolleyes:

VooDoo6Actual

03-07-13, 09:33

The fact of how long Rand Paul filibustered (12 hours 52 minutes) to make his points should indicate to those paying attention what he is saying.

He is saying it all & signaling w/o saying it because he knows.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/06/sen-paul-holds-floor-for-hours-in-filibuster-cia-nominee-over-drone-concerns/

I would imagine the Barking Moonbats are beside themselves...

Irish

03-07-13, 09:36

http://imageshack.us/a/img607/3976/randra.jpg

Litpipe

03-07-13, 10:28

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/13/03/08/dyte9ara.jpg

Mauser KAR98K

03-07-13, 10:54

Rand Paul for POTUS. Hell, even Van Jones called him the man.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/06/you-will-never-believe-who-said-rand-paul-is-the-man-for-filibuster-seriously-you-wont/

Looks like Paul did more to unite the country than Obama-phone.

jpmuscle

03-07-13, 12:04

The fact that Paul pissed of much of the senior GOP leadership makes me all warm and fuzzy inside.

djmorris

03-07-13, 12:17

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/13/03/08/dyte9ara.jpg

You're right. The world and this country is perfect and everything is in black and white. Seriously. Grow up and stop being so damn naive.

Doc Safari

03-07-13, 12:37

Supposedly this is a copy of a white paper on the subject. I have not been able to vet its authenticity yet, so I'll just leave it here and let you guys comment on it. It looks like there is plenty of wiggle room.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf

VooDoo6Actual

03-07-13, 12:42

That's it. Yep indeed lots of ambiguity, obtuseness & vagueness. Couple this w/ the West Point Left Hit list that been going around & walla it connects the dots seemlessly.

Alaskapopo

03-07-13, 13:26

You're right. The world and this country is perfect and everything is in black and white. Seriously. Grow up and stop being so damn naive.

Maybe not perfect but the "man" is not out to get you either.
Pat

fixit69

03-07-13, 13:33

Alaskapopo,

I have stayed quiet when I should have spokeup many times.

If you are this snow blind from living way up north, come on down south and thaw out just a tad. You know for a fact "the man" is trying to take away your rights, and you say he is not out to get me. You think this is going to stop here at the 2a? Well it's not.

Come on, man.

Magic_Salad0892

03-07-13, 13:34

Did anybody watch the entire Rand Paul session?

Irish

03-07-13, 13:45

Did anybody watch the entire Rand Paul session?

From about the 3rd hour on, I didn't realize it was on prior to that, until the end. However, I didn't watch it intently through out the whole period, but it was on in the background, and I did catch the majority of it.

ETA - He was incredibly well spoken, articulate and is very well versed in the Constitution and it's original intent. He schooled a lot of people on what's what.

Magic_Salad0892

03-07-13, 13:52

From about the 3rd hour on, I didn't realize it was on prior to that, until the end. However, I didn't watch it intently through out the whole period, but it was on in the background, and I did catch the majority of it.

ETA - He was incredibly well spoken, articulate and is very well versed in the Constitution and it's original intent. He schooled a lot of people on what's what.

I thought it was amazing, how he was just whipping out those court cases, and rulings, without even barely looking at his folders or anything. Like he just knew 'em. And he was very well spoken.

I'd vote that man in for president in a second. I think he might have just paved the way for himself, too.

T2C

03-07-13, 13:55

Whether Rand Paul's concerns were well founded or not does not matter. We need people like him to keep a close watch on what the rest of the politicians are doing. This need has not changed since our founding fathers first established congress.

In response to some other comments, do I think I should be concerned about the use of drones? You bet I do! Even if using drones against citizens on U.S. soil is not an objective of the government, there is still room for abuse if drone use is not properly monitored and regulated.

Doc Safari

03-07-13, 14:21

Maybe not perfect but the "man" is not out to get you either.
Pat

Not unless you're a Christian, gun-owning Conservative that believes in the Constitution and respects the Founding Fathers, that is.

Honu

03-07-13, 14:27

That is funny
Sadly coming true :(

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e225/teehee321/Dronemedals_zps566bd7ea.jpg

Honu

03-07-13, 14:29

Perfect example of why its not a war :)

Can you imagine this in war time
Ok let the battleship through see what targets it hits so we know what they are attacking

I'm really enjoying this thread good info. I see this from two sides (the drug war) I worked counter drug interdiction ops in the navy and my wife is currently Working in le. I can empathize withe the narcotics guy but I also agree with mr. B. it's all about money, the war on drugs is not real. But it does keep the economy going to a small extent. I have personally witnessed hundreds of tons of drugs ( ship loads) be allowed safe passage to our shores. We had them cold, but were told not to board. The higher wanted to see where it went. In six month period we found over 20 ships the dea and columbian intel had actionable intel on. We were prohibited by south com from boarding. We wasted so much money out there and effected not one dam thing! We even had national geographic along for the ride. USs Estocin ffg-15 google it cd ops

Irish

03-07-13, 14:33

I thought it was amazing, how he was just whipping out those court cases, and rulings, without even barely looking at his folders or anything. Like he just knew 'em. And he was very well spoken.

I'd vote that man in for president in a second. I think he might have just paved the way for himself, too.

I couldn't agree more. He is far more versed in the Constitution, court cases and supporting theory than anyone else out on the floor, from what I've seen. I wouldn't hesitate to cast my lot with Rand Paul at this point in time.

Todd00000

03-07-13, 14:41

For those that need it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/al-qaeda/9886673/Al-Qaedas-22-tips-for-dodging-drone-attacks-the-list-in-full.html

The list in full (English):

1. It is possible to know the intention and the mission of the drone by using the Russianmade “sky grabber” device to infiltrate the drone’s waves and the frequencies. The device is available in the market for $2,595 and the one who operates it should be a computer know-how.

2. Using devices that broadcast frequencies or pack of frequencies to disconnect the contacts and confuse the frequencies used to control the drone. The Mujahideen have had successful experiments using the Russian-made “Racal.”

3. Spreading the reflective pieces of glass on a car or on the roof of the building.
Related Articles

Mali conflict portraits
26 Feb 2013

Revealed: al-Qaeda's 22 tips for dodging drones
21 Feb 2013

4. Placing a group of skilled snipers to hunt the drone, especially the reconnaissance ones because they fly low, about six kilometres or less.

5. Jamming of and confusing of electronic communication using the ordinary water-lifting dynamo fitted with a 30-metre copper pole.

6. Jamming of and confusing of electronic communication using old equipment and keeping them 24-hour running because of their strong frequencies and it is possible using simple ideas of deception of equipment to attract the electronic waves devices similar to that used by the Yugoslav army when they used the microwave (oven) in attracting and confusing the Nato missiles fitted with electromagnetic searching devices.

7. Using general confusion methods and not to use permanent headquarters.

8. Discovering the presence of a drone through well-placed reconnaissance networks and to warn all the formations to halt any movement in the area.

9. To hide from being directly or indirectly spotted, especially at night.

10. To hide under thick trees because they are the best cover against the planes.

11. To stay in places unlit by the sun such as the shadows of the buildings or the trees.

12. Maintain complete silence of all wireless contacts.

13. Disembark of vehicles and keep away from them especially when being chased or during combat.

14. To deceive the drone by entering places of multiple entrances and exits.

15. Using underground shelters because the missiles fired by these planes are usually of the fragmented anti-personnel and not anti-buildings type.

16. To avoid gathering in open areas and in urgent cases, use building of multiple doors or exits.

17. Forming anti-spies groups to look for spies and agents.

18. Formation of fake gatherings such as using dolls and statutes to be placed outside false ditches to mislead the enemy.

19. When discovering that a drone is after a car, leave the car immediately and everyone should go in different direction because the planes are unable to get after everyone.

20. Using natural barricades like forests and caves when there is an urgent need for training or gathering.

21. In frequently targeted areas, use smoke as cover by burning tires.

22. As for the leaders or those sought after, they should not use communications equipment because the enemy usually keeps a voice tag through which they can identify the speaking person and then locate him.

glocktogo

03-07-13, 15:04

The Fast and Furious screw up is not even close to using drones to kill US citizens on US soil.
Pat

And yet which one has ALREADY killed American citizens (LE no less)? That was plainly an acceptable level of collateral damage. Do you really believe anything is beyond this government after that? After all, they got away with it scott free. :confused:

To record accident data. Does this stuff really scare you that much.
Pat

Then it should be perfectly legal to disable them, correct?

I have to ask, have you read 1984? Because you seem to be using it as a how to manual. :(

Honu

03-07-13, 15:07

Funny alaskapopo thinks F&F was a screw up when it was a plan of theirs they got caught in

Again shows his naive thinking

Doc Safari

03-07-13, 15:18

Holder's response:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/holders-letter-rand-paul-no-us-cant-use-drone-kill-citizen-not-engaged-combat-us-soil_706587.html

Dear Senator Paul:

It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: "Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?" The answer to that question is no.

Sincerely,

Eric Holder

Short and to the point for a change. At least he doesn't waffle like he did during the F & F hearings.

My guess is he should have added the phrase "for now."

fixit69

03-07-13, 15:20

And anyone really believe that?

Alaskapopo

03-07-13, 15:20

Funny alaskapopo thinks F&F was a screw up when it was a plan of theirs they got caught in

Again shows his naive thinking

Or alternately your paranoid thinking.
Pat

thopkins22

03-07-13, 15:23

The issue is very rarely with the politicians that create these avenues for the government to overstep it's bounds. Do I believe that Obama would start raining hellfire missiles down on dissidents? No. Do I believe that George Bush intended to utilize the Patriot Act to round up those who were checking out patriotic literature from libraries, or for federal agents to have unchecked warrant power? No. I believe they think "I know what's right or wrong(at least in a very general sense,) it's no big deal." Without remotely considering that several election cycles later the people in charge could be very different.

Creating precedent is incredibly dangerous, and I DO worry about who may come into power in the future.

So no, I don't believe that we are at risk of what people that like to throw out the "tin foil" statements think we are currently afraid of, but without real oversight and attention to the law of the land then there is very real danger of those things occurring in the future.

Alaskapopo

03-07-13, 15:25

currahee

03-07-13, 15:49

And anyone really believe that?

No, trusting people with power over you is idiotic... but at least some more of the sheep are aware of the issue now.

VooDoo6Actual

03-07-13, 16:00

And anyone really believe that?

Not in the least. If our current Fiat Dictator remains in power through any number of mechanisms primed he will springboard that w/o question.

As this winds down to sum end game & the agenda crystallizes more wonder how many people will have been duped will take ownership for their rude attempted social bullying comments.
Racist appears to now be the Tin Foil Hate club.
The gullibility & naively of people is staggering & truly alarming.

Isn't it obvious how much better things are in America ?

D. Christopher

03-07-13, 16:29

Eric Holder is above the law and immune to feeble plebeian attempts to charge him or hold him responsible for anything. Especially from a bunch of lame-ass honkeys. I thought we cleared all that up last year. Eric Holder can do whatever he wants and there is nothing you or I can do about it. Now get that through your thick skull and stop hasslin' the man while he's trying to work!

:help:

Iraqgunz

03-07-13, 16:30

Pat,

A mistake is when I put garlic bread in the oven and forget about it.

Not sending prohibited persons to gun stores to purchase guns and ammo to send down to Mexico (without a system in place to even track them) or telling gun stores to "cooperate" because it's for the greater good.

Or screaming that American firearms are killing Mexican nationals and fueling the drug war and calling for more gun control only to learn that the agency responsible was the one that is supposed to enforce the laws. And you know damn well had a U.S Border Patrol Agent not been murdered and the secret escaped they would have continued to do it in order to gain sympathy with the voters.

Seriously. What ****ing planet are you living on? It sure isn't the same one where I am.

Or alternately your paranoid thinking.
Pat

newyork

03-07-13, 16:35

Honu

03-07-13, 16:44

Funny alaskapopo thinks F&F was a screw up when it was a plan of theirs they got caught in

Again shows his naive thinking

Or alternately your paranoid thinking.
Pat

Ok so F&F happening as a actual operation makes me paranoid !

It was a total accident hahahahah OK you are really showing your true colors more and more

What A child who has no clue

brickboy240

03-07-13, 16:56

They won't target civilians...you can trust them...they are the government.

Ask the Indians...you can trust the government.

LOL

Moose-Knuckle

03-07-13, 17:04

To record accident data. Does this stuff really scare you that much.
Pat

Recording data for accident investigations and insurance purposes sounds all bona fide and advantageous . . . that is how they sell their power grabs to us be it restrictions on certain types of firearms/magazine capacity/bullet types or violating our 4th Amendment rights when we are at the airport.

Now the .gov will not only be data mining/tracking/eaves dropping on We the People via their traditional means but they will have the capability to monitor in real time individuals exact position in a personally owned vehicle. And all for what, an accident report . . . public safety?

jpmuscle

03-07-13, 17:09

They won't target civilians...you can trust them...they are the government.

Ask the Indians...you can trust the government.

LOL

Just so long as your not an American designated as engaging in "combat" on American soil your fine...

So yea a little reclassification effort and maybe it all becomes moot anyway :rolleyes: Time will tell.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/paul-13-hour-filibuster-word-reply-article-1.1282182

Honu

03-07-13, 17:34

Well put. I am stupefied by Alaskapopo.

As I say he is showing his true colors more and more

As they say let them keep talking you will start to see what they are

He is a radical progressive and/or most likely young in his twenties never owned a home never had to care for anyone never lived anywhere where out of his state where he has had to be independent
Most likely not well traveled somehow doubt he has ever been to another country for extended periods and be reliant on himself

Comes down to he wont answer questions posed to him and thinks he is important not you !
Tries to reword what people write etc..
Purely the young I am more important than you attitude and smarter I AM ENTITLED MENTALITY

Alaskapopo

03-07-13, 17:43

As I say he is showing his true colors more and more

As they say let them keep talking you will start to see what they are

He is a radical progressive and/or most likely young in his twenties never owned a home never had to care for anyone never lived anywhere where out of his state where he has had to be independent
Most likely not well traveled somehow doubt he has ever been to another country for extended periods and be reliant on himself

Comes down to he wont answer questions posed to him and thinks he is important not you !
Tries to reword what people write etc..
Purely the young I am more important than you attitude and smarter I AM ENTITLED MENTALITY

Actually I am in my late 30's and I do own a home as for radical progressive on the political tests I am just right of center. (moderate). I have lived and been a resident in 4 different states and I have vacationed in in several south american countries and I have been to Canada several times. So your ASSumptions are as off as your politics. The truth is most of you are so far out there any view seems radical and progressive to you. Women voting thats radical and progressive. Ending slavery radical and progressive. lol.
Pat

Alaskapopo

03-07-13, 17:44

Recording data for accident investigations and insurance purposes sounds all bona fide and advantageous . . . that is how they sell their power grabs to us be it restrictions on certain types of firearms/magazine capacity/bullet types or violating our 4th Amendment rights when we are at the airport.

Now the .gov will not only be data mining/tracking/eaves dropping on We the People via their traditional means but they will have the capability to monitor in real time individuals exact position in a personally owned vehicle. And all for what, an accident report . . . public safety?

You are making a huge leap into la la land.

Irish

03-07-13, 17:49

You are making a huge leap into la la land.

The little black boxes that they they're putting into cars have to be paid for by someone, the consumer. Quit making nanny state laws, while being paid by my tax dollars, and forcing me to pay more money for products that I don't want.

GeorgiaBoy

03-07-13, 17:51

M4Carbine needs to rename GD to "General Discussion about Tinfoil Topics".

General Discussion was once a fun place to debate real politics. Real debate. Actual legitimate topics.

Now it has turned into nothing but a large sect of conspiracy theorists, including industry professionals and moderators.

Does anyone here honestly think a drone could ever fire a missile in the domestic US and nothing bad come of it? That the public outcry would not be so large that it would be inconceivable?

Does anyone here actually believe their assertions that Obama is a dictator and seeks to actually turn us into a communist regime?

It is one thing to think our congress and executive branch are a bunch of incompetent morons. Its another to actually believe this nation is on the way to Orwell's Airstrip One, and the "evil fiat dictator Obama" is the one leading it.

The government has done its share of "unconstitutional" things throughout history. Its nothing new. No, its not right, and it shouldn't happen, but it does. In 1798 we had people being arrested for speaking out against the President. In 1860 we had a President that arrested political critics. In 1941 we rounded up thousands of American citizens and put them in internment camps.

Basically, I have learned that unless you are part of the tin foilist crowd, you are basically an outcast here.

Alaskapopo

03-07-13, 17:51

The little black boxes that they they're putting into cars have to be paid for by someone, the consumer. Quit making nanny state laws, while being paid by my tax dollars, and forcing me to pay more money for products that I don't want.

Those nanny laws in some cases are needed because people screw up and kill other people. If they only kill themselves fine but that is not the case. Those boxes make investigating accidents far easier and it makes it easy to prove vehicle manslaughter etc. Seat belt laws save lives and those that don't wear them we end up paying their medical expenses as a society most of the time. It saves tax dollars in the long run. Putting a black box in your car to record crash data is not impeding in your freedom.
Pat

Alaskapopo

03-07-13, 17:57

M4Carbine needs to rename GD to "General Discussion about Tinfoil Topics".

General Discussion was once a fun place to debate real politics. Real debate. Actual legitimate topics.

Now it has turned into nothing but a large sect of conspiracy theorists, including industry professionals and moderators.

Does anyone here honestly think a drone could ever fire a missile in the domestic US and nothing bad come of it? That the public outcry would not be so large that it would be inconceivable?

Does anyone here actually believe their assertions that Obama is a dictator and seeks to actually turn us into a communist regime?

It is one thing to think our congress and executive branch are a bunch of incompetent morons. Its another to actually believe this nation is on the way to Orwell's Airstrip One, and the "evil fiat dictator Obama" is the one leading it.

The government has done its share of "uncostiutional" things throughout history. Its nothing new. No, its not right, and it shouldn't happen, but it does. In 1798 we had people being arrested for speaking out against the President. In 1860 we had a President that arrested political critics. In 1941 we rounded up thousands of American citizens and put them in internment camps.

Basically, I have learned that unless you are part of the tin foilist crowd, you are basically an outcast here.
Yep and you get label as radical and progressive.
Pat

T2C

03-07-13, 18:01

The little black boxes that they they're putting into cars have to be paid for by someone, the consumer. Quit making nanny state laws, while being paid by my tax dollars, and forcing me to pay more money for products that I don't want.

Insurance companies have a powerful political lobby and promote the installation of the "black boxes" everyone is speaking about. Insurance companies want to record driving habits. It's part of a long term plan to reduce the amount of money insurance companies pay out in claims. It's all about money and the government listens to those who have it.

Irish

03-07-13, 18:03

Those nanny laws in some cases are needed because people screw up and kill other people. If they only kill themselves fine but that is not the case. Those boxes make investigating accidents far easier and it makes it easy to prove vehicle manslaughter etc. Seat belt laws save lives and those that don't wear them we end up paying their medical expenses as a society most of the time. It saves tax dollars in the long run. Putting a black box in your car to record crash data is not impeding in your freedom.
Pat

You missed my point. I don't want to pay for the worthless little piece of shit and have it installed in my car in the first place.

And if anybody doesn't think the "track and monitor" thing hasn't been tried before then they're clueless and have no idea what they're talking about. As an example let's look at Onstar. (http://www.nbcnews.com/business/facing-possible-inquiry-onstar-drops-big-brother-plans-120392)

Facing intense criticism from Capitol Hill and calls for a government investigation, General Motors’ OnStar division has dropped plans that would have allowed it to track detailed personal driving information about both current and former subscribers.

Most GM vehicles currently offer an initial, free subscription to the OnStar service.

The telematics subsidiary had advised users that it was changing its terms and conditions to permit it to track a vehicle’s speed, location and other data including whether or not a motorist was wearing a seatbelt. A driver who dropped OnStar would still be linked to the service unless specifically opting out. And the company said it reserved the right to sell that information to third-party marketers or even government and law enforcement agencies.

Litpipe

03-07-13, 18:08

Maybe a new "PC GD" (paranoid consipracy general discussion) board can be created.

Litpipe

03-07-13, 18:10

You missed my point. I don't want to pay for the worthless little piece of shit and have it installed in my car in the first place.

And if anybody doesn't think the "track and monitor" thing hasn't been tried before then they're clueless and have no idea what they're talking about. As an example let's look at Onstar. (http://www.nbcnews.com/business/facing-possible-inquiry-onstar-drops-big-brother-plans-120392)

Can the box be removed after I purchase it? Or is that illegal? I ask this b/c I hate the idea as well.

Magic_Salad0892

03-07-13, 18:10

Can the box be removed after I purchase it? Or is that illegal? I ask this b/c I hate the idea as well.

I think it violates per their terms of conditions, but don't quote me, as I'm usually wrong.

I DO know that they can still track your shit, after you cancel your Onstar subscription.

Also, Apple can look through your shit too. It's in their terms of service.

Litpipe

03-07-13, 18:14

This is where I engage in conspiracy/corporations own America stuff. I refuse to own an Apple device and have been off Facebook for a while. I know I cant stop all of the personal invasion...but I can at least slow it down.

Waylander

03-07-13, 18:16

Alaskapopo

03-07-13, 18:20

Litpipe

03-07-13, 18:32

Alaskapopo, Safetyhit, Litpipe, and a few more constantly thread derail with argumentative mostly useless simple counterpoints and not justifying a somewhat cohesive argument. You intentionally provoke arguments with this passive aggressive behavior, and people are tired of having to ignore you and argue with you. Then you all apologize and go right back to doing it.

I wish you all would get temporarily banned for a week or two. Some of you have been banned and haven't learned a damn thing. How about a 30 day or permanent ban? You've been asked by mods to stop posting nonsense every...other...post with either doing their job...doing their job...following orders or tin foil...tin foil...tin foil.

Well how about this for a cohesive response sqwerl.

The thread is misleading. I already stated the article says "identify" not "target". The request is for a system that can identify a person carrying a weapon. You can understand that there is a difference between the two cant you?

The fact that some people here would extrapolate that into some sort of hostile take over of the homeland is laughable.

We have real threats right now that we are facing. A real danger of losing our rights as free humans who live in a great country. Our lawmakers forget that the bill of rights is a document securing our freedoms...not a document telling us what we are free to do.

Meanwhile people talk about crazy precision missiles being fired on us here at home. Afterall...thats what some of you are talking about right? A drone identifying a man carrying a gun down any street USA Or in his backyard and being fired at with a $500k missile?

As for simple counterpoints...sometimes a simple response is all a person can muster against arguments being made about an article or topic that has been taken to the tenth degree.

THCDDM4

03-07-13, 18:33

Some people take others having a different opinion as an insult. Then they lash out and resort to labeling or name calling. If I am wrong our out of line I will apologize but don't expect me to be a yes man to every conspiracy theory out there. Basically everyone you listed are those that don't buy into the hype. How can you have a good discussion if you try to crush the dissent.
Pat

I find this statement quite comical seeing as you constantly "lash out" and "label" people as having "tin foil", being "paranoid" when you do not agree.

I would never seek to crush dissent or anyone's opinion. Never have- here or elsewhere. But I do observe you doing so quite often; trivializing the poster with name calling and snickering instead of making q clear counter point and leaving it purely up to debate; instead of arguing and name calling, and then turn around and chide others for your exact behavior.

I appreciate your opinions and standing on your merits; but you discredit yourself time and time again with statements like the above and your constant labelling anyone who doesn't conform to your opinion "tin foil hat wearing...". I would love to hear more of your opinion and viewpoint- but the BS name calling tinfoil hat lobbing crap is getting us nowhere...

Take care Pat.

Litpipe

03-07-13, 18:40

Honu

03-07-13, 18:52

The other part I dont understand is this. We often argue that there are real threats here at home. I think its safe to say that we all agree there are more than likely sleeper cells on US Soil. We all agree that our borders are not secure.

Then the Govt wants to take tech designed for the battlefield and change it up to support domestic work...and some of us say its bad.

Where do you think half of the tech you use everyday originated? This tech already exists to a certain degree. In my own work I am astonished at the gear we have....all from .mil.

I think some of here are worried to much about this article.

Obama said his enemies are the republicans !

In the US I grew up in you were innocent till proven guilty
Not if we decide you are guilty we can kill you with no trial !

So yes when a administration has said ron paul supporters are threats and folks who use tread on me flags should be considered threats and our president calls the other party the enemy

And then that administration decides to use military stuff used to hunt and spy on enemies during war against its citizens with no real definition that does make me nervous

Should they be able to tap your cell when if they want no checks or balances on your freedom
Stopping us on the roads that are meant to be free fishing for things ?

Sorry no tin foil ! Just looking at reality of what is happening

Litpipe

03-07-13, 19:03

Obama said his enemies are the republicans !

In the US I grew up in you were innocent till proven guilty
Not if we decide you are guilty we can kill you with no trial !

So yes when a administration has said ron paul supporters are threats and folks who use tread on me flags should be considered threats and our president calls the other party the enemy

And then that administration decides to use military stuff used to hunt and spy on enemies during war against its citizens with no real definition that does make me nervous

Should they be able to tap your cell when if they want no checks or balances on your freedom
Stopping us on the roads that are meant to be free fishing for things ?

Sorry no tin foil ! Just looking at reality of what is happening

I agree that the Pres has his interests he is playing to. But Im not sure "this" is part of it.

I hope the intent is to identify border threats and domestic terrorism threats. I hope the intent is to deploy them on credible threats...with probable cause. Not hunting endlessly hour after hour.

jpmuscle

03-07-13, 19:27

I think some of here are worried to much about this article.

I think your correct to a point as group think has a tendency to rear its ugly head from time time and this board is certainly not immune. But in the context of the current discussion and on topics relating to the government in general even when looking at all of the presented information objectively and critically there is almost always more than enough that warrants ones eyebrows to be raised and alarms to be generated. Add to that the fact that history tends to repeat itself and serves as more than a valid guide of future activity then the majority of concerns are certainly warranted more often that not.

Honu

03-07-13, 19:45

I agree that the Pres has his interests he is playing to. But Im not sure "this" is part of it.

I hope the intent is to identify border threats and domestic terrorism threats. I hope the intent is to deploy them on credible threats...with probable cause. Not hunting endlessly hour after hour.

Agree but the fact they are trying to take away our guns are using drones to spy on us

This admin has said we can tap cells etc...

Its many in our gov who want power

Sadly I can hope all I want but I look at reality of what is happening and its not looking good

fixit69

03-07-13, 20:24

Ok then anyone of you think this tinfoil, answer my question. Not one of you has.

They are trying to take you 2a rights, and others, right now.

And you say "the man" is not out to get me?

Your either delusional or high or you live live in that special area of North Africa. DENIAL.

It won't stop here. Go ahead and say my tin foil is to tight. Look in front of you.

I don't want to be the one who has no one to speak for him.

Litpipe

03-07-13, 20:25

I agree some want to take out 2A. No argument there.

I disagree on this drone issue though.

fixit69

03-07-13, 20:36

Thank you litpipe. At least you answered.

Georgiaboy, alaskapopo,

Come on down... We all have much more to talk about.

newyork

03-07-13, 21:02

How can you be ok with the drone issue? How? How can anyone be upset with statism but be ok with drones and say they aren't heading in a bad direction?

Litpipe

03-07-13, 21:25

How can you be ok with the drone issue? How? How can anyone be upset with statism but be ok with drones and say they aren't heading in a bad direction?

Newyork...what is a bad direction? Wiretapping...being done. GPS tracking...being done. A drone being able to identify possible threats to our nation...perhaps not a bad thing if used under strict guidelines.

Newyork...here is what I perceive is their intent.

1) Border protection. We know the borders are vast. We know narcotics and weapons go in both directions.
2) Disaster response. Katrina or even tsunami like disaster response. Being able to stay in air to complete damage/rescue surveys.
3) Old fashioned police response with new technology. Threats against our country from enemies foreign and domestic.

If they arm these drones I support everyone here that I have thus far disagreed with. If they arm them then I say bullshit, and they need to stop.

Low flying surveillance, electronic tapping and old fashioned vehicle surveillance have been around for quite a while. I dont think the sky is falling because they want to roll it into one package.

Litpipe

03-07-13, 21:27

Thank you litpipe. At least you answered.

Georgiaboy, alaskapopo,

Come on down... We all have much more to talk about.

Ill answer anything. Glad to participate.

fixit69

03-07-13, 21:29

Then you better expand your grid, litpipe. Time has come to get together and figure this out.

Alaskapopo

03-07-13, 21:30

I find this statement quite comical seeing as you constantly "lash out" and "label" people as having "tin foil", being "paranoid" when you do not agree.

I would never seek to crush dissent or anyone's opinion. Never have- here or elsewhere. But I do observe you doing so quite often; trivializing the poster with name calling and snickering instead of making q clear counter point and leaving it purely up to debate; instead of arguing and name calling, and then turn around and chide others for your exact behavior.

I appreciate your opinions and standing on your merits; but you discredit yourself time and time again with statements like the above and your constant labelling anyone who doesn't conform to your opinion "tin foil hat wearing...". I would love to hear more of your opinion and viewpoint- but the BS name calling tinfoil hat lobbing crap is getting us nowhere...

Take care Pat.

Its not really lashing out, frankly its hard for me to take someone seriously who believes this stuff. I have friends who believe this stuff too and I just don't talk to them about it as its just absurd. Its about as absurd as the anti gunners saying guns are bad and kill people. While I may not agree with Obama's politics do I think he is capable of using drones on US soil to kill US citizens without a trial. No that to me is absurd. Its like dealing with the mentally ill people on the street who think the CIA is poisneing them or those who think that AIDS was created by the government to kill black americans. Its hard to take people seriously who believe this stuff.
Pat

DocHolliday01

03-07-13, 21:38

Its not really lashing out, frankly its hard for me to take someone seriously who believes this stuff. I have friends who believe this stuff too and I just don't talk to them about it as its just absurd. Its about as absurd as the anti gunners saying guns are bad and kill people. While I may not agree with Obama's politics do I think he is capable of using drones on US soil to kill US citizens without a trial. No that to me is absurd. Its like dealing with the mentally ill people on the street who think the CIA is poisneing them or those who think that AIDS was created by the government to kill black americans. Its hard to take people seriously who believe this stuff.
Pat

Pat, When it comes down to it why does it matter if it is done here or in another country? Americans that were part of Al Queda had this happen? Do those people make me sick? Absolutely, but they are still Americans that were denied their Due Process. We don't pick and choose which Americans get Constitutional Rights and who don't. I deal with scumbags daily just like you and believe me many of them just need taken out back and shot, but that is for a judge and jury to decide, not the President.

newyork

03-07-13, 21:39

Newyork...what is a bad direction? Wiretapping...being done. GPS tracking...being done. A drone being able to identify possible threats to our nation...perhaps not a bad thing if used under strict guidelines.

Newyork...here is what I perceive is their intent.

1) Border protection. We know the borders are vast. We know narcotics and weapons go in both directions.
2) Disaster response. Katrina or even tsunami like disaster response. Being able to stay in air to complete damage/rescue surveys.
3) Old fashioned police response with new technology. Threats against our country from enemies foreign and domestic.

If they arm these drones I support everyone here that I have thus far disagreed with. If they arm them then I say bullshit, and they need to stop.

Low flying surveillance, electronic tapping and old fashioned vehicle surveillance have been around for quite a while. I dont think the sky is falling because they want to roll it into one package.

Give a man a rope, he'll want to be a cowboy. Drones in our skies is a slippery slope to automated law enforcement. I don't trust our current govt to pull the reigns back on what is exceptable. If you do, you need to wake up.

Koshinn

03-07-13, 21:41

Give a man a rope, he'll want to be a cowboy. Drones in our skies is a slippery slope to automated law enforcement. I don't trust our current govt to pull the reigns back on what is exceptable. If you do, you need to wake up.

You know that slippery slope arguments are considered fallacies, right?

Alaskapopo

03-07-13, 21:41

Pat, When it comes down to it why does it matter if it is done here or in another country? Americans that were part of Al Queda had this happen? Do those people make me sick? Absolutely, but they are still Americans that were denied their Due Process. I deal with scumbags daily just like you and believe me many of them just need taken out back and shot, but that is for a judge and jury to decide, not the President.

I am sorry but in my view if you want to associate with terrorist who are responsible for killing over 2500 americans on 9-11 and you happen to be around when their compond gets bombed then so be it. Now if they bombed the same guy in his home inside the USA then I have a problem with it. To me there is a huge difference between bombing a US citizen in an Al Queda compound overseas vs on US soil.
Pat

newyork

03-07-13, 21:47

You know that slippery slope arguments are considered fallacies, right?

I don't give a shit what they are considered

Alaskapopo

03-07-13, 21:50

I don't give a shit what they are considered

The arguments are a fallacy because anything can be a slipperly slope. IE. Anti gunners don't want to allow concealed carry because it will lead to old west style shootings in the street. (slippery slope argument)
Pat

fixit69

03-07-13, 21:51

And yes I'm baiting you, Alaskapopo. Why won't you answer me.

Koshinn

03-07-13, 21:52

I don't give a shit what they are considered

It means people who believe a slippery slope argument are using their emotions rather than their head. And that's pretty obvious here.

newyork

03-07-13, 21:56

It means people who believe a slippery slope argument are using their emotions rather than their head. And that's pretty obvious here.

I am using my head sir. I am in a state with the worst gun laws, high taxes, have a city that controls your fat and soda intake and is liberal as hell. I can see each step incrementally being tramped. I have no tinfoil, its happening.

SWATcop556

03-07-13, 22:07

And yes I'm baiting you, Alaskapopo. Why won't you answer me.

Which makes it easier to pick out the problems. I would recommend not following up with another smart ass remark.

fixit69

03-07-13, 22:10

Which makes it easier to pick out the problems. I would recommend not following up with another smart ass remark.

I appologize mod. I stepped for a reason, and retract all my statements if needed. It's just my feelings, witch I should have left at home.

CarlosDJackal

03-07-13, 22:22

The fact that justice is ok with even the idea of using drones domestically, in any capacity, is a problem. Regardless if they can scan for weapons or listen in on your cell phone.

Sent from my SCH-I510 using Tapatalk 2

Agreed!! Then why do we keep mudding the waters with stories such as this? Let us focus on reality and in fighting against these gun control laws. Just how is a drone able to determine if someone has a gun versus someone who is carrying an umbrella or a chain saw?

Pretty soon people are going to start thinking that the gubirmint has the technology to be able to forecast who is going to commit a crime. People are less likely to listen to people who look an sound like they are wearing tinfoil hats. JM2CW.

No.6

03-07-13, 22:27

...

Does anyone here honestly think a drone could ever fire a missile in the domestic US and nothing bad come of it? That the public outcry would not be so large that it would be inconceivable?

...

All depends on how it's presented to the "public".

"Today a drone strike was executed after reports of militia training camps began surfacing last year. An un-named White House source reported that they are the same group who have actively called for the violent overthrow of the US Government and the "trial" of the current President, Vice President and Cabinet members, in recent weeks. The militia group was being trained by an ex-military Special Forces veteran who for the past several years has been operating a small arms and tactics instruction school."

...

Meanwhile people talk about crazy precision missiles being fired on us here at home. Afterall...thats what some of you are talking about right? A drone identifying a man carrying a gun down any street USA Or in his backyard and being fired at with a $500k missile?

....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2251418/Revealed-U-S-carried-333-drone-strikes-Afghanistan-year--entire-drone-strikes-Pakistan-past-years-COMBINED.html

It's only money. They always print more....

Honu

03-07-13, 22:35

Drones have killed US citizens with no trial
The whitehouse says this is legal and they will do it if needed
Not all drones are multimillion dollar setups
Drones are being used by LEO and our gov on US soil
Our gov has set laws into place to track us spy on us tap our phones all without warrants !
We do have technology to see who has a gun !
We do have technology to track cell phones

The article was about tracking and spying not about killing it mentioned one person who thought they could be ?
But myself and others are saying spying ! Alaska keeps trying to say we are saying killing ! Progressive tactic change the dialog ?

Alaska think this is tinfoil territory ? That drones will spy on us on our soil yet its happening

you think F&F was somehow a accident ? When we know it was a operation that was planned and executed
Not sure how a operation is a accident ? But oh well

Wont answer other questions seem to have no real world experience at much of anything
When you do try to answer you change the question and twist it

kmrtnsn

03-07-13, 22:56

Agreed!! Then why do we keep mudding the waters with stories such as this? Let us focus on reality and in fighting against these gun control laws. Just how is a drone able to determine if someone has a gun versus someone who is carrying an umbrella or a chain saw?

Pretty soon people are going to start thinking that the gubirmint has the technology to be able to forecast who is going to commit a crime. People are less likely to listen to people who look an sound like they are wearing tinfoil hats. JM2CW.

Here is my issue with DHS drone use, as a guy from DHS. I personally do not find them to be cost effective. Believe it or not but I do not believe in wasting taxpayer funds, of which I too am one. In my opinion, what the predator does for DHS can be done much cheaper with a manned platform.

Where I work, our access to aerial platforms has been limited by placing them under the operational control of the Border Patrol (I'm not a hater, I once worked there). The problem for us is that the BP Sector Chief's operational priority for air assets do not match our own. When we used to, and currently should have our own air assets, not having to fight with these Chiefs for platforms. As operational costs of aerial platforms are an issue, at least in my mind, then getting the most bang for the buck should always be the priority. A drone will always require more operational personnel to operate, whereas a Cessna 206 or 207 with the same sensor suite will operate with 2/3 or less operational personnel per flight hour.

When I need cameras operating above me, I need a pilot and a sensor operator that I can talk to from the ground, who can move where I need them to move, be that horizontally or vertically. If we are near or under restricted or controlled airspace a manned platform can make these moves, a drone cannot even be there in the first place because of FAA restrictions.

The other issue I have with drones is this. Mechanical devices fail. Manned aerial devices that fail can more easily and accurately be directed by manned operators. Drone drivers in trailers, who cannot physically feel an out of place vibration or shudder, or discern the G-forces of a spin can better direct a malfunctioning aerial platform away from a populated area, school or home. A drone driver in a trailer does not, can not, and never will have the same tactile or sensory control input that a "real" pilot in the platform will experience, comprehend, and react to. It is one thing to drop a bad drone in the mountains of Afghanistan, quite another over suburban San Diego County.

fixit69

03-07-13, 23:24

I understand exactly. From where you are coming from it would be a major op and insanely ineffective device to protect ourselves.

My problem is the future. The next two, maybe three admins. It is too easy to streach into "don't have anything to worry about if your not doing anything wrong" way of thinking.

This is wrong.

Waylander

03-07-13, 23:45

Eric Holder said drones could theoretically be used to bomb US citizens. It took a ~13 hour filibuster to get him to acknowlege that no drone would be used against a US citizen. Those are the facts that every news website in the world was reporting until he retracted his statements in a letter to Rand Paul. A guy with a loose trigger finger no doubt was complicit in F&F and some of you want to give him the benefit of the doubt. Amazing.

For those of you who think we are wearing tinfoil for thinking the government can and will spy on us...

Top U.S. intelligence officials gathered in the White House Situation Room in March [2012] to debate a controversial proposal. Counterterrorism officials wanted to create a government dragnet, sweeping up millions of records about U.S. citizens —even people suspected of no crime. Not everyone was on board. "This is a sea change in the way that the government interacts with the general public," Mary Ellen Callahan, chief privacy officer of the Department of Homeland Security, argued in the meeting, according to people familiar with the discussions. A week later, the attorney general signed the changes into effect.

Who's heard of the NCTC?

Now, NCTC can copy entire government databases—flight records, casino-employee lists, the names of Americans hosting foreign-exchange students and many others. The agency has new authority to keep data about innocent U.S. citizens for up to five years, and to analyze it for suspicious patterns of behavior. Previously, both were prohibited. Data about Americans "reasonably believed to constitute terrorism information" may be permanently retained.

The list could potentially include almost any government database, from financial forms submitted by people seeking federally backed mortgages to the health records of people who sought treatment at Veterans Administration hospitals.

Late last year, for instance, NCTC obtained an entire database from Homeland Security for analysis, according to a person familiar with the transaction. Homeland Security provided the disks on the condition that NCTC would remove all innocent U.S. person data after 30 days. After 30 days, a Homeland Security team visited and found that the data hadn't yet been removed. In fact, NCTC hadn't even finished uploading the files to its own computers, that person said. It can take weeks simply to upload and organize the mammoth data sets. Homeland Security granted a 30-day extension. That deadline was missed, too. So Homeland Security revoked NCTC's access to the data.

But if you're innocent you have nothing to fear, right?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324478304578171623040640006.html

jpmuscle

03-08-13, 00:24

Eric Holder said drones could theoretically be used to bomb US citizens. It took a ~13 hour filibuster to get him to acknowlege that no drone would be used against a US citizen.

That is not correct Holders response said they would not use drones against Americans who are NOT engaged in combat against the government. Nowhere in that letter did they say they would surrender the authority to engage in targeted strikes on Americans are are judged to be combatants even if the are on U.S. soil.

SOOOO basically nothing really changed since no one in the admin as articulated what constitutes a red line for engagement and what extraordinary circumstance are in play as holder stated previously. At issue is how encompassing or constraining is the legal definition of "combat" being used. Is the conspiracy to commit a act of domestic terrorism sufficient? Or does the individual being scrutinized have to present as a clear and present or imminent danger first? That's the problem I'm still seeing and as it stands right now the use of armed drones against U.S. citizens is still well within the scope of possibility depending on the circumstances but what those circumstances are appears to be clear as mud.

fixit69

03-08-13, 00:45

As I said, the future.

Anyone have doubt now?

Moose-Knuckle

03-08-13, 04:50

. . . Holders response said they would not use drones against Americans who are NOT engaged in combat against the government.

I can't wait until we see how this AG and CIC defines "engaged in combat against the govenment" when the next Katrina, Ruby Ridge, Waco, et al. event transpires.

:help:

Alaskapopo

03-08-13, 05:21

Hootiewho

03-08-13, 05:42

Here is my issue with DHS drone use, as a guy from DHS. I personally do not find them to be cost effective. Believe it or not but I do not believe in wasting taxpayer funds, of which I too am one. In my opinion, what the predator does for DHS can be done much cheaper with a manned platform.

Where I work, our access to aerial platforms has been limited by placing them under the operational control of the Border Patrol (I'm not a hater, I once worked there). The problem for us is that the BP Sector Chief's operational priority for air assets do not match our own. When we used to, and currently should have our own air assets, not having to fight with these Chiefs for platforms. As operational costs of aerial platforms are an issue, at least in my mind, then getting the most bang for the buck should always be the priority. A drone will always require more operational personnel to operate, whereas a Cessna 206 or 207 with the same sensor suite will operate with 2/3 or less operational personnel per flight hour.

When I need cameras operating above me, I need a pilot and a sensor operator that I can talk to from the ground, who can move where I need them to move, be that horizontally or vertically. If we are near or under restricted or controlled airspace a manned platform can make these moves, a drone cannot even be there in the first place because of FAA restrictions.

The other issue I have with drones is this. Mechanical devices fail. Manned aerial devices that fail can more easily and accurately be directed by manned operators. Drone drivers in trailers, who cannot physically feel an out of place vibration or shudder, or discern the G-forces of a spin can better direct a malfunctioning aerial platform away from a populated area, school or home. A drone driver in a trailer does not, can not, and never will have the same tactile or sensory control input that a "real" pilot in the platform will experience, comprehend, and react to. It is one thing to drop a bad drone in the mountains of Afghanistan, quite another over suburban San Diego County.

My point is moot & only technical, but having worked for some time in the reliability engineering field (mostly diagnosing machinary vibration), these craft will most certainly have sensors that will pick up vibrations & forces not even a lifelong pilot can feel. Those will be tied into computers that automatically filter what the problem can be such as a prop or vane issue in propulsion. I have taken part in setting up and installing such a system in one of the Navy's unmanned boats, and those craft have them, so rest assured the UAV's do as well.

You can equaly it to a pilot losing 3" of prop blade. He feel's a shudder and knows somethings wrong. The computer knows the prop RPM, the vibration force the now out of balance force is creating and can (if set up) determine exactly which blade & how much of a prop blade is missing.

Carry on...

kmrtnsn

03-08-13, 06:12

My point is moot & only technical, but having worked for some time in the reliability engineering field (mostly diagnosing machinary vibration), these craft will most certainly have sensors that will pick up vibrations & forces not even a lifelong pilot can feel. Those will be tied into computers that automatically filter what the problem can be such as a prop or vane issue in propulsion. I have taken part in setting up and installing such a system in one of the Navy's unmanned boats, and those craft have them, so rest assured the UAV's do as well.

You can equaly it to a pilot losing 3" of prop blade. He feel's a shudder and knows somethings wrong. The computer knows the prop RPM, the vibration force the now out of balance force is creating and can (if set up) determine exactly which blade & how much of a prop blade is missing.

Carry on...

I believe that within then next couple of years a DHS RQ will fall into a neighborhood, Walmart, church parking lot, or collide with a family Cessna carrying a family on holiday, causing multiple fatalities. When this happens the uproar, righteous outrage, and corresponding Congressional reaction will be swift and absolute and domestic drone usage will die a long overdue death.

There are things that on-board crew members can see, feel, interpret, and react to that can never be duplicated in a Conex box, 100 miles away. Crew members can smell overheating electronics or wiring long before a sensor will indicate fault or fire. identify what is causing a shudder in the controls, etc. Crews can alter courses, change altitude, and simultaneously deal with faults and serious problems on the fly in much more effective manners than three guys staring at a monitor at a remote airbase. When these things happen to a drone and it has an AFCS hard-over and plunges the RQ to the deck, the Cheeto-munching gamer controlling the thing is left with watching a display screen while it tumbles from the sky, out of control, whereas a pilot or aircrew can interpret and give counter input to controls, based on real-time sensory input from situation, and need be, sacrifice them selves and their craft, steering it away to a safe point of impact. Drones will never have that level of fail-safe.

jpmuscle

03-08-13, 06:26

I can't wait until we see how this AG and CIC defines "engaged in combat against the govenment" when the next Katrina, Ruby Ridge, Waco, et al. event transpires.

:help:

And therein lies the crux of the whole problem.

VooDoo6Actual

03-08-13, 06:40

As I said, the future.

Anyone have doubt now?

Whenever there is doubt, there is no doubt.

Doc Safari

03-08-13, 09:51

Does anyone here honestly think a drone could ever fire a missile in the domestic US and nothing bad come of it? That the public outcry would not be so large that it would be inconceivable?

Remember Waco?

A bunch of people with religious views outside the mainstream were attacked in their homes by armored vehicles and ended up being burned to death on national television.....and nothing came of it.

Waylander

03-08-13, 10:23

Remember Waco?

A bunch of people with religious views outside the mainstream were attacked in their homes by armored vehicles and ended up being burned to death on national television.....and nothing came of it.

But...but...they were beating babies, had an arsenal of weapons, and fired the first shot. They deserved it. Man your tinfoil hat is on tight :sarcastic:

Ruby Ridge?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr94ELW701Q

THCDDM4

03-08-13, 10:25

Remember Waco?

A bunch of people with religious views outside the mainstream were attacked in their homes by armored vehicles and ended up being burned to death on national television.....and nothing came of it.

And don't forget that still to this day; the vast majority of society thinks that operation was all butterflies and lolli-pops; that the FBI did nothing wrong and those Branch Dividians were evil people trying to overthrow the Government and kill our way of life.

What's being discussed here really isn't that big of a stretch when you look at the blatant disregard for life and rights of citizens the Government has been responsibe for and hasn't ever actually been held accountable for- and never will be.

Shit, how many branches/Divisions of the government are operating illegally right now- without constitutional authority!?!?!?!?

MOST OF THEM!

How many presidents have abused the FBI surveilance programs? Almost all of them I suspect, only a few who got caught though...

How many Government programs illegally subjected patients and soldiers unknowingly to substances ranging from LSD to sterilization pills, mustard gas and god knows what else?

Before cell phones were everywhere I would have never thought we would allow random roaming cell phone taps on American citizens without probable cause- but it's happening.

I would have never thought drones would be able to operate at all domestically; but they are- and the potential for abuse is tremendous- even if it is unlikely at this exact time.

Anyone who isn't disgusted with the actions/inactions of their Government and keeping a close eye on them is doing themselves a disservice.

Why should the Government be able to stick it's hands, eyes and ears into every single aspect of my life? I don't care about the reasons why it "might be good" or how it can "help law enforcement" or if it's for "my safety" or the "greater good"; our individual rights are more important than making law enforcement officers jobs easier, more important than the false promise of safety, more important than the greater good. Period.

Liberty and freedom are not easy; not safe- no one ever intended this nations Government to be the supreme nanny to watch over our shoulders and wipe our bums- in fact the intent was the exact oppossite; to absolutely limit the powers of the Federal government and reserve the rest for the states and the people respecively.

Advancements in technology and the Governments potential for abuse is not a "tin-foil" subject. It is all too real and we need to keep the dialogue open about what should and shouldn't be allowed/legal.

Half the country fearing their Government isn't some coincidence that happened over night- we have been subjected to a slow usurpation of our rights and freedoms over a long period of time and Newtons thrid law tells us that a reaction to those actions is inevitable. People are afraid because they have cause to be- not because they are idiots who have "Tin Foil" wrapped to tight on their heads.

How hard would it be for the Gov to use a drone strike here and keep it under wraps? I mean it's not like they control the information and main stream media or anything- right?:rolleyes:

I know domestic drone strikes aren't all that likely at thsi point in time, but it is a real concern that shouldn't be shrugged away and those questioning it shouldn't be labelled as crazy tin foil hat wearing idiots.

Irish

03-08-13, 10:49

I can't wait until we see how this AG and CIC defines "engaged in combat against the govenment" when the next Katrina, Ruby Ridge, Waco, et al. event transpires.

:help:

Interesting times ahead...

gunrunner505

03-08-13, 11:02

Interesting times ahead...

Hopefully the next guy isn't a Marxist and pulls back the throttle on some of this insanity.

Sent from my SCH-I510 using Tapatalk 2

Irish

03-08-13, 11:21

Drones can do a lot of good. They can be used like helicopters would normally be used by LEO's but at a fraction of the cost. They can follow suspects on foot pursuits and in vehicle pursuits. They can be used for legal surveillance. People are demonizing a technology that has a lot of good uses. Heck even the private sector is starting to use drones for various things.
Pat

With all due respect, you just don't get it and I don't think you ever will. Discussing anything with you of this nature is simply futile and a waste of bandwidth and effort. I'm not sure if it's because you're so disconnected from the lower 48, the citizens of this country or the fact that you just can't comprehend that sacrificing liberties in the name of making some government worker's job easier doesn't jive with the vast majority of freedom loving Americans.

The vast majority of Americans, at least the ones I know, don't want to live in an Orwellian, drones overhead, black box in your car, .Gov cameras everywhere nanny state that is constantly monitoring what are supposed to be the "freest" people in the world.

We are monitored in countless many ways from phone calls, emails, internet searches, bank transactions and the list goes on and on. If you think these intrusions are appropriate, constitutional or justified then you have no concept of freedom, none.

You do not sacrifice the liberties of the majority to snag the minority of bad guys no matter how good your intentions are. Any and all of these technological advances will be used in an unconstitutional way and the justification on the government's part will be they had to do what was necessary to catch the bad guy. However, that then sets a precedence and the erosion of liberty will continue even further as their actions become common place.

Anyhow, enough of my blathering...

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” - Ben Franklin

Belmont31R

03-08-13, 11:48

With all due respect, you just don't get it and I don't think you ever will. Discussing anything with you of this nature is simply futile and a waste of bandwidth and effort. I'm not sure if it's because you're so disconnected from the lower 48, the citizens of this country or the fact that you just can't comprehend that sacrificing liberties in the name of making some government worker's job easier doesn't jive with the vast majority of freedom loving Americans.

The vast majority of Americans, at least the ones I know, don't want to live in an Orwellian, drones overhead, black box in your car, .Gov cameras everywhere nanny state that is constantly monitoring what are supposed to be the "freest" people in the world.

We are monitored in countless many ways from phone calls, emails, internet searches, bank transactions and the list goes on and on. If you think these intrusions are appropriate, constitutional or justified then you have no concept of freedom, none.

You do not sacrifice the liberties of the majority to snag the minority of bad guys no matter how good your intentions are. Any and all of these technological advances will be used in an unconstitutional way and the justification on the government's part will be they had to do what was necessary to catch the bad guy. However, that then sets a precedence and the erosion of liberty will continue even further as their actions become common place.

Anyhow, enough of my blathering...

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” - Ben Franklin

The ends justify the means, comrade. If we can prevent one death or capture one bad guy then we just need to give up our rights for the common good. We need government so far up our ass 24hrs a day future generations will be nothing but slaves to the government but at least they don't have to worry about that Tallyban bad man.

I’ve tried to do it carefully. We have 22 co-sponsors. I recognize it’s an uphill battle. But I also know that these events are going to continue and America has to step up. The mothers, the women, the men of America have to make a decision as to whether their personal pleasure is more important than the general welfare.

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/02/25/feinstein-responds-to-lapierre-grievance-killers-look-for-these-weapons/

As we see in this thread your privacy and other rights are just thought of as 'personal pleasures' and things we should be happy to give up because the general welfare (common good) is more important. It's selfish of us to cling to such antiquated thoughts in this post-911 world, and just as taking away our guns might save one life, having a 1984 style society of constant surveillance is going to be what we have to accept to keep us safe.

Doc Safari

03-08-13, 12:50

Some more perspective:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/133455.html

What Holder is saying, in substantive terms, is that the President does have the supposed authority to use a drone to kill an American who is engaged in “combat,” whether here or abroad. "Combat" can consist of expressing support for Muslims mounting armed resistance against U.S. military aggression, which was the supposed crime committed by Anwar al-Awlaki, or sharing the surname and DNA of a known enemy of the state, which was the offense committed by Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, Abdel. Under the rules of engagement used by the Obama Regime in Pakistan, Yemen, and Afghanistan, any “military-age” male found within a targeted “kill zone” is likewise designated a “combatant,” albeit usually after the fact. This is a murderous application of the "Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy," and it will be used when -- not if -- Obama or a successor starts conducting domestic drone-killing operations.

Belmont31R

03-08-13, 13:08

Some more perspective:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/133455.html

They've already killed people in this manner. The only thing new is the use of drones. They put a bullet through Randy Weaver's wife's body as well as their infant baby, killing them both, due to a ROE that was of a shoot on site nature even if the person wasn't actively a threat.

CarlosDJackal

03-08-13, 13:15

Here is my issue with DHS drone use...

I don't know why you were responding to my post, but I am not exactly in support of using drones except for Search and Rescue or Forest Fire Surveillance. The FLIRs on these would be a great asset for those purposes and the chances of them causing loss of life or limb in case of mechanical failure out in the wilderness is much less.

Other than that or for Border Surveillance, I don't think we should be wasting our money on them either. And there certainly is no reason for them to fly armed!!

Sam

03-08-13, 13:49

They put a bullet through Randy Weaver's wife's body as well as their infant baby, killing them both, .

Correction: The infant baby was not shot and was unharmed.

Belmont31R

03-08-13, 13:53

Correction: The infant baby was not shot and was unharmed.

Thank you for the correction.

Doc Safari

03-08-13, 13:59

Correction: The infant baby was not shot and was unharmed.

I heard that the FBI sniper's bosses just about fired him over that. He was told: "If you can't hit a baby at that range, you have no business as an FBI sniper."

:sarcastic:

(Sorry, Black humor. Couldn't resist). :D

Alaskapopo

03-08-13, 14:20

With all due respect, you just don't get it and I don't think you ever will. Discussing anything with you of this nature is simply futile and a waste of bandwidth and effort. I'm not sure if it's because you're so disconnected from the lower 48, the citizens of this country or the fact that you just can't comprehend that sacrificing liberties in the name of making some government worker's job easier doesn't jive with the vast majority of freedom loving Americans.

The vast majority of Americans, at least the ones I know, don't want to live in an Orwellian, drones overhead, black box in your car, .Gov cameras everywhere nanny state that is constantly monitoring what are supposed to be the "freest" people in the world.

We are monitored in countless many ways from phone calls, emails, internet searches, bank transactions and the list goes on and on. If you think these intrusions are appropriate, constitutional or justified then you have no concept of freedom, none.

You do not sacrifice the liberties of the majority to snag the minority of bad guys no matter how good your intentions are. Any and all of these technological advances will be used in an unconstitutional way and the justification on the government's part will be they had to do what was necessary to catch the bad guy. However, that then sets a precedence and the erosion of liberty will continue even further as their actions become common place.

Anyhow, enough of my blathering...

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” - Ben Franklin

Its not about making a government workers job easier but rather having a lower cost for the tax payers (drones are cheaper to run the helicopters) and about for providing public safety. Police pursuits kill a lot of people every year with an air unit you can back off and still track the suspect while risking the public less and still having a chance to catch the bad guy. Having drones and black boxes in cars does nothing at all to limit your liberty unless you plan on breaking the law. I can't believe how scared people are of their own government. Sure the government has issues but it is not this evil power wanting to enslave the people. We are the government we elect our representatives and if we want we can change who is in power every 2 to 6 years depending on their term of office.
Pat

Irish

03-08-13, 14:24

Its not about making a government workers job easier but rather having a lower cost for the tax payers (drones are cheaper to run the helicopters) and about for providing public safety. Police pursuits kill a lot of people every year with an air unit you can back off and still track the suspect while risking the public less and still having a chance to catch the bad guy. Having drones and black boxes in cars does nothing at all to limit your liberty unless you plan on breaking the law. I can't believe how scared people are of their own government. Sure the government has issues but it is not this evil power wanting to enslave the people. We are the government we elect our representatives and if we want we can change who is in power every 2 to 6 years depending on their term of office.
Pat
We'll never see eye to eye on these matters. Have a good day.

Alaskapopo

03-08-13, 14:30

We'll never see eye to eye on these matters. Have a good day.

You are right on that. Take care.
Pat

Honu

03-08-13, 14:31

You are right on that. Take care.
Pat

Answer my questions a few posts back !
Why you afraid to ?

Waylander

03-08-13, 14:35

I heard that the FBI sniper's bosses just about fired him over that. He was told: "If you can't hit a baby at that range, you have no business as an FBI sniper."

:sarcastic:

(Sorry, Black humor. Couldn't resist). :D

Didn't anybody watch the hour long YouTube video link I posted :jester:

Lon Horiuchi shot Vicki Weaver while she was holding the baby. This was after their 14 year old son was shot in the back and killed by a U.S. Marshal. A few months later Horiuchi was still in the FBI and participated in the Waco massacre.

In 1997, Horiuchi was charged by an Idaho county prosecutor with involuntary manslaughter in Idaho state court and the case was removed to federal court. The charges were dismissed in 1998 with the federal judge in the case citing the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution as grounds for dismissal. A US appeals court reversed the dismissal and said he could stand trial in state court. The charges were once again dropped by a different Idaho county prosecutor in 2001 and the federal appeals court granted the motion to dismiss all charges.

It sickens me to my core the things this government has perpetrated with impunity.

Irish

03-08-13, 15:09

Lon Horiuchi shot Vicki Weaver while she was holding the baby. This was after their 14 year old son was shot in the back and killed by a U.S. Marshal. A few months later Horiuchi was still in the FBI and participated in the Waco massacre.

First they shot the dog, Striker, then Samuel Weaver. You're also forgetting that Kevin Harris and Randy Weaver were both shot as well.

The Ruby Ridge incident is indefensible.

Doc Safari

03-08-13, 15:15

First they shot the dog, Striker, then Samuel Weaver. You're also forgetting that Kevin Harris and Randy Weaver were both shot as well.

The Ruby Ridge incident is indefensible.

It's also a perfect illustration of how armed drones will be used. Can't have "boots on the ground" that might be shot at, right?

No, send in the drones and blast the whole compound to smithereens without an officer even breaking out in a sweat.

Some targets are just too dangerous to risk valuable personnel, right?

Alaskapopo

03-08-13, 15:18

It's also a perfect illustration of how armed drones will be used. Can't have "boots on the ground" that might be shot at, right?

No, send in the drones and blast the whole compound to smithereens without an officer even breaking out in a sweat.

Some targets are just too dangerous to risk valuable personnel, right?

Law enforcement drones are not armed. Your making it sound like something out of the movie Bourne Legacy. Sorry that is just fiction. There are all kinds of laws regarding the use of lethal force and there is no way that could be justified under those laws.
Pat

Doc Safari

03-08-13, 15:24

Law enforcement drones are not armed.

Yet...

I also question that assumption. I'd be willing to bet some federal law enforcement drones are already armed. Maybe we haven't seen them on TV, but I would be willing to bet they exist.

There are all kinds of laws regarding the use of lethal force and there is no way that could be justified under those laws.
Pat

We are surmising that somehow the government will be able to use some sort of circuitous logic to declare someone a combatant and that will justify their use.

Alaskapopo

03-08-13, 15:32

Yet...

I also question that assumption. I'd be willing to bet some federal law enforcement drones are already armed. Maybe we haven't seen them on TV, but I would be willing to bet they exist.

We are surmising that somehow the government will be able to use some sort of circuitous logic to declare someone a combatant and that will justify their use.
So your saying you are willing to believe something without evidence.

Doc Safari

03-08-13, 15:38

So your saying you are willing to believe something without evidence.

I'm saying that I am forming a hypothesis based upon plenty of evidence of our government's past overreaches of power and heavy-handed quasi-military tactics where one of their pet agendas is concerned, and I am merely extrapolating that pattern of behavior to include new and emerging technologies.

In a nutshell: we know what they can and will do, and it's not unreasonable to assume that they will continue to do it with new technology.

Alaskapopo

03-08-13, 15:43

I'm saying that I am forming a hypothesis based upon plenty of evidence of our government's past overreaches of power and heavy-handed quasi-military tactics where one of their pet agendas is concerned, and I am merely extrapolating that pattern of behavior to include new and emerging technologies.

In a nutshell: we know what they can and will do, and it's not unreasonable to assume that they will continue to do it with new technology.
I understand that a certain amount of distrust is healthy and keeps people honest. But to say that the "evil government" will be using drones to kill people on US soil is just too far out there in my opinion.
Pat

Doc Safari

03-08-13, 15:56

I understand that a certain amount of distrust is healthy and keeps people honest. But to say that the "evil government" will be using drones to kill people on US soil is just too far out there in my opinion.
Pat

Let's hope you're correct.

I remember watching the Waco seige on my Dad's sofa with him leaning on the arm of the couch.

As soon as the reports came out of so many officers killed and wounded and whatnot, we both looked at each other and pretty much simultaneously said, "None of the Branch Davidians are getting out of there alive."

My point is: armed drones taking out "combatants" or other "undesirables" on US soil does pass the test of "reasonable suspicions" in my book. Just like you "expect" an alcoholic to be drunk based on past behavior, I "expect" the government to abuse its drone capabilities based on past behavior.

I see nothing at all tinfoil or Bourne legacy about that.

Alaskapopo

03-08-13, 16:09

Let's hope you're correct.

I remember watching the Waco seige on my Dad's sofa with him leaning on the arm of the couch.

As soon as the reports came out of so many officers killed and wounded and whatnot, we both looked at each other and pretty much simultaneously said, "None of the Branch Davidians are getting out of there alive."

My point is: armed drones taking out "combatants" or other "undesirables" on US soil does pass the test of "reasonable suspicions" in my book. Just like you "expect" an alcoholic to be drunk based on past behavior, I "expect" the government to abuse its drone capabilities based on past behavior.

I see nothing at all tinfoil or Bourne legacy about that.
Wako was a tragedy but it was not done by evil intent. There was miss communication from the under cover officers to the responding teams. The command was not to come in and it was mixed up and the teams made the assault. The first thing to go in a dynamic situation is communication. No one intended for that outcome except perhaps the cult leader.
Pat

Doc Safari

03-08-13, 16:14

Wako was a tragedy but it was not done by evil intent. There was miss communication from the under cover officers to the responding teams. The command was not to come in and it was mixed up and the teams made the assault. The first thing to go in a dynamic situation is communication. No one intended for that outcome except perhaps the cult leader.
Pat

So if a so-called combatant is killed accidentally by an armed drone then that is somehow okay?

I contend that when the only tool you own is a hammer, all of your problems begin to look like nails.

Alaskapopo

03-08-13, 16:15

So if a so-called combatant is killed accidentally by an armed drone then that is somehow okay?

I contend that when the only tool you own is a hammer, all of your problems begin to look like nails.

Drones for LEO use are not armed nor will they be.

interfan

03-08-13, 16:25

Law enforcement drones are not armed. Your making it sound like something out of the movie Bourne Legacy. Sorry that is just fiction. There are all kinds of laws regarding the use of lethal force and there is no way that could be justified under those laws.
Pat

The problem with this argument is that it is a very slippery slope. First the justification is made for unarmed law enforcement drones and "if you're a bad guy, you have to worry, otherwise you don't". Then some event occurs where the justification can be made for armed law enforcement drones (call it "officer safety" in some very high risk situations) again with reassurances to law abiding citizens that there's no risk to them. Then you start to erode the due process controls that are constitutionally mandated to protect our freedoms, so law abiding citizens can now be deemed criminals without due process, indictment, conviction, etc. It isn't about a fear that armed drones exist today, it is about creating a permissive chain of logic and ceding rights in exchange for "security", that leads down the slippery slope.

It always starts somewhere.

Belmont31R

03-08-13, 16:32

Irish

03-08-13, 16:53

Wako was a tragedy but it was not done by evil intent. There was miss communication from the under cover officers to the responding teams. The command was not to come in and it was mixed up and the teams made the assault. The first thing to go in a dynamic situation is communication. No one intended for that outcome except perhaps the cult leader.
Pat

Drones for LEO use are not armed nor will they be.

Two assumptions without any corroborating evidence. You can't know what everyone's intentions were that participated in Waco and you can't predict the future. Didn't you just say:

So your saying you are willing to believe something without evidence.

Moose-Knuckle

03-08-13, 17:46

Moose-Knuckle

03-08-13, 18:21

Posse Comitatus was supposed to ban military police actions on US soil...that was until the WOD came along and they fixed that 'problem'.

There is nothing, really, other than them saying they aren't doing it right now before they will arm them.

Um yeah about that . . .

According to legal experts, the wording of the new National Defense Authorization Act effectively repeals the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C. § 1385), which limits the use of federal military personnel to enforce laws within the United States. The Act allows for the imposition of martial law only where specifically authorized by the United States Constitution (invasion, insurrection, etc.) or Act of Congress. Under the provisions of the unamended NDAA, the president will have the power to impose martial law, and thereby suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus, on his own authority.

http://www.louisville.com/content/se...islation-arena

Belmont31R

03-08-13, 18:31

Um yeah about that . . .

http://www.louisville.com/content/se...islation-arena

hmm..

Remember what Holder said in the Rand letters is they won't use armed drones against people who are not currently a threat. Well as we have seen they will use a ROE which allows for shoot on sight for people who are holding a gun (not currently threatening anyone). Its therefore logical to assume they can use armed drones on people who are simply carrying a gun. Kinda like what the definition of is is, and thats not assuming the courts would hold them accountable if they did smoke someone who was unarmed just like Lon had his charged dismissed for shooting an unarmed woman holding a baby.

Moose-Knuckle

03-08-13, 19:11

hmm..

Remember what Holder said in the Rand letters is they won't use armed drones against people who are not currently a threat. Well as we have seen they will use a ROE which allows for shoot on sight for people who are holding a gun (not currently threatening anyone). Its therefore logical to assume they can use armed drones on people who are simply carrying a gun. Kinda like what the definition of is is, and thats not assuming the courts would hold them accountable if they did smoke someone who was unarmed just like Lon had his charged dismissed for shooting an unarmed woman holding a baby.

Exactly.

I don't see anything about military aged men of Middle Eastern decent with box cutters on these DOJ flyers.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a144/AKS-74/fbiflyer.jpg

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a144/AKS-74/FBI-MCSOTerroristFlyer-Front.jpg

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a144/AKS-74/FBI-MCSOTerroristFlyer-Back.jpg

So your a white male who have purchased flashlights, MREs, standard capacity magazines, surplus ammo cans, and quote the Constitution . . . then your a "domestic terrorist" and we are watching you.

VooDoo6Actual

03-08-13, 19:29

Exactly.

I don't see anything about military aged men of Middle Eastern decent with box cutters on these DOJ flyers.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a144/AKS-74/fbiflyer.jpg

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a144/AKS-74/FBI-MCSOTerroristFlyer-Front.jpg

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a144/AKS-74/FBI-MCSOTerroristFlyer-Back.jpg

So your a white male who have purchased flashlights, MREs, standard capacity magazines, surplus ammo cans, and quote the Constitution . . . then your a "domestic terrorist" and we are watching you.

Stop it now your making too much sense. People will think your a Tin Foiler.....

feedramp

03-08-13, 19:32

Sen. Rand Paul: My filibuster was just the beginning (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/sen-rand-paul-my-filibuster-was-just-the-beginning/2013/03/08/6352d8a8-881b-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394_story.html)

Belmont31R

03-08-13, 19:34

Stop it now your making too much sense. People will think your a Tin Foiler.....

Worse yet is the DHS report just after Obama came into office (started under Bush) which labeled vets as potential terrorists.

Skip to 1:34:00 here: http://www.c-span.org/Events/Senate-Judiciary-to-Work-on-Assault-Weapons-Ban/10737438612-2/

Then go listen to a couple days of MSNBC prime time and listen to them rant on about extremist right wingers and how dangerous we are.

jpmuscle

03-08-13, 19:43

They must really really dislike this site I mean with all of the civil rights discussion and training threads lol. Once again when you literally no sphere of reference other than an academic textbook this is what you get. I'm seeing this right now in one of my grad classes on terrorism, there literally is no attempt to delineate what a right wing extremist really is other than throw a blanket statement at it filled with descriptors that make the tea party movement look like a bunch of radical extremists. And to the person who doesn't know any better they eat it right up resulting in people like difi who think trained veterans who willingly fought to preserve our rights are to Unstable to own Firearms because the might have both PTSD and be disgruntled.

streck

03-08-13, 19:48

Wako was a tragedy but it was not done by evil intent. There was miss communication from the under cover officers to the responding teams. The command was not to come in and it was mixed up and the teams made the assault. The first thing to go in a dynamic situation is communication. No one intended for that outcome except perhaps the cult leader.
Pat

You may want to revise your (mis)understanding about that event...

http://www.tylerpaper.com/article/20130303/NEWS01/130309939/0/RSS

gunrunner505

03-08-13, 20:09

Is the problem government drones over domestic soil or is the problem this administration with drones over domestic soil?

Sent from my SCH-I510 using Tapatalk 2

Alaskapopo

03-08-13, 20:10

You may want to revise your (mis)understanding about that event...

http://www.tylerpaper.com/article/20130303/NEWS01/130309939/0/RSS

My information was from some of the agents who where there so no.
Pat

Belmont31R

03-08-13, 20:39

Is the problem government drones over domestic soil or is the problem this administration with drones over domestic soil?

Sent from my SCH-I510 using Tapatalk 2

I don't trust anyone who is likely to get nominated anymore.

Bush and crew started this 'post 9/11 world' BS and DHS, TSA, and warrantless wiretapping started under him. Obama ran against it, and then less than a year later reversed course with the throttle on full when he realized what a gold mine it was.

Belmont31R

03-08-13, 20:40

My information was from some of the agents who where there so no.
Pat

Maybe you can ask them where the missing door went.

Alaskapopo

03-08-13, 20:43

Maybe you can ask them where the missing door went.

Is this like the 2nd gunman on the grassyknol?
Pat

VooDoo6Actual

03-08-13, 20:57

Worse yet is the DHS report just after Obama came into office (started under Bush) which labeled vets as potential terrorists.

Skip to 1:34:00 here: http://www.c-span.org/Events/Senate-Judiciary-to-Work-on-Assault-Weapons-Ban/10737438612-2/

Then go listen to a couple days of MSNBC prime time and listen to them rant on about extremist right wingers and how dangerous we are.

Agreed & I know what's coming.
We have people here telling fairy tales here or answering other people's questions not even directed at them that are clearly Statist's in their thinking & comments not to mention the ones who don't post selectively are noted as well.

Belmont31R

03-08-13, 21:00

Is this like the 2nd gunman on the grassyknol?
Pat

I don't know. It's never been found despite being logged into evidence.

I thought since you had the inside scoop you might know, and solve the great mystery Congressional inquiry failed to find any answers on.

Alaskapopo

03-08-13, 21:03

I don't know. It's never been found despite being logged into evidence.

I thought since you had the inside scoop you might know, and solve the great mystery Congressional inquiry failed to find any answers on.

Sounds like just another conspiracy theory to me. In cluster f's like that evidence does get lost or mis labeled etc, not saying its a good thing but mistakes happen when there is pure chaos going on around you.
Pat

Belmont31R

03-08-13, 21:12

Sounds like just another conspiracy theory to me. In cluster f's like that evidence does get lost or mis labeled etc, not saying its a good thing but mistakes happen when there is pure chaos going on around you.
Pat

Communication mistakes, errors logging evidence....man what else did they do wrong?

GeorgiaBoy

03-08-13, 21:44

Remember Waco?

A bunch of people with religious views outside the mainstream were attacked in their homes by armored vehicles and ended up being burned to death on national television.....and nothing came of it.

The actual Waco details have always been sketchy and controversial, but I still see your point. No one really knows how the fires started and their are disputes on both sides.

I think the primary difference between a situation like Waco and the use of drones is that the Branch Dividians had plenty of opportunities to surrender, be arrested, and get a fair trial. But they stood it out the end, and did not do it peacefully - they fired on the ATF agents. (but even those details are sketchy)

And I do not believe that there wasn't considerable outcry on Waco and Ruby Ridge. Both were some bad situations that certainly should never happen again, and they haven't happened since.

Drones are well known to the public right now, its all over the media. With official reposes like Heller has given, it would be political suicide for drones to ever be used. =