Guest Post

Mustang Sends …

Many years ago, founding father Benjamin Franklin told us, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”  I guess we weren’t paying much attention in the aftermath of the events on 9/11 … when the president and an emotional congress rushed through the Patriot Act.  After looking at the Patriot Act, I concluded that it didn’t affect me.  I’m not a terrorist; I don’t have anything to hide.

A few years later, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano (Obama appointee) classified military veterans, Christians, and gun owners as potential “right wing extremists.”  I presumed then that this was simply the ranting of a far left loon.  Who in their right mind would regard patriots as “the enemy?”  But then I read a post at Always on Watch by Sam Huntington, a frequent commenter here at Geeez.  He voiced concern about the use of remotely piloted planes to surveil American citizens.  He wrote:

“It is no leap in logic to assume that a government capable of employing robotic planes and ground weapons against foreigners is equally capable of employing them against their own citizens —particularly when highly-placed officials regard certain classes of citizens as ‘bible carrying right wing extremists.’”

“All of these things will come to visit an America disinterested in resisting such nonsense.  Know this truth: we are using drones to kill Pakistani civilians today, and we are using them to ensure “domestic security” here at home.  Government assures us, “Our National Security demands it.”  Such claims suggest an advanced stage of idiocy.”

Still, who really wants to imagine their government would use remotely piloted vehicles against them?  Besides, our Bill of Rights protects us from the government.  One of these is the Fourth Amendment, which reads: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated …”

But then I found this headline in the news: Court Upholds Domestic Drone Use in Arrest of American Citizen (Source).  This case began when six cows belonging to a neighbor wandered onto the property of a North Dakota farmer.  When the farmer refused to return the cows, police appeared with a warrant.  The farmer informed the police he’d shoot anyone who stepped foot on his property.  He may have overlooked the whole “warrant upon probable cause” provision.  So the Department of Homeland Security offered the use of a remotely piloted drone to surveil the North Dakota farmer.  Ultimately, he surrendered and is now on trial.

Ordinarily, most people would shrug this off.  Like me in previous years, they might conclude that this is a non-issue.  After all, the drone didn’t fire Hellfire missiles into the farmer’s house.  And besides, with tens of millions of Muslims threatening us with Jihad, security is very important.  On the other hand, if the Department of Homeland Security can employ drones against a farmer over six cows, what else can the government do that the courts will uphold? 

I would enjoy reading a lawyer’s opinion about this, if there are any out there … along with the views of our readership.

Z:  Thanks, Mustang, for having written this..........Readers, fire away!