Sen. Paul proposes bill protecting Americans from drone surveillance

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Tuesday introduced the Preserving Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act, which would require the government to get a warrant before using aerial drones to surveil U.S. citizens. More broadly, Paul's bill is aimed at preventing "unwarranted governmental intrusion" through the use of drones, according to the lawmaker. "Like other tools used to collect information in law enforcement, in order to use drones a warrant needs to be issued," Paul said Tuesday. "Americans going about their everyday lives should not be treated like criminals or terrorists and have their rights infringed upon by military tactics."

I really hope to see this pass. I think that red light cameras are a little too much, but the idea of being spied on by a drone really does bother me. It's different than a copper chopper in my opinion. I realize the ATS community has soured on Rand after his endorsement of Romney (which I think is a bit unfair) but this is a good sign, and I think he may just be more like his Dad than people realize. I don't have a problem with drones being used to watch suspected terrorists, drug cartels etc., but I take issue with the thought of drones patrolling our skies, spying on everyone. I really don't want a traffic citation issued to me by a drone operator. I would like to be able to casually stroll in my backyard, nasty bits out without fear of drone operators laughing at me. God job Rand.

Link

If someone like Ron was elected into office, at least you'd know that bills like this would get shut down at his desk. Then they could call out the senators and reps for wasting time inventing these bills.

reply to post by satron


They they could overturn it if they had a 2/3 vote, and they probably would.



This just looks like a Public Relations stunt by Rand to try and make up for endorsing Romney. It's probably a good bill but whatever.

Again, WHEN this gets shot down, it will be abundantly clear who the true enemy to the American public really is.

Cuz' it sure as hell isn't Al Qaeda.

Originally posted by RealSpoke
reply to post by satron

 

They they could overturn it if they had a 2/3 vote, and they probably would.



This just looks like a Public Relations stunt by Rand to try and make up for endorsing Romney. It's probably a good bill but whatever.

edit on 13-6-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)

Could happen like that.

I bet Mitt would sign something like that anyways. He admitted he'd sign the 2012 NDAA as it was written. Of course this isn't beyond him.

It looks like Rand is trying to save face after endorsing Romney. I'm guessing the bill is toothless and will be ignored if it actually passes.

I have heard him testify in a hearing about the government requiring certain types of toilets, light bulbs, etc. and he definitely hates the nanny state. Remember this story with the TSA standoff in Nashville?

Rand Paul has a quick fix for TSA: Pull the plug

Read more: www.politico.com...

reply to post by Domo1


Now, can we just get Rand Paul to do that for people in Canada too? I mean seriously, our patently idiotic government isn't going to stop the drones from flying over Canada. Harper is one of the biggest corporate shills on the planet. I wouldn't be surprised if Demarais has his hand shoved so far up Harpers ass that he can make his lips move. Or maybe Demarais uses a drone in there, there is a lot of vacant space in which to fly around right up to between the ears.

Cheers - Dave

reply to post by RealSpoke

This just looks like a Public Relations stunt by Rand to try and make up for endorsing Romney. It's probably a good bill but whatever.

So what if it is a PR stunt? A good bill is a good bill.

Speed monitored by Drones.

Saving face is right.

I am really disappointed with Rand Paul.

I dont think he did enough to back his father this election cycle. He never really seemed "Involved" with his dads bid for Presidency. Seemed to me, he was more worried about his own political career.

I could be and probably am wrong on this one. I dont know their inner working relationship. Its just what I see.

If you ask me, he will never be the politician his father was. He sure does try though.
So that I will give him credit for.

That said- I agree- A good bill is a good Bill. No matter what drama lays behind it.

Edit to add- Im still suspicious though of this bill for some reason. It still gives them authority to use them in our skys by warrant. I dont even think that should be allowed.

It would not shock me if Obama were to veto. He plays dirty.

In character as usual proposing crap that he knows will go nowhere.

reply to post by Pepeluacho


Of course Obama would veto, he desperately wants drones and the power to indeffinately detain. His next term will be exciting as hell.

here here !

good job

reply to post by syrinx high priest

I second that! syrinx high priest! The worlds gone mad! "Just leave me alone give me my toaster and my steel belted radials" (network reference!) , and my itunes, comcast, netflix, etc....just leave us alone!

Why do we need a law to protect us from something the 4th amendment should be protecting us from?

How will this law trump present unconstitutional laws like The Patriot Act and NDAA?

My first reaction was, this a load of face-saving crap by the sell-out, Rand.

Will have to look into this more though.

Originally posted by caterpillage
reply to post by Pepeluacho

 

Of course Obama would veto, he desperately wants drones and the power to indeffinately detain. His next term will be exciting as hell.

Oh wow, I forgot Obama has another term coming... that #'s crazy. The world has already completely changed from when Bush was in office.

Who authorized the use of drones over the US?

That's right... Congress...

So.. do you think that the same folks who allowed this, are going to turn around and get rid of it in the same year?

Looks more like one of those "election year" proposals to steer folks in November..

Chances of this getting any traction? None IMO...

Unless, we throw the bums out and get some fresh faces, (both sides of the aisle), into office next January...

Originally posted by bobs_uruncle
reply to post by Domo1

 

Now, can we just get Rand Paul to do that for people in Canada too? I mean seriously, our patently idiotic government isn't going to stop the drones from flying over Canada. Harper is one of the biggest corporate shills on the planet. I wouldn't be surprised if Demarais has his hand shoved so far up Harpers ass that he can make his lips move. Or maybe Demarais uses a drone in there, there is a lot of vacant space in which to fly around right up to between the ears.

Cheers - Dave

sooo.....
in other words
you are saying Harper is a drone...
with a rather limited range of about three knuckles and a wrist...?

I'll buy that