Tag Archives: Spy Drones over America

Rand Loves The Drones? Not Quite…

randpaulfilibuster-300x225

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul has learned another key lesson of the “age of sound bytes.” During an appearance on Neil Cavuto’s Fox Business Network show, Paul pointed out he didn’t mind using drones or any kind of technology against an “imminent threat,” whether it was a terrorist or “someone coming out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash.” He also said it didn’t matter if it was a cop or a drone who killed the criminal. To fans of his father, ex-Texas Congressman Ron Paul, the reaction was fast and it wasn’t pretty.

Rand Paul was called someone who was “bullsh—tting,” a “politician” (which he is), someone who supported “the militarizing of police” and someone who needed to get away from neoconservatives because they were “rotting your brain.” Even Matt Drudge threw up the clever headline, “RAND LEARNS TO LOVE THE DRONE!”

However, people are ignoring the second half of his quote. Paul specifically said it was different if a drone wanted to go over someone’s hot tub or yard just to look at you. Even when Cavuto asked what if police were searching for a criminal and accidentally found something “bad,” Paul didn’t budge. He said no one should be looking into someone’s backyard and didn’t want surveillance when there wasn’t “probable cause.” Paul made it very clear police must have a warrant to use a drone, unless there was a “killer on the loose” or someone “running around with a gun.”

 

This is very similar to what he said during his 13 hour filibuster and the comments he made afterward. It’s also part of the no domestic drone strike legislation he and Texas Senator Ted Cruz co-sponsored. Drones can only be used on “dangerous criminals” and people who poses an “imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury” to another person. So Paul is being consistent.

 

There are still problems with how Paul worded what he said. The definition of a “dangerous criminal” may mean someone like the Boston terrorists, who engaged in an active shootout with police. But, as Paul pointed out in his filibuster, the Fusion Center of Missouri considers “dangerous criminals” as people who have pro-life bumper stickers, people who may want more border security, support third party candidates or might be in the Constitution Party. Unless the “dangerous criminal” terminology is strictly defined, the use of drones by governments on American soil could end up being as slippery of a slope as warrant-less wiretapping. Even with the strictest of definitions, it may not be worth it, despite how awesome the technology is.

 

By making broad comments on an issue, Paul giving potential political enemies more ammunition against him. It also disappoints his supporters and those who consider him a “political hero.” Plus, the liquor store example is a bad example, which Paul realized. He made it clear in a statement he released Tuesday. After all, hindsight is 20-20.

 

There may be ways to figure out how people in the private sector (i.e. farmers) could use drones, without raising questions about privacy. Drone countermeasures are already being developed and sold to those who can afford it. That may be the ultimate solution.

 

But in the end, Lucius Fox may have it right when he raised questions about technology Bruce Wayne developed in The Dark Knight. Even when it was obvious Batman could use a city-wide tracking device to find the Joker, Fox said, “No one should have it,” because the tracker could be abused.

 

It may be time for us to listen to Lucius Fox on drones. Cool technology, but not worth using.

 

Drones Would Have Aided Americans in Benghazi if Cows Were Involved

Cow drone

 

Cow drone

When four dying Americans in Benghazi needed fire-powered drones to take out Islamic militants firing mortars, those hovering drones controlled by Obama’s D.C. administration never fired on the enemy. Maybe the Americans inside the Benghazi Consulate should have kept cows at the Embassy. It’s obvious our spying government holds a deeper grudge against cow manure than terrorists massacring Americans.

According to reports: 

The EPA is using drones to spy on cattle ranchers in Nebraska and Iowa in order to make sure that farmers dispose of waste properly.

That’s right Americans, if you are a farmer and your cow manure is disposed of improperly, the Fourth Amendment-breaking, photographing spy drones flying over your farms will tell Washington. And then you and your cows will be sorry!

Since it’s lawful for the government to “monitor real estate to assure itself that the occupier of the lands is not adversely affecting the natural habitat,” perhaps the Americans in Benghazi should have told Obama and Hillary that the Taliban mortars were filled with cow dung that would “adversely affect Libya’s natural habitat.”  That might have moved the administration to save Americans and completely annihilate the Taliban.

Obama has no problem using drones to kill terrorists and spy on American farmers, but he has great difficulty when aiding our military begging for help.

Look at the laws Obama uses to conduct the War on Terror he vowed to end and ask why he ignored four men, in his service, fighting for their lives.

Obama uses Article 51 of the UN Charter  (the UN has declared it is against the drone war)  which “includes the targeted killing of persons such as high-level al-Qaeda leaders who are planning attacks” to conduct drone strikes: 371 of the 424 drone strikes since 2002 have been conducted by Obama.

There is no doubt drones eliminate threats to overseas military and the United States.  So, if taking out the enemy is vital to U.S. security, why didn’t Obama (who wrongfully entered Libya without Congressional consent) or Hillary use weaponized drones to aid four Americans fighting and dying inside an American Consulate?

Then there is the National Defense Authorization Act.

Do readers remember why President Obama signed the controversial law on December 31, 2011 (full explanation he on law language here)? This law that detains Guantanamo Bay terrorists indefinitely, and stipulates unconstitutional detention and assassination of any American citizen suspected of terror, is supposed to protect military and their families overseas. That would include aiding those who died in Benghazi. Or one would reason it to be so.

Obama  said he had reservations about signing the law (which gives unconstitutional provisions to the president), but did so:

chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed.

 

Apparently those services were never “crucial” enough to extend any “interest” or “security” to Americans being massacred by brutal terrorists in Benghazi.

American farmers with filthy barnyards better look out!

 

obama spy drone

 

But forget the NDAA, the president has Special Operations Teams readily available to him at all times, in all places, including the Middle East and Mediterranean, who are prepared for capture and kill raids, such as the one that took out Osama bin Laden.

The president also has:

 [T]he 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), which the U.S. Congress passed just days after 9/11. The statute empowers the president ‘to use all necessary and appropriate force’ in pursuit of those responsible for the terrorist attacks.

 

Where was that protection for those men fighting for their lives in the Benghazi Consulate? Those men fought for seven hours, Ambassador Stevens was gang-raped and tortured to death, Ty Woods begged Washington for help, but was told “stand down,” even as fire-powered drones, meant to provide security, hovered overhead, but were never given orders to fire on the enemy.

What the hell is the point of the NDAA, AUMF, UN Charters, or any special operation teams if the president refuses to utilize military power to bring terrorists attacking Americans to their end?

Why bother signing controversial laws you claim protect overseas military if you tell them to stand down when they must fight?

Why send American troops overseas to fight the enemy if they are not allowed to battle without asking permission, denied help during combat, and told “stand down?”

And why are American drones used to take out terrorists in Islamic countries and spy on America’s cows, but those drones were never used to help U.S. military personnel in Benghazi who begged  for help on September 11th?

Obama orders spy drones to fly over American farms, photograph evidence of cow poop, yet refused to order weaponized drones to fire on Taliban terrorists killing Americans in Benghazi. Why?

Answer: Because controlling the constitutional rights of Americans, and our cow manure, rather than aiding our military when it needs help, is what is “necessary and appropriate” “responsibility” to “pursuit” a well-kept and deodorized America.

Maybe our men in Benghazi should have told Obama and Hillary that the terrorists were spewing cow dung all over Benghazi’s streets. Then perhaps the two would have said “Don’t stand down! Fire on those terrorists! It will make all the difference for the environment”