are drones are comin to get ya..hahahah

[revelarts]

OUR(?) drones are comin to get ya..hahahah. says the police man, sworn to uphold the constitution, and to "protect and SERVE"/



Federal authorities step up efforts to license surveillance aircraft for law enforcement and other uses, amid growing privacy concerns.
http://readersupportednews.org/images/stories/alphabet/rsn-W.jpgASHINGTON - While a national debate has erupted over the Obama (http://www.latimes.com/topic/politics/government/barack-obama-PEPLT007408.topic) administration's lethal drone strikes overseas, federal authorities have stepped up efforts to license surveillance drones for law enforcement and other uses in U.S. airspace, spurring growing concern about violations of privacy.
The Federal Aviation Administration (http://www.latimes.com/topic/politics/regulatory-policy-organizations/federal-aviation-administration-ORGOV00000232.topic) said Friday it had issued 1,428 permits to domestic drone operators since 2007, far more than were previously known. Some 327 permits are still listed as active.
Operators include police, universities, state transportation departments and at least seven federal agencies. The remotely controlled aircraft vary widely, from devices as small as model airplanes to large unarmed Predators.
The FAA, which has a September 2015 deadline from Congress (http://www.latimes.com/topic/politics/government/u.s.-congress-ORGOV0000131.topic) to open the nation's airspace to drone traffic, has estimated 10,000 drones could be aloft five years later. The FAA this week solicited proposals to create six sites across the country to test drones, a crucial step before widespread government and commercial use is approved.
Local and state law enforcement agencies are expected to be among the largest customers.
Earlier this month, TV footage showed a midsized drone circling over the bunker in southeast Alabama where a 65-year-old gunman held a 5-year-old boy hostage. After a tense standoff, an FBI team stormed the bunker, rescued the boy and shot his captor. Authorities refused to say who was operating the AeroVironment drone, which has a 9-foot wingspan.
In Colorado, the Mesa County Sheriff's Office has used a fixed-wing drone to search for lost hikers in the mountains, and a helicopter drone to help crews battling fires. Flying manned planes or helicopters would cost at least $600 an hour, explained Ben Miller, who heads the program.
"We fly [drones] for less than $25 an hour," Miller said. "It's just a new way to put a camera up that's affordable."
Big-city police departments, including Los Angeles, have tested drones but are holding back on buying them until the FAA issues clear guidelines about operating in congested airspace, among other issues.
"You've got to take baby steps with this," said Michael Downing, the LAPD deputy chief for counter-terrorism and special operations.
Los Angeles Police Department officials went to Simi Valley in December, he said, to watch a demonstration of a helicopter-like device that measured about 18 inches on each side and was powered by four propellers. It could fly about 90 minutes on its battery.
Downing said the LAPD was "pursuing the idea of purchasing" drones, but wouldn't do so unless the FAA granted permission to fly them, and until the department could draw up policies on how to keep within privacy laws.
If the LAPD bought drones, Downing said, it initially would use them at major public events such as the Oscars or large protests. In time, drones could be flown to track fleeing suspects and assist in investigations. Tiny drones could even be used to fly inside buildings to shoot video if a suspect has barricaded himself within.
In theory, drones can offer unblinking eye-in-the-sky coverage. They can carry high-resolution video cameras, infrared sensors, license plate readers, listening devices and other high-tech gear. Companies have marketed drones disguised as sea gulls and other birds to mask their use.
That's the problem, according to civil liberties groups. The technology is evolving faster than the law. Congress and courts haven't determined whether drone surveillance would violate privacy laws more than manned planes or helicopters, or whether drone operators may be held liable for criminal trespassing, stalking or harassment.
"Americans have the right to know if and how the government is using drones to spy on them," said Catherine Crump, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union (http://www.latimes.com/topic/social-issues/american-civil-liberties-union-ORCIG0000034.topic), which has called for updating laws to protect privacy.
A backlash has already started.
In Congress, Reps. Ted Poe (http://www.latimes.com/topic/politics/government/ted-poe-PEPLT007920.topic) (R-Texas) and Zoe Lofgren (D-San Jose) introduced privacy legislation Thursday that would require police to get a warrant or a court order before operating a drone to collect information on individuals.
"We need to protect against obtrusive search and surveillance by government and civilian use," Poe said in a telephone interview. A similar bill failed last year.
Legislatures in 15 states are considering proposals to limit drone use. The City Council in Charlottesville (http://www.latimes.com/topic/us/virginia/charlottesville-county/charlottesville-%28charlottesville-virginia%29-PLGEO100101124010000.topic), Va., passed a resolution on Feb. 4 barring local police from using drones - which they don't yet have - to collect evidence in criminal cases.
In Seattle, Mayor Mike McGinn ordered police to return two Draganflyer X6 helicopter drones earlier this month after privacy advocates and others protested. The police said they had hoped to use them for search-and-rescue operations.....


http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/316-20/16054-drones-coming-soon-to-police-force-near-you

[Drummond]

OUR(?) drones are comin to get ya..hahahah. says the police man, sworn to uphold the constitution, and to "protect and SERVE"/


http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/316-20/16054-drones-coming-soon-to-police-force-near-you

Trying to make drones as unpopular and as unacceptable a device as possible, in the minds of Americans ?

Terrorists would approve of that, I'm sure.

I suggest that drones, as such, aren't a problem. It's how, and when, they're used that is the 'issue' (given that it actually is one).

[aboutime]

Trying to make drones as unpopular and as unacceptable a device as possible, in the minds of Americans ?

Terrorists would approve of that, I'm sure.

I suggest that drones, as such, aren't a problem. It's how, and when, they're used that is the 'issue' (given that it actually is one).


Sir Drummond. The primary problem is. Most Americans have little, if any idea what they are talking about when they use the word "DRONE".
I have learned how those who are speaking the most about such things...tend to confuse the word DRONE with UAV's.

In either case. People who have no concept, or understanding of EITHER Drones, or UAV's are making the most noise.

But, at the very same time. Those who GAVE Obama his first, and second terms in office, who are now crying the loudest. Gave him all the permission he needed, even with the Patriot Act...they...the voters whom he fooled...despise.

[taft2012]

How will the God-given right to cultivate acres of marijuana survive this intrusion? :salute:

[revelarts]

Sir Drummond. The primary problem is. Most Americans have little, if any idea what they are talking about when they use the word "DRONE".
I have learned how those who are speaking the most about such things...tend to confuse the word DRONE with UAV's.

In either case. People who have no concept, or understanding of EITHER Drones, or UAV's are making the most noise.

But, at the very same time. Those who GAVE Obama his first, and second terms in office, who are now crying the loudest. Gave him all the permission he needed, even with the Patriot Act...they...the voters whom he fooled...despise.

So what's the difference between a drone and UAV AT?


Trying to make drones as unpopular and as unacceptable a device as possible, in the minds of Americans ?
trying to secure the liberties we claim we are fighting for Drummond remember those?


Terrorists would approve of that, I'm sure.
Are we suppose to care what terrroist think of our rights?


I suggest that drones, as such, aren't a problem. It's how, and when, they're used that is the 'issue' (given that it actually is one).
Like anytool there may be good uses for them. this tools has already been used to things that are flatly illegal and unconstitutional overseas and in the U.S..
.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?39133-Who-is-up-for-a-little-extra-judicial-capital-punishment&p=616282#post616282

And frankly i really do NOT understand your idea that if we rightly condemn, in word and in law, the practice to warrentless spying warrentless killing with typical tools, why we should give it a pass with drones Drummond.

[logroller]

How will the God-given right to cultivate acres of marijuana survive this intrusion? :salute:
The fourth amendment is how, oh supporter of writs of assistance. If you are using the drones to search for acres of marijuana, you'll need a warrant based on probable cause, not just reasonable suspicion. Flying over suspect private land in search of probable cause puts the cart before the horse. Its pretty well-documented actually; even a meager citizen such as myself understands the concept. Sorta figured a law enforcement officer would be mindful of civil rights violations that render ill-gotten evidence inadmissible. It concerns me that you think letting criminals skaters technicalities is cause for flag waving. :no:

[Voted4Reagan]

if I see one I'll shoot it down

[Drummond]

trying to secure the liberties we claim we are fighting for Drummond remember those?

Sounds 'good' on the face of it. Bear in mind, though, that nobody should surely expect the luxury of peacetime conditions when, because of the War on Terror, you should surely be on a war footing, at least, to SOME extent.


Are we suppose to care what terrroist think of our rights?

Counter-question: WHY do Lefties insist on caring about TERRORIST so-called 'rights' ??

Do they mean it as an insult against the memory of their many victims ?


Like anytool there may be good uses for them. this tools has already been used to things that are flatly illegal and unconstitutional overseas and in the U.S..

It amuses me to see Lefties care so VERY much about perceived illegalities, when they're combatting a vicious enemy that'll murder and maim without any caring of such things. I suppose that if, or when, rules of engagement are introduced which handicap troops' ability to combat terrorist opponents, being hamstrung, and REGARDLESS of the lives that could cost, is something that the Left would insist upon ?

I submit to you that the biggest, most important factor in fighting battles, whether with troops or with drones, is that it's done AS EFFECTIVELY AS POSSIBLE.


http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?39133-Who-is-up-for-a-little-extra-judicial-capital-punishment&p=616282#post616282

And frankly i really do NOT understand your idea that if we rightly condemn, in word and in law, the practice to warrentless spying warrentless killing with typical tools, why we should give it a pass with drones Drummond.

See above. And no, I'm not surprised by your comment.

[logroller]

So what's the difference between a drone and UAV AT?
While not directed at me; drones are guided by software, not a the hands of a human being. It's similar to the difference between traffic cameras triggered by sensors vs an officer watching via remote.

[aboutime]

So what's the difference between a drone and UAV AT?


At first. I was really tempted to answer your PATRONIZING question Rev. But, since YOU obviously believe you, like many other members here, are smarter than the rest of us. Your intent in asking such a question is nothing less than a game you enjoy playing to Satisfy your instant gratification, and impress yourself.

Even you know, or should know the difference....claiming so much intelligence here on most every topic.

So. Do us all a favor, and offer your own description of the differences. IF YOU ARE SMART ENOUGH.

[logroller]

Sounds 'good' on the face of it. Bear in mind, though, that nobody should surely expect the luxury of peacetime conditions when, because of the War on Terror, you should surely be on a war footing, at least, to SOME extent.






Counter-question: WHY do Lefties insist on caring about TERRORIST so-called 'rights' ??


Do they mean it as an insult against the memory of their many victims ?






It amuses me to see Lefties care so VERY much about perceived illegalities, when they're combatting a vicious enemy that'll murder and maim without any caring of such things. I suppose that if, or when, rules of engagement are introduced which handicap troops' ability to combat terrorist opponents, being hamstrung, and REGARDLESS of the lives that could cost, is something that the Left would insist upon ?


I submit to you that the biggest, most important factor in fighting battles, whether with troops or with drones, is that it's done AS EFFECTIVELY AS POSSIBLE.






See above. And no, I'm not surprised by your comment.
If the MOST EFFECTIVE possible course violates the constitutional righs of our citizens, then its illegal.however, if we are at war, and this war is on our own soil rendering constitutional rights necessarily commuted, then why hasn martial law been declared? Curfews? Closed borders? Why the resistance to socialization of the nations resources and production. Such was surely instated in previous wars. It would be more effective and steeped in the reality of what is required to win a war, i'll grant you that. Instead we have one of our very own military bases attacked; why aren't they armed to the teats? It's a war after all-- right here on our own soil. It's these half-assed attempts to fight a war that causes me to question why usurping privacy rights and implementing unwarranted searches are the only austerity measures utilized. if conditions are as dire as some lead me to believe; it seems we shouldn't be bitching about healthcare, gas prices, jobs and whether or not some attack in Benghazi or Fort Hood is terrorism. We're at war, and likely a long one if we think business can just go along as usual. Everything to war effort and trust the government unequivocally. Need to know basis and what not. Be drones ourselves pretty much. Assimilate. You're either for us Or the terrorists. So if you challenge the president's authority as CiC, I must question whether you're a terrorist, or at the least, a traitor. That's what it takes to win wars-- unrelenting resolve-- not political infighting. Sound about right? I mean, the government knows best-- thats why they need to spy on us. Trust them!

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

if I see one I'll shoot it down

Careful your 50 cal dont knock down a small private plane Hoss. ;);)


If the MOST EFFECTIVE possible course violates the constitutional righs of our citizens, then its illegal.however, if we are at war, and this war is on our own soil rendering constitutional rights necessarily commuted, then why hasn martial law been declared? Curfews? Closed borders? Why the resistance to socialization of the nations resources and production. Such was surely instated in previous wars. It would be more effective and steeped in the reality of what is required to win a war, i'll grant you that. Instead we have one of our very own military bases attacked; why aren't they armed to the teats? It's a war after all-- right here on our own soil. It's these half-assed attempts to fight a war that causes me to question why usurping privacy rights and implementing unwarranted searches are the only austerity measures utilized. if conditions are as dire as some lead me to believe; it seems we shouldn't be bitching about healthcare, gas prices, jobs and whether or not some attack in Benghazi or Fort Hood is terrorism. We're at war, and likely a long one if we think business can just go along as usual. Everything to war effort and trust the government unequivocally. Need to know basis and what not. Be drones ourselves pretty much. Assimilate. You're either for us Or the terrorists. So if you challenge the president's authority as CiC, I must question whether you're a terrorist, or at the least, a traitor. That's what it takes to win wars-- unrelenting resolve-- not political infighting. Sound about right? I mean, the government knows best-- thats why they need to spy on us. Trust them!

LOG, DRUMMOND CAN NOT BE A TRAITOR TO AMERICA. HE IS NOT AN AMERICAN CITIZEN..
Fort Hood was a terrorist attack, you disagreed , so why are you using it in your argument with Big D?-Tyr

[logroller]

At first. I was really tempted to answer your PATRONIZING question Rev. But, since YOU obviously believe you, like many other members here, are smarter than the rest of us. Your intent in asking such a question is nothing less than a game you enjoy playing to Satisfy your instant gratification, and impress yourself.

Even you know, or should know the difference....claiming so much intelligence here on most every topic.

So. Do us all a favor, and offer your own description of the differences. IF YOU ARE SMART ENOUGH.
Despite your infantile response, nothing about his post was patronizing-- It was a simple question. One i had already answered before your last post. You got an argument or just like flapping your gums?


LOG, DRUMMOND CAN NOT BE A TRAITOR TO AMERICA. HE IS NOT AN AMERICAN CITIZEN..
Fort Hood was a terrorist attack, you disagreed , so why are you using it in your argument with Big D?-Tyr

I was speaking broadly. Insert foreign enemy if you so please.
I never disagreed; I can find a quite from that tread stating it does qualify as terrorism; just like dorner qualifies as a terrorist. What I said, and what i have provided evidence of is there are legal reasons surrounding jurisdiction for it not being classified as such. I went into great detail with much effort to satisfy your eager request that I provide the evidence-- have you read it, or is it easier to ignore the arguments when they don't fit your personal prejudices. Law is law. Seems ignoring the law and constitution aren't the sole propriety of the libs.

[taft2012]

I was speaking broadly. Insert foreign enemy if you so please.
I never disagreed; I can find a quite from that tread stating it does qualify as terrorism; just like dorner qualifies as a terrorist. What I said, and what i have provided evidence of is there are legal reasons surrounding jurisdiction for it not being classified as such. I went into great detail with much effort to satisfy your eager request that I provide the evidence-- have you read it, or is it easier to ignore the arguments when they don't fit your personal prejudices. Law is law. Seems ignoring the law and constitution aren't the sole propriety of the libs.

Domestic terrorism and international terrorism are not new ideas.

Does anyone deny Timothy McVeigh was a domestic terrorist?

[Drummond]

If the MOST EFFECTIVE possible course violates the constitutional righs of our citizens, then its illegal.however, if we are at war, and this war is on our own soil rendering constitutional rights necessarily commuted, then why hasn martial law been declared? Curfews? Closed borders? Why the resistance to socialization of the nations resources and production. Such was surely instated in previous wars. It would be more effective and steeped in the reality of what is required to win a war, i'll grant you that. Instead we have one of our very own military bases attacked; why aren't they armed to the teats? It's a war after all-- right here on our own soil. It's these half-assed attempts to fight a war that causes me to question why usurping privacy rights and implementing unwarranted searches are the only austerity measures utilized. if conditions are as dire as some lead me to believe; it seems we shouldn't be bitching about healthcare, gas prices, jobs and whether or not some attack in Benghazi or Fort Hood is terrorism. We're at war, and likely a long one if we think business can just go along as usual. Everything to war effort and trust the government unequivocally. Need to know basis and what not. Be drones ourselves pretty much. Assimilate. You're either for us Or the terrorists. So if you challenge the president's authority as CiC, I must question whether you're a terrorist, or at the least, a traitor. That's what it takes to win wars-- unrelenting resolve-- not political infighting. Sound about right? I mean, the government knows best-- thats why they need to spy on us. Trust them!

My thanks go to Tyr for highlighting this part of your post. And Tyr's point is, of course, valid. Any question of my being a so-called 'traitor' to America is invalid, since I'm neither an American citizen, nor indeed have I ever gone through any process of pledging loyalty to America.

THAT SAID ... YOUR COMMENT, AS HIGHLIGHTED, IS OFFENSIVE IN THE EXTREME.

I happen to believe that the United States of America is a fine country, eminently deserving of respect and support. Its traditions, its foundling 'reasons for being', speak of the utmost integrity. Its love of freedom is second to none anywhere in the world. If the true spirit of human freedom and enterprise can thrive in today's world, America must surely be its foremost home.

And what better reason than this than to hope, and to want, that Socialist influences are purged from America. If this makes you unhappy, as I'm sure it does, TOUGH.

.. and I'm definitely no terrorist. Find me ANY wording in ANY post, anywhere on this forum, suggesting even the slightest inclination on my part to side with terrorism, or to mean it 'well'. You will find nothing of the kind. YOU know this, just as I do.

I will ignore the rest of your post, since, to post what you have against me, I regard your 'position' as irremediably contemptible. If there's ever a next time when you try to publicly tag me either as a 'traitor' or a 'terrorist', I will take the strongest action possible.


I was speaking broadly. Insert foreign enemy if you so please.
I never disagreed; I can find a quite from that tread stating it does qualify as terrorism; just like dorner qualifies as a terrorist. What I said, and what i have provided evidence of is there are legal reasons surrounding jurisdiction for it not being classified as such. I went into great detail with much effort to satisfy your eager request that I provide the evidence-- have you read it, or is it easier to ignore the arguments when they don't fit your personal prejudices. Law is law. Seems ignoring the law and constitution aren't the sole propriety of the libs.

Weasel words. You have gone too far. And I'm sure you know it, though I'm also sure you'd rather never admit that you have.

This is my last comment on this issue. My warning of action stands, if you EVER try this again.

[aboutime]

My thanks go to Tyr for highlighting this part of your post. And Tyr's point is, of course, valid. Any question of my being a so-called 'traitor' to America is invalid, since I'm neither an American citizen, nor indeed have I ever gone through any process of pledging loyalty to America.

THAT SAID ... YOUR COMMENT, AS HIGHLIGHTED, IS OFFENSIVE IN THE EXTREME.

I happen to believe that the United States of America is a fine country, eminently deserving of respect and support. Its traditions, its foundling 'reasons for being', speak of the utmost integrity. Its love of freedom is second to none anywhere in the world. If the true spirit of human freedom and enterprise can thrive in today's world, America must surely be its foremost home.

And what better reason than this than to hope, and to want, that Socialist influences are purged from America. If this makes you unhappy, as I'm sure it does, TOUGH.

.. and I'm definitely no terrorist. Find me ANY wording in ANY post, anywhere on this forum, suggesting even the slightest inclination on my part to side with terrorism, or to mean it 'well'. You will find nothing of the kind. YOU know this, just as I do.

I will ignore the rest of your post, since, to post what you have against me, I regard your 'position' as irremediably contemptible. If there's ever a next time when you try to publicly tag me either as a 'traitor' or a 'terrorist', I will take the strongest action possible.


Sir Drummond. If the accusations against you above are, in any possible way near being true. Then I do believe it would be just as fair, and Liberally tolerant to include YOUR ACCUSER of being either a Terrorist, or Traitor as well.
Liberally speaking...U.S. Liberally that is, of course.

You must also know. Whenever any Undereducated American begins to call others names. They frequently resort to using the Treason, or Terror descriptives instead of the tired, often used RACIST accusations. It's the Liberally Tolerant way.

[fj1200]

THAT SAID ... YOUR COMMENT, AS HIGHLIGHTED, IS OFFENSIVE IN THE EXTREME.

... I will take the strongest action possible.


My warning of action stands, if you EVER try this again.

:laugh: Thank you. I needed a good laugh.

[aboutime]

:laugh: Thank you. I needed a good laugh.


So you are laughing at YOURSELF as well fj? Bout time you came out of the closet and disclosed yourself.

[fj1200]

So you are laughing at YOURSELF as well fj? Bout time you came out of the closet and disclosed yourself.

Such nonsense.

[Drummond]

Sir Drummond. If the accusations against you above are, in any possible way near being true. Then I do believe it would be just as fair, and Liberally tolerant to include YOUR ACCUSER of being either a Terrorist, or Traitor as well.
Liberally speaking...U.S. Liberally that is, of course.

You must also know. Whenever any Undereducated American begins to call others names. They frequently resort to using the Treason, or Terror descriptives instead of the tired, often used RACIST accusations. It's the Liberally Tolerant way.

Much appreciated, Aboutime, and interesting points !

At the end of the day, though, it just has to be said that there are depths to which I, as a Conservative, will not sink. I would only suggest such accusations if very sure of my ground, and certainly not as part of a tawdry point-scoring exercise.

As for how far any adversaries of mine may go ... they hold responsibility for what they do.

Thanks again.


LOG, DRUMMOND CAN NOT BE A TRAITOR TO AMERICA. HE IS NOT AN AMERICAN CITIZEN..
Fort Hood was a terrorist attack, you disagreed , so why are you using it in your argument with Big D?-Tyr

Much appreciated, Tyr !

[logroller]

Domestic terrorism and international terrorism are not new ideas.

Does anyone deny Timothy McVeigh was a domestic terrorist?
I don't deny it, but many do. Here even. Would you say dorner committed domestic terrorism?

[Drummond]

Tyr, tried to send a 'thank you' PM, but I think you've reached your quota limit ? Could you have a bit of a clearout ? Thanks -

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

:laugh: Thank you. I needed a good laugh.

No doubt. Seems you often have such a need...:laugh:
Try vitamins and a few cold beers, may not help but can't do ya any harm......--Tyr


Tyr, tried to send a 'thank you' PM, but I think you've reached your quota limit ? Could you have a bit of a clearout ? Thanks -

i just did... try now

[fj1200]

No doubt. Seems you often have such a need...:laugh:
Try vitamins and a few cold beers, may not help but can't do ya any harm......--Tyr

No doubt and you guys certainly deliver the comedy gold.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

No doubt and you guys certainly deliver the comedy gold.

Since we aim to please our great success should be applauded by you. Perhaps a small gratuity wouldn't be out of the question. Say a C-note.;)--Tyr

[logroller]

Weasel words. You have gone too far. And I'm sure you know it, though I'm also sure you'd rather never admit that you have.

This is my last comment on this issue. My warning of action stands, if you EVER try this again.
Admit to what, exactly? that I wont be persuaded by scare tactics that require me to give away my rights indefinitely and without any justification besides-- TERROR. Well act away! Cause I'm certainly not going to kowtow to an ultimatum put forth by a foreigner debating in favor of the domestic violation of my constitutional rights. That's what you did; you posted that eye in the sky omnipotent monitoring was just too effective to not be used. Well here in the US we have laws concerning such-- first and foremost, the Fourth Amendment. Now quite frankly, it is none of your business, but since you interjected into affairs in which you have no dog in the fight, I'm compelled to express my disdain for your position. That very amendment intended to proscribe the writs of assistance issued by the british empire, and here you lobby for that amendment to be undermined. I'd rather you just tended to your own affairs, you wont find me pissing on your sovereign rights and laws, but if you insist upon forcing the issue, reopening the centuries old wound from which our separation came to be, then we become, as was declared so long ago Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.


My thanks go to Tyr for highlighting this part of your post. And Tyr's point is, of course, valid. Any question of my being a so-called 'traitor' to America is invalid, since I'm neither an American citizen, nor indeed have I ever gone through any process of pledging loyalty to America.

THAT SAID ... YOUR COMMENT, AS HIGHLIGHTED, IS OFFENSIVE IN THE EXTREME.

I happen to believe that the United States of America is a fine country, eminently deserving of respect and support. Its traditions, its foundling 'reasons for being', speak of the utmost integrity. Its love of freedom is second to none anywhere in the world. If the true spirit of human freedom and enterprise can thrive in today's world, America must surely be its foremost home.

And what better reason than this than to hope, and to want, that Socialist influences are purged from America. If this makes you unhappy, as I'm sure it does, TOUGH.

.. and I'm definitely no terrorist. Find me ANY wording in ANY post, anywhere on this forum, suggesting even the slightest inclination on my part to side with terrorism, or to mean it 'well'. You will find nothing of the kind. YOU know this, just as I do.

I will ignore the rest of your post, since, to post what you have against me, I regard your 'position' as irremediably contemptible. If there's ever a next time when you try to publicly tag me either as a 'traitor' or a 'terrorist', I will take the strongest action possible.
Offensive eh; like insulting religion is offensive to some. Well I'm terrified; your strong action threat has me shaking. I'm calling the fbi as we speak, getting your ip address traced. I've got here a real deal foreign threat for my expressing my opinion. Just like those nutty Islam freaks; call you a name and you get pissy, talking action this or that. What are gonna do; terrorize me some more. Collude with international cells of message board patriots?
Kidding of course; I haven't a care in the world what you think or will do. Don't like what I have to say, stay calm and blather on.

[red states rule]

If the MOST EFFECTIVE possible course violates the constitutional righs of our citizens, then its illegal.however, if we are at war, and this war is on our own soil rendering constitutional rights necessarily commuted, then why hasn martial law been declared? Curfews? Closed borders? Why the resistance to socialization of the nations resources and production. Such was surely instated in previous wars. It would be more effective and steeped in the reality of what is required to win a war, i'll grant you that. Instead we have one of our very own military bases attacked; why aren't they armed to the teats? It's a war after all-- right here on our own soil. It's these half-assed attempts to fight a war that causes me to question why usurping privacy rights and implementing unwarranted searches are the only austerity measures utilized. if conditions are as dire as some lead me to believe; it seems we shouldn't be bitching about healthcare, gas prices, jobs and whether or not some attack in Benghazi or Fort Hood is terrorism. We're at war, and likely a long one if we think business can just go along as usual. Everything to war effort and trust the government unequivocally. Need to know basis and what not. Be drones ourselves pretty much. Assimilate. You're either for us Or the terrorists. So if you challenge the president's authority as CiC, I must question whether you're a terrorist, or at the least, a traitor. That's what it takes to win wars-- unrelenting resolve-- not political infighting. Sound about right? I mean, the government knows best-- thats why they need to spy on us. Trust them!

Eh, libs, the liberal media, and many left wing groups were all over Pres Bush when he did the same thing. Now the silence is deafening

There are a few libs that are consistent, but the NY Times, MSNBC, the Washington Post and most of the liberal media are either ignoring the story or asking how else will Obama get our enemies

Once again the left is proving without their double standards libs would have no standards at all

I for one like the way drones are being used. It is one of the few things Obama has done right. Anytime we can take out terrorists or nail drug dealers -it is a good day for the good guys

[fj1200]

Since we aim to please our great success should be applauded by you. Perhaps a small gratuity wouldn't be out of the question. Say a C-note.;)--Tyr

You clearly misunderstand, you guys aren't funny by any intentional act; I'll wait until you guys gain some actual talent for comedy. ;) Even then I'd pay the venue and not the "talent" directly anyway.


Once again the left is proving without their double standards libs would have no standards at all

I for one like the way drones are being used. It is one of the few things Obama has done right. Anytime we can take out terrorists or nail drug dealers -it is a good day for the good guys

Like those who complain about BO shredding the Constitution except when they happen to agree with said shredding?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Eh, libs, the liberal media, and many left wing groups were all over Pres Bush when he did the same thing. Now the silence is deafening

There are a few libs that are consistent, but the NY Times, MSNBC, the Washington Post and most of the liberal media are either ignoring the story or asking how else will Obama get our enemies

Once again the left is proving without their double standards libs would have no standards at all

I for one like the way drones are being used. It is one of the few things Obama has done right. Anytime we can take out terrorists or nail drug dealers -it is a good day for the good guys

My friend , sorry to have to disagree with that. obama can not be trusted with such authority and I dare say we are quite likely to see why before his second term is up!!!@!@!
Look at his anti-gun crusade he was so eager to start that he did so even before being sworn in for the second term!!! His desire to destroy our 2nd Amendment points directly to what he truly wants to do!

You see he will extend drone use way away from legal law enforcement on drugs and border security use.
HE TAKES EVERYTHING AND EXPANDS IT TO CORRUPT IT. TO USE IT TO MAX EFFECT AGAINST WE THE CITIZENS! HE DOES THIS TO GET AND KEEP US FROM BEING UNITED...

I am against it because I know he will use it as a dictator would!!!!! I need no more justification than that!!!!!!
What it could be if used solely to protect our borders is irrelevant to me now because obama can not be allowed to have such authority IMHO. All other negatives and positives are zeroed out with me because of who will have and will corruptly use that power!!! I may have been of a different opinion if we had not this ffing traitor in charge now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!-Tyr

NEVER FORGET WHO IS DESTROYING THIS NATION NOW.

[jimnyc]

Tyr, tried to send a 'thank you' PM, but I think you've reached your quota limit ? Could you have a bit of a clearout ? Thanks -

I thought it odd that one would run out of space and looked at the settings. I had it set to 100 pm's for registered users and more for those who donate. I have increased the storage to 1000 pm's, which is still half of what the donaters group is set to.

[jimnyc]

Let's all take a deep breath in here. :beer:

[aboutime]

Let's all take a deep breath in here. :beer:


I tried that, and was shut down, even removed, or blocked from threads.

It doesn't work jimnyc.

[fj1200]

I tried that, and was shut down, even removed, or blocked from threads.

It doesn't work jimnyc.

Try rational discussion then.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Like those who complain about BO shredding the Constitution except when they happen to agree with said shredding?


Bullshit, I didn't.... -Tyr

[aboutime]

Bullshit, I didn't.... -Tyr


Tyr. Now is the opportune time to ask fj to tell us...Exactly who, among us, ever said we wanted to shred the Constitution.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Tyr. Now is the opportune time to ask fj to tell us...Exactly who, among us, ever said we wanted to shred the Constitution.

Good question, nobody I saw posting on this topic suggested doing that.

[aboutime]

Good question, nobody I saw posting on this topic suggested doing that.


Did fj suddenly disappear? Or, did I ask too difficult a question?

[logroller]

Good question, nobody I saw posting on this topic suggested doing that.


Tyr. Now is the opportune time to ask fj to tell us...Exactly who, among us, ever said we wanted to shred the Constitution.

in response to revelarts comment on domestic liberties, respecting privacy rights, and the use of drones being used in violation of these principles enshrined in our constitution.


Sounds 'good' on the face of it. Bear in mind, though, that nobody should surely expect the luxury of peacetime conditions when, because of the War on Terror, you should surely be on a war footing, at least, to SOME extent.


So our constitutional rights are just luxuries now? If that's not shredding the Constitution, then what is is; necessary and proper suspension?

[taft2012]

I don't deny it, but many do. Here even. Would you say dorner committed domestic terrorism?

Sure. He killed innocent people to bring attention to his "cause."

That basically defines the criteria.


Well here in the US we have laws concerning such-- first and foremost, the Fourth Amendment.

I'm pretty certain it's been long decided that people do not possess a Constitutional expectation of privacy for items that are readily visible, in plain view, from the air. Decided long ago, not due to drones, but due to law enforcement flying around in helicopters.

The best move would be to move your marijuana plants indoors.


The fourth amendment is how, oh supporter of writs of assistance. If you are using the drones to search for acres of marijuana, you'll need a warrant based on probable cause, not just reasonable suspicion. Flying over suspect private land in search of probable cause puts the cart before the horse.

Wrong, nonsense, absurd.

There is no reasonable expectation of Constitutional privacy for something left in plain view from the air.

If the police needed search warrants for every piece of land they flew over in helicopters they'd never get the bird off of the ground in the first place.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=488&invol=445



respondent could not reasonably have expected that the contents of his greenhouse were protected from public or official inspection from the air, since he left the greenhouse's sides and roof partially open. The fact that the inspection was made from a helicopter is irrelevant, since, as in the case of fixed-wing planes, private and commercial flight by helicopter is routine.

As usual, the libertarians found allies in the liberals in advancing criminal behavior:




JUSTICE BRENNAN, with whom JUSTICE MARSHALL and JUSTICE STEVENS join, dissenting.
The Court holds today that police officers need not obtain a warrant based on probable cause before circling in a helicopter 400 feet above a home in order to investigate what is taking place behind the walls of the curtilage. I cannot agree that the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which safeguards "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures," tolerates such an intrusion on privacy and personal security.

[red states rule]

Like those who complain about BO shredding the Constitution except when they happen to agree with said shredding?

Your concern for the terrorists is touching FU. You are what is known as a useful idiot and the terrorists will show their gratitude by killing you last

[taft2012]

Like those who complain about BO shredding the Constitution except when they happen to agree with said shredding?

No, what's scary is those who will agree with and overlook literally anything, including the genocide of the unborn, if it advanced their own personal agenda.

Let's face it; you're not concerned about flyovers over your 40' x 100' plot of land, and having the police get a peek at your tacky white plastic patio furniture from Walmart.

You're worried about marijuana growers.

You'll say "ZOMG! That's not true! I'm worried about the Constitution of the United States of America!" If I am wrong, then tell me precisely *WHO* exactly you have in mind in being protected from flyover observations?

[fj1200]

Bullshit, I didn't.... -Tyr

You might want to check who I quoted. :slap:


Tyr. Now is the opportune time to ask fj to tell us...Exactly who, among us, ever said we wanted to shred the Constitution.

You might want to pay attention to gist of the thread. :slap:


Good question, nobody I saw posting on this topic suggested doing that.

You might want to reexamine your own post.

My friend , sorry to have to disagree with that.
:slap:


Did fj suddenly disappear? Or, did I ask too difficult a question?

:laugh: Now that's funny.


Your concern for the terrorists is touching FU. You are what is known as a useful idiot and the terrorists will show their gratitude by killing you last

Please point out my concern for terrorists. And then you can defend your shredding of the Constitution.


No, what's scary is those who will agree with and overlook literally anything, including the genocide of the unborn, if it advanced their own personal agenda.

Let's face it; you're not concerned about flyovers over your 40' x 100' plot of land, and having the police get a peek at your tacky white plastic patio furniture from Walmart.

You're worried about marijuana growers.

You'll say "ZOMG! That's not true! I'm worried about the Constitution of the United States of America!" If I am wrong, then tell me precisely *WHO* exactly you have in mind in being protected from flyover observations?

You really kind of expose your idiocy when the only response you have is some blather about marijuana. Your understanding of personal liberties is also unquestionably ignorant as well.

BTW, I'm not too particularly concerned about domestic drones as presently envisioned. Whoops! There went another of your talking points. :slap:

[Voted4Reagan]

I would certainly think the use of surveillance drones is a violation of the 4th amendment.

The use of them certainly is unreasonable.

[logroller]

I'm pretty certain it's been long decided that people do not possess a Constitutional expectation of privacy for items that are readily visible, in plain view, from the air. Decided long ago, not due to drones, but due to law enforcement flying around in helicopters.

The best move would be to move your marijuana plants indoors.
I'm not talking about a manned helicopter; there's technology to see inside houses upon these drones. Thermal imaging can sense heat signatures, even inside walls. Ill not even get into body scanning devices.

Plain view doctrine

For the plain view doctrine to apply for discoveries, the three-prong Horton test requires:

the officer to be lawfully present at the place where the evidence can be plainly viewed,
the officer to have a lawful right of access to the object, and
the incriminating character of the object to be “immediately apparent.”
In order for the officer to seize the item, the officer must have probable cause to believe the item is evidence of a crime or is contraband. The police may not move objects to get a better view. In Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (1987), the officer was found to have acted unlawfully. While investigating a shooting, the officer moved, without probable cause, stereo equipment to record the serial numbers. The plain view doctrine has also been expanded to include the sub doctrines of plain feel, plain smell, and plain hearing.[1]
so help me out with how telephoto lenses, infrared and thermal imaging, X-ray and radar devices in unmanned aircraft are necessary if the items are plainly visible. Then explain how a trained dog smelling drugs and explosives through a door is plain smell, and how parabolic mikes and noise canceling software is plain hearing.

[fj1200]

I would certainly think the use of surveillance drones is a violation of the 4th amendment.

The use of them certainly is unreasonable.

That would depend on the whats/whys/hows of that which they surveil.

[jimnyc]

I'll look for it if anyone is interested, the actual product, but I've seen some remote control helicopters out there with built in video capability. Is that frowned upon, or only when it's authority using it? Or just look on Youtube, TONS of videos. Let me get one for example...

<IFRAME height=315 src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/HsxYbnT8tKk" frameBorder=0 width=560 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>

<IFRAME height=315 src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/RZz9Se3jA3s" frameBorder=0 width=420 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>

Apparently these are in use by the police already! So lookout for the mini black helicopters too!

<IFRAME height=315 src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/UNBU35J275g" frameBorder=0 width=560 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>

This one says it was a test for the Kansas City police department:

<IFRAME height=315 src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/3PTeDc0DxAI" frameBorder=0 width=420 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>

[Drummond]

There is no reasonable expectation of Constitutional privacy for something left in plain view from the air.

If the police needed search warrants for every piece of land they flew over in helicopters they'd never get the bird off of the ground in the first place.

This argument makes a lot of sense to me.

But here's something else. From post #10 on this thread ..


While not directed at me; drones are guided by software, not a the hands of a human being. It's similar to the difference between traffic cameras triggered by sensors vs an officer watching via remote

I find myself wondering if the Constitution was ever meant to address the operational processes of computer software ? Given the accuracy of the above-quoted presumed factually accurate statement, well .... where does this lead ? Can the drone be arrested and tried in a court ? Will it mount a spirited defence of its own actions ?

Another point ... if the ability to 'spy' from above is legitimately a Constitutional concern .. I have to ask, is the extent of space involved legislated for ? Is it limitless ? Can an individual's Constitutional rights extend for an area of space that's theoretically limitless ?

Imagine a satellite in orbit, loaded with surveillance equipment. It looks down on a particular house. Does the 'reach' of Constitutional jurisdiction extend into space ?

If that were a Chinese satellite, or (heaven forbid) an especially sneaky North Korean one that somehow managed to survive its launch ... would America go to war in defence of the spied-upon person's Constitutional rights ? If not, WHY NOT ? I mean ... er'm, 'terrorists' or 'traitors' might be involved, by Jingo ....

As for particularly advanced aliens who might be lurking in the general vicinity of Ursa Major, and whose dastardly 'traitorous' machinations might one day involve some very long range surveillance of a particular house in America ... well, cue Star Wars, presumably.

May The (- Constitutionally-protected -) Force Be With You .... ;)

[taft2012]

Imagine a satellite in orbit, loaded with surveillance equipment. It looks down on a particular house. Does the 'reach' of Constitutional jurisdiction extend into space ?

If that were a Chinese satellite, or (heaven forbid) an especially sneaky North Korean one that somehow managed to survive its launch ... would America go to war in defence of the spied-upon person's Constitutional rights ? If not, WHY NOT ? I mean ... er'm, 'terrorists' or 'traitors' might be involved, by Jingo ....



Or Google Earth...

Municipalities have used Google Earth to compare their taxrolls to the current state of the properties being taxed. Unreported outbuildings, and especially untaxed in-ground swimming pools, have been found using Google Earth.

I think the legal principle is the same; if anyone else using the same technology would be able to find it, then it's admissible. If any person in a helicopter can see it, it's good. If any person in a helicopter using binoculars or whatever can see it, it's good, if any person using Google Earth can see it, it's good.


if I see one I'll shoot it down

Oh, this is rich. We're. supposed to believe that ..

Someone who is too lily-livered to expose his on-line persona to petty sanctions on an on-line liberal political forum...

Is going to expose himself to real-life criminal penalties if a drone should wander over his 40' x 100' piece of Section 8 Housing?
:laugh2:

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/23064577.jpg

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You might want to check who I quoted. :slap:

No need my answer stands as is regardless.-Tyr



You might want to pay attention to gist of the thread. :slap:

I am keenly aware of the subject of this thread.-Tyr



You might want to reexamine your own post.

I am keenly aware of what I stated in my own post. Do not read into it any more than my being firmly opposed to the ffing traitor obama having even more power!-Tyr

:slap:


I do not accept any more power being given to the want-to-be dictator we are now ruled by.--Tyr

[fj1200]

No need my answer stands as is regardless.-Tyr

Then try responding to the correct poster.


I am keenly aware of the subject of this thread.-Tyr

I wasn't addressing you.


I am keenly aware of what I stated in my own post. Do not read into it any more than my being firmly opposed to the ffing traitor obama having even more power!-Tyr

I wasn't referring to your post.


I do not accept any more power being given to the want-to-be dictator we are now ruled by.--Tyr

Fine, we're in agreement. Not sure why you're being argumentative against my post. :dunno:

[logroller]

Or Google Earth...

Municipalities have used Google Earth to compare their taxrolls to the current state of the properties being taxed. Unreported outbuildings, and especially untaxed in-ground swimming pools, have been found using Google Earth.

I think the legal principle is the same; if anyone else using the same technology would be able to find it, then it's admissible. If any person in a helicopter can see it, it's good. If any person in a helicopter using binoculars or whatever can see it, it's good, if any person using Google Earth can see it, it's good.
i can't use binoculars to peer through window. Plus there's this-
Katz v United States. (1967)
"In Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505, we held that eavesdropping accomplished by means of an electronic device that penetrated the premises occupied by petitioner was a violation of the Fourth Amendment. [p362] That case established that interception of conversations reasonably intended to be private could constitute a "search and seizure." and that the examination or taking of physical property was not required. This view of the Fourth Amendment was followed in Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, at 485, and Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41, at 51. Also compare Osborn v. United States, 385 U.S. 323, at 327. In Silverman, we found it unnecessary to reexamine Goldman v. United States, 316 U.S. 129, which had held that electronic surveillance accomplished without the physical penetration of petitioner's premises by a tangible object did not violate the Fourth Amendment. This case requires us to reconsider Goldman, and I agree that it should now be overruled.* Its limitation on Fourth Amendment protection is, in the present day, bad physics as well as bad law, for reasonable expectations of privacy may be defeated by electronic as well as physical invasion."

[taft2012]

i can't use binoculars to peer through window. Plus there's this-
Katz v United States. (1967)
"In Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505, we held that eavesdropping accomplished by means of an electronic device that penetrated the premises occupied by petitioner was a violation of the Fourth Amendment. [p362] That case established that interception of conversations reasonably intended to be private could constitute a "search and seizure." and that the examination or taking of physical property was not required. This view of the Fourth Amendment was followed in Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, at 485, and Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41, at 51. Also compare Osborn v. United States, 385 U.S. 323, at 327. In Silverman, we found it unnecessary to reexamine Goldman v. United States, 316 U.S. 129, which had held that electronic surveillance accomplished without the physical penetration of petitioner's premises by a tangible object did not violate the Fourth Amendment. This case requires us to reconsider Goldman, and I agree that it should now be overruled.* Its limitation on Fourth Amendment protection is, in the present day, bad physics as well as bad law, for reasonable expectations of privacy may be defeated by electronic as well as physical invasion."



Uh, yeah. So?

[logroller]

Uh, yeah. So?
The use of electronic devices can violate privacy rights. Your consistent support of administrative abuses is anything but unprecedented...that's why we have a bill of rights.

[aboutime]

The use of electronic devices can violate privacy rights. Your consistent support of administrative abuses is anything but unprecedented...that's why we have a bill of rights.


logroller. If all that you said above was accurate, and you stand by that Bill of Rights in this case, without fail.

Perhaps you should tell us about the Electronic devices used by GOOGLE EARTH that violate...as you suggest. The privacy rights of every person on Earth who happens to appear in the telephoto lens of the satellite that has been violating every inch of this Earth???

In other words. What's the difference here? And why haven't you complained, or threatened to sue Google?

[revelarts]

logroller. If all that you said above was accurate, and you stand by that Bill of Rights in this case, without fail.

Perhaps you should tell us about the Electronic devices used by GOOGLE EARTH that violate...as you suggest. The privacy rights of every person on Earth who happens to appear in the telephoto lens of the satellite that has been violating every inch of this Earth???

In other words. What's the difference here? And why haven't you complained, or threatened to sue Google?

Do a search for google earth sued you'll find quite a bit.

google has been getting sued and losing over a lot of illegal stuff but it's so big it can pay the fines ignore most complaints.

[aboutime]

Do a search for google earth sued you'll find quite a bit.

google has been getting sued and losing over a lot of illegal stuff but it's so big it can pay the fines ignore most complaints.


Rev. That is probably all true about Google being sued. I will not dispute that. But the subject was THE BILL OF RIGHTS, and the use of electronics that Continues...even as we speak.
In fact. Looking at your PC, or the Monitor on the laptop you may be using right now.....IS PART OF IT.

[logroller]

Rev. That is probably all true about Google being sued. I will not dispute that. But the subject was THE BILL OF RIGHTS, and the use of electronics that Continues...even as we speak.
In fact. Looking at your PC, or the Monitor on the laptop you may be using right now.....IS PART OF IT.
Those suits under law and equity have, at their foundation, the Bill of Rights. Have you looked at what I've already presented regarding inadvertent discovery and the three-pronged Horton test? We have standards, the question is whether the standards effectively balance the rightful protection of all involved. We need to be able to investigate and prosecute criminal activity that threatens the public security; but we can't reasonably be expected to give up more of our rights to the process than is sought to be protected. The process of building upon previous reasoning to reduce the expectations of privacy is no different than the process of reasoning away expectations of any other rights, eg bearing arms. Is it worth it to give up one right, only to be required to give up another to make up for lacking another?

[taft2012]

Those suits under law and equity have, at their foundation, the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights would not have protected you in 1800 from a government agent in a hot balloon floating over your lands, and today even less so from images taken by a private firm via satellite.



We need to be able to investigate and prosecute criminal activity that threatens the public security; but we can't reasonably be expected to give up more of our rights to the process than is sought to be protected.

What is this alleged right? The right not to have overhead passing aircraft see into my yard?

I live near JFK airport, are my rights being violated approximately every 5 minutes?

[logroller]

The Bill of Rights would not have protected you in 1800 from a government agent in a hot balloon floating over your lands, and today even less so from images taken by a private firm via satellite.

The bill of rights would have, had common sense not prevailed. as despite having such technology at their disposal, they weren't used to execute unwarranted searches. as for private actions, the bill of rights was added specifically to proscribe government actions, not private. Each of the bill of rights' amendments limit the scope of government actions. Private parties are governed by the laws deemed necessary and proper by legislature. Oh, and growing hemp was commonplace in the 1800s.;)


What is this alleged right? The right not to have overhead passing aircraft see into my yard?
Its not an alleged right, its enumerated. The fourth amendment protects us against unreasonable search and seizure--summarily, a right to privacy being violated by the use of technology that penetrates the envelope of one's reasonable expectations of privacy. Are you reading any of these posts?


I live near JFK airport, are my rights being violated approximately every 5 minutes?
Yes, no, ...maybe they are-- under the takings clause. see US v Causby. However, was JFK airport there when you bought your house? If so, then you didn't really have anything taken. But my issue with drones isn't property, its privacy.

[revelarts]

Rand Paul is Filibustering the drones.
It may be grand standing but some of the info and arguments coming out of this is golden.
he's been on the floor for 4 hours so far. going on now C-span..

it's 3:30 march 6

http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN2/