-PJ
Recall those tanks at Waco?
>Drones are military equipment. Isn’t it a violation of Posse Comitatus to use drones over the United States against its citizens?
Posse Comitatus is a false sense of security; the Constitution gives the Congress the ability to use the militia to enforce laws {if you’re going to nit-pick, then they’ll use guardsmen; which are considered militia by statute (and some state Constitutions); plus they get the “plausible deniability” of “training them to go overseas”}.
Of course the above assumes they care enough to try to pretend like the Constitution means anything to them.
You're funny. Violation of laws, oh that's rich.
Many of the units that fly the RPV's are ANG units. They can fly in Title 10 (active duty) or Title 32 (active Guard) statuses. The Posse Comitatus would apply to them while in Title 10 status and flying RPV's over the states to enforce the law...but to circumvent that...all they would have to do is fly in Title 32 status.
I'm not a jag...but my guess is that is what they would do. That is how guardsmen are armed up after natural disasters to keep the peace: They are in Title 32 (State Active Duty) status.
Sure, but obeying the Constitution, following the law, giving a flying fig does NOT matter to this admin. They have put themselves above the law and are creating their own...probably at the behest of the U.N.
Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office north of Houston has one. Lots of cities, and I mean small cities, have them compliments of Homeland Security. The question is “who” is flying them. I doubt some deputy sheriffs have the training.
What really scares me is we’ve always thought the county sheriffs would stand with the people. Not so sure anymore. They like those toys they get from the government.
Not if you give or sell it to the National Guard or civilian police agencies.
There are perfectly legitimate reasons to use drones. I can think of a specific situation in my county in which the use of a drone ended a standoff with an estranged husband who had shot and wounded a police officer after he failed to kill his wife and then barricaded himself in his wife's property after she escaped. At the time I was asked not to report on the use of the technology since it was not yet widely known what our forces were doing in Iraq and Afghanistan with high-tech surveillance equipment, but that's now widespread public knowledge.
There are also search-and-rescue situations where virtually everyone would believe drones are good because they save lives.
If you can see it from a plane, you can see it from a drone, and there's no legal barrier to using one.
After seeing just a small portion of the surveillance technology available to the federal government used in that shooter standoff situation, I think it's fair to say that their capabilities are far greater than what our enemies know.
Of course, not all things which are legal are a good idea and I share the concerns of a number of people on this thread about government surveillance. This is question of what the government **SHOULD** be doing, not what it legally **CAN** be doing.
[ Drones are military equipment. Isn’t it a violation of Posse Comitatus to use drones over the United States against its citizens? ]
Yeah, like that would stop them...