Can someone enlighten me please what the big difference is, between a remote controlled drone and a helicopter with the same equpment (besides that it's smaller and most likely cheaper to maintain)?
AzuremenThe fact that Police Helicopters are generally only called for pursuits of known suspects, where as the drones are for passive monitoring, which is quite a bit more invasive and Big Brother like.
Not only are police helicopters (and planes, for example over highways) circling over big cities constantly (even here in Germany), in this case we are talking about the search for an armed and dangerous suspect. To me at least, it makes sense to use a UAV for things like this.
I still remember how they used Tornado jets here in Germany, to look for a missing girl, because the thermal vision and other optical instruments were so good compared to other stuff back then.
To be honest, if the government really wants to monitor you, they don't need a UAV for that.
Guess you folks won't be needing that Constitution any more.
Especially in states where you can shoot trespassers.
People have more privacy now then they ever have; that is a moot point.
Idiots plaster themselves all over facebook, checking in at every stop they make, their browsing/shopping data shared from here to kingdom-come.... and we whine about a camera in the sky when there is one at every intersection here in Dallas....
If you're not a criminal why are you worried? You really think you're that special for the big bad government to care about? Come on now.
If you're worried about privacy get off the internet.
People have more privacy now then they ever have; that is a moot point.
Idiots plaster themselves all over facebook, checking in at every stop they make, their browsing/shopping data shared from here to kingdom-come.... and we whine about a camera in the sky when there is one at every intersection here in Dallas....
If you're not a criminal why are you worried? You really think you're that special for the big bad government to care about? Come on now.
If you're worried about privacy get off the internet.
Can someone enlighten me please what the big difference is, between a remote controlled drone and a helicopter with the same equpment (besides that it's smaller and most likely cheaper to maintain)?
Oddly, of the first ten most robust laws you have, four of them deal with your right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure, to maintain your own counsel, to have a trial by a jury of your peers and not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. You have three branches of government (Congress, Supreme Court, President) whose job it is to keep these ten laws uppermost, each operating as a check for breaches of them by the other two.There is so much legislation protecting your right to privacy its absurd this is even an issue.
Only nobody told them that was their job when they killed a man from New Mexico with a drone, without trial, because they thought he was a terrorist. Nor when they killed a 16 year old kid from Detroit, without trial, in another drone strike because they thought the guy he was with at the time was a terrorist - and it was the kid's own fault for hanging around with him (apparently)
snip
I still need to see an argument why a UAV is worse than a helicopter.
I'm not saying this, I'm saying that the state can already survey you how they want, they don't need drones for that and that I still need to see an argument why a UAV is worse than a helicopter.
How is deploying an unmanned aerial drone an unreasonable search?And, I'm saying I believe the 4th amendment should be upheld.
Actually I was specifically pointing out that believing legislation to protect your privacy if you're innocent will protect your privacy if you're innocent is foolhardy when legislation - much more stern legislation that forms the entire foundation of the governance of the USA - to protect you from being executed without trial fails to protect you from being executed by trial...I never said anything about their ROE's.... so not sure why you're trying to argue with me on that....
The topic that was specifically being discussed was privacy.
FamineActually I was specifically pointing out that believing legislation to protect your privacy if you're innocent will protect your privacy if you're innocent is foolhardy when legislation - much more stern legislation that forms the entire foundation of the governance of the USA - to protect you from being executed without trial fails to protect you from being executed by trial...
I'm sorry, I must have missed the part of the Bill of Rights where you could execute people without trial."Reasonable suspicion."
Well...
The man from New Mexico was a terrorist; regardless of whether or not he is a US citizen....
"al-Awlaki fled the U.S. as the FBI began to close its case linking him to two of the 9/11 terrorists. He fled to Yemen and allegedly gave guidance to both the famed underwear bomber and Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, who carried out the mass shooting at the Fort Hood military base. He showed himself to be an imminent threat to the U.S. and had to be dealt with."
He was with Samir Kahn when they were both killed.
http://www.oudaily.com/news/2013/feb/11/drone_strikes/
Yemen wouldn't extradite...
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/05/12/yemen-tells-us-they-wont-extradite-awlaki/
So, yes. Blow their asses up.
No... No it rather looks like you can't do that.Fifth Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Sixth Amendment
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Actually the poor 16 year old was collateral damage:
"According to his relatives, Abdulrahman left the family home in the Sana'a area on Sept. 15 in search of his fugitive father who was hiding out with his tribe, the Awalak, in the remote, rugged southern province of Shabwa. Days after the teenager began his quest, however, his father was killed in a U.S. drone strike. Then, just two weeks later, the Yemeni government claimed another air strike killed a senior al-Qaeda militant. Abdulrahman, his teenage cousin and six others died in the attack as well. A U.S. official said the young man "was in the wrong place at the wrong time," and that the U.S. was trying to kill a legitimate terrorist — al-Qaeda leader Ibrahim al-Banna, who also died — in the strike that apparently killed the American teenager." ... Says the terrorist family from Yemen.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2097899,00.html
But hey that doesn't make as big of headlines as "16 YEAR OLD AMERICAN TARGETED BY OBAMA IN DRONE STRIKE!!!"
On a "quest" or training....