[ExI] Rand Paul Filibuster

[Kelly Anderson]

On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 1:06 PM, Dave Sill <sparge at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> No, that would be considered "criminal", and the police - not missile-equipped
>> drones - would be dispatched in that case.  Are being, even.
>
>
> Right, and the events of 2001-09-11 were criminal, too. But politicians declared them acts of war. Now all terrorists are combatants. Yes, of course, a police response would make sense, but since when do governments--the US gov't, especially--behave reasonably? In the past they've responded with armed forces, but who's to say what they would have done if they could have punched up a drone to do the job instead? The same properties of drone attacks that make them to attractive in other countries also apply in the US--with the *possible* exception of greater backlash to collateral damage.
>
>> At least, unless and until the guy starts shooting the cops.  But even then,
>> police snipers are more practical - not just morally and politically, but
>> economically in this scenario.  Sometimes, even bloated government
>> bureaucracies prefer to go with the cheaper solution.
>
>
> Yeah, you'er right. I'm sure there's no need/plan for domestic drone installations.


Dave,

  You could not be more wrong. There are federal drones flying above
Americans today. Whether any of them are armed I don't know.

The department of agriculture has admitted to using UAVs. Allegedly
for land use purposes, but if "land use" includes finding pot fields
on public land, who knows where that could go.
http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/2011/110927.htm

Does anyone know how to decode this page?
http://gov-spending.solutionpipe.com/investment/211-uav-unmanned-aerial-vehicles
Is that saying they are spending $100,000 a year on this? I'm not good
at understanding what they are saying there... but it is short.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=faa-accepts-20-new-applications
This is an interesting article about various law enforcement agencies
and even indian reservations applying for UAV permits.

Here is a CNN report on the border patrol using drones, at one point
in the report they say they are filming 14 miles inside the US border.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHi2py3pNg4

There is no current over arching privacy protection relating to drones.
According to:
http://www.technewsdaily.com/16046-drones-respect-privacy-bill.html
"But the FAA's interim rules already make exceptions for civilian
government agencies to operate drones weighing 25 pounds or less."

In other words, this is a case of the technology being ahead of the
legislation, and for small drones, there seems to be even more
leniency.

HR 658 - The Federal Aviation Administration Act of 2012, was signed
into law on Valentine's day by president Obama, according to a
government website:
"Requires the FAA to develop a comprehensive plan for integration of
civil unmanned aircraft systems into national airspace within 270 days
of the enactment date of this bill, and requires the FAA to execute
the plan by September 30, 2015 (Sec. 332)."

According to some reviews of this legislation, up to 30,000 permits
are going to be issued by 2016. There is some alarmist stuff out
there, but these are civilian permits. What the government is going to
do is anyone's guess. But I have heard that law enforcement in many
citites across the US are looking into the purchase of UAVs for law
enforcement. These are unlikely to be armed in the short term, as most
police helicopters are not heavily armed either... but the trend is a
bit disturbing, especially for privacy advocates.

In reply to the original post, there is a LOT of attention being paid
to Rand Paul's filibuster by the right wing media, particularly Shawn
Hannity and Rush Limbaugh to a somewhat lesser extent. Paul has
appeared on Sean Hannity's radio program twice this week.

-Kelly