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

[Domalais]

If you think that the police and U.S. military are flying entirely different types of drones than the ones that fire hellfire missiles, then you are ignorant of the facts.

You are completely ignorant of drone operations.

And if you think that the military style drones that police departments are now using cannot be quickly retrofitted with missiles then you don't know the history of the U.S. drone program.

Good luck putting a hellfire on a raven or shadow. The missile is bigger than the drone.

 

[Domalais]

You obviously are logically challenged. Military drones were already able to fly over the U.S. The document discussed was whether or not surveillance would be allowed.

No. It's not. Go read it.

 

[jmdrake]

Ironically, I was driving north on I-79 two days ago, and I watched two APC's roll down the southbound side of the highway.

This is how you boil a frog.

+rep!

 

[jmdrake]

No. It's not. Go read it.

9.6.2. Air Force Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) operations, exercise and training missions will not conduct nonconsensual surveillance on specifically identified US persons, unless expressly approved by the Secretary of Defense, consistent with US law and regulations. Civil law enforcement agencies, such as the US Customs and Border Patrol (CBP), Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the US Coast Guard, will control any such data collected.

11.2.2. Temporary Retention. Information inadvertently received about US persons may be kept temporarily, for a period not to exceed 90 days, solely for the purpose of determining whether that information may be collected under the provisions of Procedure 2, DoD 5240.1-R and permanently retained under the provisions of Procedure 3, DoD 5240.1-R. If there is any doubt as to whether the US person information may be collected and permanently retained, the receiving unit should seek advice through the chain of command, Judge Advocate General (JAG), or IO monitor. The unit/MAJCOM IO Monitor must provide assistance in rendering collectability determinations. When appropriate, assistance may be requested from AF/A2. A determination on whether information is collectible must be made within 90 days.




I read it. It says just what I said it says.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Which goalposts? The 'this video is of big brother ready to kill people in the name of nato' got moved to 'oh well it feels good to pretend it's true' pretty fast. You had a whole army to move those posts though.

I already stated that I'm unsure of what, if anything, was flying over Chicago.

Does the USG have an army of "robotic" drones? Yes.

Are they looking to use military drones in US airspace? Yes.

Will some of those military drones be armed? Yes.

Have they already started to use military drones in the US? Yes.

Will local and state cops acquire and use their own army of drone aircraft, some no more complex than an RC model plane or helicopter? Yes.

Denying any of that is shifting the goalposts, regardless of what is happening in Chicago.



Pentagon working with FAA to open U.S. airspace to combat drones

The military says the nearly 7,500 robotic aircraft it has accrued for use overseas need to come home at some point. But the FAA doesn't allow drones in U.S. airspace without a special certificate.

February 13, 2012|By W.J. Hennigan, Los Angeles Times

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/13/business/la-fi-military-drones-20120214

"The stuff from Afghanistan is going to come back," Steve Pennington, the Air Force's director of ranges, bases and airspace, said at the conference. The Department of Defense "doesn't want a segregated environment. We want a fully integrated environment."

 

[phill4paul]

You probably saw the HMMWV replacements. They're extremely tall and boxy, with a V-shaped bottom hull.

Depends where Son of Liberty lives. Many installations along the corridor. So more than likely local movement. Depending. Also depends on which kinda installation. Unless it is for transport then there is not much use for a V-shaped hull. It's a waste to travel in pairs as opposed to carriers.

Remember me saying this:

In the next seven years there will be an I.E.D. incident on an American highway.

 

[jmdrake]

You are completely ignorant of drone operations.


Good luck putting a hellfire on a raven or shadow. The missile is bigger than the drone.

Predator drones used by police in the U.S.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/10/nation/la-na-drone-arrest-20111211

Police employ Predator drone spy planes on home front
Unmanned aircraft from an Air Force base in North Dakota help local police with surveillance, raising questions that trouble privacy advocates.
December 10, 2011|By Brian Bennett, Washington Bureau


Comments
0
Share1573

Reporting from Washington — Armed with a search warrant, Nelson County Sheriff Kelly Janke went looking for six missing cows on the Brossart family farm in the early evening of June 23. Three men brandishing rifles chased him off, he said.

Janke knew the gunmen could be anywhere on the 3,000-acre spread in eastern North Dakota. Fearful of an armed standoff, he called in reinforcements from the state Highway Patrol, a regional SWAT team, a bomb squad, ambulances and deputy sheriffs from three other counties.
Ads by Google

Are You Writing a Book?Get a free guide to professional editing & publishing options. www.iUniverse.com
Military History Master'sOnline, Accredited, Top Ranking. Get Started, Download Free Brochure MilitaryHistory.Norwich.edu

He also called in a Predator B drone.

As the unmanned aircraft circled 2 miles overhead the next morning, sophisticated sensors under the nose helped pinpoint the three suspects and showed they were unarmed. Police rushed in and made the first known arrests of U.S. citizens with help from a Predator, the spy drone that has helped revolutionize modern warfare.

But that was just the start. Local police say they have used two unarmed Predators based at Grand Forks Air Force Base to fly at least two dozen surveillance flights since June. The FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration have used Predators for other domestic investigations, officials said.

"We don't use [drones] on every call out," said Bill Macki, head of the police SWAT team in Grand Forks. "If we have something in town like an apartment complex, we don't call them."

The drones belong to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which operates eight Predators on the country's northern and southwestern borders to search for illegal immigrants and smugglers. The previously unreported use of its drones to assist local, state and federal law enforcement has occurred without any public acknowledgment or debate.

Congress first authorized Customs and Border Protection to buy unarmed Predators in 2005. Officials in charge of the fleet cite broad authority to work with police from budget requests to Congress that cite "interior law enforcement support" as part of their mission.

In an interview, Michael C. Kostelnik, a retired Air Force general who heads the office that supervises the drones, said Predators are flown "in many areas around the country, not only for federal operators, but also for state and local law enforcement and emergency responders in times of crisis."

But former Rep. Jane Harman (D-Venice), who sat on the House homeland security intelligence subcommittee at the time and served as its chairwoman from 2007 until early this year, said no one ever discussed using Predators to help local police serve warrants or do other basic work.

Using Predators for routine law enforcement without public debate or clear legal authority is a mistake, Harman said.

"There is no question that this could become something that people will regret," said Harman, who resigned from the House in February and now heads the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, a Washington think tank.

In 2008 and 2010, Harman helped beat back efforts by Homeland Security officials to use imagery from military satellites to help domestic terrorism investigations. Congress blocked the proposal on grounds it would violate the Posse Comitatus Act, which bars the military from taking a police role on U.S. soil.
Ads by Google

Helicopter Online StoreElectric Helicopter - Buy it online Fast Shipping. Low Price. Reliable. www.HeliPal.com/RC-Helicopter
Is He Cheating On You?1) Enter His E-Mail Address 2) See Hidden Pics & Social Profiles Now! Spokeo.com/Cheating-Spouse-Search

Proponents say the high-resolution cameras, heat sensors and sophisticated radar on the border protection drones can help track criminal activity in the United States, just as the CIA uses Predators and other drones to spy on militants in Pakistan, nuclear sites in Iran and other targets around the globe.

For decades, U.S. courts have allowed law enforcement to conduct aerial surveillance without a warrant. They have ruled that what a person does in the open, even behind a backyard fence, can be seen from a passing airplane and is not protected by privacy laws.

Advocates say Predators are simply more effective than other planes. Flying out of earshot and out of sight, a Predator B can watch a target for 20 hours nonstop, far longer than any police helicopter or manned aircraft.

"I am for the use of drones," said Howard Safir, former head of operations for the U.S. Marshals Service and former New York City police commissioner. He said drones could help police in manhunts, hostage situations and other difficult cases.

But privacy advocates say drones help police snoop on citizens in ways that push current law to the breaking point.

"Any time you have a tool like that in the hands of law enforcement that makes it easier to do surveillance, they will do more of it," said Ryan Calo, director for privacy and robotics at the Stanford Law School's Center for Internet and Society.

"This could be a time when people are uncomfortable, and they want to place limits on that technology," he said. "It could make us question the doctrine that you do not have privacy in public."

 

[A Son of Liberty]

You probably saw the HMMWV replacements. They're extremely tall and boxy, with a V-shaped bottom hull.

Oh no, I see those all the time. The military rightly runs them up and down the highways on tractor-trailers, because it is far more efficient to do so. These were APC's of some description or another, and there really is no practical purpose to run them down a highway, I assure you. This is something I know a little about.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Depends where Son of Liberty lives. Many installations along the corridor. So more than likely local movement. Depending. Also depends on which kinda installation. Unless it is for transport then there is not much use for a V-shaped hull.

Remember me saying this:

In the next seven years there will be an I.E.D. incident on an American highway.

A friend of mine texted me the day before I saw this reporting the exact same thing. My first inclination was, "Probably nothing"... until I saw the same thing over 100 miles away...

Again, this is how you boil a frog. I'll add, in the next seven years, these kind of patrols will be commonplace in the U.S.

 

[fletcher]

The tail fins look different. Only two tail fins are clearly visible in the video when it is still.

Blur fades away the light parts. That fin is in the sun (which is another giveaway seeing it's cloudy) making it very white and when it is blurred it almost disappears.

 

[Domalais]

Oh no, I see those all the time. The military rightly runs them up and down the highways on tractor-trailers, because it is far more efficient to do so. These were APC's of some description or another, and there really is no practical purpose to run them down a highway, I assure you. This is something I know a little about.

It's less efficient to run them on tractor-trailers, both in terms of gas and overall cost, because it's contracted hauling. Line haul of equipment for training is extremely expensive.

 

[Domalais]

I read it. It says just what I said it says.

38 pages and you found two sub paragraphs, both of which say that they can't do what you claim they can do. Are the definitions of inadvertent and non consensual lost on you? Where in that document does it say anything about operations within the United States?

1) The document really isn't about drones.

2) It's not about US operations. It's about what you can and cannot do in the scope of intelligence.


That second paragraph is about what to do if you fuck up and think your drone is recording a room full of whoever, and then realize that one of them is American. How about the rest of 11.2?

11.2.3.2. Foreign Intelligence Collection Within the United States. Within the US, foreign intelligence concerning United States persons may be collected only by overt means except as provided below. Overt means refers to methods of collection whereby the source of the information being collected is advised, or is otherwise aware, that the information is being provided to the DoD, or a component thereof:

11.2.3.2.1. The foreign intelligence sought must be significant and not being collected for the purpose of acquiring information concerning the domestic activities of any US person;

So the Air Force can totally spy on what you're doing in the United States, as long as it's not in the United States.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

It's less efficient to run them on tractor-trailers, both in terms of gas and overall cost, because it's contracted hauling. Line haul of equipment for training is extremely expensive.

Uh, no. First, it is not subcontracted more often than not. Second, it is most assuredly not more efficient to run big-tire vehicles over the road like that. Again, this is something I'm well acquainted with...

 

[jmdrake]

38 pages and you found two sub paragraphs, both of which say that they can't do what you claim they can do. Are the definitions of inadvertent and non consensual lost on you? Where in that document does it say anything about operations within the United States?

You have a knack for saying I said things I never said. Is the truth lost on you? Obviously yes. The document allows them to keep "inadvertent" video for up to 90 days. That's all I said from jump. How does "inadvertent" video get on a drone if the drone isn't operating over the U.S.? Don't be retarded.

1) The document really isn't about drones.

I never said it was. The NDAA isn't "really about indefinite detention" either.

2) It's not about US operations. It's about what you can and cannot do in the scope of intelligence.

And in the scope of intelligence if they "inadvertently" spy on Americans they have 90 before they have to get rid of the images.

That second paragraph is about what to do if you fuck up and think your drone is recording a room full of whoever, and then realize that one of them is American. How about the rest of 11.2?

Don't be an idiot. I already gave you proof that the U.S. Air Force is already flying drones over the U.S. Or did you not read the article about police having the Air Force do predator drone flights for them?

So the Air Force can totally spy on what you're doing in the United States, as long as it's not in the United States.

Except there's already irrefutable evidence of the Air Force doing predator drone flights in the United States.

Again since you were so busy being a smartass that you didn't read this the first time I posted it.

Predator drones used by police in the U.S.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec...rrest-20111211

Police employ Predator drone spy planes on home front
Unmanned aircraft from an Air Force base in North Dakota help local police with surveillance, raising questions that trouble privacy advocates.
December 10, 2011|By Brian Bennett, Washington Bureau


Comments
0
Share1573

Reporting from Washington — Armed with a search warrant, Nelson County Sheriff Kelly Janke went looking for six missing cows on the Brossart family farm in the early evening of June 23. Three men brandishing rifles chased him off, he said.

Janke knew the gunmen could be anywhere on the 3,000-acre spread in eastern North Dakota. Fearful of an armed standoff, he called in reinforcements from the state Highway Patrol, a regional SWAT team, a bomb squad, ambulances and deputy sheriffs from three other counties.
Ads by Google

Are You Writing a Book?Get a free guide to professional editing & publishing options. www.iUniverse.com
Military History Master'sOnline, Accredited, Top Ranking. Get Started, Download Free Brochure MilitaryHistory.Norwich.edu

He also called in a Predator B drone.

As the unmanned aircraft circled 2 miles overhead the next morning, sophisticated sensors under the nose helped pinpoint the three suspects and showed they were unarmed. Police rushed in and made the first known arrests of U.S. citizens with help from a Predator, the spy drone that has helped revolutionize modern warfare.

But that was just the start. Local police say they have used two unarmed Predators based at Grand Forks Air Force Base to fly at least two dozen surveillance flights since June. The FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration have used Predators for other domestic investigations, officials said.

"We don't use [drones] on every call out," said Bill Macki, head of the police SWAT team in Grand Forks. "If we have something in town like an apartment complex, we don't call them."

The drones belong to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which operates eight Predators on the country's northern and southwestern borders to search for illegal immigrants and smugglers. The previously unreported use of its drones to assist local, state and federal law enforcement has occurred without any public acknowledgment or debate.

Congress first authorized Customs and Border Protection to buy unarmed Predators in 2005. Officials in charge of the fleet cite broad authority to work with police from budget requests to Congress that cite "interior law enforcement support" as part of their mission.

In an interview, Michael C. Kostelnik, a retired Air Force general who heads the office that supervises the drones, said Predators are flown "in many areas around the country, not only for federal operators, but also for state and local law enforcement and emergency responders in times of crisis."

But former Rep. Jane Harman (D-Venice), who sat on the House homeland security intelligence subcommittee at the time and served as its chairwoman from 2007 until early this year, said no one ever discussed using Predators to help local police serve warrants or do other basic work.

Using Predators for routine law enforcement without public debate or clear legal authority is a mistake, Harman said.

"There is no question that this could become something that people will regret," said Harman, who resigned from the House in February and now heads the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, a Washington think tank.

In 2008 and 2010, Harman helped beat back efforts by Homeland Security officials to use imagery from military satellites to help domestic terrorism investigations. Congress blocked the proposal on grounds it would violate the Posse Comitatus Act, which bars the military from taking a police role on U.S. soil.
Ads by Google

Helicopter Online StoreElectric Helicopter - Buy it online Fast Shipping. Low Price. Reliable. www.HeliPal.com/RC-Helicopter
Is He Cheating On You?1) Enter His E-Mail Address 2) See Hidden Pics & Social Profiles Now! Spokeo.com/Cheating-Spouse-Search

Proponents say the high-resolution cameras, heat sensors and sophisticated radar on the border protection drones can help track criminal activity in the United States, just as the CIA uses Predators and other drones to spy on militants in Pakistan, nuclear sites in Iran and other targets around the globe.

For decades, U.S. courts have allowed law enforcement to conduct aerial surveillance without a warrant. They have ruled that what a person does in the open, even behind a backyard fence, can be seen from a passing airplane and is not protected by privacy laws.

Advocates say Predators are simply more effective than other planes. Flying out of earshot and out of sight, a Predator B can watch a target for 20 hours nonstop, far longer than any police helicopter or manned aircraft.

"I am for the use of drones," said Howard Safir, former head of operations for the U.S. Marshals Service and former New York City police commissioner. He said drones could help police in manhunts, hostage situations and other difficult cases.

But privacy advocates say drones help police snoop on citizens in ways that push current law to the breaking point.

"Any time you have a tool like that in the hands of law enforcement that makes it easier to do surveillance, they will do more of it," said Ryan Calo, director for privacy and robotics at the Stanford Law School's Center for Internet and Society.

"This could be a time when people are uncomfortable, and they want to place limits on that technology," he said. "It could make us question the doctrine that you do not have privacy in public."

 

[Domalais]

How does "inadvertent" video get on a drone if the drone isn't operating over the U.S.?

PS: Americans sometimes leave the country. No foolin.

Don't be an idiot. I already gave you proof that the U.S. Air Force is already flying drones over the U.S. Or did you not read the article about police having the Air Force do predator drone flights for them?

Except there's already irrefutable evidence of the Air Force doing predator drone flights in the United States.

Your irrefutable evidence is refuted by itself.

The drones belong to U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Do you often post things that contract what you're saying?

 

[Domalais]

Uh, no. First, it is not subcontracted more often than not. Second, it is most assuredly not more efficient to run big-tire vehicles over the road like that. Again, this is something I'm well acquainted with...

I can only say that where I'm at, it's exclusively civilian haul. Sustainment units are too busy in Afghanistan to move trucks around the US.

 

[pcosmar]

I find the very concept of them repugnant.

I am hoping to see many still photos of them splattered on the ground soon.

 

[phill4paul]

It's less efficient to run them on tractor-trailers, both in terms of gas and overall cost, because it's contracted hauling. Line haul of equipment for training is extremely expensive.

I can only say that where I'm at, it's exclusively civilian haul. Sustainment units are too busy in Afghanistan to move trucks around the US.

 

[Domalais]

It's more expensive for the military to pay someone else to move their vehicles on the back of a semi than it is to drive the things down the road.

 

[HOLLYWOOD]

It's not a NATO summit... it's a WAR SUMMIT by the criminal premeditated murderers for the next false flag to create. Whether it's IRAN or some other boogieman they can create.

So all the best about protecting people... jet the security forces around the NATO WAR SUMMIT are worse than the very forces the US and it's racketeering partners destroy around the planet. Let me get this straight... we have bad Evil and good Evil?

Military occupying the each and every state and patrolling them now... they are prepping for a monetary collapse and WWIII.

Scumbags