Protecting America against "Unwarranted Surveillance" Act is all fluff

[CaptainAmerica]

Sen. Paul Introduces Bill to Protect Americans Against Unwarranted Drone Surveillance

Jun 12, 2012
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Today, Sen. Rand Paul introduced legislation into the Senate that protects individual privacy against unwarranted governmental intrusion through the use of the unmanned aerial vehicles commonly known as drones. The Preserving Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act of 2012 will protect Americans' personal privacy.

"Like other tools used to collect information in law enforcement, in order to use drones a warrant needs to be issued. Americans going about their everyday lives should not be treated like criminals or terrorists and have their rights infringed upon by military tactics," Sen. Paul said.

The Preserving Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act of 2012 also:

1. Prohibits the use of drones by the government except when a warrant is issued for its use in accordance with the requirements of the Fourth Amendment.

2. Includes the following exceptions:

1) patrol of national borders;

2) when law enforcement possesses reasonable suspicion that under particular circumstances, swift drone action is necessary to prevent "imminent danger to life;"

3) high risk of a terrorist attack

3. Allows any person to sue the government for violating this Act.

4. Specifies that no evidence obtained or collected in violation of this Act can be used/admissible as evidence in a criminal, civil, or regulatory action.

http://paul.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=545

I think its insane that this is even being handled as some sort of "civil" circumstance. It is not civil to have military weaponry of high precision flying over americans. If you don't think this a joke of a bill, then please make your case because it has major loopholes in it which mean its useless fluff.
In section 3:
#4 doesn't even matter because in Section 2: makes it irrelevant and easy to abuse, and Section 3: would also render # 3 useless

[paulbot24]

This sounds like a "well then can you at least use Vasoline then" bill, but I doubt ANYBODY else in the Senate is doing a damn thing for us so good for him. They will outfit them to be "civilian" drones so they're not technically using military weaponry over our skies. I know, I know, I think it's BS too. Not making excuses for them, I just am already hearing theirs. I hope the people start waking up about their privacy when they see these things flying over us.

[CaptainAmerica]

This sounds like a "well then can you at least use Vasoline then" bill, but I doubt ANYBODY else in the Senate is doing a damn thing for us so good for him. It's a start...... You do realize that its actually a bad thing? ...............Its further solidifying the idea and legality of drones being used without a warrant and giving a major loophole for government to use them on us and crippling our ability to sue the government.

[paulbot24]

Worth buying a rifle with a green lasersight kind of bad. Yes. Kind of like a bill limiting the powers of the patriot act. Don't bother. Just shred the damn thing already. Section 2 needs to be removed.

[CaptainAmerica]

Worth buying a rifle with a green lasersight kind of bad. Yes. Kind of like a bill limiting the powers of the patriot act. Don't bother. Just shred the damn thing already. Section 2 needs to be removed. the government was already wiretapping people pre-patriot act but it wasn't solidified as being legal. The Patriot Act made it legal for the government to spy on people..and use it in court in the invent of "imminent attack" or "suspicion" etc.. its just a huge loophole to make spying legal. This does that exact same thing but for drones .

[jkr]

if you subsidize something you get more of it...

these things will be everywhere

they really are trying to replace GOD

[paulbot24]

the government was already wiretapping people pre-patriot act but it wasn't solidified as being legal. The Patriot Act made it legal for the government to spy on people..and use it in court in the invent of "imminent attack" or "suspicion" etc.. its just a huge loophole to make spying legal. This does that exact same thing but for drones .

Trust me when I say you are preaching to the choir about this. I am with the Judge when he says the first person to shoot one of these down will be an American Hero! I just contacted Rand at his webpage and explained the vagueness of exception 2 and how it cripples the purpose of this bill. Hell, the use of the words "terrorist attack" in exception 3 make this thing vague enough and I can already see ugly loopholes in that as well. One more thing, doesn't exception 4 go without saying? Jesus.

[paulbot24]

if you subsidize something you get more of it...

these things will be everywhere

they really are trying to replace GOD

"In drones we trust"

[Bern]

This sounds like a "well then can you at least use Vasoline then" bill, ...

No lube at all.

[Noob]

http://paul.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=545

I think its insane that this is even being handled as some sort of "civil" circumstance. It is not civil to have military weaponry of high precision flying over americans. If you don't think this a joke of a bill, then please make your case because it has major loopholes in it which mean its useless fluff.
In section 3:
#4 doesn't even matter because in Section 2: makes it irrelevant and easy to abuse, and Section 3: would also render # 3 useless

They should be Prohibitied.

[LibForestPaul]

Are these drones protected against jamming? Are their optics protected against intense laser radiation?

[phill4paul]

Compromise gonna get us somewhere?

2) when law enforcement possesses reasonable suspicion that under particular circumstances, swift drone action is necessary to prevent "imminent danger to life;"

How many unjustified police shooting stories need to posted to make the case that this renders this bill as useless theatre?

[CaptainAmerica]

Compromise gonna get us somewhere?

2) when law enforcement possesses reasonable suspicion that under particular circumstances, swift drone action is necessary to prevent "imminent danger to life;"

How many unjustified police shooting stories need to posted to make the case that this renders this bill as useless theatre?

Thats exactly what I thought of when I read the clause.

[RonPaulMall]

How many unjustified police shooting stories need to posted to make the case that this renders this bill as useless theatre?

Theater has its purposes too. This bill publicizes the danger of drones and helps rally public sentiment against them. That's important. We don't yet command anywhere near the numbers we need to implement liberty on a national level.

[CaptainAmerica]

Theater has its purposes too. This bill publicizes the danger of drones and helps rally public sentiment against them. That's important. We don't yet command anywhere near the numbers we need to implement liberty on a national level.

Thats like saying that the Patriot Act brought to attention the unwarranted "wiretapping" going on....but the fact of the matter is that the Patriot Act only established it as being legal and solidified it as SOP to wiretap. I view this bill as dangerous because it doesn't place an absolute ban on drones and it doesn't give an absolute ability to sue the government for using a drone on american citizens...instead it sets up the legality of using them on citizens.

[Yieu]

So the exceptions nullify the bill itself. I guess I am less confused (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?380455-Video-Senator-Paul-on-CNN-talking-about-his-new-anti-drone-bill&p=4488532#post4488532) about the bill's relation to the endorsement.

[Justinfrom1776]

Worth buying a rifle with a green lasersight kind of bad. .

There's our bill!

Rand needs to introduce a bill that would allow us to shoot these mothers down!

[LibertyEagle]

Thats like saying that the Patriot Act brought to attention the unwarranted "wiretapping" going on....but the fact of the matter is that the Patriot Act only established it as being legal and solidified it as SOP to wiretap. I view this bill as dangerous because it doesn't place an absolute ban on drones and it doesn't give an absolute ability to sue the government for using a drone on american citizens...instead it sets up the legality of using them on citizens.

+1

[Feeding the Abscess]

What a terrible bill.

Awesome that Rand is speaking to us like he's banning drones, when in reality, he's legalizing their use.

I fully appreciate that he was supposed to be talking to neocons while deceiving them with his legislation, but instead is doing it to us.

[Feeding the Abscess]

This needs to be discussed.

Bump.

[Justinfrom1776]

This needs to be discussed.

Bump.

Agreed, this is more concerning than the Romney endorsement.

[July]

Well, ok, this is puzzling. I've been holding off comment to mull it over more.

If he is deliberately trying to deceive us, it is kind of right out in plain sight though, so I think that is unlikely.

I will say this, I notice whenever Rand makes a big deal out of some bill that is unlikely to pass like this, doing press releases, writing opinion columns, followed by the interview circuit, it is often agenda driven on his part to raise an issue. So maybe he saw this one come up and decided to spearhead it.

As for drones, terrorism is just an excuse, obviously, but the type of drones being developed for domestic use aren't really these large weaponized military grade drones that people usually think of, but miniaturized and non weaponized nano drones designed for inner cities and dwellings. People really need to know about it.

[specsaregood]

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/06/14/opinion/rand-paul-drones/index.html



(CNN) -- When assuming office, every government official must take an oath to abide by and uphold our Constitution. Since 2010, I have made that my mission in Congress. Unfortunately, the Obama administration is not upholding nor abiding by the Constitution -- in fact, this administration is going to great lengths to continually violate it.

Its most recent transgression involves the use of domestic drones.

These small drones are to be used as a crime fighting tool for law enforcement officials. But is unwarranted and constant surveillance by an aerial eye of Big Government the answer?

In a memorandum issued by President Barack Obama's secretary of the Air Force, the stated purpose of these drones is "balancing ... obtaining intelligence information ... and protecting individual rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution."

However, flying over our homes, farms, ranches and businesses and spying on us while we conduct our everyday lives is not an example of protecting our rights. It is an example of violating them.

The domestic use of drones to spy on Americans clearly violates the Fourth Amendment and limits our rights to personal privacy. I do not want a drone hovering over my house, taking photos of whether I separate my recyclables from my garbage.

When I have friends over for a barbecue, the government drone is not on the invitation list. I do not want a drone monitoring where I go, what I do and for how long I do whatever it is that I'm doing. I do not want a nanny state watching over my every move.

We should not be treated like criminals or terrorists while we are simply conducting our everyday lives. We should not have our rights infringed upon by unwarranted police-state tactics.

I have introduced legislation into the Senate that restates the Constitution.

This bill protects individual privacy against unwarranted governmental intrusion through the use of these drones. The Preserving Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act of 2012 will protect Americans' personal privacy by forcing the government to honor our Fourth Amendment rights.

more at link above

[donnay]

It's politic double speak. We are already in a Police State. Unwarranted searches always gets the green light!!

[specsaregood]

It's politic double speak. We are already in a Police State. Unwarranted searches always gets the green light!!

He is bringing attention to the fact that they are already being used and trying to reign them in. While no doubt his "exemptions" would get abused, they wouldn't always be abused and it would put more overhead on the govt drones than is currently in place. Like those exemptions or not, without them this wouldn't even have a chance to be heard.

It's getting a surprisingly warm reception by the townhall crowd:
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katehicks/2012/06/14/whoa_rand_paul_proposes_bill_requiring_warrants_fo r_domestic_drone_use

[Bern]

Folks concerned about drones should urge their county Sheriff (or candidates if elections are still pending) to join OathKeepers.

[donnay]

He is bringing attention to the fact that they are already being used and trying to reign them in. While no doubt his "exemptions" would get abused, they wouldn't always be abused and it would put more overhead on the govt drones than is currently in place. Like those exemptions or not, without them this wouldn't even have a chance to be heard.

It's getting a surprisingly warm reception by the townhall crowd:
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katehicks/2012/06/14/whoa_rand_paul_proposes_bill_requiring_warrants_fo r_domestic_drone_use

The Patriot Act nixes the 4th amendment, as does the Military Commissions Act (2006), and a whole host of other draconian legislation gives the police state the green light to use these things on us--yes, I said on US!

We are just merely window dressing the issues. He should be against the use of drones inside the United States--period.

[CaptainAmerica]

He is bringing attention to the fact that they are already being used and trying to reign them in. While no doubt his "exemptions" would get abused, they wouldn't always be abused and it would put more overhead on the govt drones than is currently in place. Like those exemptions or not, without them this wouldn't even have a chance to be heard.

It's getting a surprisingly warm reception by the townhall crowd:
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katehicks/2012/06/14/whoa_rand_paul_proposes_bill_requiring_warrants_fo r_domestic_drone_use I think you miss the point. Drones are not seen as being legal yet as "wiretapping" was not legalized until the PATRIOT ACT made it a legal action of the government in the "even of terrorist threat". This major loophole of a bill sets up the idea that using Drones is justified and legal in certain circumstances which are major loopholes.The idea alone of calling it legal for the government to use a drone in an emergency is insanity.

[Noob]

Tell Congress: Vote Against Drone Surveillance, Abuses!

http://petitions.conservativeactionalerts.com/6981/tell-congress-vote-against-drone-surveillance-abuses/

[DamianTV]

I wanna know who the Asshat that constantly rates these types of threads as 1 Star?

These are the types of threads that if published before the Hollocaust would have also been flagged 1 star, but we still had the Hollocaust, didnt we? Think our government is not so sick as to flat out fucking murder anyone that stands in their way?

[realtonygoodwin]

What is it about drones (especially those within the US) that scares so many of you?

[anaconda]

Define drone. What about spy satellites? High flying spy aircraft? Etc.

[whippoorwill]

A habit, I see.

[ProIndividual]

Another reason Rand's "strategy" (if that is what it really is) is a bad one. We should be prohibiting their use by the state. Even for those who want to use them for police for the right reasons, we cannot trust them to not abuse the power. If we could, I'd understand...and I'd say it's no different than police helicopters. But there is key difference here...helicopters are called out AFTER a crime has been commited and they're chasing a suspect, NOT before the crime is commited to surveil. In my State (and it might be federally, I'm not sure) it's illegal for helicopters to look for heat signatures anymore to find pot growers (as they look through walls to do it, essentially)...but it's not illegal to do this with drones!

Now all nonviolent drug crime will be called terrorism. These drones are the next step in the war on drugs.

Rand for the FAIL.

[whippoorwill]

What is it about drones (especially those within the US) that scares so many of you?

Even the statist think its a bad move..an afront to liberty.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfiFnt3bEg4

[ProIndividual]

What is it about drones (especially those within the US) that scares so many of you?

What are you doing on this site?

Clearly the problem is they are used to pre-emptively surveil and not used to only go after criminals who already commited a violent crime. The fact is, they will be used to mostly uphold tyrannical laws libertarians already disagree with. Every drug dealer will now be a terrorist. Why does this need to be explained to you? Is this lack of ability to think for yourself why you still support Rand?


Define drone. What about spy satellites? High flying spy aircraft? Etc.

Nodody else has any problem defining what we're talking about. Any unmanned device the state uses to surveil people pre-emptively, or used to uphold laws where individuals violate nonviolent "crimes". So yes, if that spy satellite is used on us to those ends, they must be prohibited. Clearly they can use them otherwise, and have...and when they choose to use them for the purposes I've named, people should go to PRISON, not be demoted or fired. If they can't do that, then fully prohibit them. I'll trade less safety for more liberty any day. Following orders is no excuse for criminal behavior like that. Drones are designed to surveil, not to act as unmanned police helicopters simply responding to violent crime. If you can't see the danger in using weapons of war against the populace (even if unarmed, which there is no guarantee that is going to be the case), I question your critical thinking skills.

[specsaregood]

I think you miss the point. Drones are not seen as being legal yet as "wiretapping" was not legalized until the PATRIOT ACT made it a legal action of the government in the "even of terrorist threat". This major loophole of a bill sets up the idea that using Drones is justified and legal in certain circumstances which are major loopholes.The idea alone of calling it legal for the government to use a drone in an emergency is insanity.

We disagree, I think you miss the point. They are already being used, without warrants. Rand's attempt here is to get it on record that is it not allowed unless you follow some rules. He has people on townhall.com talking about the 4th amendment and why requiring warrants is a good thing. I guess we could go back to nobody talking about it and it just goes on unchecked.

[whippoorwill]

We disagree, I think you miss the point. They are already being used, without warrants. Rand's attempt here is to get it on record that is it not allowed unless you follow some rules. He has people on townhall.com talking about the 4th amendment and why requiring warrants is a good thing. I guess we could go back to nobody talking about it and it just goes on unchecked.

If you don't push for more...you won't get it. I want them BANNED! Letting the state take an inch will result in it taking the rest of your Liberty when the next crisis pops up.

[specsaregood]

If you don't push for more...you won't get it. I want them BANNED! Letting the state take an inch will result in it taking the rest of your Liberty when the next crisis pops up.

You aren't going to get a banning at this point in time. Hell, Rand probably won't even get this. So, for the sake of debate, if banning domestic droning is off the table, what do set your sights on a bit lower?

[July]

How would outright banning them solve the underlying issue though? Should they be banned? Why is the state abusing these, that's the real question. It isn't an issue with drones per se, but in the driving cause of the police state, and I know Rand knows what that ultimately is. When you subsidize something, you get a lot more of it. And oh boy have we been subsidizing drones.

Corn, another thing we subsidize, and HFCS is currently killing a lot more Americans than drones right now as we speak. Should we ban it? Or just cut off the spigot.

That being said, I wish the bill didn't have language on "terrorist attacks" -- how is that defined? Still, the issue is not drones, but the constant war on terror/state of emergency/nanny state. Rand is right to ring the alarm on the nanny state usage of these, because that is really where the domestic drone market is headed. This is really good publicity. But the bill itself needs work.

[CaptainAmerica]

We disagree, I think you miss the point. They are already being used, without warrants. Rand's attempt here is to get it on record that is it not allowed unless you follow some rules. He has people on townhall.com talking about the 4th amendment and why requiring warrants is a good thing. I guess we could go back to nobody talking about it and it just goes on unchecked.

You obviously don't understand .

the drones are used illegally , but if that bill passes their "illegal use" will become legalized.

[matt0611]

You obviously don't understand .

the drones are used illegally , but if that bill passes their "illegal use" will become legalized.

I'm confused. They're currently getting warrants to use these drones?

Isn't this bill supposed to require them to get warrants before they can spy on someone?

I don't really have any problems with that. I'm fine with them tapping someones phone line or spying on them visually as long as they get a warrant.

[DamianTV]

I'm confused. They're currently getting warrants to use these drones?

Isn't this bill supposed to require them to get warrants before they can spy on someone?

I don't really have any problems with that. I'm fine with them tapping someones phone line or spying on them visually as long as they get a warrant.

Thats the thing. They are putting the Cart before the Horse. They assume you must be doing something wrong which gives them reason to get a warrant which provides them with the ability to find the evidence of you doing something wrong. The average person unknowningly commits 3 Felonies Per Day. What they want is a means of taking even more from the innocent citizens by interpreting anything they do as a crime, which leads to fines, and if the innocent is incarcerated, it is also profitable by human trafficking.

The Justice System is a giant Ponzi Scheme that will not rest until every single one of us is incarcerated for whatever they feel like saying is now a crime.

[realtonygoodwin]

What are you doing on this site?

Clearly the problem is they are used to pre-emptively surveil and not used to only go after criminals who already commited a violent crime. The fact is, they will be used to mostly uphold tyrannical laws libertarians already disagree with. Every drug dealer will now be a terrorist. Why does this need to be explained to you? Is this lack of ability to think for yourself why you still support Rand?


I am on this site because I am a Ron Paul supporter. Why are you on this site?

The problem seems to be that you have an issue with enforcing the law, and this is one way for the law to be enforced. You should be focusing on changing those laws rather than worrying about getting caught breaking them.


We disagree, I think you miss the point. They are already being used, without warrants. Rand's attempt here is to get it on record that is it not allowed unless you follow some rules. He has people on townhall.com talking about the 4th amendment and why requiring warrants is a good thing. I guess we could go back to nobody talking about it and it just goes on unchecked.

^This!

The same requirements would still exist for getting a warrant in the first place.


Drones are just remotely piloted robot aircraft. Nothing inherently evil about them.

[specsaregood]

You obviously don't understand .
the drones are used illegally , but if that bill passes their "illegal use" will become legalized.

and without this bill they will continue to use them warrant free and with no oversight.

[CaptainAmerica]

and without this bill they will continue to use them warrant free and with no oversight.

You don't get it either . the bill is one major loophole to remove your ability to sue the government. derp DERP

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

I'm fine with them tapping someones phone line or spying on them visually as long as they get a warrant.

They hand warrants out like candy, but I guess that's a different subject.

Most of us here are not incrementalists, probably because we've all been slow boiled to death at this point.

[matt0611]

They hand warrants out like candy, but I guess that's a different subject.

Most of us here are not incrementalists, probably because we've all been slow boiled to death at this point.

Well I'm not sure what else we can do. I mean, I'm an incrementalist for practical purposes as we are the minority. I mean, we have what? 3 good senators and maybe 4-5 decent reps.

[specsaregood]

You don't get it either . the bill is one major loophole to remove your ability to sue the government. derp DERP

yeah, as if that is a real possiblity. I'd rather restrain the govt by requiring the extra step of a warrant than try to "sue" the govt.

[DamianTV]

The same thing goes for Privacy. Once some company finds something out about you on the Internet, it is impossible for you to have ANY measure of control over that bit of information. The only real chance you have of controlling that information is to not put it out there to begin with. Considering the average person unknowingly commits 3 felones every day, the Govt will always have more than enough information to charge you with any of those crimes. Dont make it easier for them by not protecting your privacy where you have the most control over your information, and dont make it easier by allowing unchecked unregulated warrantless searches of every aspect of your life.

Sure the Govt will lie at every opportunity when convicting you of some crime, but proving the Govt is flat out lying is easier than proving your innocence in a court that has already assumed your guilt.

[realtonygoodwin]

You don't get it either . the bill is one major loophole to remove your ability to sue the government. derp DERP

umm, from your OP:


3. Allows any person to sue the government for violating this Act.



???

[specsaregood]

example of this bill getting more republican voters interested in defending the 4th amendment.
http://www.redstate.com/gamecock/2012/06/17/rand-pauls-welcome-fourth-amendment-dronings-in-plain-sight/

[shane77m]

Rand has "cough, cough" sold out.