Defense Dept. Directed To Disclose Domestic Drone Use 190
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.
Re:And remember, (Score:5, Funny)
I'm sorry... I stopped paying attention after the first few words. What was your point again?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but there weren't any drone killings going on in Kentucky either. They're fictional in every state. Republicans get so close to defying the president on things that matter sometimes, then it's whoops crazy-town instead. We could be having a debate about the merits using military force to attack an ideology, but no, we get "what if the president wants to kill his constituents without warning?"
I want a rational, non-neoliberal alternative to the democratic party, but we never seem to get there.
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?
Re: (Score:2)
People realized that you can't just pick and choose which powers a government will wield
And why, exactly, you cannot pick and choose?
Heck, the US Constitution itself disproves this argument - it's pretty much all about cherry-picking a few powers and giving it to the Feds.
Re: (Score:2)
The original constitution was not delivered straight from the deity - it was debated, and ultimately ratified by the representatives of the people. The voters can still pick and choose by making constitutional amendments (like they did with the 18th).
The present problems stem more from what kinds of powers the feds get. And that, in turns, stems from them getting them without proper process (i.e. the aforementioned constitution amendments). It's funny how it took so much to ban alcohol, and yet something li
Re: (Score:3)
...they think we don't care...
Most definitely not - secrecy is inherent to any power structure.
Why humans are driven to power - having to dominate/exploit other's is another topic. Is it inferiority, insensitivity - psychopathy or genetic - successfully spread DNA more? Based on those drives, humans don't think, they act unconsciously and do whatever they can get by with.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, there's legitimately and illegitimately classified stuff too, that wasn't the point I was making.
Re: (Score:2)
Most definitely not - secrecy is inherent to any power structure.
Well, no, not really.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that "we" are apathetic half as much as that the vast majority of the population feels powerless to make any significant change and no longer truly dares hope that we ever will. That's why the most that happens now is that once in a while, a small percentage of the population becomes angry/frustrated enough at the situation to protest physically for a while, like the protests against invading Iraq almost a decade ago.
Once in a *long* while, part of the population starts to manage a bit more i
So you don't waste your time... (Score:5, Informative)
The PDF download response is kinda funny... But basically not worth the download...
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.
I'm glad... Now if hopefully they will keep it that way...
I won't hold my breath.
Re:So you don't waste your time... (Score:5, Informative)
"engaged in combat" is can be interpreted many ways.
Re:So you don't waste your time... (Score:5, Informative)
"Due Process" has become something different from what most people think as well.
Most people believe that means the suspect would be taken into custody and have a fair trial but in an unguarded moment in an interview Holder said that "due process" now only requires some consideration from someone in the executive branch.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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: (Score:2)
And we're going to be, for the rest of our lives. Probably the lives of our children, too.
Re: (Score:2)
We have been in a 'limited state of emergency' for many years, through several Presidents, for different reasons.
See? [wikipedia.org]
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: (Score:3)
That's called ignoring the First Amendment of the Constitution.
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: (Score:2)
So if a wannabe terrorist shows up at a dojo to learn hand-to-hand combat is that material support?
If he buys a hosting account from you to set up a website are you materially supporting one?
If he goes to your local gun range to practice and train in shooting, is that material support?
There's a reason there is free speech. I see the army has taken all thinking powers away from you.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not even the interesting question, which has been answered already. Does the government have the right to kill innocent civilians in times of emergency? The answer is yes.
On 9/11, two National Guard jets were ordered to bring down United 93, which had been hijacked. Thirty three innocent American citizens were on board the airplane along with four hijackers. Due to a passenger revolt that brought the plane down, the National Guard did have to. But no official has ever challenged the validity of the o
Re: (Score:2)
What is an emergency?
What is combat?
As examples of this administration's loose practices with the dictionary, consider the following:
This administration defines militant to be any boy or man killed by a drone, irrespective of the dead's actual beliefs.
http://www.salon.com/2012/05/29/militants_media_propaganda/ [salon.com]
This administration claimed that the Libyan war was not a war to avoid getting Congressional approval.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/16/us/politics/16powers.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 [nytimes.com]
So exactly how i
Re: (Score:2)
Lame self response, but the line:
"imminent" (*) does get
Should read
"imminent" (*) does NOT get
Re: (Score:2)
Semantics, but 'intercept' does not necessarily mean bring it down. It can also mean, 'just find it'.
In any case, they could not have shot it down, as they did not have the necessary weapons on board, and couldn't wait for them to be loaded. They did, however, make the joint decision to ram it if necessary. [nbcnews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Fixing that analogy as it applies to our current drone wars: did Bush have the authority to bomb flight schools in Florida b
Re: (Score:2)
Even before considering the arguments about "inherent executive power", he would seem to have explicit statutory authority under the Insurrection Act, though that seems to require first giving a proclamation to disperse directing the supposed insurgents to "retire peacefully to their abodes" within a limited (but not, in the t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I find it even more odd that the inquiry was limited to "weaponized drones". So the AG believes that the President cannot use a drone to kill American citizens, but that leaves open everything else from his fists up through nuclear weapons.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Congress? AUMF?
Re:So you don't waste your time... (Score:4, Informative)
There is a world of difference between shooting a clocktower shooter out his perch, and shooting a person suspected of planning to be a clocktower shooter but actually engaged in having dinner or something. In the first case, lethal force is justified. In the second, arrest is justified and lethal force completely unconstitutional.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but it's always been within the power of the President as Commander In Chief to authorize killing of anybody who is engaged in Combat on US Soil.
Actually, I'm not entirely sure about that. I'm not a Constitutional Scholar, but I remember that there is a rule somewhere where the president cannot deploy Federal Military troops within the United States unless the governor of the state they are being deployed to explicitly requests it. So the President can't send an F-16 to take out an apartment complex where suspected terrorists are living.
This comes up sometimes regarding disaster relief and the use of military resources. I remember when Andrew hit
Insurrection Act (Score:2)
This is wrong.
The President can deploy federal troops in any of the following circumstances (and this is not an exhaustive list, because there are other sources of authority besides the Insurrection Act, and this is just
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Unitl 9/11 it was unthinkable that the US military could engage in any activities on American soil.
That's news to all those people at West Point, Fort Hood, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Unitl 9/11 it was unthinkable that the US military could engage in any activities on American soil.
That's news to all those people at West Point, Fort Hood, etc.
It would also be news to Esquiel Hernandez, [wikipedia.org] if he were still alive.
Re: (Score:2)
The War of 1812, the Civil War, the 1910-1919 Border War, and the Second World War, among other examples, stand against this being "unthinkable" in practice.
As does the Insurrection Act and a number of other laws stand against it being "unthinkable" in theory.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Conversely, see the Insurrection Act.
The worrying part (Score:2)
Wrong (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, sure, it can't be broadcast in the United States, but, well "broadcast" isn't the only way its delivered [voanews.com].
Re: (Score:3)
.
Funny.... There was a Mission Impossible (the 1960's - 1970's tv series version) episode on a few nights ago, where the opening reel-to-reel tape mission disclosure said something like
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the Dems get their panties in a wad over Drone use overseas, but don't give a fuck about drone use here. at least according to their votes.
Re: (Score:2)
Drone use overseas involves killing people in sovereign countries we are not at war with. The drone use in America involves supporting fire departments and looking for illegals crossing the border.
The problem is not the use of drones. The problem is what the drones are doing.
In fact, there is nothing a drone can do that a plane with a pilot in it can't do.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
this is why the parties are particularly messed up, more now that ever. they used to (srota) stand for something. but increasingly it becomes more and more about simply being the one in power and calling the shots, rather than about any particular ideal. its great the Rove wants to change the direction of the party. except he's not doing it because he believe in those things, but because those things are what he deems necessary to win and be in power.
few any longer have the gumption to stand up and say "thi
Re: (Score:2)
this is why the parties are particularly messed up, more now that ever. they used to (srota) stand for something. but increasingly it becomes more and more about simply being the one in power and calling the shots, rather than about any particular ideal. its great the Rove wants to change the direction of the party. except he's not doing it because he believe in those things, but because those things are what he deems necessary to win and be in power.
few any longer have the gumption to stand up and say "thi
Re: (Score:2)
For fuck sake. You can't even bring yourself to not qualify with 'a small %age of us "Republicans"'.
So are you claiming that the bulk of politicians comprise that small percentage of Republicans? Or do you just not understand English? Or is logical argument just not your strong suit?
Re: (Score:2)
Except I didn't mention Republicans or Democrats. And their both irrelevant, since the statement applies to more than the US.
But OK, let's see if you can be more clear. I only made two claims, which of them are you disagreeing with:
1. Politicians who are in power tend not to consider what will happen when the "other side" is in power.
2. Politicians tend to put getting elected (and thus their party) ahead what is better for the country (their principles one would hope).
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: (Score:2)
NPR talked about a disturbing study the other day where they swapped party positions on a topic, and 75% of the people supported that opposite position because it was (mistakenly) of their party.
I suppose it's good news that at least 25% of the population considers issues themselves rather than droolingly following the memes of their power-seeking masters.
Hoi polloi getting power kicks-by-proxy, I guess.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except that, in this case, my inherent (confirmation?) bias grants the benefit of the doubt.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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: (Score:2)
4. If the banks can buy off two parties, they can buy off three parties. Or seven.
Case in point: European countries which have a right wing party, a "center-left" party, and/or Labor, and a "socialist" party. All of them have been serving the banks with the bullshit of austerity, which has only served to weaken the working class and give even more power to the banks.
So, the problem isn't the number of parties. It's that the parties are in no way accountable to the voters, either by triangulation, or by h
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
IRV would certainly help another party get a foot in the door, but imho the real issues are still accountability and voter complacency. There was such a move under a two-party system in the mid-1800's, when the Whigs disappeared within ten years of a political re-alignment.
We wouldn't be so far up shit creek without a paddle today, if the GOP had primaried Bush in 2004 for his corruption, incompetence, and power grabbing. Or if the Dems had primaried Obama in 2012, for his corruption and power grabbing.
Re: (Score:2)
My whole point was that we don't even need parties. Parties only make sense when you don;t want to split votes between similar candidates. IRV is a step in the right direction. Some IRV systems are very primitive. Others are very advanced and completely eliminate vote splitting.
Even if the banks buy off individuals rather than parties, the result will still be better because it's harder for banks to wrangle politicians than an official party. This will make bribery more transparent or at least less eff
Re: (Score:2)
How you get to that point, I'm not entirely sure. I'm hoping someone smarter than me actually figures it out.
Re:What's really sad about this (Score:4, Informative)
You've been misled by the politicized summary.
The reason Democrats voted against this bill (which is a gigantic bill that has nothing to do with drones for the most part) is not, as the anonymous submitter would like you to believe, because it would have required the DOD to disclose the policies regarding the use of drones. It is because it was a Republican-produced appropriations bill that reflects Republican fiscal priorities that Democrats hate. The tiny rider in the bill probably had nothing to do with it.
Re: (Score:2)
I've always contened that Obama wasn't any better or only marginally better than anything from the other party, and I would always bring up things like his drone policy, not doing a lot of the "come on" easy stuff, hammering through health care reform even when, after meetings and talks and revisions, it was largely stripped of the good things and bent to the will of big pharma/insurance, etc, as reasons I could see myself NOT voting for him. And it would outrage my friends (some of them, the big O ppl). A
Re: (Score:2)
Keep in mind that this is a small part of a large appropriations bill. I'd have to dig into the details but I believe the main point of the bill is to protect the Dept of Defense from the damage of the recent sequester.
That's not to deny that the Dems are suddenly less into transparency lately. I was very disappointed that only one of them supported Senator Paul's filibuster.
Re: (Score:2)
Because nearly all of us vote against the ones who say that. Remember the presidential race last year? Gary Johnson lost. And second place was Mitt Romney, because Ron Paul lost.
These losses were by wide margins too. It's not like Gary Johnson got 48% of the vote. We The People are very united and consistent on this: fuck liberty. Tha
Re: (Score:2)
During GWB's instigation of all of this (DHS, TSA, drone strike program, etc), many Republican civilians decided not to bear an "R" anymore, hopping to Independent or Libertarian, as none of the Republican politicians or party platform seemed to address the ridiculous unconstitutionality of it all. For most of the polls in recent years, it's interesting to see that the Independent slice of the population have been generally conservative.
I can see this having a similar effect on the Democratic party, with O
Hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
"'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."
So what does "not engaged in combat" mean, and who gets to decide? Would you be surprised if a future executive order defines political opponents or whistle blowers as "engaged in combat"?
Re: (Score:3)
So what does "not engaged in combat" mean, and who gets to decide?
Well, the traditional definition is pretty black-and-white: If you're firing weapons at members of the U.S. armed forces, you're engaged in combat.
More troubling are the possible non-traditional definitions: E.g., if someone's coordinating a DDoS attack against a Pentagon server, does that fall under being engaged in combat? What if you're jamming GPS signals around your house?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
His whole trite reply is full of weasel clauses.
'Does anyone other than the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American engaged in combat as we define it while on American soil, or for any reason whatsoever when not on American soil?' The answer to that question is HAHA you don't get an answer to that question.
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that authority, in the executive branch, devolves from the President? If the President doesn't have it, neither does anyone underneath him.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And how is ANYTHING in this conversation at all amusing? We're talking about the politically powerful being able to kill innocent people. The submitter's sense of humor is nauseating.
Re: (Score:2)
Would you be surprised if a future executive order defines political opponents or whistle blowers as "engaged in combat"?
yes. I would be surprised if Obama (or some future president) declared John Boehner (or some future political opponent) as engaged in combat with the USA because he is a political opponent.
What a joke (Score:5, Interesting)
This whole thing is a charade. Why is the question restricted to drones? The government has had a million ways to spy on citizens or kill them within US borders long before drones came along. It's not like drones make it more possible.
I will give Rand a +1 for actually trying to do a real filibuster instead of that new modern bullshit but he gets -5 for really just trying to make some political points with the tea party.
Re: (Score:2)
Rand Paul, unlike his father, cares more about pretending to be pro liberty by being overly dramatic, than actually taking consistent and thoughtful positions on issues.
Not that Ron Paul has been right about everything, but more often than not, when he was making a fuss, it was about something meaningful.
Short answer: No. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Technically, PCA limits the use of military personnel for law enforcement except where there is specific statutory authority.
The insurrection nexus is just that the Insurrection Act is the main source of specific statutory authority for the domestic use of the military.
It is called the US Constitution! (Score:4, Interesting)
Title's Aliteration Is Broken (Score:4)
s/"Use"/"Deployment"/
There I fixed it.
Re: (Score:2)
s/Use/Deployment/
Holder's response answers nothing (Score:4)
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.
The key words here are: the president, weaponized, kill, American and on American soil. The answer is so direct that it actually raises many more questions:
There are more questions, but you get the idea...
You blew it! (Score:2)
Obviously, it needed to be "Defense Dept. Directed to Disclose Domestic Drone *Deployment*".
Shit has gone awry (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The party in office always wants unrestricted power to pursue their agenda. The Republicans are looking for porn. The Democrats are looking for taxable events.
The current budget standoff is the best thing that could happen to either side. Whatever they want to do, there is no money for new toys.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Da. "Defense Dept. Directive: Disclose Domestic Drone Deployment" doubles down.
Re: (Score:2)
Doubly demeaning! Drones do disgust denizens during democratic dealings. Dear Deity.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you...like...a crazy person?
Re: (Score:2)
Doubtful.
Re: (Score:2)
I can assure you they will be hearing from the American Association for the Abatement of Alliteration for that one.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You know what happened the last time Congress passed a law restricting the power of the executive branch? [wikipedia.org]
The White House simply ignored it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the fact that the three main opinions on the Constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution/Act appear to be:
(1) it is an unconstitutional delegation of reserved Congressional power to the Executive, and therefore void, or
(2) it is an unconstitutional intrusion on Executive power granted by the Constitution, and therefore void, or
(3) Some provisions are as described in (1), and some provisions are as described in (2)
Its probably not a wonder that every President since it was adopted has treated it as
Re: (Score:2)
Or they could ban spying and murdering of US citizens. Why does it matter if they use a UAV?
Or they could ban spying and murdering altogether.