Here's how it reads,
Amendment IVThe 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.
But now, in the 21st Century, it's amended to say,
"...excepting where drones may be used for NECESSARY OPERATIONS, at the discretion of non-elected bureaucrats and LEO's...".
Or at least that's how the gub'ment spies and / or LEOrgs think it is now.
The Parrot eBee drone on display near Paris on June 18, 2013. (Francois Mori/AP)When it comes to domestic surveillance, sometimes Congress seems like it’s expressing shock and outrage about something it already knows—or should have known. Take the use of drones on U.S. soil.
FBI Director Robert Mueller admitted at a hearing this week that his agency uses unmanned aerial vehicles for surveillance on U.S. soil. Mueller insisted the FBI used drones “in a very, very minimal way”—but his comments did nothing to quiet the raging debate over privacy rights in the aftermath of National Security Agency spying revelations.
Mueller didn’t help himself when, asked by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, whether the FBI had set limits on when drone use on U.S. soil is OK, he replied: “I will tell you that our footprint is very small. We have very few and have limited use, and we’re exploring not only the use but also the necessary guidelines for that use.” It sounded like the drone equivalent of shooting first and then asking questions.
“If there’s a legitimate law-enforcement reason for using them, they ought to say what that law-enforcement reason is,” Grassley later told CNN. “The right of privacy is at stake.”
There’s ample bipartisan fear that drones pose a major threat to privacy. Mueller himself echoed those concerns and invited Congress to impose limits on their use “down the road.”
Grassley also told CNN that it was “absolutely not” known that the FBI used drones on U.S. soil
(OK, technically, in U.S. airspace) and called Mueller’s reply “enlightening.”
But FBI use of drones on U.S. soil isn’t exactly a state secret. The Associated Press noted in March that “last month, the FBI used drones to maintain continuous surveillance of a bunker in Alabama where a 5-year-old boy was being held hostage.” And the use of drones for surveillance on U.S. soil is a well-reported phenomenon. How well? The Congressional Research Service (exactly what it sounds like) produced a 20-page report in April 2013 titled “Drones in Domestic Surveillance Operations: Fourth Amendment Implications and Legislative Responses” (the report was obtained and made public by the Federation of American Scientists).
A critical line in that report:
Within [the Department of Homeland Security], Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP’s) Office of Air and Marine (OAM) has flown missions to support federal and state agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Department of Defense (DOD), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the U.S. Secret Service, and the Texas Rangers.And Congress has been funding those kinds of efforts since at least August 2010. That’s when a border security bill allocated $32 million to give the authorities two new drones. The legislation cleared the House of Representatives by a voice vote and sailed through the Senate without opposition.
So the elected clowns in Congress gave 'somebody' $32M for drones, but never questioned WHO the drones would be tracking, or under what 'necessary' situations they could be deployed? It looks like there are ROE for shooting the Taliban or AQ, and they ARE tough. But for 'droning' American Citizens, anything goes.
50 years ago my grandfather would have said it was a lie, that the Congress critters were covering their asses by saying they didn't know.. Now that I'M of grandfatherly age, it doesn't surprise me. It's just the same overspending of OUR $$$$'s, magnifying the crap they do daily, without ever thinking about consequences.