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

Zippyjuan

05-18-2012, 11:54 AM

Take this for what you will. From Slate online:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/05/18/nato_summit_drone_video_is_probably_a_hoax_watch_. html

The Video of a Drone Not Far From Chicago NATO Summit Is Probably a Hoax

Yesterday, several websites reported an apparent surveillance drone sighting in Elgin, Ill. The story, based on a video posted on YouTube (see below), spread as far as to Italy—and on the face of it seemed plausible, particularly given the FAA’s announcement earlier this week of a new, expedited approval process for use of drones by public safety agencies.

Perhaps why it gained some currency is that the NATO Summit is due to take place May 20-21 in Chicago, about 40 miles from Elgin. The user who uploaded the video, which shows what looks like a Predator drone soaring through clouds, noted, “I assume it's for the NATO summit this week as a security measure.”

Not too hard to accept, it would seem. The video has already had more than 100,000 views, with a majority of those commenting on it emphasising how certain they are that it is real. “I live in Chicago I've been spotting these things everyday!” wrote Thurlow92. “They're doing routine sweeps over Chicago and Chicago surrounding suburbs for NATO.”

Unfortunately for the believers, the facts just don’t stack up. A government source familiar with domestic drone policy was unequivocal, telling me, “There are no unmanned aerial vehicles being operated in the Chicago area and particularly no vehicles that look like the one in the video. The vehicle pictured in the video is a very, very large vehicle, and the areas these are permitted to operate are in unpopulated areas for the most part, or where there is not a heavy concentration of people.”

The Department of Homeland Security and the Customs and Border Protection Agency are both known to operate Predator drones domestically—most typically for border surveillance. A DHS spokesperson, however, said, “The aircraft you see in the video is not a DHS/CBP aircraft.”

If any further confirmation was required to debunk the video, it was provided by the FAA, which hands out permissions for the domestic use of drones. An FAA spokesperson said, “No UAS [unmanned aerial systems] operators have asked the FAA to approve UAS operations in the Chicago area to support the NATO Summit, and the FAA has not approved any UAS operations in the Chicago area.”

Anyone with half-decent video editing software and a good eye for deception can cook up a hoax in a matter of minutes. The lesson here is that just because a video seems real and appears plausible doesn’t mean it is. It’s clear there are no Predator drones soaring in the skies above Chicago. Not yet, anyway.

My own thoughts. Moving pretty quick for a full sized drone so it could be a model. Predator flies at 80 mph top speed which is not that fast. Also these are supposed to be pretty quiet "virtually silent at altitude") yet he spots it well before it enters his field of view where he was looking with his camera like he knew it would be coming by. I think it is fake.

One attempt at debunking: http://thehoaxkiller.com/forum/index.php?topic=102.0

It points out that as the plane moves across the sky, the perspective of it should change (paralax)- on the left side of your view, the right wing of the plane should be behind the middle of the plane and as the plane moves by, it swings to the front of the middle. The drone looks the exact same no matter what angle it is viewed at. Definate hoax. A still photo edited in.

pcosmar

05-18-2012, 12:00 PM

I think it is fake.

Yes.
but you're a Pollyanna, so it is expected.

libertygrl

05-18-2012, 12:02 PM

To see it for the first time flying over an American city is absolutely CHILLING!

Well, AJ said it a few years back on his radio show. All these moves in the name of fighting terrorism is really meant for us.

jmdrake

05-18-2012, 12:12 PM

Yes.
but you're a Pollyanna, so it is expected.

+rep! The government announces there are drone flights, policies are amended to allow retention of illegal drone surveillance video for 90 days, Charles Krauthammer, no friend of liberty, comments about the drones and that an American would be a "folk hero" to shoot one down, there is a credible report of a drone almost hitting a commercial aircraft, but "Slate.com" posts some rinky-dink article asking the very criminals who fly the drones, and have every reason to lie about the, if that was "one of theirs" and the criminals say "no" and that's supposed to be dispositive because.....?

phill4paul

05-18-2012, 12:12 PM

More footage of model planes....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3aHdkWNIVE&feature=related

fletcher

05-18-2012, 12:18 PM

Captain Shays

05-18-2012, 12:20 PM

I how many collectivists one could take out with one of those hellfires? OK only joking......

JK/SEA

05-18-2012, 12:28 PM

More footage of model planes....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3aHdkWNIVE&feature=related

the helicopters are real, the buildings are fake.

fletcher

05-18-2012, 12:28 PM

Zippyjuan

05-18-2012, 12:35 PM

Yes.
but you're a Pollyanna, so it is expected.

Polly Want A Cracker! Now!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBeH4JNtJWg

fletcher

05-18-2012, 12:38 PM

OK, Now I know its fake. I took a capture of video where it zooms in a says 'very similar' and pasted the picture of the drone on the website over the top of it (after adjusting the size with the same aspect ratio). It's the exact same picture. They used that picture and just blurred it.

Here's a gif I made
http://makeagif.com/media/5-18-2012/7ZJuRN.gif
With this picture
http://beforeitsnews.com/ckfinder/userfiles/0000000000005416/images/Unmanned-Predator-Drone.jpg

Zippyjuan

05-18-2012, 12:42 PM

Nicely done!

Lishy

05-18-2012, 12:48 PM

Well lets..
there was the drone that crashed in Texas.
the one that just missed an airliner in Denver.
Multiple stories of police agencies getting them or wanting them all over the country.

A military/police buildup in and around Chicago.

but sure,,whatever you want to think..
you may want to stuff your head down a little farther into the sand though.

OK, Now I know its fake. I took a capture of video where it zooms in a says 'very similar' and pasted the picture of the drone on the website over the top of it (after adjusting the size with the same aspect ratio). It's the exact same picture. They used that picture and just blurred it.

Here's a gif I made
http://makeagif.com/media/5-18-2012/7ZJuRN.gif
With this picture
http://beforeitsnews.com/ckfinder/userfiles/0000000000005416/images/Unmanned-Predator-Drone.jpg

Told ya it's fake, pcosmar! ;)

If we can't trust the government, why should we just naively follow any other info source? :rolleyes:

I'm sure there are freaky ass drones flying in the skies. But we shouldn't be so naive either to believe every one of them.

Some people wish to capitalize on our dissent to get ratings and views.

ctb619

05-18-2012, 12:56 PM

There is a current , standing order to shoot down anything in the air space , so , obviously the hellfires are real.

Hellfires are air-to-surface missiles.

phill4paul

05-18-2012, 12:56 PM

Told ya it's fake, pcosmar! ;)

If we can't trust the government, why should we just naively follow any other info source? :rolleyes:

I'm sure there are freaky ass drones flying in the skies. But we shouldn't be so naive either to believe every one of them.

Some people wish to capitalize on our dissent to get ratings and views.

Perhaps the right question should be.."Why are so many ready to believe a fake?"

In a different Amerika we'd say things like...
"Well, the FAA shot down plans for having UVA's in the skies because they could be dangerous so I'm doubtful this is real."
" Congress has stated that it is unConstitutional to spy on American citizens, so this has got to be a fake."
"Congress has just passed a bill stating that the military has no reason to conduct military exercises in American cities stating that this is a violation of the Constitution."

pcosmar

05-18-2012, 01:03 PM

OK, Now I know its fake.

It's fake because you faked one?

I suppose you could take a burning bag of poo and superimpose it over the Hindenburg.. but it won't change history.

http://gizmodo.com/5890507/police-drone-crashes-into-police
http://www.salon.com/2012/05/15/israels_drone_dominance/?source=newsletter
http://www2.journalnow.com/news/2010/dec/18/wsnat04-mexican-drone-crash-in-texas-raises-questi-ar-627860/?referer=http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=drone%20crash%20in%20texas&source=web&cd=7&sqi=2&ved=0CGEQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.journalnow.com%2Far%2F627860 %2F&ei=XZq2T5_QBLH4sQLA8JD3CQ&usg=AFQjCNHwrjcGkUW4pAKVwAnw5FGb72WycA&shorturl=http://bit.ly/eZjNyd
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/unmanned_mexican_drone_crashes_near_el_paso_texas. php
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/16/denver-ufo-near-miss-jet_n_1521934.html
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/05/17/is-there-drone-in-your-backyard/

ds21089

05-18-2012, 01:06 PM

seems to be flying kinda low. what if it hit a kids kite and crashed?....

The kid and his family would be sued and/or arrested for destroying government property. Silly mundanes, go fly a kite on your own property (oh wait we own that, too).

Zippyjuan

05-18-2012, 01:09 PM

What would be the opposite of Pollyanna? Believing bad things because you expect bad things?

“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.”
Stewart Chase

fletcher

05-18-2012, 01:14 PM

It's fake because you faked one?

I suppose you could take a burning bag of poo and superimpose it over the Hindenburg.. but it won't change history.

http://gizmodo.com/5890507/police-drone-crashes-into-police
http://www.salon.com/2012/05/15/israels_drone_dominance/?source=newsletter
http://www2.journalnow.com/news/2010/dec/18/wsnat04-mexican-drone-crash-in-texas-raises-questi-ar-627860/?referer=http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=drone%20crash%20in%20texas&source=web&cd=7&sqi=2&ved=0CGEQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.journalnow.com%2Far%2F627860 %2F&ei=XZq2T5_QBLH4sQLA8JD3CQ&usg=AFQjCNHwrjcGkUW4pAKVwAnw5FGb72WycA&shorturl=http://bit.ly/eZjNyd
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/unmanned_mexican_drone_crashes_near_el_paso_texas. php
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/16/denver-ufo-near-miss-jet_n_1521934.html
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/05/17/is-there-drone-in-your-backyard/

Um, OK. If you can't even admit it is fake after proof that it is fake then you are the one with their head in the sand. Not sure what those unrelated links you posted have to do with this FAKE video. Apparently you think that if there are drones in the united states then it is impossible to fake a video of a drone. Just to let you know, that makes no sense.

jmdrake

05-18-2012, 01:21 PM

Looks like a fake. If you were filming a plane would you just point your camera at one area of sky and wait for it to fly through without ever following it, and then add a zoom later on your computer? No.

So it's fake because it wasn't the best cinematography?

http://crow202.org/2010/NotSureIfSerious.jpg

Zooming in on a moving object is a good way to lose it from your field of view if you don't know what you're doing. Plus how do you know this wasn't just a cell phone camera? Most only have "digital zoom" which has the same effect as "adding a zoom later on your computer".

pcosmar

05-18-2012, 01:26 PM

Um, OK. If you can't even admit it is fake after proof that it is fake then you are the one with their head in the sand. Not sure what those unrelated links you posted have to do with this FAKE video. Apparently you think that if there are drones in the united states then it is impossible to fake a video of a drone. Just to let you know, that makes no sense.

I am of the opinion that cameras are not the best tool for the job.

but that is not a widely acceptable option yet.

jmdrake

05-18-2012, 01:26 PM

OK, Now I know its fake. I took a capture of video where it zooms in a says 'very similar' and pasted the picture of the drone on the website over the top of it (after adjusting the size with the same aspect ratio). It's the exact same picture. They used that picture and just blurred it.

Ummmm....no it's not. The picture is of a drone flying level. The one in the video is banked. The picture has the landing gear down. The video has it up. Your debunking attempt is fake.

http://i48.tinypic.com/2wpqeqv.png

jmdrake

05-18-2012, 01:27 PM

Lishy

05-18-2012, 01:32 PM

Ummmm....no it's not. The picture is of a drone flying level. The one in the video is banked. The picture has the landing gear down. The video has it up. Your debunking attempt is fake.

http://i48.tinypic.com/2wpqeqv.png

http://beforeitsnews.com/ckfinder/userfiles/0000000000005416/images/Unmanned-Predator-Drone.jpg

Copy pasta?

I'm not denying there's drones. Just that this story reeks of fake.

jmdrake

05-18-2012, 01:34 PM

http://beforeitsnews.com/ckfinder/userfiles/0000000000005416/images/Unmanned-Predator-Drone.jpg

Copy pasta?

I'm not denying there's drones. Just that this story reeks of fake.

What happened to the tail section?

Zippyjuan

05-18-2012, 01:34 PM

Ummmm....no it's not. The picture is of a drone flying level. The one in the video is banked. The picture has the landing gear down. The video has it up. Your debunking attempt is fake.

You are looking at the wrong picture. The one used to provide the fake drone in the video is the one below the video- not the one in the video insert. And note that the perspective of the "plane" does not change as it supposedly moves across the sky.
http://beforeitsnews.com/ckfinder/userfiles/0000000000005416/images/Unmanned-Predator-Drone.jpg

fletcher

05-18-2012, 01:38 PM

So it's fake because it wasn't the best cinematography?

Zooming in on a moving object is a good way to lose it from your field of view if you don't know what you're doing. Plus how do you know this wasn't just a cell phone camera? Most only have "digital zoom" which has the same effect as "adding a zoom later on your computer".

I never claimed they had to zoom, but everyone single person taking a video of a plane would follow the plane with their camera. They made no attempt to follow the plane. Not even to get the plane into view. They waited for it to come into view, and waited for it to leave view. Do you know why? Because there was no plane. It was added afterward. And it is obvious that that zoom was added afterward on a computer. It isn't even questionable.

Ummmm....no it's not. The picture is of a drone flying level. The one in the video is banked. The picture has the landing gear down. The video has it up. Your debunking attempt is fake.

LOL. I never claimed they used the picture from the video.

fletcher

05-18-2012, 01:52 PM

What happened to the tail section?

The propeller? It either disappeared with the blur or they cut it out when they cropped it. Probably the later because when you include it like I did it keeps the blue sky behind it which makes it too prominent on a cloudy sky.

jmdrake

05-18-2012, 01:55 PM

The propeller? It either disappeared with the blur or they cut it out when they cropped it. Probably the later because when you include it like I did it keeps the blue sky behind it which makes it too prominent on a cloudy sky.

Nope. Not the propeller. The tail section. Look again.

S.Shorland

05-18-2012, 01:57 PM

Kerry Lutz saw one patrolling your coast 9:45

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dz-njKUgpug

EDIT: In the OP video it does seem to become obscured by the cloud twice that I noted.Perhaps it could be the camera autofocus adjusting but it looks like the cloud to me.

fletcher

05-18-2012, 02:08 PM

Nope. Not the propeller. The tail section. Look again.

I don't know what you are talking about. I've looked at both of the close up in photoshop. It is the same plane. 100% sure. It is a fact. Same angle. Same shadows. Same plane. From the same picture. Blur the plane and paste in on there and there is no difference.

pcosmar

05-18-2012, 02:10 PM

What we need is to have plenty of still photos of the remains of these atrocities.

perhaps the surviving software posted and mirrored online.

:mad:

I really don't care if this bit of footage was faked or not,, That is irrelevant to the FACT that it has been announced that they ARE THERE and being used.
This simply should not be.

MelissaCato

05-18-2012, 02:13 PM

Fake or not, some of you people act like this sorta stuff isn't happening.

http://bcove.me/svio30hk

papitosabe

05-18-2012, 02:16 PM

based on the size of a drone, couldn't someone calculate approximately how far it is, and measure the speed its going at to see if its accurate? at least estimate it?? also, kind of strange that someone would say, "thats an odd little plane"...just doesn't seem like its something someone would say.. dunno...and why would you stop following it?? usually if someone see's something strange, they would follow the path, not just film it for a few seconds...

I'm not saying there aren't drones, because a few miles from houston, in Montgomery County, sherriff dept has one.... and HR668 is one of the bills I'm most worried about and even though I've seen a few stories and segments about this, I still don't think its getting enough attention... but I'm just calling it as I see it...

pcosmar

05-18-2012, 02:27 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-IVQVTVMgWQ

Anti Federalist

05-18-2012, 02:43 PM

Not fake.

Regardless of whether one was actually being flown around Chicago, (I have no doubt they are, although the video posted may not be actually showing it) they are being flown in numerous places all around the country, and will be flown extensively in the coming years, with full grid surveillance of everything and everybody.

Now, can we at least agree on that, and further agree on the fact that, you can call living under these conditions many things, but what you can no longer call it is freedom in any sense of the word.

4 On Your Side asks: Are drones spying on you?

http://www.kob.com/article/stories/S2621368.shtml?cat=504

On February 12, 2012, President Barack Obama signed the Federal Aviation Administration authorization bill to a tune of $63.6 billion. Among other things, it paves the way for drones to be flown domestically.

The plan calls for law enforcement to be allowed to fly drones by mid-May. That has already happened. By 2015- civilians.

Unmanned drones are being flown around the clock over Iraq and Afghanistan. They are used to monitor activity and kill terrorists.

Seventy-six hundred miles away, three drones sit inside an unmarked hangar at the Las Cruces Airport. The 500-pound drones belong to the research division of the Physical Science Lab at New Mexico State University. They are flying the drones in Southwest New Mexico for research and development. However, their payload test flights have helped our military fly drones overseas. They have also perfected the use of cameras that can see through clouds and even pick up body heat.

On the subject of domestic drones, Director of NMSU's Physical Science Lab, Phil Copeland says, “One of the main applications going forward is law enforcement, sheriff's and hostage situations."

Law enforcement is one thing, but what about mass surveillance of entire cities by our military? 4 On Your Side investigative team got its hands on a government document (attached at the bottom of the story) that shows how drones will be allowed to spy on Americans on U.S soil. Albuquerque resident Bert Williams says, "That's an invasion of privacy," to the idea of drones spying on us.

In the Air Force intelligence memo, it states the United Sates Air Force can legally spy on Americans using unmanned drones. Now a law recently passed by Congress requires the FAA to streamline the process for law enforcement agencies to fly drones less than 4.4 pounds. So far, no New Mexico law enforcement agencies 4OYS contacted have applied to fly a drone.

Down south, drones are being flown by the military, researchers and the border patrol.

“The White Sands Missile Range is flying predators, they're flying other UAVs in Clovis,” says Copeland with NMSU.

New Mexico Tech also has a waiver to fly drones. Copeland goes on to say, “Sandia Labs and AFRL have applications for them, but don't routinely fly them.”

The Electronic Information Foundation states the FAA estimates that we could see 30,000 drones in the air by 2020, which raises a slew of concerns. The biggest concern is safety. Some of these drones weigh more than a commercial lawn mower and will be used to fly over heavily populated areas.

"We need rules, we needs laws that specifically limit how these technologies will be deployed so they don't wind up harming people," says Peter Simonson, director of the ACLU of New Mexico.

In December, the ACLU released a 16-page report on drones. Its number one concern is privacy.

“We're not saying these drone surveillance technologies shouldn't be used, but they should be used to forward an investigation of a particular crime. Not sort of indiscriminately surveying the public and see what people are up to,” Simonson goes on to say.

Even members of the drone crew have some of the same concerns when it comes to unmanned aerial vehicles humming in U.S. Airspace.

Copeland ends that last part of the interview by saying, “I think it's a legitimate concern, to address privacy. We're concerned about it, it's not just with unmanned…you can put cameras on everything.”

Zippyjuan

05-18-2012, 02:48 PM

You are right. As the Slate article I posted earlier said at the end of it:

Anyone with half-decent video editing software and a good eye for deception can cook up a hoax in a matter of minutes. The lesson here is that just because a video seems real and appears plausible doesn’t mean it is. It’s clear there are no Predator drones soaring in the skies above Chicago. Not yet, anyway.

jmdrake

05-18-2012, 03:04 PM

You are right. As the Slate article I posted earlier said at the end of it:

We've gone full circle now on "No plane theories".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igX7Z8VstN4

Domalais

05-18-2012, 03:26 PM

jmdrake

05-18-2012, 04:09 PM

It doesn't matter if it's true or not, because it's true to what we feel is true.

It's true to what's been admitted as true. (That there are drones flying over the U.S.)

Domalais

05-18-2012, 04:33 PM

It's true to what's been admitted as true. (That there are drones flying over the U.S.)

Yes. Just like the fact that there are cars in the U.S. is exactly the same as a tank driving down Pennsylvania Ave.

jmdrake

05-18-2012, 04:36 PM

Yes. Just like the fact that there are cars in the U.S. is exactly the same as a tank driving down Pennsylvania Ave.

A car isn't a tank. A drone is a drone. So if you want to make an honest analogy (and you probably don't) you'd have to say "The fact that there are tanks all over public roads in Washington D.C. is the same as a tank driving down Penn. Ave".

Domalais

05-18-2012, 04:39 PM

A car isn't a tank. A drone is a drone. So if you want to make an honest analogy (and you probably don't) you'd have to say "The fact that there are tanks all over public roads in Washington D.C. is the same as a tank driving down Penn. Ave".

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.

phill4paul

05-18-2012, 04:51 PM

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.

Today. Tomorrow...meh. Rapidly advancing incrementalism.

Domalais

05-18-2012, 04:54 PM

Today. Tomorrow...meh. Rapidly advancing incrementalism.

It's not about slippery slopes. It's about truth.

Saying that the government is operating an army of robots is scary. Unless they are Roombas.

The fact that this hoax is being accepted and encouraged 'in spirit' is breathtakingly retarded.

Anti Federalist

05-18-2012, 04:57 PM

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.

They provide universal surveillance coverage.

Having big brother flying surveillance drones all around is not freedom.

What's your point here?

Anti Federalist

05-18-2012, 04:58 PM

jmdrake

05-18-2012, 05:04 PM

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.

Did you not get the memo? This isn't just about police drones. U.S. military drones have been cleared for flying over the U.S.

jmdrake

05-18-2012, 05:05 PM

I don't know what you are talking about. I've looked at both of the close up in photoshop. It is the same plane. 100% sure. It is a fact. Same angle. Same shadows. Same plane. From the same picture. Blur the plane and paste in on there and there is no difference.

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

Domalais

05-18-2012, 05:07 PM

Those goalposts ever get heavy?

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.

Domalais

05-18-2012, 05:08 PM

They provide universal surveillance coverage.

Having big brother flying surveillance drones all around is not freedom.

What's your point here?

When you try to change the topic that hard, does it make your neck hurt?

phill4paul

05-18-2012, 05:08 PM

It's not about slippery slopes. It's about truth.

Saying that the government is operating an army of robots is scary. Unless they are Roombas.

No. A slippery slope took us to the point we are at NOW! And it gets STEEPER. What IS retarded is comparing surveillance aircraft (which are arms capable) with an domestic autonomous robotic vacuum cleaner.

Domalais

05-18-2012, 05:10 PM

Did you not get the memo? This isn't just about police drones. U.S. military drones have been cleared for flying over the U.S.

Which I 98% disapprove of.

FAA clearance to fly and physically flying over an urban area at low altitude while armed with hellfire missiles are entirely different. If you can't see that, I'm afraid that the rhetoric has completely eaten your brain.

jmdrake

05-18-2012, 05:11 PM

It's not about slippery slopes. It's about truth.

Saying that the government is operating an army of robots is scary. Unless they are Roombas.

The fact that this hoax is being accepted and encouraged 'in spirit' is breathtakingly retarded.

I'm willing to demure on whether this particular drone video is a hoax or not. But it's undeniable that the U.S. military is flying drones over the U.S.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/05/air-force-drones-domestic-spy/

It's also undeniable that the police departments are buying military style dones.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfEuVdFiL4g

The military drones were originally unarmed as well.

A Son of Liberty

05-18-2012, 05:13 PM

Yes. Just like the fact that there are cars in the U.S. is exactly the same as a tank driving down Pennsylvania Ave.

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.

Carson

05-18-2012, 05:13 PM

From the comment section;

Never thought I would live to see the day that Americans are now the enemy of a derailed cabal reptilian government inside our own country.

Was there some book or movie I missed?

Domalais

05-18-2012, 05:14 PM

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.

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

Domalais

05-18-2012, 05:17 PM

I'm willing to demure on whether this particular drone video is a hoax or not. But it's undeniable that the U.S. military is flying drones over the U.S.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/05/air-force-drones-domestic-spy/

It's also undeniable that the police departments are buying military style dones.

You obviously haven't read the document that is being discussed in that article. It has nothing to do with whether or not the military can fly drones over the U.S.

jmdrake

05-18-2012, 05:19 PM

Which I 98% disapprove of.

FAA clearance to fly and physically flying over an urban area at low altitude while armed with hellfire missiles are entirely different. If you can't see that, I'm afraid that the rhetoric has completely eaten your brain.

I never said it was. If you think I did then your brain has been completely eaten. 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. 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. (Unmanned surveillance drones were retrofitted to carry missiles). And if you don't realize that the government only tells you half the truth, and that if they are honest about drones now they were probably flying over us a while back, and tomorrow they'll let us in on the armed ones, then I'm not sure what else to say. "Roombas" indeed.

jmdrake

05-18-2012, 05:20 PM

You obviously haven't read the document that is being discussed in that article. It has nothing to do with whether or not the military can fly drones over the U.S.

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.

Domalais

05-18-2012, 05:20 PM

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

05-18-2012, 05:21 PM

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

05-18-2012, 05:22 PM

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!

http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/1102/pwned-cats-dogs-pwned-demotivational-posters-1296889564.jpg

jmdrake

05-18-2012, 05:25 PM

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

05-18-2012, 05:26 PM

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

05-18-2012, 05:29 PM

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

05-18-2012, 05:30 PM

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

05-18-2012, 05:38 PM

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

05-18-2012, 05:41 PM

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

05-18-2012, 05:51 PM

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

05-18-2012, 05:55 PM

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

05-18-2012, 06:05 PM

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

05-18-2012, 06:12 PM

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

05-18-2012, 06:31 PM

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

05-18-2012, 06:56 PM

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

05-18-2012, 06:58 PM

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

05-18-2012, 07:01 PM

I find the very concept of them repugnant.

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

phill4paul

05-18-2012, 07:10 PM

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.

http://cdn.cyclingforums.com/d/de/deed6784_what-choo-talkin-bout-willis.jpg

Domalais

05-18-2012, 07:21 PM

http://cdn.cyclingforums.com/d/de/deed6784_what-choo-talkin-bout-willis.jpg

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

05-18-2012, 07:30 PM

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

osan

05-18-2012, 07:36 PM

How much do the red ones cost ?

Many more lives than we can afford?

Just guessing.

jmdrake

05-18-2012, 07:41 PM

Your irrefutable evidence is refuted by itself.

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

Do you usually lie like this? I posted an article that talks about the U.S. Air Force flying predator drones for police in the U.S. You didn't even address it and you claim it refuted itself? Are you insane?

Again here is the irrefutable proof of the Air Force flying predator drones over U.S. soil

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."

phill4paul

05-18-2012, 07:54 PM

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.

You don't understand the concept of Government Contracting too well do you? LOL.
Short base to base hops sure. These are usually well documented around training bases in close proximity. That's why I emphasized 'Depends." Any measurable distance is on transport.
Why? Because up until after 9/11 Americans would be repulsed at the idea of military convoys riding down their highways. Acclimation.

Mani

05-18-2012, 07:59 PM

So when I read that slate article trying to calm us down that the video is just a hoax and there is nothing to see here and theres no drones flying over Chicago, the article briefly matter of factly mentioned this wasn't one of the domestic drones DHS uses......

And I said......wha wha wha???

So basically instead of calming down my tin foil hat persona he excasberated the entire situation by saying we have domestic drones already in use!!! WTF, way to diffuse a hoax!

AF has pointed out the drone articles before but what freaked me out was this was an article that was trying to relax people about drones flying around Chicago but instead legitimized AF's research that fucking drones are already flying across USA! WTF!!!!

To sum up the slate article:
There's no drones flying over Chicago......stop being a conspiracy theorists..lt doesn't even look like the drones the DHS uses in the US......right DHS? Ya, Zat is not de one we use in Amerika. Video incorrect!

Ya so relax people.....

(I think I just shat myself.....)

Anti Federalist

05-18-2012, 08:17 PM

They're playing a Jedi mind trick on you.

"These are not the drones you're looking for."

So when I read that slate article trying to calm us down that the video is just a hoax and there is nothing to see here and theres no drones flying over Chicago, the article briefly matter of factly mentioned this wasn't one of the domestic drones DHS uses......

And I said......wha wha wha???

So basically instead of calming down my tin foil hat persona he excasberated the entire situation by saying we have domestic drones already in use!!! WTF, way to diffuse a hoax!

AF has pointed out the drone articles before but what freaked me out was this was an article that was trying to relax people about drones flying around Chicago but instead legitimized AF's research that fucking drones are already flying across USA! WTF!!!!

To sum up the slate article:
There's no drones flying over Chicago......stop being a conspiracy theorists..lt doesn't even look like the drones the DHS uses in the US......right DHS? Ya, Zat is not de one we use in Amerika. Video incorrect!

Ya so relax people.....

(I think I just shat myself.....)

Domalais

05-18-2012, 08:31 PM

Do you usually lie like this? I posted an article that talks about the U.S. Air Force flying predator drones for police in the U.S. You didn't even address it and you claim it refuted itself? Are you insane?

Is there a reason why you stopped quoting at that point? Why not continue quoting with the very next line?

"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.

jmdrake

05-18-2012, 08:38 PM

Is there a reason why you stopped quoting at that point? Why not continue quoting with the very next line?

Because, Barney Fife, the first two times when I quoted the entire article you didn't even acknowledge it. This time I'm glad you at least read it. It proves my point. U.S. military predator drones have been and are being used inside the United States. I'm not sure why you think the line that I didn't quote this last time but I quoted the two times before is even important. So police don't use drones for "every call out". So freaking what? The last line that you quoted proves my point in spades.

The previously unreported use of its drones to assist local, state and federal law enforcement has occurred without any public acknowledgment or debate.

That's right. They admitted using the drones before telling you about their use just like I said earlier in the thread.

Kluge

05-18-2012, 08:53 PM

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.

I saw ICE patrolling I-90 in Ohio not very long ago.

phill4paul

05-18-2012, 09:00 PM

I saw ICE patrolling I-90 in Ohio not very long ago.

Border State.

jmdrake

05-18-2012, 09:04 PM

Border State.

Bordering Dixie?

Domalais

05-18-2012, 09:05 PM

Because, Barney Fife, the first two times when I quoted the entire article you didn't even acknowledge it. This time I'm glad you at least read it. It proves my point. U.S. military predator drones have been and are being used inside the United States.

Is that your point now? Because it seems to change every page. Last page, I seem to remember your point being that the US Air Force was operating Predators for surveillance in the US. Remember the whole "look at this Air Force Intelligence Oversight manual" thing?

Anti Federalist

05-18-2012, 09:06 PM

I saw ICE patrolling I-90 in Ohio not very long ago.

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

05-18-2012, 09:08 PM

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."

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Anti Federalist again.

Compliance through exhaustion.

You got that right. GD Medusa.....

Kluge

05-18-2012, 09:14 PM

Border State.

Big case in Erie, PA too where a person was pulled over and detained by ICE for drunk driving. Her case was thrown out b/c they don't have the authority (yet) to be police-ish.

Yes, both "border" states, but why are they patrolling as if they are highway patrol, and arresting as if they were cops?

jmdrake

05-18-2012, 09:14 PM

Is that your point now? Because it seems to change every page. Last page, I seem to remember your point being that the US Air Force was operating Predators for surveillance in the US. Remember the whole "look at this Air Force Intelligence Oversight manual" thing?

Ummmm.....are you kidding? Or is your "point" that the Air Force operating predator drones for surveillance on behalf of the police somehow materially different from the US Air Force operating Predators for surveillance? Because it isn't different. Kid yourself all you want. Split hairs all you want. But at the end of the day I've proved that the US Air Force has, and is operating predator drones inside the U.S. for surveillance purposes. Now here's were the whole "inadvertently" part kicks in. The drone spying on Americans (on behalf of the Po Po so it's all okay) inside America might pick up video of Americans that the Po Po didn't have a warrant or probable cause to spy on. I sincerely hope that helps you disentangle your confusion.

Kluge

05-18-2012, 09:16 PM

Bordering Dixie?

Lake Erie. You know how those pesky Canadians are always swimming over and trying to bomb shit.

phill4paul

05-18-2012, 09:21 PM

Big case in Erie, PA too where a person was pulled over and detained by ICE for drunk driving. Her case was thrown out b/c they don't have the authority (yet) to be police-ish.

Yes, both "border" states, but why are they patrolling as if they are highway patrol, and arresting as if they were cops?

????

http://publicsafety.ohio.gov/links/HLS0067.pdf

And Ice has authority 100 miles inland from any border.

Kluge

05-18-2012, 09:24 PM

????

http://publicsafety.ohio.gov/links/HLS0067.pdf

And Ice has authority 100 miles inland from any border.

I've been driving across Ohio for many years, I lived in Erie for many years, authority or not, we NEVER had them around. We had the Coast guard, because our border is 40 miles of water.

phill4paul

05-18-2012, 09:40 PM

I've been driving across Ohio for many years, I lived in Erie for many years, authority or not, we NEVER had them around. We had the Coast guard, because our border is 40 miles of water.

New day in Amerika.

Coast Guard...DHS/ICE/....

https://encrypted-tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSomhwL7QN9qyD7NAijo2o39gOKJ9ir4 KzKRPvEU-BjGBddvAv0

Teens today aren't 'boomers' or 'x-ers' they are "Campbell Kid's."

DerailingDaTrain

05-18-2012, 09:48 PM

These videos can be faked. I will acknowledge that.

Is this one fake? I don't know. The fakes I've seen look much higher quality than that one though. Could be real

Carson

05-18-2012, 09:56 PM

http://photos.imageevent.com/stokeybob/presidentronpaul/TheBlueMeaniesgLOVE.jpg

Ron Paul's Battle Plan (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbEPsz7RwV4)

See it live! Well as live as it gets. (http://www.yellowsubmarinethemovie.com/)

Kluge

05-18-2012, 09:56 PM

These videos can be faked. I will acknowledge that.

Is this one fake? I don't know. The fakes I've seen look much higher quality than that one though. Could be real

I'm pretty sure this one is faked, but it's quite sad that soon there will be real ones. If you want to go full-retard*, speculate whether this fake was put out there to gauge reaction.

*Heard the phrase "going full-retard" the other day, cracked me up. It seems to mean "heading into uncharted territory without a single thought of why this might not be a good idea." No offense is intended.

Carson

05-18-2012, 09:58 PM

I've been driving across Ohio for many years, I lived in Erie for many years, authority or not, we NEVER had them around. We had the Coast guard, because our border is 40 miles of water.

They are around now.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/04/faa-releases-its-list-drone-certificates-leaves-many-questions-unanswered

P.S. If you click the map, it isn't the places marked you have to worry about. It is all of the places in between!

Carson

05-18-2012, 10:19 PM

http://photos.imageevent.com/stokeybob/morestuff/NewStrikeZone.jpg

DerailingDaTrain

05-19-2012, 04:10 PM

http://photos.imageevent.com/stokeybob/morestuff/NewStrikeZone.jpg

Didn't WAC put those up or some other group as a joke?

pcosmar

05-19-2012, 05:30 PM

Didn't WAC put those up or some other group as a joke?

Nope,,
As Education.

Domalais

05-19-2012, 05:32 PM

I've proved that the US Air Force has, and is operating predator drones inside the U.S. for surveillance purposes.

Your 'evidence' directly contradicts what you're saying. The article you posted specifically states that they are not being operated by the Air Force, and the Air Force publication that you posted points out that they are incapable of doing what you say that they are doing.

Now here's were the whole "inadvertently" part kicks in. The drone spying on Americans (on behalf of the Po Po so it's all okay) inside America might pick up video of Americans that the Po Po didn't have a warrant or probable cause to spy on. I sincerely hope that helps you disentangle your confusion.

Your ability to purposely misread things to agree with your preconceived notions of what is really going on in the world amazes me.

The intelligence oversight policy has nothing to do with warrants, and everything to do with citizenship and nationality.

pcosmar

05-19-2012, 05:36 PM

The intelligence oversight policy has nothing to do with warrants, and everything to do with citizenship and nationality.

BULLSHIT.

It has to do with CONTROL..
nothing else.

pcosmar

05-19-2012, 05:42 PM

This tape may well be faked. It also may well been released as a "trial balloon".

The media is now reporting on Drone use. Admiring it in the past and expansions in the near future.

The very concept of these is wrong. and they should not be allowed,,ever. They should be slapped from the sky each and every time they are seen.
This should absolutely NOT be tolerated.

Carson

05-19-2012, 08:04 PM

Didn't WAC put those up or some other group as a joke?

I would guess that pcosmar comment is pretty close to the truth.

Nope,,
As Education.

As a joke it isn't very funny. I suppose I should have said this is fake or something. Sorry.

GeorgiaAvenger

05-19-2012, 08:22 PM

Likely fake, though they do exist.

jmdrake

05-20-2012, 09:31 AM

Your 'evidence' directly contradicts what you're saying. The article you posted specifically states that they are not being operated by the Air Force, and the Air Force publication that you posted ponts out that they are incapable of doing what you say that they are doing.

Bollocks. The first article did I posted didn't say drones couldn't be operated by the airforce over U.S. soil. It spelled out the conditions that drones could be operated.

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.

You must not understand the meaning of the word "unless".

The drones in the 2nd article were predators operating from a U.S. Airforce base. So Air force predator "can carry hellifire missile" drones are being flown over the interior U.S. and they were being flown earlier without public knowledge.

jmdrake

05-20-2012, 09:31 AM

BULLSHIT.

It has to do with CONTROL..
nothing else.

+rep

Captain Shays

05-20-2012, 02:50 PM

What would it take to bring one of those down?

pcosmar

05-20-2012, 02:58 PM

What would it take to bring one of those down?

/evil grin

Thinking about that.

GuerrillaXXI

05-20-2012, 03:18 PM

Everyone should keep in mind that these Predators can't do much that couldn't just as easily be done with manned aircraft. Cameras are cameras, whether they're on an unmanned aircraft or a manned helicopter or spy plane. What makes them offensive is their ability to stay in the air longer than is comfortable for pilots. Still, they can't observe everything and everyone at once. They need to know what to look for. In Afghanistan/Pakistan, for example, many if not most drone strikes are actually guided by human intelligence on the ground.

As for the smaller drones likely to get the most use by the pigs, they're really just RC aircraft with expensive cameras attached. If you want to evade one of these, enter the nearest dense forest -- assuming you can't get away before they can put the thing in the air.

I'm much more concerned at this point about networks of ground surveillance cameras than about drones. Consider the statewide linking of thousands of cameras in Ohio:

http://www.morningjournal.com/articles/2010/10/25/news/doc4cc5868fc39f8505331907.txt

If those cameras are ever equipped with the capability to automatically track people from one camera to the next across the whole state -- a capability that already exists in much smaller camera networks -- then people will really be forced to make the choice between living as domestic cattle or fighting to their last breaths so that freedom doesn't die forever.

Anti Federalist

05-20-2012, 04:29 PM

This this a thousand times this.

That is when the Matrix closes in for good.

Everyone should keep in mind that these Predators can't do much that couldn't just as easily be done with manned aircraft. Cameras are cameras, whether they're on an unmanned aircraft or a manned helicopter or spy plane. What makes them offensive is their ability to stay in the air longer than is comfortable for pilots. Still, they can't observe everything and everyone at once. They need to know what to look for. In Afghanistan/Pakistan, for example, many if not most drone strikes are actually guided by human intelligence on the ground.

As for the smaller drones likely to get the most use by the pigs, they're really just RC aircraft with expensive cameras attached. If you want to evade one of these, enter the nearest dense forest -- assuming you can't get away before they can put the thing in the air.

I'm much more concerned at this point about networks of ground surveillance cameras than about drones. Consider the statewide linking of thousands of cameras in Ohio:

http://www.morningjournal.com/articles/2010/10/25/news/doc4cc5868fc39f8505331907.txt

If those cameras are ever equipped with the capability to automatically track people from one camera to the next across the whole state -- a capability that already exists in much smaller camera networks -- then people will really be forced to make the choice between living as domestic cattle or fighting to their last breaths so that freedom doesn't die forever.

sailingaway

05-20-2012, 06:02 PM

this just came across twitter. For any DHS slumming here, it's a joke.

http://d3j5vwomefv46c.cloudfront.net/photos/full/583321311.jpg?key=320204&Expires=1337559561&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIYVGSUJFNRFZBBTA&Signature=k2rdihGLMCEC7WdKzVgXsaYPLZRk5Qt1cJwtuBs-DwrOI8Z71RO0V8lG7H-haPTrObH35enOoMxL-N~n70ayzYMkoJoM3qmvw~uiulPoQ20YZHTsaJTmzMo~dHP1Yfp fjx1OINMbsxdSCrpStq6s5ql~8MFas8aNXAuSUDNEmV8_

oyarde

05-20-2012, 06:14 PM

Hellfires are air-to-surface missiles.

Correct , so what would they use to enforce it , fighters would be too expensive ?

Domalais

05-20-2012, 06:25 PM

Bollocks. The first article did I posted didn't say drones couldn't be operated by the airforce over U.S. soil. It spelled out the conditions that drones could be operated.

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.

You must not understand the meaning of the word "unless".

The drones in the 2nd article were predators operating from a U.S. Airforce base. So Air force predator "can carry hellifire missile" drones are being flown over the interior U.S. and they were being flown earlier without public knowledge.

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.

Domalais

05-20-2012, 06:26 PM

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

05-20-2012, 06:27 PM

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

05-20-2012, 06:39 PM

Kluge

05-20-2012, 07:20 PM

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

05-20-2012, 07:30 PM

pcosmar

05-20-2012, 07:36 PM

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

05-20-2012, 07:39 PM

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

Oversight? WTF
What,, where?

dancjm

05-20-2012, 07:51 PM

pcosmar

05-20-2012, 07:58 PM

"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

05-21-2012, 11:55 AM

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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZJNH-p0KLU

Domalais

05-21-2012, 12:20 PM

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

05-21-2012, 01:26 PM

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

05-21-2012, 01:53 PM

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. :p

jmdrake

05-21-2012, 02:34 PM

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

05-22-2012, 12:01 PM

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

05-22-2012, 12:15 PM

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

05-22-2012, 01:22 PM

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

05-22-2012, 01:38 PM

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.

:rolleyes: 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

05-22-2012, 01:39 PM

jmdrake

05-22-2012, 01:55 PM

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Domalais

05-22-2012, 01:55 PM

:rolleyes: What I said.

Yes, and you're wrong. They can collect foreign intelligence, not they believe you are involved in foreign intelligence. If I have a microphone placed in the United States, and I hear you talking in Mexico, I can record it if I follow all the stipulations in that paragraph. That's what that is saying.

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.

Those aren't even vaguely the facts. That's just some bullshit that you made up to fit what you believe the policy says, despite what the policy actually says. Just like you wanted to believe that the Air Force was operating drones, and so you did, despite the fact that in the very same article it says that the drones are owned and operated by the Border Patrol.

Unless your camping trip with Ahmed is in Pakistan, the Air Force cannot collect intelligence about your camping trip.

Domalais

05-22-2012, 01:56 PM

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

Those are maps, you asshole. :rolleyes: Yes, the Air Force can use Google Maps. You fucking caught me.

Try reading the policy yourself instead of ctrl-f and searching for scary words. It's not that long, and you'll be done in no time. I'll answer any questions if you find anything confusing or super scary.

jmdrake

05-22-2012, 02:00 PM

Those are maps, you asshole. :rolleyes: Yes, the Air Force can use Google Maps.

Not true.

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..

That's far more than "Google Maps". And where do you think Google Maps get's their imagery from? Of course the U.S. spying on its own people with satellites is not new. This part is.

9.6. Navigational/Target Training activities.

9.6.1. Air Force units with weapon system video and tactical ISR capabilities may collect imagery during formal and continuation training missions as long as the collected imagery is not for the purpose of obtaining information about specific US persons or private property. Collected imagery may incidentally include US persons or private property without consent. Imagery may not be collected for the purpose of gathering any specific information about a US person or private entity, without consent, nor may stored imagery be retrievable by reference to US person identifiers.

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.

Again sections 9.6.1 and 9.6.2 are within section 9 so again this is talking about data being collected by Air Force planes and UAVs within the United States!

I must thank you though. The next time I have to argue with some government bootlicking shill I will know exactly where to go in the document and not have to rely on the Wired article. Anyone with half a brain who's followed this conversation now knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that the government has admitted to allowing the Air Force to collect image information using planes and unmanned drones of American people provided they are deemed to be somehow involved in "foreign intelligence" or if the information is collected "inadvertently" (again within the United States) as long as the Air Force (supposedly) gets rid of the data within 90 days.

pcosmar

05-22-2012, 02:20 PM

Those are maps, you asshole.

More than maps.

And you really believe that shit?

or are you just trying to sell that bullshit here?

So which agency do you work for?

The CIA has been (and no doubt still is) involved in domestic affairs. Has been since it's inception.

Not only "intelligence gathering" but media manipulation, Blackmail, and social controls,, domestically.

or are you going to try to say that there is No Connection between the spooks and the military?

Or that Homeland Security is not all encompassing,(Fed,Military, Police state)?

and you are trying to sell that shit here?

jmdrake

05-22-2012, 03:58 PM

More than maps.

So which agency do you work for?

The CIA has been (and no doubt still is) involved in domestic affairs. Has been since it's inception.

Not only "intelligence gathering" but media manipulation, Blackmail, and social controls,, domestically.

or are you going to try to say that there is No Connection between the spooks and the military?

Or that Homeland Security is not all encompassing,(Fed,Military, Police state)?

and you are trying to sell that shit here?

+rep.

Dedicated to all the government shills.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqhMCF2ZOQc

Domalais

05-23-2012, 06:21 PM

Not true.

K.

That's far more than "Google Maps". And where do you think Google Maps get's their imagery from?

These companies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tele_Atlas

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digitalglobe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacDonald_Dettwiler

Of course the U.S. spying on its own people with satellites is not new. This part is.

Did you read all of it or just the bold parts?

as long as the collected imagery is not for the purpose of obtaining information about specific US persons or private property. Collected imagery may incidentally include US persons or private property without consent. Imagery may not be collected for the purpose of gathering any specific information about a US person or private entity, without consent, nor may stored imagery be retrievable by reference to US person identifiers.

There's also the fact that this section is not exempt from paragraph 11, collection, which I've covered in great detail throughout this thread.

Anyone with half a brain who's followed this conversation now knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that the government has admitted to allowing the Air Force to collect image information using planes and unmanned drones of American people provided they are deemed to be somehow involved in "foreign intelligence" or if the information is collected "inadvertently" (again within the United States) as long as the Air Force (supposedly) gets rid of the data within 90 days.

So you still content that the government wrote a policy restricting them from doing things in order to secretly do those things? Why not just... not write the policy?

Domalais

05-23-2012, 06:29 PM

So which agency do you work for?

The Department of Retard Reproduction Prevention. DeRRP. We identify retards via the internet, then use HAARP to open a hole in the ozone above their houses until the cosmic rays sterilize them.

The CIA has been (and no doubt still is) involved in domestic affairs. Has been since it's inception.

K.

Not only "intelligence gathering" but media manipulation, Blackmail, and social controls,, domestically.

K.

or are you going to try to say that there is No Connection between the spooks and the military?

Oh, there's definitely a connection. Liaison officers, mostly.

Or that Homeland Security is not all encompassing,(Fed,Military, Police state)?

Let me know when they move the DoD under Homeland Security.

and you are trying to sell that shit here?

Please. If I was paid to troll you (Dear NSA overlords, please pay me to troll on the internet. I'm cheap.), or to make government look good, or to discredit supporters of liberty, the best possible thing I could do would be to post all sorts of baseless conspiracy nonsense all over this site 24/7. That would have far more of an effect than posting rational, fact-based information in a rational way.

pcosmar

05-23-2012, 06:53 PM

The Department of Retard Reproduction Prevention. DeRRP. We identify retards via the internet, then use HAARP to open a hole in the ozone above their houses until the cosmic rays sterilize them.
You know,, I got my first infraction calling someone what he was.

Please. If I was paid to troll you (Dear NSA overlords, please pay me to troll on the internet. I'm cheap.), or to make government look good, or to discredit supporters of liberty, the best possible thing I could do would be to post all sorts of baseless conspiracy nonsense all over this site 24/7. That would have far more of an effect than posting rational, fact-based information in a rational way.

Then why don't you try? Instead of regurgitating bullshit party line..Attempting to tell us what they can't do,,,
Attempting to give the impression that they would even follow the old rules that they set up themselves..(when they have proven time and again that they will change, ignore or break the rules any time they damn well please.)

And coupled with a bunch of new laws that pretty much allow them to do anything they please. If they say national security. or terrorist.

Yeah,, why don't you try? rational, fact-based information?

There are Drones. They are being flown over the US. By both Government agencies and foreign interests.

They Should Not Be There

Domalais

05-23-2012, 07:19 PM

There are drones, being operated by the government, and they should not be there.

They are not being operated by the military.

They are being operated by DHS.

This is an important distinction.

jmdrake

05-23-2012, 07:21 PM

Did you read all of it or just the bold parts?

:rolleyes: The whole thing. Including the parts from section 11. And I explained why that's not as comforting as you pretend it to be. You flat out lied when you claimed this was about collection of data outside the U.S.

There's also the fact that this section is not exempt from paragraph 11, collection, which I've covered in great detail throughout this thread.

That's why section 11 contains this part.
11.2. Collection. Information about US persons may be collected if it falls within one or more of the thirteen categories of information specified in DoD 5240.1-R, Procedure 2.
11.2.1. Information is considered “collected” only when it has been received for use by an employee of an intelligence component in the course of official duties. Data acquired by electronic means is “collected” only when it has been processed into intelligible form.
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.

So you still content that the government wrote a policy restricting them from doing things in order to secretly do those things? Why not just... not write the policy?

A catch all provision for when they get caught? Such provisions seem to work for people like you.

pcosmar

05-23-2012, 07:42 PM

There are drones, being operated by the government, and they should not be there.

They are not being operated by the military.

They are being operated by DHS.

This is an important distinction.

That is NO FUCKING DISTINCTION

Not one damn bit of difference.

Kluge

05-23-2012, 08:11 PM

WASHINGTON (CBSDC) – With the use of domestic drones increasing, concern has not just come up over privacy issues, but also over the potential use of lethal force by the unmanned aircraft.

Drones have been used overseas to target and kill high-level terror leaders and are also being used along the U.S.-Mexico border in the battle against illegal immigration. But now, these drones are starting to be used domestically at an increasing rate.

The Federal Aviation Administration has allowed several police departments to use drones across the U.S. They are controlled from a remote location and use infrared sensors and high-resolution cameras.

Chief Deputy Randy McDaniel of the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office in Texas told The Daily that his department is considering using rubber bullets and tear gas on its drone.

“Those are things that law enforcement utilizes day in and day out and in certain situations it might be advantageous to have this type of system on the UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle),” McDaniel told The Daily.

The use of potential force from drones has raised the ire of the American Civil Liberties Union.

“It’s simply not appropriate to use any of force, lethal or non-lethal, on a drone,” Catherine Crump, staff attorney for the ACLU, told CBSDC.

Crump feels one of the biggest problems with the use of drones is the remote location where they are operated from.

“When the officer is on the scene, they have full access to info about what has transpired there,” Crump explained to CBSDC. “An officer at a remote location far away does not have the same level of access.”

The ACLU is also worried about potential drones malfunctioning and falling from the sky, adding that they are keeping a close eye on the use of these unmanned aircraft by police departments.

“We don’t need a situation where Americans feel there is in an invisible eye in the sky,” Jay Stanley, senior policy analyst at ACLU, told CBSDC.

Joshua Foust, fellow at the American Security Project, feels domestic drones should not be armed.

“I think from a legal perspective, there is nothing problematic about floating a drone over a city,” Foust told CBSDC. “In terms of getting armed drones, I would be very nervous about that happening right now.”

McDaniel says that his community should not be worried about the department using a drone.

“We’ve never gone into surveillance for sake of surveillance unless there is criminal activity afoot,” McDaniel told The Daily. “Just to see what you’re doing in your backyard pool — we don’t care.”

But the concern for the ACLU is just too great that an American’s constitutional rights will be trampled with the use of drones.

“The prospect of people out in public being Tased or targeted by force by flying drones where no officers is physically present on the scene,” Crump says, “raises the prospect of unconstitutional force being used on individuals.”

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/05/23/groups-concerned-over-arming-of-domestic-drones/