Tuesday, April 23, 2013 7:46:29 AM · by Uncle Chip · 124 replies
The Daily Mail Online ^ | April 23, 2013 | Daily Mail Reporter
Posted on 04/23/2013 9:54:24 AM PDT by Sir Napsalot
An important clarification from Senator Rand Paul, who made headlines for a rare talking filibuster challenging Barack Obama to explain the difference between using drones against American citizens overseas and using them in the United States. Neil Cavuto asked Paul about the distinction yesterday in light of the manhunt for American citizen Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on Friday, in which a drone or two with real-time infrared downlook capabilities above Watertown might have saved a little time. Paul told Cavuto that this wasn’t the use to which he objected:
“If there’s a killer on the loose in a neighborhood, I’m not against drones being used to search them out, heat-seeking devices being used, I’m all for law enforcement,” Paul said on Fox Business Network’s Cavuto last night. “I’m just not for surveillance when there’s no probable cause that a crime’s being committed.”“Here’s the distinction, Neil, I’ve never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, active crime going on,” he added.
Actually, I thought that distinction was pretty clear all along. The police have used helicopters for decades to track suspects on the run from law enforcement, and haven’t been shy about using the latest surveillance technology in the air or on the ground. Case law has long allowed that kind of aerial surveillance, especially for open areas outside of houses, even in back yards. The only difference is in the aerial platform and whether a pilot is along for the ride.
The question Paul wanted answered was not about surveillance but about offensive operations ......
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
Do citizens have safegurad against government abuse?
bs....
It is a moot point, and, frankly, a pointless interjection into the scope of events. The facts are that the ‘authorities,’ whoever that might be were using infrared detection (FLIR?) from a helicopter (or suitable platform). Makes no difference, manned or not in this case.
Sure appears to me that a drone WAS used for inspecting the boat.
I read it was a helicopter with FLIR technology onboard.
Your only safeguard is your weapons. That is the way it has always been and the way it will always be. There are those that shuffle on the train and those that will never do that. It has always been that way as well.
It was absolutely unnecessary.
If switched to an unmanned aerial platform, how do we know ‘if a crime is being committed’ or not?
Hence my question about safeguard against government abuse.
Are reporters really this dumb? (Rhetorical)
He was found a half mile from the shootout his brother died at. Maybe a bloodhound would have been useful. Have they all been phased out by technology?
I did not hear that. From what I saw on TV, I was lead to believe that this was the big ‘get’....my bad then.
The governor of your state will text you a 'stay in place' order.
Reporters?
This is Sen. Rand Paul, and Ed Morrissey of Hot Air (a conservative opinion writer) thought it no biggie.
They set up a perimeter and searched within the perimeter with dogs, helicopters, people, etc. The Joker was a block or so outside of the perimeter though.
He walked a half mile from the first shootout. Are you telling me a bloodhound couldn’t have followed the trail of a bleeding man that far?
Like everything else it starts out being used to aprehend criminals and ends up being used for surveilance on citizens.
Like the speed camera’s They started being used to slow down traffic, and then started being used to raise money.
The Afghans have automatic rifles which are not crippled to three-shot-burst like civilians in the US are allowed to have. They also have anti-aircraft missiles, MANPADs and the like. And still, they cannot do anything against the drones.
Remember this, and you’ll see what a truly slippery slope it is when a government can wield combat drones against its own population.
A true reading of the Second Amendment cannot allow for restrictions against what a free citizen can possess to check the balance of power against the government. Even if that means private ownership of combat jets.
In that case, what’s the difference between a drone with FLIR and a manned police helicopter with FLIR other than where the pilot and observers are sitting?
}:-)4
Hot pursuit is pretty cut and dry and the only question is when to break off surveillance after they lose the perp. I don’t think we need or want drones flying for weeks while some perp decomposes in a shed or parties in Mexico.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.