Why Is the EPA Using Drones to Spy on Cattle Ranchers in Nebraska & Iowa?

June 7th, 2012

FAKE NEWS for the Zionist agenda

Eddie | 06 June 2012 | BLOG, Home, News | adrian smith, Aerial reconnaissanceAerial reconnaissance, aerial surveillance, Agriculture, America, Andrew Napolitano, Ben Nelson, bipartisan group, british constitution, cattle ranchers, co-chairman, Director, dozen questions, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, EspionageEspionage, Farmers, farmers and ranchers, Farms, Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Bureau of Investigation, flyovers, Fourth Amendment to the United States ConstitutionFourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Fox Business Network’s Varney Co., Human rightsHuman rights, Iowa, jeff fortenberry, Jonathan Hunt, Judge, Kansas, landowners, lee terry, lisa jackson, livestock operations, mike johanns, Missouri, National securityNational security, Nebraska, nebraska farmers, nebraska iowa, privacy, PrivacyPrivacy, real-estate, Republican Party, spy drones, state of nebraska, Supreme Court, surveillance systems, SurveillanceSurveillance, United States, United States Environmental Protection AgencyUnited States Environmental Protection Agency, unmanned aircraft, using drones | 0 Comments

The FAA is expected to announce plans to expand the use of domestic drones in American airspace. These would be similar to the unmanned aircraft that the U.S. has been using to target terrorists abroad. In the U.S., the surveillance systems would be used to track terrorists, drug dealers or to find missing children. But critics warn that the use of drones presents a major threat to our personal privacy.

A bipartisan group of Capitol Hill lawmakers is pressing EPA Director Lisa Jackson to answer questions about privacy issues and other concerns after the agency used aerial surveillance to monitor livestock operations over their home state of Nebraska.

“Farmers and ranchers in Nebraska pride themselves in the stewardship of our state’s natural resources. As you might imagine, this practice has resulted in privacy concerns among our constituents and raises several questions,” says the letter signed by Republican Reps. Adrian Smith, Jeff Fortenberry and Lee Terry, as well as Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson and GOP Sen. Mike Johanns.

Smith, co-chairman of the Modern Agriculture Caucus and the Congressional Rural Caucus, said Tuesday the operations in many cases are near homes so “landowners deserve legitimate justification given the sensitivity of the information gathered by the flyovers.”

The letter asks nearly two-dozen questions including why the inspections are being conducted, how many flights have occurred and whether they have resulted in any enforcement activities.

“Nebraskans are rightfully skeptical of an agency which continues to unilaterally insert itself into the affairs of rural America,” Smith added.

The Environmental Protection Agency uses aerial surveillance across a swath of the Midwest know as Section 7 – which includes Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas and Missouri — and has defended the practice as cost-efficient.

The EPA is using drones to spy on cattle ranchers in Nebraska and Iowa in order to make sure that farmers dispose of waste properly. On Fox Business Network’s Varney Co., Judge Andrew Napolitano said that as shocking as this news is, an opinion by the Supreme Court says that as long as the EPA is using the drones for an administrative purpose, it doesn’t need a warrant in order to do this. “If this is a legitimate area of concern for the EPA, the Supreme Court has said they can use the drones,” said Napolitano.

The agency declined to comment Wednesday. The letter gave the agency until June 10 to respond.

Jonathan Hunt reports that there could be as many as 30,000 drones flying overhead within the next decade.

Judge Andrew Napolitano commented that officials don’t have the authority to spy on us from above and that “bureaucrats gave themselves the authority to capture images of us in the privacy of our backyards.”

Judge Napolitano wrote this exclusive commentary on the topic for the Fox News Insider.

The government may lawfully use technology, just like the rest of us, to make its work more efficient. But it cannot use technology to by-pass the Constitution.

Thus, if its lawful obligation is to monitor real estate to assure itself that the occupier of the lands is not adversely affecting the natural habitat, it may use drones to view the lands. But, generally speaking, that is not the job of the EPA. It sets rules for the use of private property that assures its highest and best use, consistent with nature. It can only monitor that use when it has evidence of a specific violation of that use. Thus, it can only fly drones to look at real estate when it has reason to believe that a specific regulation, directed to the owner or occupier of that land, is being violated. It cannot engage in fishing expeditions from the sky.

The constitutional problem arises when the drone spies some event outside the jurisdiction of the EPA. And much of what the drones will see will be outside that jurisdiction and either innocent or ambiguous. Is that Sudafed for your cold or your meth habit? Is that fertilizer for your rose bushes or to build a bomb? Are you smoking in the presence of your children? How utterly un-American is it for the government–EPA or FBI–to watch us on our private property? These are questions that will come up when the feds put eyes in the skies under the guise of monitoring EPA regulations.

That’s why we have a Fourth Amendment. It guarantees privacy and assures us the right to be left alone. It also requires a warrant from a judge to invade privacy. True fidelity to the Constitution requires a warrant from a judge before any government drone can be used for any purpose. But that is not yet the current practice.

Watch the latest video at amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;a href=”http://video.insider.foxnews.com”amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;video.insider.foxnews.comamp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/aamp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;

Watch the latest video at amp;amp;amp;lt;a href=”http://video.insider.foxnews.com”amp;amp;amp;gt;video.insider.foxnews.comamp;amp;amp;lt;/aamp;amp;amp;gt;

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/index.html