Drone Wars

The bad news is that the administration is buying drones for domestic use that are supposed to be able to identify whether people on the ground are armed, and track people using their cell phones.

Recently uncovered government documents reveal that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) unmanned Predator B drone fleet has been custom designed to identify civilians carrying guns and track cell phone signals.

"I am very concerned that this technology will be used against law-abiding American firearms owners," said founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation, Alan Gottlieb. “This could violate Fourth Amendment rights as well as Second Amendment rights."

The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) obtained a partially redacted copy of Homeland Security’s drone requirements through a Freedom of Information Act request; CNET uncovered an unredacted copy.

Homeland Security design requirements specify that its Predator B drones “shall be capable of identifying a standing human being at night as likely armed or not” and must be equipped with “interception” systems capable of reading cell phone signals.

The good news is that Attorney General Holder promises to hardly ever use them to kill American citizens on U.S. soil.

Attorney General Eric Holder is not entirely ruling out a scenario under which a drone strike would be ordered against Americans on U.S. soil, but says it has never been done previously and he could only see it being considered in an extraordinary circumstance.

He began to winnow the list of those possible extraordinary circumstances Wednesday. In testimony Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, pressed Holder whether he believed it would be constitutional to target an American terror suspect "sitting at a cafe" if the suspect didn't pose an imminent threat.

"No," Holder replied.

Wow, that makes eight excuses for another cup of coffee!

But he also said the government has no intention of carrying out drone strikes inside the United States. Echoing what he said in a letter to U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, he called the possibility of domestic drone strikes "entirely hypothetical." 

"Only a severe electoral emergency could cause us to bring these precision weapons to bear on Americans."

I may have added that last sentence.

Seriously, if the administration won't rule out the use of drone attacks against American citizens in the US, Congress or even the courts ought to address this issue as soon as possible.  There should be nothing wrong with the requiring law enforcement to make a physical attempt to arrest someone in person before engaging them in deadly combat.  If it, rarely, puts law enforcement at some personal risk, so be it.

UPDATE:  About the time I put up this post, Sen. Rand Paul  started to filibuster John Brennan's nomination for CIA director, demanding answers as to whether the administration would rule out attacking American citizens on American soil using drones.

“I’m here to filibuster John Brennan’s nomination to be director of CIA,” Paul said on the Senate floor Wednesday as he began a long afternoon of speaking. “I will speak for as long as it takes.

“I will speak today until the president says 'no,' he will not kill you at a café.”