Domestic Drones - Brave New World?

Let me be perfectly clear! If we are going after known terrorists (foreign or domestic) who are intent on killing innocent Americans, then I believe we should send in the drones.

We can dig up their worthless remains when the dust clears!

Hanoi COG, can you hear me now?

JB, don't you realize what "right to privacy" is attached to? That was the justification for the right to an abortion. Privacy! So I take it that the whole privacy thing is something that you are against or for. I can't tell from your post.

JB, don't you realize what "right to privacy" is attached to? That was the justification for the right to an abortion. Privacy! So I take it that the whole privacy thing is something that you are against or for. I can't tell from your post. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Justice Scalia, the most conservative Justice on the Supreme Court, doesn't believe a right to privacy exists in the Constitution. IJS...

Privacy rights is something that will be very interesting to watch in the future. With how much personal information we give out these days, it's getting hard to argue that we have much of an expectation of privacy in many of our online dealings. Originally Posted by jbravo_123

I do not agree that Justice Scalia does not believe in a Constitutional right to privacy. I do believe the Justices (and I) feel that it is an issue of Balancing.

The balancing of the rights of an individual against the rights of the populace must be considered in the types of issues we face today. Stopping a cell with a dirty bomb is paramont to protecting the populace. If there are perceived intrusions on an indivdual in order to serve the greater good, so be it. The individual is still protected from prosecution with illegally obtained evidence or fruit from the poisoned tree.

Of course some of us believe in good more than others.

There is no question this will be the single issue of our time.

Old Dingus

the tea tards would rather be dead than protected

Thinking about the drones and their many capabilities makes me wonder what the real range of capability is for our satellites.

I suspect that at least on the surface, there are very complicated codes and laws regarding which Departments can use what assets. I suspect a major division exists between military and non-military use, although that has to overlap. I see no problem in both applications because it is a more efficient use of the asset.

President Reagan had the right idea back in the '80s: utilize the advantages of space for our defense.

People who work to destroy the United States or harm its people should be terminated with prejudice, if necessary. I see no difference in theeir being citizens or non-citizens if the threat is real.

Old Dingus

So should they?

I'm amazed at the board libs who NOW think that the increasing size and scope of government surveillance is perfectly acceptable. They've almost given up all right to privacy.

As long as the govt doesn't ask for an id when you go to voting booth. Originally Posted by gnadfly

Of course. It's a legitimate law enforcement tool that improves capabilities. You bedwetters who start bleating and quacking at the very mention of the term "drone" are amusing.

The reality is that you and other US citizens have given up very little in terms of freedom and privacy since 9/11. In terms of actual day to day impact, the only thing I can think of that pisses me off is having to strip down and go through the airport security circus. That shit is irritating. Otherwise, I'm largely unaffected. And, so are you, you just won't admit it because it gives you an opportunity to bitch about Obama and to cry and whine and fret about the big old bad government.

As far as voting goes, the SCOTUS decided that one for you the other day when they struck down the Arizona law. Argue with Justice Scalia, not me.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...12-71_7l48.pdf

JB, don't you realize what "right to privacy" is attached to? That was the justification for the right to an abortion. Privacy! So I take it that the whole privacy thing is something that you are against or for. I can't tell from your post. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Oh no, I'm all for the right to privacy. I was just pointing out that that:

1) The most conservative Justice on the Supreme Court has publicly come out and stated multiple times his belief that there is no Constitutionally granted right to privacy.



2) While I believe in the right to privacy, I acknowledge that it's a very nebulous right and as the Information Age progresses, we tend to give up more and more of that right as we willingly allow more of our personal information to be given out and disseminated publicly. I just think it will be very interesting to see how the right to privacy changes over the next few years.

I do not agree that Justice Scalia does not believe in a Constitutional right to privacy. I do believe the Justices (and I) feel that it is an issue of Balancing. Originally Posted by Old Dingus

He's publicly stated it multiple times and his opinions on cases show that as well. Outside the protections specifically enumerated in the 4th Amendment, he does not believe there is a general right to privacy granted in the Constitution.

It is my guess that this is the drone that was tracking JD....I bet the Feds have been reading his post. Originally Posted by BigLouie

Your delusional, BL, if you believe the Feds are not also reading your posts.


Major prostitution ring in Dallas, Plano and Hurst dismantled

The Dallas Morning News
Staff Writer
Published: 19 June 2013 04:42 PM

Agencies involved in the investigation include the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Eastern District of Texas, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Homeland Security Investigation and Enforcement Removal Operations, the Department of State Diplomatic Security Service, the Plano and Dallas police departments and the Collin County District Attorney's Office.


http://www.dallasnews.com/news/20130...dismantled.ece


The use of domestic drones was inevitable -- especially along this county's international borders. Drones are not too different from the tethered aerostats already being used.

why would the feds need to read eccie when they have the dallas morning news

snick

why would the feds need to read eccie when they have the dallas morning news

snick Originally Posted by CJ7

Typical, libertard perspective, CBJ7, and you got it backwards, again, as usual. The Dallas Morning News article reported that agencies of the DHS assisted local LE in prostitution cases in the Dallas area. DHS didn't report that the Dallas Morning News published an article.

Speaking of "drones" IB is back...

Law enforcement has used aerial surveillance for decades. Drones are just a method of aerial surveillance that can be less expensive and more flexible. That lowers its cost and increases the frequency of its use and potentially misuse. The question should not be whether law enforcement uses it but rather what are the usage rules and what oversight of its use is available. I would tend to believe that its use is almost always appropriate but I would never want government to be trusted blindly.

in the event a drone is operating over your house, or office AS WE SPEAK, how will you know ?

Law enforcement has used aerial surveillance for decades. Drones are just a method of aerial surveillance that can be less expensive and more flexible. That lowers its cost and increases the frequency of its use and potentially misuse. The question should not be whether law enforcement uses it but rather what are the usage rules and what oversight of its use is available. I would tend to believe that its use is almost always appropriate but I would never want government to be trusted blindly. Originally Posted by Laz

+1

Old Dingus