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 ...
how many swat teams were needef to catch oswald or the ut sniper?
As an old fan of the show "24" I have to chuckle every time I hear the word perimeter. It was turned into a drinking game on the Dave Barry "24" blog because they mentioned the word so much. And of course the CTU "perimeter" was more leaky than a faucet with no washer!
I thought he drove? Wasn't it reported that he had run over his brother?
They had helicopters with advanced optics. What would a drone have added?
Boston revealed that in an emergency the police, FBI, and ATF will trample civil rights, aim weapons at innocent Americans, and accomplish relatively nothing, and do it soo Boston Strong that your arse will hurt for days.
The people of Boston could have been yanked without warrants from their homes and then led onto trains to concentration camps and those idiots would have thanked the Feds for the free ride... Boston Strong!
The good news is that I no longer fear a Federal martial law. There is no way in hell they could deal with that and there is no way in hell it would work. The stupidity and disorder would have been 10X worse the other night if you had a remedially-trained fire team in the area shooting at those officers instead of one, pathetic terrorist.
Plus, there’s no money to pay for the overtime.
The homeowner had climbed a ladder to look inside and saw the guy curled up. He knew what he had and called 9-11.
What makes it worse....he was only found AFTER the curfew had been lifted when he noticed his boat not like he had it.
Then their announcement..."We got him".
Note: The FBI had a party after they captured the Unabomber...t-shirt and all.
The homeowner had climbed a ladder to look inside and saw the guy curled up. He knew what he had and called 9-11.
What makes it worse....he was only found AFTER the curfew had been lifted when he noticed his boat not like he had it.
Then their announcement..."We got him".
Note: The FBI had a party after they captured the Unabomber...t-shirts and all.
The Constitution explicitly recognizes the private ownership of what were basically battleships in their day. Letters of Marque and Reprisal authorized private citizens to go after Muslim pirate/slavers (The Barbary Coast Pirates... "To the shores of Tripoli").
To go after those pirates and their trans-Atlantic ships, one would need... anyone anyone? Bueller? Bueller?... yes, that's right, ships of their own, of equal or greater size and abilities.
It is not weaponry that has changed, it is our culture and what we have allowed our leadership to do to us.
I agree.
More dogs might have “inflamed” fragile muslim sensitivities. (Do I really need a /sarc here?)
The Watertown police chief said that after he ran over his brother and smashed past two police cars he drove about a hundred yards and abandoned his car.
I’d like to know where I can just go out and get a selective fire weapon with the kind of ease you imply. The only kind of rifle I can get that comes remotely close (without huge fees and wait times and extensive background checks, etc...) is a semi-auto. One trigger pull one bullet, lather, rinse, repeat.
Civilians can’t just go out and get a selective fire weapon, which includes full auto and 3 round burst. Those are true assault weapons, not what is commonly available in the typical civ AR platform.
I would just like to point out that at any given time, somewhere in the US there is a "killer on the loose in a neighborhood". It may even be a mad man more dangerous than some 19 year old bleeding coward terrorist puke.
So logically I guess we should have drones flying patterns 24/7 in all populated areas. Or they could just stop infringing our 2nd amendment, rights and let us take care of ourselves.
Some day soon, they’ll be tossing U.S.-born citizens into Gitmo as enemy combatants, and we’ll all sit around wondering how we got there.
“At any given time” is a little different than “probable cause that a crime’s being committed.”
You would think the dogs could have.
In the local rag’s ‘mail call’ section, people are asking what the recent ‘strange lights in the night sky’ are and wondering if they’re drones.
As a sign of the times, nobody’s even remotely suggested the usual “UFO” crap.
Paul: “I’m just not for surveillance when there’s no probable cause that a crime’s being committed.”A CRIME is always being committed somewhere.
On top of ubiquitous surveillance cameras everywhere, Sen Paul and Ed Morrissey apparently think it is ok to have surveillance drones over citizens. (Note: that was my comment on Ed's post)
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.