Defense Dept. Directed To Disclose Domestic Drone Use 190
Posted
by
Soulskill
from the admit-to-using-them-to-do-beer-runs dept.
from the admit-to-using-them-to-do-beer-runs dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The U.S. House of Representatives has voted to make the Pentagon disclose whether military drones are being used in U.S. airspace to spy on U.S. citizens. This follows Rand Paul's filibuster on the floor of the Senate in which he demanded answers from the Obama administration as to whether drone strikes on U.S. soil were a possibility. (Senator Paul received an amusingly brief response (PDF) to his 13-hour question.) From the article: 'A requirement buried in a lengthy appropriations bill calls on newly confirmed Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel to disclose to Congress what "policies and procedures" are in place "governing the use" of military drones or other unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) domestically. The report is due no later than 90 days after the bill is signed into law. The vote on the bill, which was overwhelmingly supported by Republicans and opposed by Democrats, comes as concerns about domestic use of drones have spiked. ...The House's language stops short of requiring Hagel to disclose whether he or his predecessor have taken the step of approving the targeting of any U.S. citizens for surveillance.'"
And remember, (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And remember, (Score:5, Insightful)
There is an extraordinary amount the U.S. government doesn't tell us because they think we don't care. We oblige them by being apathetic.
What's really sad about this (Score:5, Insightful)
In 2007, it was the Democrats screaming for full disclosure about Bush's violations of civil liberties, while Republicans in Congress were doing everything they could to protect their dear leader. In 2013, the roles are reversed, but the play is basically the same.
Why is it that so few politicians are willing to say "All violations of civil liberties are wrong, regardless of who's party is currently in control of the presidency?"
Re:What's really sad about this (Score:5, Insightful)
Because such violations benefit the party currently in control. And politicians are not renowned for thinking ahead enough to realize that the other side will be in control one day, nor are they renowned for putting their principles before their party.
Not even close to enough (Score:0, Insightful)
If the authors of this bill really cared about the issue, they could introduce a bill to ban the use of UAVs to spy on or murder US citizens, rather than asking the executive branch to reveal their procedures for doing such things.
I predict that once the disclosures are made, the Republicans will seize on any embarrassing comments in them, but will not make any effort to fix the underlying problem, which is that the President thinks he can spy on and murder US citizens without oversight, and too many members of Congress agree with him.
Re:What's really sad about this (Score:5, Insightful)
THIS. Obama even ran partially on that whole transparency thing... but now transparency is, I assume, some sort of national threat because we wouldn't want rogue nations to know what we're ... doing ... with drones ... on American soil ... errrrr.... maybe if we *aren't* doing it, then terrorists will feel safer.
It's like watching a football game. Root for your team. Smear the opposing team. Doesn't matter what you do, as long as you win. When the refs make calls that you don't like, blame the ref, not your actions (assuming the call was fair).
Re:What's really sad about this (Score:3, Insightful)
What Americans fail to see is that there is very little distinction between the two Parties when it comes to action.
The talk is slightly different, but the actions are the same. I wish to god one day a third party rises to break up this political monoculture, for the sake of America, for the sake of the world.
Re:So you don't waste your time... (Score:5, Insightful)
You're not kidding. It's already been ruled by the SCOTUS that mere speech [wikipedia.org] amounts to "material support for terrorism". I wouldn't be surprised if Holder argued that speech was combat as well.
Re:So you don't waste your time... (Score:3, Insightful)
Which essentially means they don't follow the Constitution. They'd never say that because then the illusion would crumble and people might wake up from their apathetic stupor and do something.
Re:So you don't waste your time... (Score:5, Insightful)
If speech is material support, then banning material support is unconstitutional under the first amendment.
Re:And remember, (Score:4, Insightful)
120 Years ago we had laws that told black people they couldn't be in certain places on sunny days, women couldn't vote, the senate was appointed for bribe money, people would be killed for daring to form a union, and people routinely died in the street from starvation or illness.
What the fuck was so good about 120 years ago?