The Government Is Spying on America with Drones, Too

[Melinda]

FBI director Robert Mueller said the government has used surveillance drones in the U.S. — though "in a very, very minimal way, very seldom" — at a Senate hearing on Wednesday. "It's very seldom used and generally used in a particular incident when you need the capability," Mueller said before the judiciary committee. "It is very narrowly focused on particularized cases and particularized needs." He said he did not know what happens to the images the drones capture.

Mueller's answer came following questioning from California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who said drones were the "biggest threat to privacy" in America today. This is funny, because Feinstein had just given a rousing defense of the National Security Agency's program to collect the metadata on all phone calls made by all Americans. Feinstein is the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and since Edward Snowden leaked the NSA programs, has dismissed concerns that the government is spying on Americans. At Wednesday's hearing, Feinstein said the NSA collects "not the names, but the data. Not the content, but the data." A drone wouldn't collect the content of your conversation, either. It would only show exactly where you are and when. Which is what your phone call metadata says, too. Nevertheless, Dianne Feinstein is anti-NSA paranoia but pro-drone paranoia.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/06/government-spying-america-drones-too/66397/

I'm close to feeling numb, lately. How can a citizenry consent to be governed when they're not informed. Are we informed now? Are we informed enough, yet?

[WovenGems]

1. Where?

Seen any lately?

[galileoreloaded]

4. not sure you are supposed to see them..thats the point. nt

[WovenGems]

11. Blue skies

Sunshine. Even high up would be a dot. Paranoia is popular right now. FoxNews must be having a field day.

[cali]

15. oh for the love of reason.

yikes. Even if no one sees them, genius, the FBI director has just admitted that they employ them. Seeing them has jack to do with it.

yikes. critical thinking in short supply.

[WovenGems]

16. What's

with all the paranoia? Did some just figure out we have a black president? Clue me in. Why should I be paranoid about the government? They can't do anything right and that includes spying on me.

[cali]

21. I can't speak for others here, but I'm glad to speak for myself

I'm not even a little bit paranoid. Nor do I have any fear for myself. I am concerned, in the larger framework, of the exponentially growing national security industry- both government and corporate and what that means. Does it mean a chilling of speech? Quite possibly. How much of this purported need is one which this country creates, either directly through policy (think drone bombing in Pakistan over their furious objection) or inadvertently or for pure financial gain. Furthermore, the history of malfeasance on the part of the national security agencies- there are 16 discrete agencies- is long and well documented.

Many of us have been concerned about this issue for a very long time.

[geek tragedy]

18. critical thinking would mean that one not wet their undergarments about remote control

planes with cameras in the satellite age.

[cali]

22. who's doing that? I'm certainly not.

I do think we need to no more about how the FBI is employing drones for domestic spying. that's hardly pissing one's pants or lighting one's hair on fire.

[geek tragedy]

24. Who said they were used for "domestic spying?" nt

[cali]

27. what else would the FBI use them for? Do tell.

[geek tragedy]

30. Do you consider traffic and police helicopters "spying?"

How about visual monitoring of the border?

It appears that "spying" has been redefined to mean "paying attention to anything that happens in public."

[treestar]

59. good catch!

That is exactly what it has come to mean!

[geek tragedy]

60. Well, remember they 'spied' on Occupy Wall Street by

reading the official Occupy Wall Street Twitter feed.

[uponit7771]

31. People who are bringing up the fact that water is wet, government surveys and bears...

...crap on republicans in the woods?

tia

[Buzz Clik]

2. Is that better or worse than other forms of surveillance?

Or are we just getting outraged all over again?

[Melinda]

5. FISC.

And history.

[tridim]

20. Zero concern about Google Earth and other photographic surveillance...

That have long been surveying the ENTIRE PLANET.

But a few drones doing the same thing under Obama. OUTRAGE!!!!!!111

[cali]

25. I fucking hate google earth.

and all that crap. I'm so glad I live where there aren't any cameras on stoplights. Of course, the nearest stoplight is over 1/2 hour a way.

[Buzz Clik]

29. You hate Google Earth? Why?

[curlyred]

52. I have to say, I am somewhat disturbed by the whole Google Earth thing

Creeps me out to know that at any time, any place, Google could be working the camera. Without my knowledge or permission.

[Buzz Clik]

28. The Googlemobile snapped me four times mowing my lawn. My lawn!!! For the love of God!

Is nothing sacred?

[geek tragedy]

3. Whereas police helicopters are AOK. nt

[jberryhill]

6. And RC planes

Which, as you likely know, were challenged when used by the EPA to see what was going on in a polluting chemical plant but, hey, private is private.

[geek tragedy]

10. RC planes are drones, no? nt

[tridim]

35. I'm screwed, I have RC planes with cameras on them.

But honestly it's much more fun flying without a cam.

[Melinda]

7. I believe in open laws and the Bill of Rights, not in casting nets. YMMV, however.

[geek tragedy]

8. How are drones offend the Constitution in a way that helicopters don't? nt

[JaneQPublic]

36. Yep, helicopters or even a panel truck parked on the curb.

Remotely piloted aircraft are a big advantage in war zones where there's a good chance a piloted aircraft might get shot down and the pilot killed. But if the "authorities" want to spy on average American citizens, they could get closer pictures, listen in on hidden mics, look in windows, etc. from just a bread truck parked on the corner loaded with surveillance equipment.

You're absolutely right, Geek. A drone wouldn't offer much more advantage to domestic spies than Google Earth.

[geek tragedy]

37. Also, surveillance of public areas isn't exactly spying nt

[JaneQPublic]

42. Indeed. (nt)

[The Link]

9. At least they aren't killing Americans with drones.

[Melinda]

23. Oh, wait.

Thanks.

[avaistheone1]

64. Well not in the USA yet, to the best of our knowledge.

Emphasis on YET.

[HooptieWagon]

12. Looks like drone industry needs to increase campaign $ to DiFi.

She'll back the MIC and surveillence state when there's money in it for she and her husband.

[Melinda]

26. lol, my exact thought after reading the article.

Congress needs to go.

[Catherina]

13. FBI director says 22 people have access to surveillance database uncovered by Snowden

FBI director admits domestic use of drones

Published time: June 19, 2013 14:55


....

Robert Mueller, the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, confirmed to lawmakers that the FBI owns several unmanned aerial vehicles, but has not adopted any strict policies or guidelines yet to govern the use of the controversial aircraft.

...

Mueller began answering questions just after 10 a.m. EDT and has also touched briefly on the recently exposed NSA surveillance program that has marred the reputation of the United States intelligence community as of late. Mueller said 22 agents have access to a vast surveillance database, including 20 analysts and two overseers.

When Sen. Al Franken (D-Minnesota) asked Mueller later in the morning if he’d consider being more open about the FBI’s surveillance methods, the director decried being much more transparent than the bureau already is. Mueller said the FBI has and will continue to weigh the possibility of publishing more information about its spy habits, but warned that doing such would be to the advantage of America’s enemies.

“There is a price to be paid for that transparency,” Mueller said. “I certainly think it would be educating our adversaries as to what our capabilities are.”

http://rt.com/usa/fbi-director-mueller-drones-947/

Mr Mueller, please define the words transparency and adversaries. Thank you

[Melinda]

32. You know what I'm a bit confused on?

Isn't there a line between the FBI, CIA, and NSA - or have they converged? Isn't FISA suppose to be about foreign intelligence and not American? Aren't American citizens suppose to be informed in order to consent to be governed?

We need to vote Congress out. We need to become active at the local community level. Have you seen what Hackensack NJ did to to their local govt when they overstepped and abused their authority? It's a great exercise in civic action:

http://hackensackcitizensforchange.blogspot.com/p/news.html

[Catherina]

33. They converged after 9-11. The Bush people's main complaint was that they were to separate

and that's why we had a 9-11 intelligence failure.

One of the NSA whistleblowers was explaining how all those old safeguards are gone. I don't have that video handy but I just happened to have this video up and Binney touches on your question

[Catherina]

34. And yes, we need to vote Congress out and vote some decent people in

They don't have the consent of the informed. Everything else is flag-waving and apple pie.

Thanks for the information on Hackensack NJ, I bookmarked it to read later.

[DevonRex]

44. Sigh. The FBI investigates acts of terrorism inside the U.S. Like the Boston bombing.

But sometimes there is overlap. Like in the Boston bombing, where the Russians had warned that Tamerlan had become radicalized, had contact with rebels in Dagestan. The FBI couldn't get a FISA warrant on him though because he was a Green Card Holder and they did not have proof that he was 1) a member of a foreign terrorist organization and 2) planning to carry out a violent terrorist attack. The rebels he met with in Dagestan were his cousins on his mother's side. And Russia refused to provide further proof of their claims. Tamerlan had posted a radical cleric's sermons on You Tube but that's free speech.

Now, after the bombing was carried out, obviously he was a terrorist and so was his brother who survived. Then the possibility of being involved with a foreign terrorist group was much more likely, given the Russian warning, his contact with his cousins, and the death of his Canadian friend in Dagestan at Russian hands. Following so far?

This is pertinent for 2 reasons. One, if a foreign group is involved we have to know. They may not stop at one bombing. Two, there may be others in the U.S. besides the Tamerlan and Dzhokhar. Those are the reasons we have to know.

But it also allows two things. One, it allows a CIA interrogator to join the FBI team who questioned Dzhokhar but solely for questions limited to a possible foreign connection, since that is CIA's jurisdiction. The FBI, of course, was investigating the bombing itself and possible conspirators. Two it allowed, finally, a FISA warrant on the brothers' phone records. In this way the FBI could see if there was a network within the U.S. and the CIA could see if the brothers were connected to a terrorist organization who might have actually directed the bombing.

I cannot think of a better case that explains just HOW safe American citizens are from government intrusion than this one. Warrants couldn't be gotten even with warnings because the evidence didn't meet the high standards set by law until a terrorist act had already been committed.

[Melinda]

47. My question was rhetorical; I can be sarcastic at times.

Of course they overlap to a certain extent, post 911. That does mean however that I have to like the fact, when, imo, the lines have been pushed too far. DHS could have obtained a warrant re Boston, no? And can you point me to the relevant statute wherein its codified that the FBI can not obtain a warrant on a non citizen, ie resident alien?

Edited to add:

The FBI has used secret evidence obtained under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to prosecute at least 27 accused terrorists since 2007, according to a Reuters review of public records.

While the recent spotlight has been on the use of the FISA law by the U.S. National Security Agency for surveillance programs following disclosures by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, the FBI also makes extensive use of the law for domestic counterterrorism.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/18/us-usa-security-fisa-insight-idUSBRE95H03220130618
--------------------------


Just because it's "legal" doesn't mean I have to like it.

[Melinda]

48. "The FBI couldn't get a FISA warrant on him though because he was a Green Card Holder" Citation?

I understand that life can get busy, but I feel the need to ask once again because I've noticed you're posting this in multiple threads. Now, I believe you believe this to be true - "The FBI couldn't get a FISA warrant on him though because he was a Green Card Holder", however I've spent the better part of the afternoon perusing US code, and numerous sites looking for verification of your claim, and I've come up empty.

I'm not able to locate any legal authorities citing that any agency of the Fed govt can not obtain a criminal warrant nor serve said warrant on a resident alien (technical term for green card holder). So again, would you please share the relevant legal authority(s) that supports your assertion?

TIA.

[DevonRex]

49. They can, but first have to prove membership in foreign terrorist organization or planning

violent terrorist attack. I found it earlier this week. Give me a few minutes and I'll dig it up. It's the same forma citizen, BTW. I'm not trying to talk you into being happy. Just letting you know about safeguards. Be back when I find it. I think it's in Section VII???

[Melinda]

51. Thanks. I'm a patient woman. Now that I know you'll supply it, I can wait at your leisure.

Appreciated. Off to dinner, bbl myself.

[DevonRex]

54. LOL, I just posted it.

Had to run an errand for my husband. I had found it just as he called. Oh well. Now I have a headache and I'm a grouch.

[DevonRex]

53. Finally. From my favorite law site, Cornell. A Wex article.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/electronic_surveillance

"In 1978, Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The Act lowers the evidentiary showing needed to obtain a surveillance warrant with regard to foreign intelligence gathering and describes other procedures relating to physical and electronic surveillance relating to foreign intelligence. The Act's provisions also applies to American citizens suspected of espionage.

FISA's provisions permit electronic surveillance in two situations. First, FISA authorizes the President to use warrantless wiretapping if it relates to protecting the United States against a potential grave attack, sabotage, or espionage, on the that the government does not tap any U.S. citizen. Second, federal law enforcement may obtain a warrant for foreign intelligence taps that do not meet the criteria of the first situation. To obtain the warrant, the FISA court must find probable cause that the person to be tapped constitutes a foreign power or the agent of a foreign power and that a foreign power uses or will use the place to be tapped. FISA also created its own court system, housed within the Department of Justice. Known as "FISA courts" they deal exclusively with foreign intelligence warrant applications, orders directing compliance, and challenges to compliance orders."
END SNIPPET

The article is very informative, in case there are other things you need to know. It is on Cornell Law, the Cornell Law School's official site that is used by their own law students as well as law students all across the nation and even the globe.

[DevonRex]

56. And waded through 50 USC... The pertinent parts

First the agent submits the request to the Attorney General as outlined below.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1804
50 USC § 1804 - Applications for court orders
(a) Submission by Federal officer; approval of Attorney General; contents
Each application for an order approving electronic surveillance under this subchapter shall be made by a Federal officer in writing upon oath or affirmation to a judge having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this title. Each application shall require the approval of the Attorney General based upon his finding that it satisfies the criteria and requirements of such application as set forth in this subchapter. It shall include—
(1) the identity of the Federal officer making the application;
(2) the identity, if known, or a description of the specific target of the electronic surveillance;
(3) a statement of the facts and circumstances relied upon by the applicant to justify his belief that—
(A) the target of the electronic surveillance is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power; and
(B) each of the facilities or places at which the electronic surveillance is directed is being used, or is about to be used, by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power;
(4) a statement of the proposed minimization procedures;
(5) a description of the nature of the information sought and the type of communications or activities to be subjected to the surveillance;
(6) a certification or certifications by the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, an executive branch official or officials designated by the President from among those executive officers employed in the area of national security or defense and appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, or the Deputy Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, if designated by the President as a certifying official—
(A) that the certifying official deems the information sought to be foreign intelligence information;
(B) that a significant purpose of the surveillance is to obtain foreign intelligence information;
(C) that such information cannot reasonably be obtained by normal investigative techniques;
(D) that designates the type of foreign intelligence information being sought according to the categories described in section 1801 (e) of this title; and
(E) including a statement of the basis for the certification that—
(i) the information sought is the type of foreign intelligence information designated; and
(ii) such information cannot reasonably be obtained by normal investigative techniques;
END SNIPPET, BUT CONTINUE READING ON SITE...

Then the application goes to the FISA judge. He issues the court order based on Section 1805.

50 USC § 1805 - Issuance of order
(a)Necessary findings
Upon an application made pursuant to section 1804 of this title, the judge shall enter an ex parte order as requested or as modified approving the electronic surveillance if he finds that—
(1) the application has been made by a Federal officer and approved by the Attorney General;
(2) on the basis of the facts submitted by the applicant there is probable cause to believe that—
(A) the target of the electronic surveillance is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power: Provided, That no United States person may be considered a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and
(B) each of the facilities or places at which the electronic surveillance is directed is being used, or is about to be used, by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power;
(3) the proposed minimization procedures meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title; and
(4) the application which has been filed contains all statements and certifications required by section 1804 of this title and, if the target is a United States person, the certification or certifications are not clearly erroneous on the basis of the statement made under section 1804 (a)(7)(E) [1] of this title and any other information furnished under section 1804 (d) [1] of this title.
(b) Determination of probable cause
In determining whether or not probable cause exists for purposes of an order under subsection (a)(2) of this section, a judge may consider past activities of the target, as well as facts and circumstances relating to current or future activities of the target.

[DevonRex]

57. Now the definitions in FISA...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1801
50 USC § 1801 - Definitions
SNIP
(b) “Agent of a foreign power” means—
(1) any person other than a United States person, who—
(A) acts in the United States as an officer or employee of a foreign power, or as a member of a foreign power as defined in subsection (a)(4) of this section;
(B) acts for or on behalf of a foreign power which engages in clandestine intelligence activities in the United States contrary to the interests of the United States, when the circumstances of such person’s presence in the United States indicate that such person may engage in such activities in the United States, or when such person knowingly aids or abets any person in the conduct of such activities or knowingly conspires with any person to engage in such activities;
(C) engages in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefore;
(D) engages in the international proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, or activities in preparation therefor; or
(E) engages in the international proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, or activities in preparation therefor for or on behalf of a foreign power; or
(2) any person who—
(A) knowingly engages in clandestine intelligence gathering activities for or on behalf of a foreign power, which activities involve or may involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States;
(B) pursuant to the direction of an intelligence service or network of a foreign power, knowingly engages in any other clandestine intelligence activities for or on behalf of such foreign power, which activities involve or are about to involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States;
(C) knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism, or activities that are in preparation therefor, for or on behalf of a foreign power;
(D) knowingly enters the United States under a false or fraudulent identity for or on behalf of a foreign power or, while in the United States, knowingly assumes a false or fraudulent identity for or on behalf of a foreign power; or
(E) knowingly aids or abets any person in the conduct of activities described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) or knowingly conspires with any person to engage in activities described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C).
(c) “International terrorism” means activities that—
(1) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or any State;
(2) appear to be intended—
(A) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(B) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(C) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping; and
(3) occur totally outside the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to coerce or intimidate, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.
(d) “Sabotage” means activities that involve a violation of chapter 105 of title 18, or that would involve such a violation if committed against the United States.
(e) “Foreign intelligence information” means—
(1) information that relates to, and if concerning a United States person is necessary to, the ability of the United States to protect against—
(A) actual or potential attack or other grave hostile acts of a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power;
(B) sabotage, international terrorism, or the international proliferation of weapons of mass destruction by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power; or
(C) clandestine intelligence activities by an intelligence service or network of a foreign power or by an agent of a foreign power; or
(2) information with respect to a foreign power or foreign territory that relates to, and if concerning a United States person is necessary to—
(A) the national defense or the security of the United States; or
(B) the conduct of the foreign affairs of the United States.
(f) “Electronic surveillance” means—
(1) the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any wire or radio communication sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person who is in the United States, if the contents are acquired by intentionally targeting that United States person, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes;
(2) the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any wire communication to or from a person in the United States, without the consent of any party thereto, if such acquisition occurs in the United States, but does not include the acquisition of those communications of computer trespassers that would be permissible under section 2511 (2)(i) of title 18;
(3) the intentional acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any radio communication, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes, and if both the sender and all intended recipients are located within the United States; or
(4) the installation or use of an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device in the United States for monitoring to acquire information, other than from a wire or radio communication, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes.
(g) “Attorney General” means the Attorney General of the United States (or Acting Attorney General), the Deputy Attorney General, or, upon the designation of the Attorney General, the Assistant Attorney General designated as the Assistant Attorney General for National Security under section 507A of title 28.
(h) “Minimization procedures”, with respect to electronic surveillance, means—
(1) specific procedures, which shall be adopted by the Attorney General, that are reasonably designed in light of the purpose and technique of the particular surveillance, to minimize the acquisition and retention, and prohibit the dissemination, of nonpublicly available information concerning unconsenting United States persons consistent with the need of the United States to obtain, produce, and disseminate foreign intelligence information;
(2) procedures that require that nonpublicly available information, which is not foreign intelligence information, as defined in subsection (e)(1) of this section, shall not be disseminated in a manner that identifies any United States person, without such person’s consent, unless such person’s identity is necessary to understand foreign intelligence information or assess its importance;
(3) notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), procedures that allow for the retention and dissemination of information that is evidence of a crime which has been, is being, or is about to be committed and that is to be retained or disseminated for law enforcement purposes; and
(4) notwithstanding paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), with respect to any electronic surveillance approved pursuant to section 1802 (a) of this title, procedures that require that no contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party shall be disclosed, disseminated, or used for any purpose or retained for longer than 72 hours unless a court order under section 1805 of this title is obtained or unless the Attorney General determines that the information indicates a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person.
(i) “United States person” means a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence (as defined in section 1101 (a)(20) of title 8), an unincorporated association a substantial number of members of which are citizens of the United States or aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or a corporation which is incorporated in the United States, but does not include a corporation or an association which is a foreign power, as defined in subsection (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this section.

[treestar]

61. Thank you Devon

And yet the FBI was said to have failed with Tamerlan. I wondered who sees the irony of comparing that attitude with the attitude now.

[DevonRex]

63. I have been trying to point it out. I just don't start OPs.

The facts are not particularly popular anyway. But this poster was curious so I went back and dug it all up again.

[tridim]

14. When did DU officially become Alex Jones' conspiracy hour?

Was there an announcement?

[geek tragedy]

17. It's been that way on and off again since 2001.

For a long time, the 9/11 Truthers were posting in GD.

[Floyd_Gondolli]

38. This is my favorite

And you pretty much invalidate anything and everything the poster has to say in the future:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3023113

[geek tragedy]

39. Well, webcams are hijacked by hackers all the time.

The big scandal is that the government could do 1/1000th what Russia-based bot malware programs and Internet pervs do.

[treestar]

62. We are doomed, I tell ya!

[BenzoDia]

19. I remember the Police Chief of Boston mentioned the possible use of drones for surveillance

at future events. And then Bloomberg was talking about hooking up more CCTV cameras around New York.

Privacy is over, folks.

[Octafish]

40. But, they're good drones, Melinda.

Friendly, even.

[JaneQPublic]

46. Maybe not friendly but certainly useful...

...at least for purposes other than surveillance and warfighting.

Among these more positive uses:
-- maritime patrol
-- search and rescue
-- fishery protection
-- forest fire detection
-- natural disaster monitoring
-- contamination measurement
-- road traffic surveillance
-- power and pipeline inspection
-- meteorological missions (e.g., flights into hurricanes)
-- earth observation (e.g., photos of Artic/Antartic ice melt/global warming)
-- quieter, more fuel-efficient replacements of the airplanes and helicopters now doing these tasks

The technology of unmanned aircraft is neither good nor evil. It all depends upon how we use it. But keep in mind: much of the objections people have with drones can also be said of helicopters, airships (blimps), airplanes, satellites, and many other long-established technologies that have similar capabilities but don't seem to cause all the uproar.

[Melinda]

50. Well then, that changes everything, doesn't it? Can I expect my pony soon?

I hope it's the color of cotton candy and sings too!

This crap has been many years in the making. FISC judges (appointed by SCOTUS Chief Justice Roberts) are entrenched, Congress is entrenched and you just know the BFEE is involved up to their neck working to make their agenda happen, hand in hand with Alec and Congress, their family at the Carlyle Group, Haliburton, Enron... the Patriot Act.

But you know all this far better than I.

Goddamn it, if I don't get that fucking pink pony that sings, I may just lose more trust in my govt. Oh wait - I have no more to lose.

Sonofabitch.

[Octafish]

55. My Little Droney

The thing puts on a killer show for kids.

[randome]

41. How would you like to be informed about this?

Do you think before a drone is sent out to, I don't know, gauge the extent of a wildfire, law enforcement should take a public vote first?

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[HiPointDem]

43. uninformed citizens can't consent, and we are not a democracy for that reason.

[HiPointDem]

45. kr

[treestar]

58. What are they looking for?

I see the phrase "spying on Americans" is supposed to enrage us, but now I've seen it so many times I'm realizing, what would be the point of "spying on Americans?" How much boring information is that going to turn up?

They are looking for something. Do we want them to be able to look for it?