(Video - last couple minutes on Boston etc) Ron Paul on Fox Business channel at 8PM 4/23

[Feeding the Abscess]

At around 4:00, Ron says he's ok with drone surveillance as long as court approves it. So Ron isn't opposed to the technology but definitely worried about the potential for abuse.

http://the-free-foundation.org/tst2-18-2013.html.

Recently, Federal Aviation Administration official, Jim Williams, stated that no armed drones would presently be permitted in US airspace. But what good are the promises of government officials when the Constitution, and especially the Fourth Amendment, has been gutted? More than1,400 applications to use drones in US airspace have been approved, including for police, universities, and at least seven federal agencies. Do we want to live in a society where the government is constantly watching us from above? The East Germans and Soviets could only dream of such technology in the days of their dictatorship. We might ask ourselves how long before “extraordinary” circumstances will lead to a decision to arm those drones over US territory.

 

[dancjm]

Drones don't kill people. Feds do.

 

[tsai3904]

Agreed! Here I was thinking that I'm alone in the wilderness vehemently opposing the police state, what with Rand's diluting of the message so much to the point it almost seems Neo-Con lite and out comes Ron swinging, addressing every single point that needs to be addressed and with an absolute pragmatic approach. Let's face it, drones are here to stay, but they have to be used with extreme care and within constitutional limits, and Ron understands this.

Its great to see Ron hasn't softened a bit with age on the real issues. I almost forgot, especially with Rand's milquetoast approach being the norm.. how much of a badass Ron is!

I'm against the police state too and I don't want the police to have drones. However, is there any LEGAL basis to ban drones? The potential for the technology's abuse is an argument to not want to give police drones but it's not a legal basis to ban their use.

People can argue against the use of drones and the growing police state but also argue for the public's legal right to own and use them within the confines of the Constitution just like people can argue against the use or marijuana but for the public's legal right to use it.

 

[sailingaway]

I'm against the police state too and I don't want the police to have drones. However, is there any LEGAL basis to ban drones? The potential for the technology's abuse is an argument to not want to give police drones but it's not a legal basis to ban their use.

People can argue against the use of drones and the growing police state but also argue for the public's legal right to own and use them within the confines of the Constitution just like people can argue against the use or marijuana but for the public's legal right to use it.

'ban drones' is too broad. Yes, there is legal basis to ban at various levels, one being to just refuse to give localities that power because of potential for and likelihood of abuse, -- a policy argument I find compelling. There are also fourth amendment violations by use of surveillance technology positively INVASIVE to someone in their private back yard, putting people unasked into facial recognition systems to stalk their every move, etc. Not to mention the 50:1 collateral casualty to target issue, which I for one consider means it is not rationally an armed tool for use except against a bomb that will obviously take out many more than that in an individual use, and only with the HIGHEST level of certainty as to that situation existing - which could clearly sustain appropriate procedural safeguards including proving evidentiary matters to a judge and the Governor of the state where it is to be used. And the very strictest controls with warrants, limits of surveillance technology permitted etc, and state use only inside the nation, are appropriate. Posse comitatus HAS to apply to armed drones, the federal government should not use them within the nation except at request on circumstances I described by the Governor, since it should be an extraordinary rare use, if any, and NDAA has to be overturned as a clear sham to pretend we are 'in wartime' on the homefront in the meaning of the Constitution which suspends certain due process in times of 'insurrection' -- meaning when courts can't convene for public safety reasons.

 

[sailingaway]

bump