The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old March 6, 2013, 09:21 PM   #26
ltc444
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 3, 2011
Location: Vernon AZ
Posts: 1,195
I have not confirmed it but it appears that the DHS Drone specs include hard points for hanging ordnance on them. One estimate is that it would take about 8 hours to configure these drones to accept Hellfire Missiles.

Can you imagine if AG Reno had access to an armed predator at Ruby Ridge.
ltc444 is offline  
Old March 7, 2013, 06:52 AM   #27
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
I don't know about DHS specs, but Predators normally come with hardpoints, and Reapers come with even more hardpoints.

So it would seem to me that DHS would have to specify that a new airframe be designed and built without them, which would probably cost more than just buying some from the existing line.

IE, by taking no action aside from the basic purchase, they would get Predators with hardpoints.
MLeake is offline  
Old March 7, 2013, 02:20 PM   #28
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,429
I'm not as much of an anti-government conspiracy theorist as some, but these things in the hands of DHS make me far less comfortable with the White House position that a military drone strike on US citizens on US soil is unlikely, as the best solution for domestic criminals is law enforcement. I won't really care if the drone doing the striking is DHS or Military...

The older folks will probably remember this joke being used as a reference...
Hmmm... I have two coins in my hand. Together they total 55 cents. One of them is not a nickel, what are they? A 50 cent piece, and a nickel. The 50 cent piece is not a nickel you see.

I have two organizations at my command with Drones.. I find it highly unlikely I would ever order a military drone strike inside the US on US Citizens, "where well-established law enforcement authorities" are the legal choice against US citizens. The military is not a law enforcement authority....
.
.
.

But Homeland Security is, suckers!!!

Last edited by JimDandy; March 7, 2013 at 02:37 PM.
JimDandy is offline  
Old March 7, 2013, 02:32 PM   #29
Come and take it.
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2009
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 999
I wonder if there has ever been a discussion on the airspace over a persons property.

Say for instance if the drone were hovering only 6 feet off my lawn.
Come and take it. is offline  
Old March 7, 2013, 03:01 PM   #30
overhead
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 28, 2013
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 182
I don't know about that. As far as I know a police helicopter or airplane does not need a warrant or even to establish cause for flying over your house and look.

I am certainly not a lawyer, but I would have to assume the ruling by SCOTUS in Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 would apply to drones as well as helicopters.
overhead is offline  
Old March 7, 2013, 03:06 PM   #31
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,429
It depends on what sort of advanced optics the drone has. Given the lawsuits from celebrities over tabloid candid shots, an IR camera pointed at your bedroom at Oh Dark Thirty could give the court pause to reconsider.
JimDandy is offline  
Old March 7, 2013, 03:46 PM   #32
overhead
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 28, 2013
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 182
Again, not a lawyer, but the ruling required that someone would not have reason to believe their activities were private. It said

"Any member of the public could legally have been flying over Riley's property in a helicopter at the altitude of 400 feet and could have observed Riley's greenhouse. The police officer did no more."

I assume it has something to do with a "reasonable expectations of privacy". In my opinion looking inside a house would fall outside of what is allowed. Whether it be a camera looking through a window or more advanced means. At least I hope they would not be allowed.

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/488/445/
overhead is offline  
Old March 7, 2013, 03:50 PM   #33
ScottRiqui
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2010
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 2,905
Quote:
It depends on what sort of advanced optics the drone has. Given the lawsuits from celebrities over tabloid candid shots, an IR camera pointed at your bedroom at Oh Dark Thirty could give the court pause to reconsider.
Again, UAVs aren't really bringing anything new to the table in that regard. The courts have already ruled on the use of sensors outside the range of human senses (such as near-IR and thermal imagers) without a warrant. There's no reason why existing statues and precedent can't be applied to the sensors on a UAV.

As for the Attorney General's statement regarding using UAVs to target American citizens on American soil, while I recognize the potential for abuse, I sort of see where he's coming from.

We already have policies in place that allow law-enforcement agencies to use lethal force against criminals (think SWAT snipers, for example). Why couldn't those same policies apply to armed drones? It wouldn't make sense, policy-wise, for the AG to tie the government's hands by saying "We would never, ever, under any circumstances use a UAV to target an American citizen within the boundaries of the United States."
ScottRiqui is offline  
Old March 7, 2013, 03:54 PM   #34
overhead
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 28, 2013
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 182
But Scott, that was not the question he was asked and that is not the question he and the administration finally answered earlier today.

As Holder said in this letter, the question was:

"“Does the president have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on an American soil?”

He answered "No. Why it took this long and why they had to be so evasive in answering is beyond me.
overhead is offline  
Old March 7, 2013, 04:08 PM   #35
ScottRiqui
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2010
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 2,905
This statement was made on Monday, in a letter to Paul Rand:

"Holder said it was possible, "I suppose," to imagine an "extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate" under U.S. law for the president to authorize the military to "use lethal force" within the United States."

Then on Wednesday one of the Senators asked for a clarification:

" In testimony Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, pressed Holder whether he believed it would be constitutional to target an American terror suspect "sitting at a cafe" if the suspect didn't pose an imminent threat."

To that, Holder responded "no".

I don't think the "sitting at a cafe" and "didn't pose an imminent threat" specifications were part of the original questioning that prompted Holder's quote from Monday.

Now, if the "not engaged in combat" was part of the question from the start, the only reason I can think of for a delay would be if they needed to have some discussion on what exactly "in combat" would mean in the context of a terrorist in the U.S.
ScottRiqui is offline  
Old March 7, 2013, 04:11 PM   #36
dajowi
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 2, 2005
Posts: 976
In KYLLO v. UNITED STATES ( No. 99-8508 ) I think it can be said that what does and doesn't fall under a fourth amendment protection can be so convoluted as to be almost impossible to determine.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/99-8508

When you think about it, it appears that our bill of rights as guaranteed under the constitution can be subject to reinterpretation under future supreme court rulings and nothing is guaranteed.
dajowi is offline  
Old March 7, 2013, 04:16 PM   #37
ScottRiqui
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2010
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 2,905
Quote:
When you think about it, it appears that our bill of rights as guaranteed under the constitution can be subject to reinterpretation under future supreme court rulings and nothing is guaranteed.
Yes, pretty much the entire Constitution is subject to reinterpretation and change. That's why women can vote and blacks aren't counted as three-fifths of a person when it comes to apportionment in the House of Representatives.
ScottRiqui is offline  
Old March 7, 2013, 04:20 PM   #38
overhead
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 28, 2013
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 182
Quote:
This statement was made on Monday, in a letter to Paul Rand:

"Holder said it was possible, "I suppose," to imagine an "extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate" under U.S. law for the president to authorize the military to "use lethal force" within the United States."

Then on Wednesday one of the Senators asked for a clarification:

" In testimony Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, pressed Holder whether he believed it would be constitutional to target an American terror suspect "sitting at a cafe" if the suspect didn't pose an imminent threat."

To that, Holder responded "no".

I don't think the "sitting at a cafe" and "didn't pose an imminent threat" specifications were part of the original questioning that prompted Holder's quote from Monday.

Now, if the "not engaged in combat" was part of the question from the start, the only reason I can think of for a delay would be if they needed to have some discussion on what exactly "in combat" would mean in the context of a terrorist in the U.S.
I don't know all of the history here, but I do know the filibuster had already started by the time Sen. Cruz was asking his questions yesterday.

I cannot imagine any circumstance in which law enforcement or the military could engage with deadly force on US soil in a situation that did not involve immediate and imminent threat. The problem, of course, is that we seem to have expanded the definition of the word "imminent" to include "may at some time in the future become" a threat when dealing with killings over seas. And that does not even start to talk about the "signature" attacks, which are justified by location alone without knowing exactly who it is that is being blown up. I don't know about you, but I sure as heck don't want that to be the policy here.

Frankly, I am glad someone is making it an issue, as it should be. BTW, I don't think the president or anyone in government was planning on blowing anyone up, not at all. I am not too worried about drones, I am more concerned with making sure everyone understands the possible impacts of going fast and loose with our natural rights.
overhead is offline  
Old March 7, 2013, 04:25 PM   #39
sigcurious
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
Kyllo v US actually sets a relatively clear standard, of, in general public use, as to whether or not it would require a warrant. Simply put, imagers/detection devices(FLIR or similar technology in the case of Kyllo) that bypass what would normally constitute privacy are a no go since typically they are not in general public use. This is a relatively clear standard that allows for evolving technology while simultaneously putting restrictions on it's use.
sigcurious is offline  
Old March 7, 2013, 05:27 PM   #40
I'vebeenduped
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2013
Location: AZ
Posts: 200
"I am more concerned with making sure everyone understands the possible impacts of going fast and loose with our natural rights."

^^^This summarizes nearly my every post^^^! I wish that I could have put it so succinctly.
__________________
The natural state of man, the way G‑d created us, is to be happy.
Look at children and you will see
I'vebeenduped is offline  
Old March 7, 2013, 08:21 PM   #41
Come and take it.
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2009
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 999
Something else that should be considered if the technology is reliable enough for the drone to be weaponized over populated areas.

When the drones are over areas of Pakistan I don't think american citizens are concerned (they should be) whether or not a drone could misfire on an unintended target , Experience interference that could disable it causing it to crash on a populated area while armed with weapons or hacked and become a danger in that respect.

If I am not mistaken a college tech class was able to hack a government drone (they were asked to see if it could be done) and landed it. The Iranians have hacked US drones.

So in that respect the idea that a drone would somehow be a magic bullet for use against a human target in anykind of populated area where US civilians could be accidentally injured or killed would not be the wisest idea.

I can see however where a drone could be used to hit a target like the Waco compound. Especially hard targets like the Waco records vault. Which was annihilated using some form of penetrating explosive device.

Or at a location like Ruby Ridge where the target was isolated from the general public.

These could also be hit however by manned craft using Joint direct attack munitions. What is good about the Drone is that if there were an "un" intended accident that resulted in the deaths of individuals other than the primary target it could always be blamed on a glitch and not on human error.
Come and take it. is offline  
Old March 8, 2013, 12:10 AM   #42
dajowi
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 2, 2005
Posts: 976
In KYLLO v. UNITED STATES ( No. 99-8508 ) I think it can be said that what does and doesn't fall under a fourth amendment protection can be so convoluted as to be almost impossible to determine.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/99-8508

When you think about it, it appears that our bill of rights as guaranteed under the constitution can be subject to reinterpretation under future supreme court rulings and nothing is guaranteed.
dajowi is offline  
Old March 8, 2013, 01:21 AM   #43
mrbatchelor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2010
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 237
Re: DHS Drones to determine if person is armed and to intercept cell phone signals

Quote:
Originally Posted by manta49 View Post
As for the drones whats the difference in spying etc with a drone rather than a helicopter or aeroplane for example.
There are two sides to the difference. You can argue they are the two sides of the same coin or that the two are substativly different. But both involve the level of dehumanization and anonymity the remotely operated vehicles bring to the scene compared to the days when a Greek warrior had to physically slice the chest of his opponent on the battlefield. Both the assailant role and the victim role - if we assume those are the roles - perceive their roles differently if there's close contact than they do if it's remote and clinically isolated like it is with a drone.

Google "did we just kill a kid" to get some discussions.

Last edited by mrbatchelor; March 8, 2013 at 02:26 AM.
mrbatchelor is offline  
Old March 8, 2013, 07:30 AM   #44
rebs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 10, 2012
Posts: 2,229
Quote:
I guess it all comes down to the question: How much faith will you have in the Government?
There seems to be a lot going on in this administration that causes alarm to citizens. Is it because of the internet that people are now reading more about these drones and surveillance etc, what about when they started putting surveillance cameras at intersections to watch traffic. Haven't we been under surveillance for sometime already ?
As far as faith in our government, is it a lack of faith that is causing the mass gun buying that is going on ? It seems everyone wants a gun lately. With the recent purchases by the DHS, guns, ammo, armored vehicles, drones etc. is there trust in DHS ? Are they a threat to the citizens rights and safety ? Where is all this going or what is it leading up to ?
There is a lot of questions about what is going on these days, does anyone have answers ?
rebs is offline  
Old March 8, 2013, 08:45 AM   #45
overhead
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 28, 2013
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebs
There are two sides to the difference. You can argue they are the two sides of the same coin or that the two are substativly different. But both involve the level of dehumanization and anonymity the remotely operated vehicles bring to the scene compared to the days when a Greek warrior had to physically slice the chest of his opponent on the battlefield. Both the assailant role and the victim role - if we assume those are the roles - perceive their roles differently if there's close contact than they do if it's remote and clinically isolated like it is with a drone.

Google "did we just kill a kid" to get some discussions.
I understand. I do not support arming domestic drones with missiles or machine guns, just as I do not support arming police helicopters with missiles or machine guns. Police power, government power is something we always need to keep a close eye on. I just don't have a problem with drones being used in the same way police helicopters are today. I don't have a problem with a drone having a camera or other device that might be able to identify if a person is carrying a rifle or not. Maybe my civil libertarian ideas are softening as I get older or something. As long as they are not poking around where I have some expectation of privacy I really don't care. As long as some computer operator miles away is not given the power to kill me I think I can live with drones.
overhead is offline  
Old March 8, 2013, 09:23 AM   #46
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
I am not allowed to discuss capabilities and limitations, per se, in this kind of forum.

However, those of you who think drones are no big deal should do some google searching on current multi-spectrum camera technology, and then decide whether you think giving such things a lookdown angle into your property is such a hot idea.

Said the ISR guy...
MLeake is offline  
Old March 8, 2013, 09:31 AM   #47
ScottRiqui
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2010
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 2,905
Quote:
However, those of you who think drones are no big deal should do some google searching on current multi-spectrum camera technology, and then decide whether you think giving such things a lookdown angle into your property is such a hot idea.
I'm aware of the capabilities as well. But the fancy sensors don't mean that we need new laws to govern UAV use. If it wouldn't be legal on a manned airplane without a warrant, it's not legal on a UAV without a warrant.
ScottRiqui is offline  
Old March 8, 2013, 09:52 AM   #48
overhead
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 28, 2013
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 182
Can't a multi-spectrum camera or all of these fancy devices be placed in a pod on the front of a manned helicopter? Which of these camera/detection devices are only available on drones and not on manned aircraft?

**I found my answer, the multi-spectrum cams are already attached to helicopters. I understand they are being used to inspect power lines****
overhead is offline  
Old March 8, 2013, 04:31 PM   #49
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
But if the argument is that a pilot in any old plane or helicopter could see a thing, and therefore there is no expectation of privacy, that's a bit different (don't you think) from saying that since a spy satellite that can count troops in formation from fifty miles away can see the thing...

If that argument is inherently different, then now we are talking degrees of difference.

Those degrees may matter.

Should you not expect privacy if you can't hear or see the helicopter or plane?

Note that courts have already ruled against police who wanted to be allowed warrantless use of infrared to watch people in their homes at night. If it couldn't be seen by unaided sight, then it should have an expectation of privacy, I believe was the logic behind those rulings.
MLeake is offline  
Old March 8, 2013, 04:49 PM   #50
overhead
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 28, 2013
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 182
I agree it certainly brings up some new points to be argued in the courts. The sat question is an interesting one, google posts pictures of my house and backyard on the internet for the world to see. I would assume, then, that my expectation of privacy in that space is gone. I certainly do not want the police, or anyone else for that matter, using any technology to look through my walls or closed windows to observe.

I watched in interesting discussion about the expectation of privacy standard and how it changes as society changes. The person being interviewed is the head of the rather liberal 9th circuit. It is long, but I found it interesting. It does not address the drone question specifically, so don't look for that answer. His point was that as a society or as an individual I allow anyone access to my "private" information I have then also, legally, allowed the government to observe this information without a warrant. I must admit, I am not at all comfortable with that standard. The interview also goes into other legal questions I found interesting, but the privacy discussion can be found at
25:50.Also, to try and keep on the topic of the forum, there is a discussion of the second amendment at 35:00.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUYpBqLVe7U

Last edited by overhead; March 8, 2013 at 05:09 PM.
overhead is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.12561 seconds with 7 queries