Menacing spy craft... unmanned aerial vehicles... and missile laden predators. These are the images that come to mind when the word "drone" is spoken. Taken to new heights during the Global War on Terror, military drones have struck fear into the hearts of America's enemies. Now the U.S. government is starting to look inward toward its next target: the American people. Already starting along the US/Mexico border, big brother is indiscriminately watching whole neighborhoods via high tech zoom and heat imaging technology. There is even a debate in congress as to whether it is lawful for an American citizen to be killed by a missile firing drone. These actions and debates have caused legitimate concerns for the American people in regards to governmental intrusions. Now that debate has moved on to include civilian radio controlled aircraft enthusiasts who use small video recorders as a part of their hobby. Recently, there has been new legislation enacted called the Texas Privacy Act; commonly referred to as the "drone bill." Debated under the premise of privacy, the drone bill is aimed primarily at the civilian hobbyist. Moreover, this legislation has no effect on the numerous types of governmental drones that "We the People" actually fear. Simply stated, the Texas Privacy Act is unjust, virtually unenforceable, and limits First Amendment rights.
In 2012, news broke that one of the Dallas’ oldest businesses, Columbia Meat Packing, was dumping huge amounts of pig blood into the Trinity River via a nearby stream (Lee). When tests also confirmed that hazardous chemicals were also flowing into the river from the plant, there was a general sense of outrage and disgust. However, it seems that what outraged the Texas legislature the most, ...
... middle of paper ...
... protect First Amendment rights in the areas of art, expression, or the freedom of the press. This bill does not address the public's concerns about governmental drones. People are not afraid of fathers that film loop to loop maneuver with their children at the city park. They fear governments that can call down hell fire from 5000 miles away with the push of a button.
Works Cited
Black, Henry C, and Joseph R. Nolan. Black's Law Dictionary: Definitions of the Terms and Phrases of American and English Jurisprudence Ancient and Modern; [with Pronunciations]. St. Paul, Minn: West Publ, 1993. 1486. Print.
Kaminski, Margot E. “Drone Federalism: Civilian Drones and the Things They Carry.” California Law Review Circuit. (2013): 63. Print.
Lee, Timothy. “Can State Laws protect You From Being Watched By Drones?” The Washington Post, 18 June 2013. Web. 17 April 2014.
Controversy has plagued America’s presence in the Middle East and America’s usage of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) contributes vastly to this controversy. Their usefulness and ability to keep allied troops out of harm’s reach is hardly disputed. However, their presence in countries that are not at war with America, such as Pakistan and Yemen, is something contested. People that see the implications of drone use are paying special attention to the civilian casualty count, world perspective, and the legality of drone operations in non-combative states. The use of drone technology in the countries of Yemen and Pakistan are having negative consequences. In a broad spectrum, unconsented drone strikes are illegal according to the laws of armed conflict, unethical, and are imposing a moral obligation upon those who use them. These issues are all of great importance and need to be addressed. Their legality is also something of great importance and begins with abiding to the Laws of Armed Conflict.
Gardner, Bryan A. (2009). In Black's Law Dictionary. St. Paul, Minnesota: West / Thomson Reuters.
Many Americans feel the right to privacy is within the Constitution that the founding fathers wrote. This has not always been the case. Many scholars have claimed that the authors of Constitution protected the right to privacy within the Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court initially acknowledged protection under the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause for personal privacy and freedom from government intrusions into marriage, reproduction, and child rearing in the 1920’s, during the Lochner era (Obrien 2011). They then went on to explore the idea further.
The documentary Unconstitutional, directed by Nonny de la Pena, follows the evolution of the Patriot Act with interviews from senators who passed the bill, lawyers fighting the bill, and residents of the United States who have come under attack because of the bill. One of the positive points of the act that many like to point out was the bi-partisan support it had. However, former Representative Robert Barr, a republican from Georgia, and Representative Peter A. DeFazio, a democrat from Oregon, both claim that the act was very different from the one that was voted on. The night before the bill was to be voted on it was changed last minute and printed at 3:45 am that morning. The new bill included provisions that had already been denied on the floor. �No member of Congress read this legislation before us voting on it,� says DeFazio (Unconstitutional). Lawmakers passed a bill that they had not read and now the public is paying for it.
The U.S. constitution contains no expression of valued rights in considering privacy. Therefore, the Supreme Court has adopted a rather narrow interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment specifically in regards to the term liberty, as established in the due process clause . Earlier Supreme Court decisions were not concerned with how states constituted their residents. Thus, any state, at this time, was at the liberty to deprive its residents of their first amendment, freedom of speech, religion, and press. However, this is much leniency and room for interpretation in the Due Process Clause, because it may be stretched to constitute not only at federal level but the state level. Reinterpretation under the 14th amendment bonded the first ten Bill of Rights within state governments to protect the citizens’ liberty. State governments are then prohibited from denying persons within their jurisdictions the Privileges and Immunities of a United State citizen, and guarantees that all natural born citizens have Due Process and Equal Protection of their rights, this binding, in turn, created the incorporation doctrine . Thus, the due process clause does not govern how a state sets the rules for specific disciplinary procedures. For example, in the Bill of Rights it specifies that if a citizen were accused of a crime, then that citizen would have the right to defense from a lawyer. But, suppose the state, or federal, government did not privilege that citizen to a lawyer. Then, that government would have violated this citizen the right to due process that is assured in the constitution.
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV), also known as Drones have been used since the civil war, according to the U.S. Department of Defense. The idea of unmanned aerial vehicles had been growing more and more with every conflict our nation has come across. The use of drones is now in full effect, ranging from military operations to relief efforts. Controversies around the increased use of drones include target killings by the military and surveillance by drones within the U.S. Target killing has shown to be effective and favorable against terrorism but some have seen it as a violation of human rights
Many people throughout the world do not realize how their right to privacy is at risk and the need to understand that it is very important, more than they think. Most people in society do not realize that it is a bigger issue than what it sounds to be. As many of you may know the 14th amendment has been involved in many cases that had to do with the right to privacy. This amendment to the constitution guarantees us the right to privacy, but what does this mean? This paper is an attempt to show how the right to privacy is applied in public, in the workplace and in the home.
(Custom Reader 104) This topic intrigued me because I haven’t really thought about if the American citizens had to run in fear for their lives, knowing a drone flying around your safe territory could randomly eliminate you at any time. This made me wonder if situations like this created enmity or jealousy towards the safeguarded citizens belonging to the aggressor. The article highlights O’Connell’s dismay that the misuse and misplacement of drones within ethical bounds has fanned fire into the flames, only making those opposed to the United States angrier. (106) While O’Connell’s argument is definitely sincere in caring for the well-being of other beings, I believe that there can definitely situation in which another hostile would resort to hiding within the safe zones, which would endanger those who are immediately surrounding him and those who he may be plotting against. While this does not intrinsically warrant deployment of drones to search for and eliminate the target, it forces a great burden on to the shoulders of the CTU and the government that I’m sure no person would
In the wake of September 11, many things happened very quickly. Along with the beginning of a '"'war'"' against terrorism, an act was passed to help prevent future terrorism in the USA. The name of this is the USA Patriot Act. The act legalizes many surveillance techniques that were once prohibited. The act has been passed without debate, and the new privileges given to our government have not been thoroughly examined. The law enforcers of our country are now capable of monitoring the citizens in ways most people are not aware of. Some of the surveillance laws are self-terminating after four years, but many of the more important laws are permanent. What will these new surveillance laws be used for after the war on terrorism is over? Lee Tien, the Electronic Frontier Foundation staff attorney, suggests that the new rights can be used to put America into a '"'police state'"'. There is a need for checks and balances in the USA Patriot Act to protect the American citizens.
Henry Campbell Black, Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed. (St. Paul: West Publishing Co., 1979), 799.
The right to privacy is not clearly stated in the Constitution. Some argue that because it doesn’t state “…the right of privacy from Government…” in the document like the freedom of speech, assembly, and so on that we don’t have a constitutional right to privacy. People will always have different options on an issue, however, disagreeing or not there are consequences for violating Human Rights. Citizens of the United States have a right to privacy from government intrusions, it is proclaimed in the fourth amendment and a number of Supreme Court rulings. In the technological world that we are in today, with almost all of our information being electronically stored, it is very important for every human to feel safe that their information is not being watched or stored somewhere else.
One of the latest and most controversial topics that has risen over the past five to ten years is whether or not drones should be used as a means of war, surveillance, and delivery systems. Common misconceptions usually lead to people’s opposition to the use of drones; which is the reason it is important for people to know the facts about how and why they are used. Wartime capabilities will provide for less casualties and more effective strikes. New delivery and surveillance systems in Africa, the United Air Emirates and the United States will cut costs and increase efficiency across the board. Rules and regulations on drones may be difficult to enforce, but will not be impossible to achieve. The use of drones as weapons of war and delivery and surveillance systems should not be dismissed because many people do not realize the real capabilities of drones and how they can be used to better the world through efficient air strikes, faster delivery times, and useful surveillance.
...only imagine how hazardous this world we live in become. Amongst countries this can become an international competition to make drones to be used as a factor. When other nations see this particular country is using some type of technology to improve their military system then they would want part of it as well. The drone practice can cause to escalate if other countries adopt to this new technology for their own reason of protection. There will be no turning back because the government of that country would take advantage of these drones to use it towards the citizens instead of using for “terrorist”. The use of these drones is definitely immoral and unethical but some may argue that the of drones as protection against “terrorist” even though as we can see it kills innocent people, creates more terrorists, causes psychological disorders, and violates privacy. (Cole)
In the United States, people worried that drones would be used near their home because they equip with a camera and that make people feel restless or uncomfortable when a drone nearby. A lot of people don’t realize that drones flying around neighbor are not much,
Although there is no specific protection of privacy in the Constitution, many people believe that the ninth amendment, which reads, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people” is meant to protect the privacy of the home (Beeman 70). In his Griswold concurrence, Justice Goldberg stated: