PDA

View Full Version : North Dakota Police Borrow Predator Drone and Arrest Family Over Cows




AmericasLastHope
03-14-2013, 11:50 AM
Police in North Dakota borrowed a $154 million MQ-9 Predator B drone from the Department of Homeland Security to arrest a family of anti-government separatists who refused to return six cows that wandered onto their farm. After a standoff over the refusal to return the cows, local authorities called DHS and asked them to deploy a multi-million dollar drone to surveil the farmer’s property. This incident was the first time a drone owned by the U.S. government was used against civilians for local police work.

http://www.aclu.org/criminal-law-reform/predator-drones-seeking-lost-cows

bolil
03-14-2013, 12:16 PM
Well, I guess the cows went home.

The Gold Standard
03-14-2013, 12:22 PM
Anti-government separatists huh? The terrorists are lucky they didn't get a hellfire missile in their living room. Surely they were involved in some sort of combat.

ghengis86
03-14-2013, 12:48 PM
Just the next logical progression of the police state. Since this worked out so well for the tyrants, the Feds will probably increase their grant programs to local LEs and allow them to purchase drones from the pentagon. Once that be ones the norm, there will be an incident that is 'resolved' in the state's favor with a Hellfire missile. Then all the drones will be armed. And then we really won't have to fight the terrorists over there, since they'll be here.

jclay2
03-14-2013, 01:00 PM
I think I am goint to have to decrease my timeframe for the "first death by drone on us soil" thread. Looks like 2013 is the year.

sailingaway
03-14-2013, 01:11 PM
Obviously they belonged to someone else, however, DHS drones for state police work imho violates posse commitatus. I don't see DHS as anything but a domestically aimed army at this point.

kcchiefs6465
03-14-2013, 01:23 PM
This was a year or so ago, was it not? [give or take] Or is this a new case?

Anti Federalist
03-14-2013, 01:25 PM
This was a year or so ago, was it not? [give or take] Or is this a new case?

Yah, same case from last year.

AmericasLastHope
03-14-2013, 01:27 PM
Yah, same case from last year.

You're right. The ACLU article is stamped March 5, 2013, but the link they reference is from 2012.

Anti Federalist
03-14-2013, 01:31 PM
You're right. The ACLU article is stamped March 5, 2013, but the link they reference is from 2012.

Still worthy of a re-post.

And whoever in this thread called 2013 as the year of the first drone killing on US soil, I concur.

HOLLYWOOD
03-14-2013, 01:33 PM
It's from August 2011, Lakota, ND.
Homeland Security increasingly lending drones to local police
By Kimberly Dvorak
-
Washington Guardian
Monday, December 10, 2012



http://media.washtimes.com/media/image/2012/12/11/drone2_s160x98.jpg?366f86234e94fd91f28f0c5c0a7cacd 56bdaabaa (http://www.washingtontimes.com/multimedia/image/drone2jpg/)Enlarge Photo (http://www.washingtontimes.com/multimedia/image/drone2jpg/)
DHS and its Customs and Border Protection agency have deployed drones to ... more > (http://www.washingtontimes.com/multimedia/image/drone2jpg/)




Far from the battlefields of Afghanistan (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/afghanistan/), a Predator drone was summoned into action last year to spy on a North Dakota farmer who allegedly refused to return a half dozen of his neighbor’s cows that had strayed onto his pastures.

The farmer had become engaged in a standoff with the Grand Forks police SWAT (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/swat/) team and the sheriff’s department.

So the local authorities decided to call on their friends at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/us-department-of-homeland-security/) (DHS (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/us-department-of-homeland-security/)) to deploy a multimillion dollar, unarmed drone to surveil the farmer and his family.

The little-noticed August 2011 incident at the Lakota, N.D., ranch, which ended peacefully, was a watershed moment for Americans: it was one of the first known times an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) owned by the U.S. government (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/us-government/) was used against civilians for local police work.

Since then, the Washington Guardian (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/washington-guardian/) has confirmed, DHS (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/us-department-of-homeland-security/) and its Customs and Border Protection (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/customs-and-border-protection/) agency have deployed drones — originally bought to guard America’s borders — to assist local law enforcement and other federal agencies on several occasions.

The practice is raising questions inside and outside government about whether federal officials may be creating an ad-hoc, loan-a-drone program without formal rules for engagement, privacy protection or taxpayer reimbursements. The drones used by CPB can cost between $15 million and $34 million each to buy, and have hourly operational costs as well.

In addition, DHS (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/us-department-of-homeland-security/) recently began distributing $4 million in grants to help local law enforcement buy its own, smaller versions of drones, opening a new market for politically connected drone makers as the wars overseas shrink.

The double-barreled lending and purchasing have some concerned that federal taxpayers may be subsidizing the militarization of local police forces and creating new threats to average Americans’ privacy.

“We’ve seen bits and pieces of information on CBP (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/customs-and-border-protection/)’s Predator drones, but Americans deserve the full story,” said Jennifer Lynch (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/jennifer-lynch/), a lawyer for the Electronic Frontier Foundation (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/electronic-frontier-foundation/) (EFF (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/electronic-frontier-foundation/)) that studies privacy issues and has sought information on drone use in the United States. “Drones are a powerful surveillance tool that can be used to gather extensive data about you and your activities. The public needs to know more about how and why these Predator drones are being used to watch U.S. citizens.”

The Electronic Privacy Information Center (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/electronic-privacy-information-center/) (EPIC (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/electronic-privacy-information-center/)), another privacy advocate which is pursuing litigation to force the disclosure of more information from DHS (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/us-department-of-homeland-security/) on drones, says it has found that the government (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/us-government/) has no official policies for how the drones can be used by local police, does not seek compensation from local law enforcement to recoup taxpayers’ expenses and claims it doesn’t keep records on how many times its drones have been deployed for local use.

“CBP (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/customs-and-border-protection/)’s drone program is shrouded in secrecy and legal ambiguity. Despite a specific mission to protect the border from illegal immigration and drug smuggling, CBP (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/customs-and-border-protection/) continues to let other federal agencies and local law enforcement bureaus use (its drones) for unrelated purposes,” said Amie Stepanvich (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/amie-stepanvich/), Associate Litigation Counsel for EPIC.

Indeed, when the Washington Guardian (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/washington-guardian/) inquired about how many times DHS (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/us-department-of-homeland-security/) or CPB lent drones to local authorities, officials responded they didn’t have a formal loan-a-drone program but did on occasion lend the UAVs to help local police. But they declined to provide an exact number or a list of localities.

“While CBP (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/customs-and-border-protection/) does not have a ‘loan a drone’ program, we do work with national and sometimes state and local agencies for assistance,” said Ian Phillips (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/ian-phillips/), a spokesman for Customs Border (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/customs-border/) and Protection.

Such answers aren’t satisfying to members of Congress (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/congress/) worried about the costs to taxpayers and the implications of letting machines built for war to potentially impact privacy inside the United States in the name of security.

“We should not run from our basic constitutional principles because we have fear. That’s the best way I know for us to lose liberty. And you eventually give up your liberty if fear is your No. 1 guide,” said Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla. (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/tom-coburn/), an influential voice on the federal budget.

Local police departments, stretching from the Canadian border in the Midwest to the Mexican border in Texas, confirmed to the Washington Guardian (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/washington-guardian/) they have summoned CPB drones to help in local police matters ranging from the service of arrest warrants to armed standoffs.

Local SWAT (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/swat/) commanders, in fact, said DHS (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/us-department-of-homeland-security/) and CPB encouraged the use of the drones to give its unmanned pilots training opportunities. And they argue the collaborations and deployments have helped saved lives.

”CBP (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/customs-and-border-protection/) reached out to us for training. We have developed a relationship with them, and we can call them when we feel we need their help,” explained Sgt. Bill Macki (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/bill-macki/), the leader of the Grand Forks, N.D., SWAT (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/swat/) team that summoned the drone back in August 2011 at the North Dakota ranch during the farmer standoff.

Macki (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/bill-macki/) said his department has asked to use CPB drones three times –inclement weather prevented one of those deployments — and he personally knows of other local departments in the Dakotas that have also used the unmanned aerial vehicles in the last year.

“The Predator drone helps us pull back and (gives us) the ability to control the perimeter and de-escalate the scene significantly,” Macki (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/bill-macki/) explained. “The (drones) have been a tremendous asset to our high-risk operations.”

An added bonus for law enforcement is that so far federal officials haven’t asked the local cops to repay the costs. “We have not been charged by CBP (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/customs-and-border-protection/) for the use of the Predator drone,” Macki (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/bill-macki/) said.

While ad hoc deployments continue, in May the Department of Homeland Security (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/us-department-of-homeland-security/) launched its “Air-based Technologies Program” to hand out grants to help underwrite local law enforcement purchases of their own drones, said John Appleby of DHS Science and Technology Directorate’s division.

The Texas Rangers, another local police agency, confirmed they too have summoned drones on several occasions from CPB, but said they do not keep records of how often.

A recent report by (http://www.washingtonguardian.com/ig-criticizes-dhs-drone-program-management)DHS (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/us-department-of-homeland-security/)’s inspector general, the agency’s internal watchdog, mentioned the Rangers’ use as one of several examples in which CPB has deployed its drones for outside police agencies – both at the federal and local level.

For instance, a CBP (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/customs-and-border-protection/) drone conducted surveillance for a sister federal agency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, over a suspected smuggler’s tunnel. The mission yielded information that, according to an ICE representative, would have required many cars and agents to obtain, the report said.

The inspector general report warned that CBP (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/customs-and-border-protection/) has not implemented a formal process for participants to submit mission requests, and does not have agreements in place for reimbursement of the drone’s operational costs.

DHS (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/us-department-of-homeland-security/) is adding to its current drone fleet of 10 with the purchase of 14 more UAVs that will cost taxpayers $443 million. CBP (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/customs-and-border-protection/) officials have said they would like to ultimately fly the unpiloted aircraft to any part of the nation within a few hours at the request of other agencies to perform non-border security missions.

Safety in increasingly crowded American skies is also a concern. The Federal Aviation Administration (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/federal-aviation-administration/) has raised concerns about airport towers’ ability to recognize the UAVs.

Earlier this year Congress (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/congress/) authorized the FAA (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/federal-aviation-administration/) Modernization and Reform Act that directed the FAA (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/federal-aviation-administration/) to accelerate the integration of unmanned aircraft into the national airspace system by 2015.

But numerous issues continue to dog the FAA (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/federal-aviation-administration/)’s progress of getting thousands of drones airborne. “Concerns about national security, privacy, and the interference in Global Positioning-System (GPS) signals have not been resolved and may influence acceptance of routine access for UAS (Unmanned Aerial Systems) in the national airspace system,” a September 2012 Government Accountability Office reported.

Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., also expressed his concern with U.S. drones taking to the skies.

“FAA (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/federal-aviation-administration/) does not appear to be prioritizing privacy and transparency measures in its plan to integrate nonmilitary drones into U.S. airspace,” Markey said recently. “While there are benefits to using drones to gather information for law enforcement and appropriate research purposes, drones shouldn’t be used to gather private information on regular Americans.”
Others in Congress (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/congress/) are supporting the expansion of drones. At least 60 lawmakers have formed a caucus to support the industry.

“UAVs have been absolutely critical in the fight against terrorism overseas, significantly reducing the loss of U.S. lives in war zones, which is one reason why I joined the House caucus. Another reason is that UAVs are made right here in San Diego,” explained Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif.

The explosion within the drone industry can be seen in San Diego. One of the two drone manufacturing epicenters it provides California with a much-needed $1.3 billion infusion of revenue.

According to a National University System report, the industry has doubled in the last five years and industry analysts predict the drone marketplace will double again and has the ability to grow its domestic business potentially adding $12 billion to the San Diego economy.

One of the smaller San Diego upstart drone companies, Datron, sees a bright future for smaller drones that weigh fewer than four pounds. Its top-selling drone, the “Scout,” flies for 20 minutes and provides real-time color videos needed to assist law enforcement agencies.

“Our product is geared toward meeting the mission requirements of our tactical users,” said Christopher Barter, program manager for Datron. The Scout operates using a PC tablet computer that is pre-programed, and requires little training. Barter says, “The Scout is the perfect search and rescue UAV.” Also, the 20-minute flight time curtails some privacy issues raised by civil liberties activists, he said.

kcchiefs6465
03-14-2013, 01:49 PM
Still worthy of a re-post.

And whoever in this thread called 2013 as the year of the first drone killing on US soil, I concur.
If they wouldn't have turned Dorner into a folklorish type hero I bet he would have been the first. After they shot up those trucks though the public sentiment about a drone strike killing him would not have been the same. IIRC, they did use drones to assist the police in looking for him.

When they start labeling people domestic terrorists, and fight tooth in nail not to specifically say they have no authority to kill American citizens on American soil, especially with drones, watch out. I don't think 2013 will be the year, but it is coming up. All this talk of imminent [whether that means immediate (which obviously it does) or not (which only pencil pushing snakes could manipulate into being)] is especially important. Afterall, one man can label you an enemy combatant, one man can say in the future sometime you will threaten National Security, and one man can order you killed. A sad day to be a political dissident in America. Especially in the upcoming years/decades.

Mach
03-14-2013, 02:16 PM
Anti-government separatists huh? The terrorists are lucky they didn't get a hellfire missile in their living room. Surely they were involved in some sort of combat.

That's the key.....


It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: “Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?” The answer to that question is no.

Sincerely,

Eric H. Holder, Jr.

Now Sen. Paul, and everyone else, needs to get a definite definition of engaged in combat on American soil, what they call combat and what we call combat, are worlds apart.

dannno
03-15-2013, 11:24 AM
bump