No. According to the Posse Comitatus act of 1878 (
http://usgovinfo.about.com/gi/o.htm...tml/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001385----000-.html), the military cannot deploy military assets on American soil unless they declare martial law which can only be declared by congress.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-garrison/martial-law-under-another_b_1370819.html
President Obama's National Defense Resources Preparedness Executive Order of March 16 does to the country as a whole what the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act did to the Constitution in particular -- completely eviscerates any due process or judicial oversight for any action by the Government deemed in the interest of "national security." Like the NDAA, the new Executive Order puts the government completely above the law, which, in a democracy, is never supposed to happen. The United States is essentially now under martial law without the exigencies of a national emergency.
Even as the 2012 NDAA was rooted in the Patriot Act and the various executive orders and Congressional bills that ensued to broaden executive power in the "war on terror," so the new Executive Order is rooted in the Defense Production Act of 1950 which gave the Government powers to mobilize national resources in the event of national emergencies, except now virtually every aspect of American life falls under ultimate unchallengeable government control, to be exercised by the president and his secretaries at their discretion.
The 2012 NDAA
deemed the United States a "battlefield," as Senator Lindsey Graham put it, and gave the president and his agents the right to seize and arrest any U.S. citizen, detain them indefinitely without charge or trial, and do so only on suspicion, without any judicial oversight or due process. The new
Executive Order states that the president and his secretaries have the authority to commandeer all U.S. domestic resources, including food and water, as well as seize all energy and transportation infrastructure inside the borders of the United States. The Government can also forcibly draft U.S. citizens into the military and force U.S. citizens to fulfill "labor requirements" for the purposes of "national defense." There is not even any Congressional oversight allowed, only briefings.
In the NDAA, only the president had the authority to abrogate legitimate freedoms of U.S. citizens. What is extraordinary in the new Executive Order is that this supreme power is designated through the president to the secretaries that run the Government itself:
• The Secretary of Defense has power over all water resources;
• The Secretary of Commerce has power over all material services and facilities, including construction materials;
• The Secretary of Transportation has power over all forms of civilian transportation;
• The Secretary of Agriculture has power over food resources and facilities, livestock plant health resources, and the domestic distribution of farm equipment;
• The Secretary of Health and Human Services has power over all health resources;
• The Secretary of Energy has power over all forms of energy.
The Executive Order even stipulates that in the event of conflict between the secretaries in using these powers, the president will determine the resolution through his national security team.
The 2012 NDAA gave the Government the right to abrogate any due process against a U.S. citizen. The new Executive Order gives the government, through the Secretary of Labor, the right to proactively mobilize U.S. citizens for "labor" as the government deems necessary and to coordinate with the Secretary of Defense to maintain data to coordinate the nation's work needs in relation to national defense.
What is extraordinary about the Executive Order is that, like the NDAA, this can all be done in peacetime without any national emergency to justify it. The language of the Order does not state that all these extraordinary measures will be done in the event of "national security" or a "national emergency." They can simply be done for "purposes of national defense," clearly a broader remit that allows the government to do what it wants, when it wants, how it wants, to whomever it wants, all without any judicial restraint or due process. As Orwell famously said in
1984, "War is peace. Peace is war." This is now the reality on the ground in America.
Finally, the 2012 NDAA was hurried through the House and Senate almost like a covert op with minimal public attention or debate. It was then signed by the president at 9:00 PM on New Year's Eve while virtually nobody was paying attention to much other than the approaching new year. This new Executive Order was written and signed in complete secret and then quietly released by the White House on its website without comment. All this was done under a president who studied constitutional law at Harvard.
It is hard to know what to say in the face of such egregious disregard for the integrity of what America has stood and fought for since its founding. It is hard in part because none of us thought such encroachments would ever happen here, certainly not under the watch of a "progressive" like Obama.
At one level, the prospect for war with Iran is probably an immediate justification. But the comprehensiveness of the Executive Order, like that of the 2012 NDAA, speaks to something much deeper, more sinister. I would suggest that this Order, like the NDAA, has been in the works for some time and is simply the next step in the logic of the "global war on terror." Our political elites have come to consider democracy an impediment to effective governance and they are slowly and painstakingly creating all the democratic legalities necessary to abridge our democratic rights with impunity, all to ensure our "security." Of such measures do republics fall and by such measures tyrants emerge.
The only thing that really remains is the occasion to test the new rules of the game. Perhaps that will be war with Iran, perhaps some contrived emergency, or perhaps, as long as the public and media remain asleep, no occasion will be necessary at all. It will just slowly happen of its own accord and we, like the frog in the pot of slowly boiling water, will just sit there and be consumed by our own turpitude.
As for the NDAA (national defense authorization act), I don't know what NDAA your talking about. But the NDAA the government talks about (and I admit not to be an expert in any sense of the world, simply went to the site) its just a budget.
From google: The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is a federal law specifying the budget and expenditures of the United States Department of Defense (DOD). Each year's act also includes other provisions, some related to civil liberties.
The website itself:
http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/ndaa-home?p=ndaa
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnew...ntion-without-trial-approved-by-appeals-court
[h=2]NDAA Indefinite Detention Without Trial Approved by Appeals Court[/h]
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second District
struck down an injunction against indefinite detention of U.S. citizens by the president under the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 in a July 17 ruling that is a blow to civil liberties protected by the U.S. Constitution. The appellate court ruled:
Plaintiffs lack standing to seek preenforcement review of Section 1021 and vacate the permanent injunction. The American citizen plaintiffs lack standing because Section 1021 says nothing at all about the President’s authority to detain American citizens.
The
Section 1021 of the NDAA allows “detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities” for “a person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.” The court is technically correct in stating that the law does not specifically mention U.S. citizens when it uses the term “person,” but like the vaguely worded “supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces,” it appears to be all-encompassing and subject solely to the president's discretionary whims.
The threat that the U.S. government would detain indefinitely — or even kill — an American citizen without formal charges or judicial proceeding is hardly theoretical. The appellate court that struck down the injunction
acknowledged that fact:
Presidents Bush and Obama have asserted the right to place certain individuals in military detention, without trial, in furtherance of their authorized use of force. That is, whom did Congress authorize the President to detain when it passed the AUMF [Authorization for the Use of Military Force]? On December 31, 2011, President Obama signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. Section 1021 of that statute, which fits on a single page, is Congress’ first — and, to date, only — foray into providing further clarity on that question. Of particular importance for our purposes, Section 1021(b)(2) appears to permit the President to detain anyone who was part of, or has substantially supported, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces.
Both President Obama and George W. Bush have authorized the detention or killing of American citizens without any due process.
U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki had been deemed a terrorist by the Obama administration for essentially maintaining a YouTube site that called for attacks against Americans from Awlaki's Yemeni home. Awlaki — an American citizen — was later
killed in a September 30, 2011 drone strike authorized by President Obama but without any judicial proceeding. No evidence of his actual involvement in any terrorist incident was ever made public, and no charges were ever brought in any court against Awlaki. Two weeks later Awlaki's Colorado-born 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman, was
killed in a separate drone strike authorized by the president. And President Obama is widely known to have a
“kill list” that includes American citizens.
President Bush detained at least four American citizens without trial:
U.S. Navy Veteran Donald Vance, Nathan Ertel,
Yaser Hamdi, and
Jose Padilla. Although Vance and Ertel were
released after a few months of torture (they were innocent), the Bush administration fought giving Hamdi and Padilla a trial — and even a habeas corpus hearing — all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The suit against the NDAA was brought largely by plaintiffs who are journalists and political activists, each claiming that their First Amendment-protected rights to freedom of speech, press, and assembly had been “chilled” because of the threat of indefinite detention. One of the journalists, Nobel Prize-winner Christopher Hedges, had interviewed al-Qaeda members as part of a story on the terrorist organization, and sought an injunction against his detention for what a president could claim was “aid” of enemy forces under the NDAA. Hedges' fear is not unfounded; three former Guantanamo detainees (the British citizens released because they were innocent) were
deemed by the U.S. government in 2007 as having “returned to the battlefield” for the crime of granting an interview for the documentary film
The Road to Guantanamo.
The injunction against the NDAA that was overridden, issued by Judge Katherine B. Forrest
last year, against detentions without the ordinary court process said: “The Government did not — and does not — generally agree or anywhere argue that activities protected by the First Amendment could not subject an individual to indefinite military detention under § 1021(b)(2). The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides for greater protection: It prohibits Congress from passing any law abridging speech and associational rights.... First Amendment rights are guaranteed by the Constitution and cannot be legislated away.”
Though the injunction against indefinite detention was struck down largely on jurisdictional grounds, the appellate court essentially dismissed the
district court ruling that “plaintiffs did present evidence that First Amendment rights have already been harmed and will be harmed by the prospect of § 1021(b)(2) being enforced. The public has a strong and undoubted interest in the clear preservation of First and Fifth Amendment rights.”
I don't know where you are getting any information about military drones flying over the united states with the specific military operations intent as that is explicitly illegal.
http://www.whiteoutpress.com/articles/q12013/new-drone-flight-records-over-the-us-released/
[h=2]
January 5, 2013[/h]
Share
[h=1]
New Drone Flight Records over the US released[/h] January 5, 2013. US unmanned drone flights over American air space are no secret. In fact, the US military and the Dept of Homeland Security still need to file flight plans with the FAA prior to launching each drone sortie. Thanks to one vigilant watchdog group and their FOI requests, Americans now know the extent of the aerial spying program enlisted against them over their own soil.
Major areas of aerial drone activity based on FAA and other documents.
Electronic Frontier Foundation victory
A couple weeks ago, the
Electronic Frontier Foundation obtained and published thousands of pages of domestic drone flight information from 2012. The organization touts its successes after filing Freedom of Information Act requests to obtain the records from the FAA and other sources. For the first time ever, the details of spying and military drone flights over the US include information from the US Air Force, the US Marine Corps, and a little known government program called the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.
EFF explains that some of the government agencies and military branches were more forthcoming than others. For instance, the group writes, ‘The Marine Corps is also testing drones, though it chose to redact so much of the text from its records that we still don’t know much about its programs’. For its part, the Air Force has been testing drones over the US that include small hand-launched aerial vehicles like the ‘Raven’, ‘Puma’, and ‘Wasp’, as well as the larger, bomb and missile-launching drones like ‘Predator’ and the ‘Reaper’.
All of these vehicles and more have been traversing the skies over America throughout 2012. What exactly they were doing, however, was rarely divulged. Although, separate investigative reports by such publications as the New York Times have revealed that drone pilots often practice surveillance missions by following civilian cars as they travel across American roads and highways.
Local details
The report also includes details from drone flight missions over local towns and cities in the US. For instance, the USAF has flown the ‘ScanEagle’ drone, which has a 360-degree, rotating camera turret, in the skies over Virginia Beach. The Air Force has also been testing Boeing’s A160 ‘Hummingbird’ drone over Victorville, California. The Hummingbird can stay airborne for up to 24 hours at a time.
Perhaps the most futuristic and ominous disclosures came from USAF drone flights of its Reaper unmanned strike vehicle. The drones have been flying over numerous US cities including Lincoln, Nevada and parts of California and Utah. These next-generation Reaper drones are reportedly equipped with ‘Gorgon Stare’ technology, which is described as a 9-camera surveillance system capable of spying on an entire city at one time.
Even more troublesome is the disclosure that human beings aren’t always the ones receiving and assembling the photos and videos taken by the overhead drones. A science fiction sounding program titled ‘Mind’s Eye’ is being tested that can receive and analyze all aerial drone video feeds, using artificial intelligence to process and report each mission’s details. There weren’t any details indicating whether or not computers are carrying out assassinations and other targeted killings, or if those sensitive missions were still being carried out exclusively by humans.
Risk Assessment
One of the major concerns regarding domestic drone flights is the possibility of accidents or crashes. Military drones continue to crash in highly politicized areas like Iran and Afghanistan, while the newly released documents show the US isn’t immune from similar accidents. One document noted 8 drone ‘incidents’, assumed to be crashes, near-collisions or software malfunctions, over the course of 79,177 flight hours.
Another document titled ‘Risk Assessment’ lists 15 possible hazards and problems a drone flight may encounter, along with its probability, severity and risk level. The most likely incident was ‘Weather/Wind/Icing’. While some of the less likely problems included ‘Conflict with other traffic’, ‘UAS Mechanical failure’, ‘UAS Software failure’, ‘Failure of Air Traffic Control Radar’, ‘Position error’ and others.
Not just the federal government anymore
While libertarians and civil rights advocates complain about the federal government and the Dept of Homeland Security using unmanned drones to spy on Americans over US skies, it’s local officials such as County Sheriffs and town police chiefs that are enlisting the aerial technology more and more.
The reasons listed by local officials in their attempts to obtain or use unmanned spy drones in their daily law enforcement duties varies widely, but most sound legitimate and beneficial, at least on their surface. For instance, the Queen Anne County, Maryland Sheriff’s Department applied for a drone license to search farms for hidden marijuana fields, as well as surveil suspected drug dealers and drug transactions. Gadsden, Alabama’s Police Dept also wanted to film drug transactions, according to its application.
Montgomery County, Texas wanted not only the drone, but thermal imaging capabilities – capturing imagery using body heat. Such cameras have the ability to reveal hidden individuals in the darkness, through tree canopies and even through walls. Local police want the technology to monitor their ‘high risk operations’ involving narcotics trafficking. Arlington, Texas may have beaten them all with regard to their ingenuity. They’ve officially requested the ‘Lepron Avenger’ aerial drone which is equipped with LIDAR imaging technology. These cameras are most known for being used in police speed guns, making some question whether or not Arlington plans to us military espionage drones to target local citizens with traffic violations from the sky.
Not all local law enforcement agencies are using their drone capabilities in a legal or ethical manner however. In fact, many have purposely violated Freedom of Information Act requests for even the most basic information, such as what type of drones are being used, how often, over what areas or for what reasons. Local municipalities guilty of erecting an iron curtain include Orange County, Florida and Mesa County, Colorado.
Not all local US officials have used their new aerial drone vehicles to target or otherwise victimize their own citizens. Some have come up with some really interesting uses. The Washington State Dept of Transportation requested a drone license to help monitor avalanches to speed up early warnings. Wyoming and the US Dept of Energy applied for a drone license to monitor methane emissions.
California and the US Forest Service have applied for drones which would be used to fight forest fires. And the University of Michigan even requested a drone. They have water buoys floating in the Great Lakes that until now, needed to first be found, then boated out to, and then manually moved. With an aerial drone, the University can move the buoys remotely by simply launching them up out of the water and dropping them down in their new desired position.
Resistance and push-back
Records also show that the FAA rejected a number of drone license applications, including one from the Georgia Tech University Police Department. Their application showed their drone flying in a high-traffic helicopter flight path without any ‘sense and avoid system’ to warn of airborne collisions with other aircraft. Otter Tail County, Minnesota was also denied a drone license by the FAA. In its case, the town couldn’t meet the minimum requirement for pilot training. To give an idea of how widespread drone flights are over US skies, the University of Colorado alone has received over 200 drone licenses so far.
All the unmanned drone flights over American skies haven’t gone unnoticed by local citizens across the country. Many are angry and condemn the intrusive espionage flights as an invasion of their privacy. Some, including a handful of street gangs in cities like Los Angeles and Chicago, have openly bragged about how they’d shoot down any unmanned drones caught flying over their turf.
In many rural areas across the Deep South, rumors abound about bounties being offered for anyone who can shoot down the first domestic spy drone. Others, specifically throughout Tennessee, Kentucky and the Appalachians, report shooting at drones flying overhead searching for secret marijuana fields. Like the moonshiners of past generations, it seems Uncle Sam and his G-Men still aren’t welcome on ole Rocky Top.
Related Articles:
Map of Unmanned Spy Drone Bases in US
Insect Size Spy Drones unveiled
Domestic Spy Drones to be Armed
Videos show Pics of Kids murdered by Obama Drone Strikes
US Marines killed in friendly Drone Attack
"It's like boiling a frog. If you drop a frog into boiling water it will jump straight out but if you put a frog in cold water then boil the water the frog will slowly boil to death. The public is the frog and it is being slowly boiled"
This is a perfect example of where you are very good at putting words together. Makes it sound good. Really, there's no basis for your claim.
It's a good analogy
You should really look more into things before forcing your opinion so strongly
