Armed Drone Caught On Camera Outside Chicago Prior To NATO Summit (video)

[Domalais]

What would it take to bring one of those down?

Something that reaches to 10,000 feet to hit a target the size of a short bus.

 

[Domalais]

BULLSHIT.

It has to do with CONTROL..
nothing else.

Correct. Intelligence oversight's sole job is to prevent the military from conducting surveillance of Americans.

 

[GuerrillaXXI]

1) That article is discussing what is required to surveil US persons regardless of where in the world they are. If you read more of the paper, the areas I already quoted, it specifically states that the US military cannot spy on Americans in the course of their domestic activities, regardless of approval authority or collaboration.

The military can do as it pleases unless it is forcibly prevented from doing so. Written laws, constitutions, etc., are powerless to prevent physical actions, and the US government has broken its own laws many times in the past.

Just because Americans are told that "our" military isn't allowed to spy on us doesn't mean it's actually the case. Just because something is against the law doesn't mean the government doesn't do it.

2) If you think that the Border Patrol owns Predators with hellfires attached, then, well... LOL. It means nothing that they're launching from an Air Force airstrip.

I don't think missiles are on the BP's drones at this time. That doesn't mean drones can't be armed in the future.

 

[Kluge]

So say these domestic drones are different from the military grade ones:

1. They'll still illegally surveil private citizens. Police/military frequently abuse their powers and cross lines.
2. How easily can they be equipped with missles?

 

[pcosmar]

1) That article is discussing what is required to surveil US persons regardless of where in the world they are. If you read more of the paper, the areas I already quoted, it specifically states that the US military cannot spy on Americans in the course of their domestic activities, regardless of approval authority or collaboration.

2) If you think that the Border Patrol owns Predators with hellfires attached, then, well... LOL. It means nothing that they're launching from an Air Force airstrip.


The kool-aid is strong with this one.

The Bullshit is strong with this one.

For example,, the border patrol does not need to "OWN" them. They have use of them.
There is NO LONGER any actual factual difference between Military, Police or "Intelligence Services".

They are all under the same agency.

 

[pcosmar]

I don't think missiles are on the BP's drones at this time. That doesn't mean drones can't be armed in the future.

Correct. In fact all the drones were originally unarmed..
Arming them was the next step.

The thing is,, this surveillance is wrong on every level. It is a violation of rights, and a clear and present danger to Liberty.

These things should by slapped from the sky every time they are launched.
It should simply NOT BE ALLOWED.

 

[pcosmar]

Correct. Intelligence oversight's sole job is to prevent the military from conducting surveillance of Americans.

Oversight? WTF
What,, where?

 

[dancjm]

1) That article is discussing what is required to surveil US persons regardless of where in the world they are. If you read more of the paper, the areas I already quoted, it specifically states that the US military cannot spy on Americans in the course of their domestic activities, regardless of approval authority or collaboration.

"The US Military cannot spy on Americans in the course of their domestic activities" - LA Times

"The President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress" - US Constitution

 

[pcosmar]

"The US Military cannot spy on Americans in the course of their domestic activities" - LA Times

"The President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress" - US Constitution

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

And lets not forget,

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

[DerailingDaTrain]

I didn't read the whole thread so sorry if this was posted already.

The same user who uploaded that video (MisterBees) uploaded 2 other videos of some jets and another of some helicopters. I know the helicopter one is real.

 

[Domalais]

The military can do as it pleases unless it is forcibly prevented from doing so. Written laws, constitutions, etc., are powerless to prevent physical actions, and the US government has broken its own laws many times in the past.

Just because Americans are told that "our" military isn't allowed to spy on us doesn't mean it's actually the case. Just because something is against the law doesn't mean the government doesn't do it.

So the Air Force wrote a policy for themselves that said that they couldn't do something, and restricted access to that policy from the general public... for what purpose? Hoping that maybe someday someone would leak it?

 

[Anti Federalist]

Just had a friend rep me on this:

"I just got a registration ticket".

I've had enough of all these acronyms.

I can't keep 'em straight anymore. DHS. DEA. ICE. CIA. DIA. NSA. FBI. TSA.

I propose a new universal acronym:

Federal Unified Compliance, Keeping Everyone Databased.

Or FUCKED.

"They just ran my plates and found out my registration expired. I got FUCKED."

 

[phill4paul]

Just had a friend rep me on this:

"I just got a registration ticket".

LOL! Had to take a friend to court over either registration or out of date plates. Being a long hair without any legal representation the judge gave him the maximum. As he walked out of court he began to sing. To the tune of 'The Mickey Mouse Club'.... "F.U.C. - K.E.D. A. G. A. I. N. I'm fucked again...I'm ....." Judge called him back and gave him contempt.

 

[jmdrake]

1) That article is discussing what is required to surveil US persons regardless of where in the world they are. If you read more of the paper, the areas I already quoted, it specifically states that the US military cannot spy on Americans in the course of their domestic activities, regardless of approval authority or collaboration.

That's simply not true.
http://atsdio.defense.gov/documents/5242.html
Within the United States, foreign intelligence concerning United States persons may be collected only by overt means unless all the following conditions are met:

1. the foreign intelligence sought is significant and collection is not undertaken for the purpose of acquiring information concerning the domestic activities of any United States person;

2. such foreign intelligence cannot be reasonably obtained by overt means;

3. the collection of such foreign intelligence has been coordinated with the Federal Bureau of Intelligence (FBI); and

4. The use of other than overt means has been approved in writing by the head of the DoD intelligence component concerned, or his single designee as being consistent with these procedures. A copy of any approval made pursuant to this section shall be provided the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Policy).


If you are a U.S. citizen within the United States and the government decides you are really engaged in "foreign intelligence" the above are the conditions under which the military can spy on you within the U.S. It has to be "coordinated with the FBI" so I guess that makes it all good right?

2) If you think that the Border Patrol owns Predators with hellfires attached, then, well... LOL. It means nothing that they're launching from an Air Force airstrip.
The kool-aid is strong with this one.

I never said those particular preds had missiles attached. But the preds in Afghanistan initially didn't either. And these had been used for surveillance before they came out and told the public what they were doing. If you think they can't quickly be switched from being unarmed to armed, then you're more gullible than most. And yes it does matter where they are operating from.

 

[Domalais]

collection is not undertaken for the purpose of acquiring information concerning the domestic activities of any United States person;

What, precisely, is confusing to you about this statement? Collection within the United States is limited to non-domestic activities. IE: If you make a phone call to a foreign country, that phone call (according to Bush-era White House lawyers) can be recorded legally even if the recording equipment itself is within the United States.

When it comes to drones, what this means is that an Air Force aircraft flying within the borders of the United States can legally use its optics to look over the border into another country and record what is occuring on the other side of that line. However, per the area you quoted, even though that person is outside the United States, if they are an American, they are entitled to extra protections, including but not limited to required coordination with the FBI, approval from the FBI/CIA/NSA/DIA/etc director, periodic review of the above, and destruction of recordings after 90 days unless additional requirements are meant.


Nothing in any article or document you have posted authorizes the Air Force, or any other DoD entity, to snoop on American's domestic activity within the United States.

 

[pcosmar]

What, precisely, is confusing to you about this statement? Collection within the United States is limited to non-domestic activities.

And you really believe that shit?

or are you just trying to sell that bullshit here?

 

[Todd]

The drones that police departments want to fly have as much in common with an armed, loaded Predator as a snowmobile has in common with an M1A1 Abrams.

It doesn't matter. It should not be that we allow for it to become common place for surveillance drones to be flying over the U.S.

 

[jmdrake]

What, precisely, is confusing to you about this statement? Collection within the United States is limited to non-domestic activities. IE: If you make a phone call to a foreign country, that phone call (according to Bush-era White House lawyers) can be recorded legally even if the recording equipment itself is within the United States.

What I said.

If you are a U.S. citizen within the United States and the government decides you are really engaged in "foreign intelligence" the above are the conditions under which the military can spy on you within the U.S. It has to be "coordinated with the FBI" so I guess that makes it all good right?

What your twisted mind must have translated it to.

If you are a U.S. citizen within the United States and the government decides you are really engaged in "foreign intelligence" the above are the conditions under which the military can spy on you within the U.S. It has to be "coordinated with the FBI" so I guess that makes it all good right?

Any questions?

Nothing in any article or document you have posted authorizes the Air Force, or any other DoD entity, to snoop on American's domestic activity within the United States.

The government is the one who determines whether or not it is a "domestic activity". You and your buddy Ahmed go on a camping trip and the government decides Ahmed is a foreign intelligence agent, so now they can spy on you based on your own interpretation of the articles I linked to. Then as the predator drone is spying on you and Ahmed, the "inadvertently" pick up intel on someone else nearby. They've got 90 days before they have to get rid of it. Those are the facts. You're just playing obfuscation games.

 

[jmdrake]

//

 

[jmdrake]

More from the report I quoted.

9. Domestic Imagery. Air Force components may, at times, require newly collected or archived domestic imagery to perform certain missions. Domestic imagery is defined as any imagery collected by satellite (national or commercial) and airborne platforms that cover the land areas of the 50 United States, the District of Columbia, and the territories and possessions of the US, to a 12 nautical mile seaward limit of these land areas.
9.1. Collecting information on specific targets inside the US raises policy and legal concerns that require careful consideration, analysis and coordination with legal counsel. Therefore, Air Force components should use domestic imagery only when there is a justifiable need to do so, and then only IAW EO 12333, the National Security Act of 1947, as amended, DoD
10 AFI14-104 23 April 2012
5240.1-R, and this instruction. The following generally constitute legally valid requirements for domestic imagery:
9.1.1. Natural Disasters. Locations in support of government planning for, emergency response to, or recovery from events such as tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, mudslides, fires, and other natural disasters.
9.1.2. Counterintelligence, Force Protection, and Security-related Vulnerability Assessments. Requirements in support of critical infrastructure analysis on federal or private property where consent has been obtained as appropriate.
9.1.3. Environmental Studies. Requirements in support of studies of wildlife, geologic features, or forestation, or similar scientific, agricultural, or environmental studies not related to regulatory or law enforcement actions.
9.1.4. Exercise, Training, Testing, or Navigational Purposes. Requirements for imagery coverage in support of system or satellite calibration, sensor evaluation, algorithm or analytical developments and training or weapon systems development or training..

EVERYTHING IN SECTION 9 DEALS EXCLUSIVELY WITH COLLECTING OF INFORMATION WITHIN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! DOMALAIS YOU ARE SO BUSTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!