hackernews client

FAA institutes nationwide drone no-fly zones around ICE operations

295 pointsposted 13 days ago

244 Comments

dayofthedaleks

13 days ago

Bubble of protection is 3000 feet laterally and 1000 feet vertically. From the article:

“Unlike traditional Temporary Flight Restrictions, the NOTAM does not provide geographic coordinates, activation times, or public notification when the restriction is in effect near a specific location. Instead, the restricted airspace moves with DHS assets, meaning the no-fly zone can appear wherever ICE or other DHS units operate.”

“In practical terms, a drone operator flying legally in a public area could unknowingly enter restricted airspace if an ICE convoy passes within the protected radius.”

hn_throwaway_99

13 days ago

One of the hallmarks of authoritarianism is to have laws that are virtually impossible to not break.

I hope this gets tested in court and declared unconstitutional for being overly vague and arbitrary. For example, Montana used to have some maximum speed limits that were just "reasonable and prudent", but they were eventually rejected by courts as being too vague (what's prudent to you may not be prudent to someone else). This is similar, in that the FAA has a no fly zone but they don't actually publish what it is.

Catch-22 and 1984 weren't supposed to be instruction manuals.

gtowey

13 days ago

> I hope this gets tested in court and declared unconstitutional

The rule of law has left the building. The SC is willing to rubber-stamp nearly anything right now.

Waiting and hoping for common sense to prevail is what allows authoritarian regimes to bulldoze through existing laws and norms. Even if the courts were an avenue for redress, they are being overwhelmed by the daily barrage of new illegal and unconstitutional actions. Once the courts get around to addressing these cases, the damage has been done and the precedent has been set.

cosmicgadget

12 days ago

Well, as an alternative to rubber stamping it they can overturn any injunctions and let him have eighteen months of moving drone bubbles until the issue has made its way through the lower courts.

See also Alito's outrage about deportations being fast tracked to SCOTUS.

no_wizard

13 days ago

Anything but an administration being able to manipulate the Fed, it seems. Most legal experts believe that will be a hard strike down on the administration

scoofy

13 days ago

If you think the SCOTUS has been arbitrarily rubber stamping the administration's goals, you haven't been paying attention. I'll fully agree with you it appears to have been fairly partisan, but less than a month again they blocked the administration from deploying the national guard to states:

>In one of its most consequential rulings of the year, just before breaking for the holidays last week the Supreme Court held that President Trump acted improperly in federalizing the National Guard in Illinois and in activating troops across the state. Although the case centered on the administration’s deployments in Chicago, the court’s ruling suggests that Trump’s actions in Los Angeles and Portland were likewise illegal.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2025-12-30/supreme-cou...

bonsai_spool

13 days ago

> they blocked the administration from deploying the national guard to states

That is not what the decision stated - there was even a quote from a justice saying that the administration could easily attain the same result with a different legal mechanism, all but encouraging such a change in behavior.

Edit: the ‘improperly’ portion of your quote is the operative term

scoofy

13 days ago

Yes, and my point is exactly that a rubber stamping SCOTUS would have literally allowed it even though it was "improper." That's what rubber stamping means.

overfeed

13 days ago

"Change this sentence, change the date and resubmit" is rubber-stamping - they just require a big-enough fig-leaf and are bold enough to publicly hint at the parameters of the fig-leaf they will accept.

lotsofpulp

13 days ago

But they also said the president can’t be punished for doing illegal things, so what difference does it make?

tasty_freeze

13 days ago

Trump claimed repeatedly and vigorously that whatever the President does is by definition legal. He also repeatedly and vigorously claimed that Obama had broken the law by spying on then-candidate Trump in 2016. I don't know if he himself noticed the contradiction but blustered on anwway or was too dense to notice.

[BTW, Trump wasn't spied on -- Russian assets were spied on and it turned out that some of those communications were with Trump's team. There are ~100 pages of these communications captured in the Mueller report. ]

cosmicgadget

12 days ago

Talking out of both sides of his mouth is kind of a daily thing at this point. But he's had a lawyer advocate the immunity point before the Supreme Court while he hasn't attempted to prosecute Obama.

derektank

13 days ago

They made that ruling while Biden was president. It seems hard to call that an example of rubber stamping for an administration that did not exist yet.

John Roberts and other conservative members of the court do have an ideological commitment to the Unitary Executive Theory of the presidency (foolishly, in my view) but this has the potential to benefit both Democratic and Republican presidents.

avidiax

13 days ago

That ruling[1] is even worse than rubber stamping. It's saying that no stamp is needed at all.

> It seems hard to call that an example of rubber stamping for an administration that did not exist yet.

The Trump administration absolutely did exist, both in the past and the present (waiting in the wings) in July 2024 when the ruling was issued.

While it's true that all past and future presidents are affected by the ruling, there's exactly one former president and presidential candidate at that time that was likely to face criminal charges for actions taken while in office, in either first or second terms.

It's a bit much to claim that the ruling doesn't have at least the appearance of benefiting Trump exclusively, especially given the timing. The ruling caused many of Trump's trials to be delayed to be effectively concurrent with the 2024 election.

We went 235 years without clarifying that presidents had presumptive immunity; all previous presidents (even Trump) acted under the presumption that prosecution for official acts might be unlikely but was possible.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._United_States

user

13 days ago

[deleted]

CamperBob2

13 days ago

And they will be perfectly happy to walk it back when (or if) a Democrat is elected president in the future. Stare decisis is no longer a thing with this bunch.

expedition32

13 days ago

This is all highly commical considering the US has black bagged a foreign president.

That is going to be the court case of the century by the way. Maduro will have lawyers begging to represent him. It will be America on trial and I'm looking forward to the Trump administration absolutely bungling it.

free_bip

13 days ago

What benefit does it allow for, other than the ability to turn the country into a dictatorship in a matter of hours with a single phone call?

For anyone unaware, one of the main criticisms of that ruling is that the president commanding the military is always considered an official act, and this ruling means the president enjoys "absolute immunity for official acts within an exclusive presidential authority that Congress cannot regulate such as the pardon, command of the military, execution of laws, or control of the executive branch."[0]

The ruling made no carveouts or exceptions for blatantly illegal orders. The president could unilaterally eject or kill any member of opposing political parties and future administrations (if there are any) would be completely unable to legally hold them accountable for their heinous crimes.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._United_States

derektank

12 days ago

The benefit is that the president is not subject to retaliatory lawsuits (similar to what the Trump administration is now doing against e.g. James Comey, et al), the threat of which might prevent them from performing their duties effectively while in office.

I’m sympathetic to your concerns, agree that it was a poor ruling, and frankly think we need a constitutional amendment to address the excessive power the presidency has, but the justices aren’t making these rulings without having a real, justifiable rationale behind them and they aren’t making these rulings because they’re in the tank for Donald Trump (Justice Alito excepted)

halfmatthalfcat

13 days ago

That’s not what they ruled.

seattle_spring

13 days ago

How so? The ruling was that he had full immunity during "presidential duties", which has many times been interpreted by the SC as "anything he wants to do while president."

fzeroracer

13 days ago

And notably, before any further disagreement pops up the other dissenting judges literally said as much. The relevant quote:

"When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune. Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today."

terminalshort

13 days ago

Unless ordering assassinations and launching a coup are "core constitutional powers" of the president, then no the ruling does not give him immunity for that.

As a practical matter, if the president is ordering the military to do those things and the military is obeying those orders, we are far beyond the point where concepts like legal immunity matter.

refulgentis

13 days ago

You’re a student of history, thus I think you understand how “commander in chief of the armed forces” is a constitutional duty without needing further explanation of why.

I think you intended to communicate the Supreme Court would balk at it happening.

Yes.

Much like Kavanaugh balking at ethnicity-based stops after allowing language + skin color based stops. By then, it’s too late.

terminalshort

13 days ago

[flagged]

ceejayoz

13 days ago

We blew up shipwrecked survivors a few weeks ago, which is a textbook example of a war crime.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/12/us/politics/us-boat-attac...

> Two survivors of the initial attack later appeared to wave at the aircraft after clambering aboard an overturned piece of the hull, before the military killed them in a follow-up strike that also sank the wreckage. It is not clear whether the initial survivors knew that the explosion on their vessel had been caused by a missile attack.

And "textbook" is not an exaggeration.

https://apnews.com/article/boat-strikes-survivors-hegseth-72...

> The Pentagon’s own manual on the laws of war describes a scenario similar to the Sept. 2 boat strike when discussing when service members should refuse to comply with unlawful orders. “For example,” the manual says, “orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal.”

terminalshort

13 days ago

Ok, but that was not ordered by the president so is completely irrelevant to the discussion of presidential immunity.

ceejayoz

13 days ago

President immunity as laid out by SCOTUS clearly covers pardons.

Including "I'll pardon you and everyone down the chain if you do a war crime" promises.

terminalshort

13 days ago

No it doesn't because the president always had absolute power to pardon.

ceejayoz

12 days ago

That was not so clear cut prior.

Openly selling a pardon for $20M would almost certainly have led to a prosecution for bribery. Not now!

cosmicgadget

13 days ago

Seems relevant to your lecture on military law.

Shivatron

13 days ago

It seems extremely relevant. Your argument suggests the president need only appoint a subordinate who will themselves give the desired illegal order without the president's public command. In the unlikely event the subordinate is called to account, the president can simply pardon them.

This is certainly not a hypothetical "parade of horribles", since Trump has already pardoned military officers convicted of war crimes.[1]

1. https://apnews.com/article/257e4b17a3c7476ea3007c0861fa97e8

terminalshort

13 days ago

Yes, but that could happen with or without the SC ruling. The president has always had absolute power of pardon.

fragmede

13 days ago

War crimes sounds scary as a whole mess of badness, but which one is kind of material. Eg Obama's drone strikes and CIA torture likely count as war crimes, though no court has actually tried him for them, so it's hard to get worked up about Navy Seals (whos job it is to go into war zones and do war-type things) having generically having committed war crimes. Did they rape women and babies, or did they shoot the wrong person in the dark of night who it turns out wasn't actually a threat.

ceejayoz

13 days ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Gallagher_(Navy_SEAL)

> Gallagher was the subject of a number of reports from fellow SEAL team members, stating that his actions were not in keeping with the rules of war, but these reports were dismissed by the SEAL command structure.

> Other snipers said they witnessed Gallagher taking at least two militarily pointless shots, shooting and killing an unarmed elderly man in a white robe as well as a young girl walking with other girls.

Murdered a prisoner, and was shitty enough his fellow SEALs were uncomfortable enough to complain. Pardoned eventually, by Trump.

refulgentis

13 days ago

The decision explicitly says anything you do is de facto legal.

I won't talk down to you like you talked down to me. I will continue to talk up to you, if neutral in this comment. What you said was unnecessary.

avidiax

13 days ago

Ordering violence orchestrated by the military is a core constitutional power. It's called being "commander-in-chief" of the armed forces.

The ruling makes it very clear that core constitutional powers have conclusive and preclusive (absolute) immunity.

Other official acts have presumptive immunity.

In all cases, the motive is above question. If Trump has a fight with Melania, he can order the CIA to rendition and disappear her. He doesn't even need to claim that she's a spy. It can never be questioned in court. He can then pardon everyone involved, so even the underlings face no court.

In all cases, the official acts are explicitly not admissible as evidence. Using the example above, the District of Columbia can try to prosecute for murder, but is unable to introduce the fact of the order as evidence. If Trump receives a bribe, the official act that he undertook at the briber's behest is similarly inadmissible.

terminalshort

13 days ago

> Ordering violence orchestrated by the military is a core constitutional power. It's called being "commander-in-chief" of the armed forces.

Incorrect. The commander in chief, same as all military officers, has the authority to issue lawful orders to the chain of command below him. He does not have the authority to issue unlawful orders, and if he does, his subordinates have the legal obligation to disobey them. The president does not have constitutional power to order arbitrary violence.

> If Trump has a fight with Melania, he can order the CIA to rendition and disappear her

No he can't because this is against the law, and it is therefore not a presidential power. The president has no constitutional authority to order agencies to violate the law.

> He can then pardon everyone involved, so even the underlings face no court.

This is, unfortunately, true. But it has been true as long as the US has existed.

> If Trump receives a bribe, the official act that he undertook at the briber's behest is similarly inadmissible.

This is true, but the act of taking the bribe is not an exercise of presidential power so he can be charged with accepting a bribe. This is not new to the recent SC decision.

avidiax

12 days ago

> has the authority to issue lawful orders

This decision says that he can issue unlawful orders, and there's nothing the court can do about it. He's immune. You don't need immunity for lawful acts. The very best you could argue is that this prevents prosecution for "gray area" acts that may or may not be lawful. But this decision essentially says that all of those "gray areas" are effectively lawful.

Decide that the protesters in Minnesota are an insurrection? Maybe they start turning up with long guns, like countless previous protestors? Order the troops to fire. It's up to them if they do or don't, but it's guaranteed if they don't, they'll be in courts martial for disobeying the order. The meeting minutes, the reports, what was known and when it was known, Trump's motive: all of them don't matter at all. The official records are inadmissible, his motive is unquestionable, and he is absolutely immune for his orders as commander-in-chief. He can pardon everyone and make them federally immune as well. Only state courts can do anything, far after the fact.

wtfwhateven

12 days ago

Have you actually read the SC opinion or are you just assuming what it says? It is apparently the latter.

>No he can't because this is against the law

What exactly do you think immunity makes someone immune from?

actionfromafar

13 days ago

Ok he can tell his chain of command some lies then. Same difference.

terminalshort

13 days ago

How on earth is that going to make the orders lawful?

wtfwhateven

12 days ago

Do you think immunity is for lawful things? Why on earth are you arguing that unlawful acts are not covered by immunity? What exactly do you think immunity makes someone immune from?

cosmicgadget

13 days ago

Sedition isn't lawful and it's what the immunity decision addressed.

And that wasn't anywhere near the amount of deference the president gets when it comes to emergency and war powers.

actionfromafar

13 days ago

On the receiving end, giving cover and benefit of a doubt.

The chain of command may or may not signal (similarly to the Supreme Court) what kind of fig leaf lies are required.

From there it’s a game of telephone until a barrel of a gun.

fzeroracer

13 days ago

> Unless ordering assassinations and launching a coup are "core constitutional powers" of the president, then no the ruling does not give him immunity for that.

Just to be clear: you are disagreeing with a dissenting Supreme Court justice on how much the law protects the president. Are you a lawyer? Do you know more about how much the law binds the president than the literal office that has the final say on the law?

terminalshort

13 days ago

Are you disagreeing with all 6 concurring Supreme Court justices on much the law protects the president? Are you a lawyer? Do you know more about how much the law binds the president than the literal office that has the final say on the law?

See how stupid that argument is?

Starman_Jones

13 days ago

No, they aren't, because the concurring justices have not said that those acts are not covered. All we have is what the majority wow, which notably did not include any exceptions

cosmicgadget

12 days ago

Important to note that the majority and concurring opinions typically respond to the dissent. The fact that they declined to make any clarifications on those matters is significant.

You should read the decision.

seattle_spring

13 days ago

If you think Roberts, Alito, and especially Thomas have actually been following the law as it was intended, then I have a beautiful bridge in New York to sell to you.

fzeroracer

13 days ago

Make no mistake, I fully believe the Supreme Court is complicit in this manner and has long since abdicated their duties to uphold the law and the constitution. But my point is that when the Supreme Court comes out and says that the President is immune to all actions they take, it seems like a folly to try and pretend that they don't mean what they say, at least as long as Trump is President. The 'law' is what the Supreme Court says it is, and they've decided Trump is the law.

cosmicgadget

12 days ago

The coup question specifically came up in oral arguments. Trump's attorney said he would have immunity. The majority opinion more or less says it's up to congress to impeach.

So yes.

user

13 days ago

[deleted]

terminalshort

13 days ago

> The ruling was that he had full immunity during "presidential duties"

Yes. This was basically agreed upon before that the president has legal immunity for exercising his constitutional powers, but was never explicitly ruled on by the court. If the president does something outside his legal authority, then that isn't his presidential duty, and he can be punished.

> which has many times been interpreted by the SC as "anything he wants to do while president."

This part is just false

wtfwhateven

12 days ago

You have clearly not actually read the opinion being discussed and have resorted to outright lying about what it says. Please stop it.

cosmicgadget

12 days ago

> If the president does something outside his legal authority, then that isn't his presidential duty, and he can be punished.

Your choice of words is rather telling.

wtfwhateven

12 days ago

It is what they ruled. What do you gain from lying about this?

yieldcrv

13 days ago

that perspective is not backed by data, and the administration doesn't appeal everything

very few supreme court cases make it to headline news, and the ones that do are the ones you're thinking about it. those are the ones split by ideological lines, which are less than 10% of what SCOTUS rules on. the government loses many cases unanimously as well. there are some unsigned opinions that do punt things back to lower courts that may be in the government's favor, or not.

all to say, its more nuanced than that. the trend, as a last and compromised bulwark, is there, but that's not how the court consistently behaves.

penultimatename

13 days ago

This is literally backed by data. 21 out of 25 emergency docker cases taken up with the Supreme Court were ruled in the Trump administration’s favor. Only one of the cases against the administration was unanimous.

At the appellate level, Trump appointed judges vote in favor of his policies at a substantially higher rate than any previous president at 92% of cases.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/01/looking-back-at-2025-the-...

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/11/us/politics/trumps-appeal...

ggggffggggg

13 days ago

And the emergency docket is exactly where one should look for these very recent very blatantly illegal actions and lawsuits aiming to counter them.

So yes the data is in, and yes it’s bad, and emphatically yes it’s exactly what this thread is saying. In case anyone reading in good faith was wondering.

atonse

13 days ago

Is there a reason you’re only choosing the emergency docket in your sample size though?

acdha

13 days ago

The emergency docket is a preferred method for blatant partisanship because it lets them immediately prevent lower courts from stopping the administration but doesn’t require them to set a binding precedent or even explain the ruling. If it looks like they might be losing power, suddenly those “emergency” decisions which were subsequently back-burnered can be dropped to prevent a Democrat from using the same powers.

user

13 days ago

[deleted]

mothballed

13 days ago

The gun free school zone act has been upheld even though you could be within 1000 ft of one with no real indication there is one there. Supposedly you can only be convicted for doing it knowingly, but IIRC knowingly has been interpreted to mean as little as you live near the area so reasonably should have known.

Also note, i.e. stuff like statutory rape has been upheld even in cases where the perpetrator in all good faith thought the victim was 18+, the victim initiated selling the services, and the victim provided fake ID showing they were 18+.

So there is not necessarily any need for mens rea in the US legal system.

hn_throwaway_99

13 days ago

But your examples are markedly different to me. Yes, those examples do put the onus on the individual to ensure there are no schools around or that an individual is of legal age, but those are at least discoverable things - school locations are public info, and I think for any adult it's not that difficult to steer clear of anyone who looks mildly close to underage.

But in this instance, the movements of ICE are specifically hidden by the government - heck, they've even threatened to prosecute people who publish this information!! It is the literal definition of a Catch-22.

jjav

13 days ago

School buildings don't randomly and secretly move around all the time.

So while there isn't a line drawn on the ground, it's completely different.

UncleEntity

13 days ago

>> Also note, i.e. stuff like statutory rape has been upheld even in cases where the perpetrator in all good faith thought the victim was 18+, the victim initiated selling the services, and the victim provided fake ID showing they were 18+.

You had me up to the "selling the services" part.

If you are 'engaging' with someone in a criminal enterprise it's probably reasonable to assume they might misrepresent certain facts to make the sale.

gcanyon

13 days ago

One time I was racing across the country in a moving van because my wife was injured. The truck was speed-governed to 75 mph, which I was sitting at for most of the trip. I have a picture of the back of a school bus that handily passed me by on highway 90 :-)

assaddayinh

13 days ago

Speed limits are biology and physics derived. The eye has a max speed, over which it starts to rewrite the history of what you saw. Everytime you have been "frozzen in fear" the first few milliseconds are just the eye rewriting the logs.

So you take that the saccade speed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccade) + speed of visual buffer reaction + reasonable time to break and you get a max speed for that.

Same goes when you have two points of attention, like traffic in front of you and merging traffic, the speed gets reduced to compensate.

jjk166

13 days ago

Weird that when you're in Nevada the eye moves fast enough for you to react when going at 80 mph but in Arizona your eyes can only move fast enough for 75 mph, and in California no ones eyes move fast enough to react over 70 mph.

dragonwriter

13 days ago

So the unannounced movements of the secret police in their unmarked vehicles also create a bubble around them where usually-legal activity is illegal?

speed_spread

13 days ago

And reciprocally, where usually illegal activity (beating up people and kidnapping them) is legal.

oawiejrlij

13 days ago

You mean, shooting them ten times in the back?

speed_spread

13 days ago

Oh yeah, that also.

jacquesm

13 days ago

That's the goal, it just isn't spelled out.

unangst

13 days ago

See no crimes. Hear no truth. Speak no facts.

oawiejrlij

13 days ago

I'm guessing that's entirely the idea. There will be even more cameras on them after yesterday, and they're trying to be proactive in having the authority to arrest all of them. They want the authority to arrest someone who was just out flying a drone and happened to film them as they moved.

UncleEntity

13 days ago

IDK, it's probably more a matter where they don't want people to be flying RPGs into their windscreens and this is the first step for them to carry around frequency jammers. The last time I was in Iraq they used them to stop the cellphone detonated IEDs and all the convoys has one or two.

Coincidentally, folks won't be able to live stream their encounters but I'm sure that's totally unrelated...

jacquesm

13 days ago

Yes, because the USA is totally undistinguishable from an active war zone...

twelvedogs

13 days ago

I'm not sure what your point is, are you saying ice will draw a line because that tech was used in war?

Trump has ordered troops to be ready deploy, pretending lines exist is silly

throw0101c

13 days ago

> “In practical terms, a drone operator flying legally in a public area could unknowingly enter restricted airspace if an ICE convoy passes within the protected radius.”

“For my friends everything, for my enemies the law.” ― Oscar R. Benavides (Peru)

expedition32

13 days ago

Even if you won't actually be sentenced you'll still spend a couple of days in jail.

This creates a chilling effect for normal people who don't want to become professional activists.

Espressosaurus

13 days ago

This is a useful measure to point the law as a weapon against drone operators who may be recording what’s going on by accident or on purpose. Any drone made in the last few years is going to be emitting its ID, which likely has been registered with the pilot’s name and contact information.

They can then after the fact come down on that person without having to get facial recognition, grab cellphone beacons, or other similar steps.

jacquesm

13 days ago

It's trivial to build your own drone without a DroneID.

gtowey

13 days ago

And you will be labeled a terrorist for doing so, regardless of intent.

sheikhnbake

13 days ago

Every protester and registered democrat has been labelled a domestic terrorist already in both rhetoric and policy.

mothballed

13 days ago

DHS flagged my passport on a list for literally fighting against terrorist in a US sanctioned anti-terrorist militia. When I returned they interrogated me as if I was a terrorist.

So if you are against the terrorists, you are also a terrorist.

roughly

13 days ago

The Americans who fought against the Francoists in the Spanish civil war faced enormous scrutiny back home for what was later described as “being prematurely anti-fascist.” The state worries about people willing to take up arms to protect their ideals without being told to do so (or what those ideals are).

nine_k

13 days ago

This is the administration of the same FDR who stayed in power for 4 consecutive terms, which imprisoned nearly 150k ethnic Japanese, most of them US citizens, without any due process, and which executed one of the biggest power grabs by the federal administration. In a way, FDR was much more impudent towards law than Trump, but he was not publicly arrogant or silly, and WWII has been won under his rule, so he is considered a good guy.

bsder

13 days ago

FDR and the US were actively at war against Hitler and Nazi Germany. The Japanese had bombed Pearl Harbor. These were two of the worst, period, regimes to ever exist and they carried out absolutely abominable war crimes that are still studied in history books today.

Trump and ICE are at war with a middle aged mother and a VA nurse. And they're doing all this in Minneapolis because the gangs in LA scared them off.

nine_k

13 days ago

Many of the interned Japanese were second or third generation US citizens. It was racism and economic competition, and also pandering to important voter constituences, pretending to have something to do with military circumstances. Check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_America...

This was done despite multiple reports of the military officers who studied the problem and stated that the Japanese pose no threat, are often US patriots, and need not be isolated.

Imagine Russia interning everyone of Ukrainian descent up to third generation because of the war, and everybody be like "Well, fine, they are doing a reasonable thing, let them go on".

jacquesm

13 days ago

I don't mind being labeled a terrorist. Fortunately I'm not in the USA. But you couldn't pay me to go there. One man's terrorist...

themafia

13 days ago

> I don't mind being labeled a terrorist.

You should. It's not meant for your vanity and it represents and extreme overreach by the government. It doesn't make you "cool."

> But you couldn't pay me to go there.

Of course we could. Aside from that this mentality always shocks me. There are more civilians in the US than government agents. What were you expecting when you got here? It's madness..

> One man's terrorist...

Is another mans freedom fighter. Sure, fine, if you want a civil war. Perhaps a more civilized approach is called for? Unless you particularly enjoy digging graves for your friends.

abeyer

13 days ago

> Perhaps a more civilized approach is called for?

It certainly is, but one side doesn't seem to think so.

themafia

13 days ago

The "other side" says the same thing.

I think you're both being manipulated by cynical people who have extensive access to the media that you do not.

Seems far more likely, no?

ejdndjrnnd

13 days ago

A civil war is coming whether you like it or not.

The mentally-ill are running the asylum and executing citizens. No matter what crazy shit the gop/tea party/maga have accused the left of NONE of it came to pass until they themselves were in power.

The administration WANTS a civil war; they’re ensuring one happens.

If you’re against owning guns, you’re in for a world of hurt. So buckle-up butter cup, shit is gonna be insane soon.

themafia

12 days ago

> The mentally-ill are running the asylum and executing citizens.

The the natural outcome should be rebellion. Why would it be civil war? Do you presume that the "other half" completely agree with Trump and would literally fight you to the death over it? You bandy about these terms as if you do not understand their true meaning.

> The administration WANTS a civil war

So you're going to play exactly into that? Why on earth would you give your "enemy" precisely what they seem to want? You can't detect the manipulation here?

> you’re in for a world of hurt

One of us is.

iJohnDoe

12 days ago

Arguably, there is a major contingency that will support Trump no matter what. We know this already. They are not shy about it.

So yes, there certainly would be some level of civil war.

It would be wishful thinking it would only be the people rising up against the government. If we had any level of that type unification then we wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in now.

jacquesm

12 days ago

> You should. It's not meant for your vanity and it represents and extreme overreach by the government.

That's your opinion, I don't necessarily share it.

> It doesn't make you "cool."

What made you think that I thought it looked cool. I just realize that at some point play time is over.

> Of course we could.

No, you can't. And the fact that you think you can is interesting. 'No' means 'No'. You can not pay me to go to the United States, period. I have lived on the border for years and have friends there, already missed a funeral. It isn't going to happen until sanity returns and frankly I don't see that happening in the next decade or two so most likely I will never go back there.

> Aside from that this mentality always shocks me.

What shocks you? That people abroad look at the USA and evaluate their options? What's so shocking about that?

> There are more civilians in the US than government agents.

Indeed, and a good chunk voted for this and I can't easily tell them apart.

> What were you expecting when you got here?

Well, the last time I went it cost me a couple of really good boots. Who knows what it will cost me next time?

> It's madness..

Yes, but it is not my madness and I don't have to factor in ICE into my daily affairs. As a visitor into the United States that would be a major factor, as many people have already found out, which you seem to conveniently skip over. I don't visit places where the rule of law is that shaky.

> Is another mans freedom fighter. Sure, fine, if you want a civil war.

No, I don't want a civil war. But I can't stand by idly while people are oppressed by their government and that makes it much better for me not to be exposed to such situations. Countries I will not visit: Russia, China, United States, Iran, North Korea, most of Africa, quite a few more countries in Asia. Countries that I would reluctantly visit: Most of Latin America, probably some others. Countries that I'm happy to visit: all of the EU, some countries bordering the EU, Japan, Australia, New Zealand.

> Perhaps a more civilized approach is called for?

Have you watched the news recently? I think it is pretty clear what the civilized side is in these conflicts.

> Unless you particularly enjoy digging graves for your friends.

No, I don't enjoy that. But my friends that have died in one particular struggle did so in the firm belief that what they were doing was just and right and I share their belief. I'm old enough to realize that if you don't stand up when it matters then you're just as bad as the rest.

Germany had a good chance to stand up to fascism and blew it. If fascists take over where I live or nearby you can count me in to be on the other side. I've read my grandmothers' diaries and I have written about that before, it is a stark reminder of what happens as soon as the gestapo starts doing the rounds.

Cornbilly

13 days ago

Yeah, that’s been the GOP playbook for 20+ years. It’s only recently been used for US citizens.

kernal

13 days ago

[flagged]

jacquesm

12 days ago

I will do what it takes to defend my country and the countries of others that are attacked, from within or without. And take into account that I'm really a pacifist at heart, absolutely abhor war and do not believe in the kind of idiocy that war stands for. Even so, there are limits to what I'll let happen before I will reluctantly become an active participant.

You are all over this thread spouting your crap, I highly doubt that anything at all will change your mind. But you sound scared of protests, and you seem to believe that the attackers are the defenders and the other way around. One day the attackers will come for you, and by then there will be nobody left to defend you.

kernal

13 days ago

[flagged]

Cornbilly

13 days ago

You mean the ones that we had the ability to remove in previous administrations without the need for harassing and assaulting non-criminals and citizens on the street?

As for the list, do you think this DHS compiles a list of its fuckups and publishes it? I can get you some news articles if you’d like.

jacquesm

13 days ago

And their list of fuckups is longer than their list of successes. It's like shooting with a machine gun into a random crowd because you think there might be a criminal in there somewhere. And that's when we for the moment pretend that their stated reason is their real reason, one that becomes increasingly less plausible.

This really is just domestic terrorism, only the government is the one doing the terrorizing.

kernal

13 days ago

[flagged]

UncleEntity

13 days ago

Here's the problem, from what I've been hearing most of the actual criminals they've been "catching" are turned over by local and state law enforcement agencies with the rest are either in the process of criminal proceedings (that pesky "innocent until proven guilty" thing) or are involved in the immigration process as dictated by law.

They are literally pulling people out of judicial hearings, where the people are trying to comply with the law, and throwing them on airplanes without due process. Or just randomly snatching people off the streets with no probable cause including the occasional US citizen based on their (ancestors) national origin.

Seriously, my step-father's family became US citizens as a result of the Mexican-American War and the federal courts say it's probable cause to detain them based on their physical appearance. Like, WTF???

--edit--

Just remembered my grandmother saying she didn't teach her children Spanish because she didn't want them to grow up with and accent because she was literally beat if she spoke Spanish in school. True, this was 100 years ago but still...

kernal

13 days ago

No, blue state sanctuary cities do not turn over illegal alien criminals to ICE. They release them back into the community even though they have a ICE notice on them. ICE is then forced to track down these criminals themselves while being tracked and harassed by crazy far left agitators that do everything in their power to protect these criminals.

joquarky

12 days ago

Ever notice how it's always "far left"?

It's never just a simple leftist. It's never just a regular centrist dude who thinks things might be a little aggressive.

It's always {extreme adjective} far left.

Everything has to be superlative.

UncleEntity

12 days ago

You know, for all my flaws I've always tried my hardest to be on the right side of history.

One can both believe that immigration policy is broken and also that the current way it's being enforced is immoral and unlawful. I took the same oath to the constitution when I joined the military as they did when they went into federal service and can see when when things are going off the rails.

My eulogy should be: "U.S. Paratrooper, Decorated Combat Veteran, Crazy Far Left Agitator"

hackable_sand

13 days ago

And...?

diebillionaires

12 days ago

Anyone not fascist is already labelled a domestic terrorist.

oawiejrlij

13 days ago

For some people

amluto

13 days ago

How is an operator supposed to recognize these “MOBILE ASSETS”? For the case of ICE, ICE is reputed to try fairly hard to make it challenging to recognize their mobile assets. But the NOTAM says nothing about ICE per se, and there are lots of things that seem like they would qualify. On multiple occasions, I suspect that I have personally transported “DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY … MOBILE ASSETS”, and any drone flying nearby would have seen this as … a rental car with a couple people in it. All the DOE assets would have been in the trunk or maybe the back seat. Definitely assets and definitely mobile, but I suppose a court would need to determine whether they were MOBILE ASSETS or whether they were sufficiently associated with the DOE.

(Also, had this been in effect and if a drone had been a part of the project, which would not have been unreasonable [0], it would have been really annoying if I was carrying a portable do-not-fly zone and needed to get permission from the agency to take some photos of the equipment I was carrying.)

[0] To be fair, part of this project was in a location where operating a drone would have been inappropriate for reasons that have nothing to do with the FAA or national security.

xvxvx

13 days ago

Not shady at all. Can’t have the public see what’s going on.

actionfromafar

13 days ago

You don't understand. You must always respect authority. Trump is the highest authority in the land, put there by God.

yoyohello13

13 days ago

This is the real danger of religion. When you train people from birth to turn off their brains and submit to authority without question, this is what happens.

salawat

13 days ago

Not quite. Religion, when taught properly, can serve as an innoculant against corrupt states, as it ingrains a kernel of understanding that man, and all his works are flawed, falling short of the perfection only attainable by the divine. There is always something higher worth maintaining loyalty toward. Like most things though, practicing that doesn't make you super popular with "leaders of worship" who wield their position in a human institutions as a tool to their own ends.

yoyohello13

13 days ago

I agree wholeheartedly. Religion, practiced as designed, is extremely positive in my experience. I think the issue is that religion is and has been abused throughout history. I’m really not sure how to deal with this issue though. It seems the Abrahamic religion are quite vulnerable to this kind of abuse, likely because a core part of the doctrine is submission to authority.

I’ve never seen a Buddhist led genocide for instance, and I think a big part of that is the emphasis on looking inward for answers instead of outward.

shawn_w

13 days ago

I don't know if it ever was labeled a genocide, but Sri Lanka has a long history of Buddhist lead attacks against Tamils and other minorities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_violence

yoyohello13

13 days ago

Fair enough. Seems like the common thread is religion + government = atrocities

terminalshort

13 days ago

The common thread is groups of people = atrocities. Religion and government are two common properties that emerge from groups of people, but there are also countless examples of atrocities that involve neither.

joquarky

12 days ago

Centralized power + sentient beings who occasionally produce sociopaths = atrocities.

This is why no one person should have so much unilateral power.

joquarky

12 days ago

Not in the real world.

Religions are inherently centralized, and sociopaths are always drawn to centralized power.

terminalshort

13 days ago

[flagged]

toomuchtodo

13 days ago

Religiosity is negatively correlated with intelligence, so it sounds directionally accurate.

koiueo

13 days ago

I no longer know if it's sarcasm

actionfromafar

13 days ago

That's because this is a pretty mainstream opinion now. I'd say... a quarter to a third of the population holds such beliefs.

If you ever shook your head at theocratic regimes such as Iran, well maybe look a little closer to home. "But... the people in charge of Iran are hypocrites, they do nasty stuff at home behind closed doors."

Again, may I point to Mom: "we have mullas at home".

user

13 days ago

[deleted]

garciasn

13 days ago

It depends on what team you’re rooting for in the sports game that has become politics in the US.

yoyohello13

13 days ago

People believing the president of the United States has been ordained by God, and can therefore do no wrong, should be extremely concerning to EVERYONE, no matter what team your rooting for.

3eb7988a1663

13 days ago

  Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.

  Barry Goldwater

He had a few more pertinent quotes on the issue, but he recognized the very problem he was courting. You cannot have a debate with God.

terminalshort

13 days ago

The preachers lost control of the Republican party in 2016. And if me from 10 years ago could hear me from today saying that I wish they were still in control, he would have a stroke, but I do.

prmph

13 days ago

Correction: you cannot have a debate with people who have set up their politics as a God.

In the scriptures God is depicted as someone who sometimes is willing to have a debate, and reason with people, of course not to learn anything, but to explain why things are (or must be) the way they are.

In some instances, God is even depicted as willing to listen to man and do things he otherwise would not have done, so long that they don't deviate from his fundamental purpose.

joquarky

12 days ago

God hates being anthropomorphized.

actionfromafar

13 days ago

This has been the case for a long time. What's new and weird with this "sports" game is that the side with the umpire in their pocket has suddenly decided the game is bloodsport.

jacquesm

13 days ago

Oh from their point of view it always was. You can't explain the last decades in any other way. It's been brewing over time and as long as the blood spilled was mostly foreign blood on foreign soil it was all fine. Now the masks are dropping and suddenly it is plain to everybody what was plain to outsiders looking in for a long time.

vineyardmike

13 days ago

If you’re a minority in America then it’s been a blood sport for a while. It’s only recently that the majority demographics are now at risk.

dragonwriter

12 days ago

While the danger has increased recently, the targeting of minority groups in America has always included targeting those outside of the group perceived as defending the group (including simply by opposing the discriminatort targeting.)

And often the biggest reactions against the targeting of minorities are not triggered by acts against the minorities directly but by the acts against majority-demographic activists working on their behalf.

bicx

13 days ago

I’m sure they said the same about Obama…. Right?

margalabargala

13 days ago

Each time that Obama expanded a domestic policing organization that then went to American cities and executed citizens, the same thing was said about him, yes. All zero times.

frumplestlatz

13 days ago

[flagged]

bakies

13 days ago

People should be interfering with the murders

frumplestlatz

13 days ago

[flagged]

hwillis

13 days ago

The people of Minneapolis are defending their right to accept foreigners into their community. Do you genuinely think those people are being paid? That all those protestors don't genuinely feel that way? That the majority in that state don't, as the polls say, want those people there?

If you really think that people in Texas and Florida have the right to say who gets to live in Minnesota, why?

user

13 days ago

[deleted]

CamperBob2

13 days ago

I think most people would agree that the country has a right to enforce its border integrity -- after all, that's sort of a prerequisite for being a sovereign nation.

But not with an unaccountable, unidentifiable, largely-untrained, and "absolutely immune" paramilitary police force, forcibly deployed in cities that don't want them there. Cities that are, in any event, nowhere near any borders.

This isn't really about immigration enforcement. If it were, then what ICE was doing under Biden was more effective than what Trump is doing now, just going by the numbers. There is a widespread conspiracy theory, to which I wholeheartedly subscribe, that maintains that Trump is deliberately trying to provoke circumstances that will justify his use of the Insurrection Act or other quasi-legal shenanigans to ratfuck the midterm elections.

terminalshort

13 days ago

The people of Florida and Texas do not have the right to say who gets to live in Minnesota, but neither do the people of Minnesota. The federal government has sole authority over immigration (but not to murder people while enforcing, obviously). The alternative is ridiculous and incompatible with freedom of movement within the country.

13415

13 days ago

I've seen the latest video and it was murder beyond any reasonable doubt. The ICE agent drew his gun and shot the man in the back at least four times while he was kneeling on the ground and being beaten and kicked by other ICE agents.

That's a fact. I must assume you haven't watched the video.

frumplestlatz

13 days ago

[flagged]

13415

13 days ago

It is fact and you're wrong. He was being beaten. No doubt about it and I'm willing to die on that hill. I'd even swear this under oath. There is more than one video by the way.

I'm not going to "discuss" this any further though. The evidence is crystal-clear. That's all I have to say about it. (I'm not from the US and don't care much about your internal problems, but I have eyes.)

yoyohello13

13 days ago

Why are you so intent on defending these ICE agents. Even if you think ICE is doing good stuff overall. If you actually cared about justice you would be at least calling for the officers involved to be suspended.

b11484

13 days ago

[flagged]

DonaldPShimoda

13 days ago

[flagged]

bakies

13 days ago

You're sad

CamperBob2

13 days ago

Not nearly well-funded enough. You get $50000 for joining ICE, you get ten bullets in the back for filming them.

pineaux

13 days ago

edit: this was for frumple.

I dont know what murder people are referring to, but if its Alex Pretti, I would like to point you to the analysis by Bellingcat, currently posted on reddit. Its clearly a murderous execution of a man that is on his hands and feet. You will not let me choose lies above my own eyes.

user

13 days ago

[deleted]

frumplestlatz

13 days ago

[flagged]

ghouse

13 days ago

If you can't make heads or tails of the videos, then how is it clear to you he wasn't merely filming?

frumplestlatz

13 days ago

[flagged]

ProjectArcturis

13 days ago

None so blind as those who refuse to see.

frumplestlatz

12 days ago

The overriding motivation to see what you want to see isn’t limited to one side.

jacquesm

13 days ago

Oh, it is very clear, just not to you.

frumplestlatz

10 days ago

https://nypost.com/2026/01/28/us-news/alex-pretti-appears-to...

It is very clear to me. If you can’t see this for what it is, that’s not on me.

Sharlin

13 days ago

The administration has already given its verdict, and that's all the "investigation" you're going to get.

dugidugout

13 days ago

Sounds like you made your side just fine.

The "head or tails" is currently whether one thinks those ICE gunmen should be on that block, with their uniform, and with their orders.

mindslight

13 days ago

"Are you stoned, or are you stupid?"

The main group of politicians encouraging the destruction of law and order is the regime currently squatting in the White House, rejecting any sort of accountability for the revanchist militias they have sent to attack American civil society. And no, it doesn't matter that the wannabe tin-pot dictator gave them "law enforcement" badges as both they and their leadership clearly have no respect for the highest laws of the land.

lostmsu

13 days ago

If he "clearly" wasn't merely filming, what alse did he seem to be doing?

frumplestlatz

10 days ago

Attempting to “de-arrest” someone.

lostmsu

9 days ago

> more than a week before he was fatally shot

frumplestlatz

9 days ago

His attempt to “de-arrest” someone occurred immediately before he was fatally shot. That stands on its own as the proximate cause of the outcome. The video from a week earlier merely establishes a consistent pattern of behavior.

He was not peacefully protesting. Repeatedly showing up to protests, engaging in violence, and doing so while carrying a loaded firearm fundamentally undermines that claim. Carrying a weapon imposes an elevated duty of restraint: when you are armed, you have an inherent responsibility to avoid escalating conflict, precisely because your presence introduces a far greater risk of serious injury or death -- including to yourself.

Literally fighting with federal agents is the opposite of restraint and satisfies the elements of criminal conduct irrespective of political motive. Anyone lionizing him is engaging in vapid propaganda. He was not a peaceful protester, he was not a responsible gun owner, and he consistently engaged in criminal behavior that ultimately led to his death.

lostmsu

9 days ago

Where do you see de-arrest? The article only says he wedged himself between an officer and another protester, which I'd say is normal in any protest.

frumplestlatz

9 days ago

> he wedged himself between an officer and another protester, which I'd say is normal in any protest.

No, it’s not normal, that was a federal crime, and you absolutely cannot physically interfere with the police just because it’s a protest.

lostmsu

9 days ago

Legally speaking it probably depends on law enforcement actually being in their right to grab the other protestor in the first place?

In practice I had experience of protests in 2010s Russia, and legitimacy is another huge factor there. E.g. even if the law enforcement was in the legal right to grab the other protestor, is it ok that they had the right in the first place.

I'm not saying either of these apply, but that because legality and legitimacy of grabbing a protestor is often unclear this de facto is a normal behavior at a protest and should not have any severe punishment attached to it.

frumplestlatz

9 days ago

In the US, there is no civilian privilege to physically interfere with an arrest, even if the arrest is later found to be unlawful. Legality is and must be adjudicated after the fact; real-time obstruction is in and of itself a very serious criminal offense.

What may be common at protests is irrelevant, other than perhaps raising the question of why riotous behavior has become an accepted norm among certain demographics. Such behavior as Pretti demonstrated is not — and has never been — constitutionally protected.

Physically inserting oneself between officers and another person constitutes illegal interference, not protected protest, and predictably escalates the risk of serious injury or death — especially in a volatile crowd, when the interference is violent, and especially when the individual is carrying a loaded firearm.

There’s simply no legal right to obstruct law enforcement. Doing so is a serious crime, and, as clearly demonstrated by the ultimate outcome of his consistent pattern of behavior, extremely dangerous.

Which is precisely why the conduct is illegal in the first place, why engaging in it was unjustifiable, and why characterizing it as “protest” is politically motivated sleight of hand.

lostmsu

8 days ago

This whole comment ignored the legitimacy part which is non-trivial in this case.

My understanding is ICE ignored state court orders (I did not look up details, might be very wrong on this one), from which point on any activity of theirs could have been illegitimate if not outright illegal. Preventing any of their activity might be considered a duty in a sense that it is pushing them to abide by lawful court orders.

frumplestlatz

7 days ago

I was quite clear on that. You cannot interfere with law enforcement.

> In the US, there is no civilian privilege to physically interfere with an arrest, even if the arrest is later found to be unlawful. Legality is and must be adjudicated after the fact; real-time obstruction is in and of itself a very serious criminal offense.

CamperBob2

13 days ago

Good article on the front page of the Wall Street Journal with cleaned/stabilized versions of the videos, synchronized from multiple perspectives. Maybe check it out: https://www.wsj.com/us-news/videos-contradict-u-s-account-of...

Of course you're right to be suspicious. The Trump administration has already used AI-altered videos to bear false witness in at least one instance we know of, so it's a good idea to hunt down multiple sources. (That, incidentally, is one reason why it's so important for citizens to film ICE and other so-called "law enforcement" activities in the first place. Multiple sources need to exist.)

In this case, the footage is consistent and unequivocal: an execution-style killing took place in cold blood under color of law. But I'm sure that won't always be true.

pineaux

13 days ago

checked out your comments. Dont need to know more

djoldman

13 days ago

> ALL UNMANNED ACFT ARE PROHIBITED FROM FLYING WITHIN A STAND-OFF DISTANCE OF 3000FT ... LATERALLY AND 1000FT ABOVE ...

> TO: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (DOD), DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE), AND DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS) FACILITIES AND MOBILE ASSETS, INCLUDING VESSELS AND GROUND VEHICLE CONVOYS AND THEIR ASSOCIATED ESCORTS, SUCH AS UNITED STATES COAST GUARD (USCG) OPERATED VESSELS

Much more restrictive than just ICE operations.

tantalor

13 days ago

This is overreach. Congress didn't give them this power.

See Loper-Bright

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loper_Bright_Enterprises_v._Ra...

skhameneh

13 days ago

It's been overreach since the start of FAA claims on low altitude space.

From what I understand their jurisdiction didn't begin until 500 feet into the air.

Not only is it overreach, it's encouraging impediments on what has been largely considered private property.

cmurf

12 days ago

When are you suggesting this overreach began?

FAA has asserted jurisdiction below 500' for a long time: balloons and kites since 1963, ultralights since 1982.

FAA certainly asserts regulatory authority over aircraft below 500', everything does takeoffs and landings of some sort, but ground operations are also subject to regulation.

skhameneh

12 days ago

Historically, the FAA had zero interest/jurisdiction in most hobbyist aircraft below 500 feet, they would not even bother entertaining such as it was not relevant to their opperations. Helicopters, planes, and quadcopters could be flown freely under general guidance, with no actual enforcing regulations. These were largely not seen as something the FAA had jurisdiction over, nor did the FAA express any interest. It was widely accepted that fields away from an airport and at low altitude were outside of controlled airspace.

Then come affordable drones and suddenly the FAA attempts to exert full regulation over the space.

To answer your question, roughly 2012 is when this started.

cmurf

11 days ago

>Historically, the FAA had zero interest/jurisdiction in most hobbyist aircraft below 500 feet, they would not even bother entertaining such as it was not relevant to their opperations.

This is not correct. See 14 CFR 101, 103, and 105. There's a long history of the FAA concerning itself with hobbyists flying model aircraft, moored, and unmanned balloon, rockets, kites, parachutes, and ultralights. I mentioned this, you glossed over it. Their histories predate 2012.

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14

>Helicopters, planes, and quadcopters could be flown freely under general guidance, with no actual enforcing regulations.

Helicopters and airplanes have been regulated under 14 CFR 91 for a very long time, and were regulated by the CAA (the Civil Aeronautical Authority, precursor to FAA), and their operations are certainly regulated below 500'. And it is definitely enforced.

If you're referring to the years long regulatory lag for drones/sUAS before the The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 which also gave us 49 USC 44809 "Exception for limited recreational operations of unmanned aircraft" - ummm, well all I can say is welcome to aviation. It's been significantly regulated the whole time, and just because some folks were not aware of this fact, doesn't mean it wasn't.

Maybe check out The Great Waldo Pepper with Robert Redford though. That begins in a genuinely unregulated era.

Bender

13 days ago

So be a polite and compliant drone operator and when you find yourself in the middle of an operation because there was not an actual TFR, park the drone on the edge of a building roof where the camera can still operate thus the drone is silent, saving power and compliant. Being parked on the edge of a roof with props powered off is not flying.

@FAA can you tell I am still annoyed by your poorly thought out highly spoofable clear text RemoteID implementation and lack of integration to ADS-B... Also, NOTAM != TFR unless all drone operators are using foreflight to consolidate all surrounding NOTAMS which hint, they are not.

theoreticalmal

13 days ago

I don’t fully understand why drone operators follow these laws. Or any “no-fly” rules in general. Around an airport, it seems like common sense to not fly. Can’t someone just…buy/build a drone and fly is surreptitiously?

arter45

13 days ago

Traditional, permanent no-fly areas tend to be enforced by the drone firmware (via GPS checks), so sometimes there is also a technological obstacle.

This is probably not the case here, but IIRC there are criminal charges attached to violating NOTAMs, so there’s still some kind of deterrence.

gear54rus

13 days ago

What is the best hackable drone brand these days? Where you can remove all this bs remote ID and GPS disobedience?

jacquesm

13 days ago

$150 will build you a 7" with a reasonably long flying time, a bit more and you can do some pretty impressive things. You still need a controller but those can be had for cheap as well. The main issue would be hiding it for pickup until after the event.

05

13 days ago

You’re talking about bargain bin analog FPV drones? Most people can’t operate them and even for an experienced operator it’s far from the best tool for the job of filming armed thugs..I mean ICE..

You’d need a digital system with a gimbal, and the DJI O4 Pro alone will run you $200+. For dual lenses with different zoom levels and feed switching it’s getting pretty expensive very fast.

jacquesm

13 days ago

Most people can't operate drones, period.

FPV is a skill you can learn though and for filming armed thugs I actually can't think of a better tool because it allows you to fly the drone out of LOS so you can do it from a relatively safe position while still getting footage that matters.

For extra protection you could even abandon the drone and record the video directly on your headset.

DennisP

13 days ago

> Most people can't operate drones, period.

Technically true I guess, but learning to fly a recent DJI drone takes about ten minutes. You're not so much flying it, as telling it what you want and letting it fly itself. And the controller has a built-in tutorial with a simulator.

jacquesm

13 days ago

True, but DJI drones are comparably well behaved (and boring) compared to a homebrew FPV. Even there you have various stabilization modes, including alt-hold, pos-hold and so on. In full acro mode they're a handful, that's for sure, but you don't have to fly like that, just fly in stabilized until you get the hang of that and want to live more dangerously.

sweetjuly

13 days ago

You don't have to fly in acro mode lol. The common hobbyist drone firmwares have full support for even things like autonomous GPS missions. You also don't need expensive gimbal stabilized cameras; you're not making a cinematic film, so you can just hot glue a 360 camera to the bottom and deal with the slight oscillations.

quietsegfault

12 days ago

It’s super easy to stabilize video after the fact, too!

acc_297

13 days ago

It may be simpler to build from scratch using parts from a hobby store if you want a drone which cannot be tracked back to you or your credit card

killingtime74

13 days ago

What if you're already flying when they enter your vicinity. It's pretty easy to do in a city. Also they may not announce themselves until you're already violating or even after when they charge you

gcanyon

13 days ago

I think that's the point.

mindslight

13 days ago

One more line of bullshit they can shamelessly trot out after they summarily execute someone. "The suspect approached the members of our protected class with a gun and a phone. Our brave and heroic gravy seals had a reasonable belief that the phone was being used to control a drone that had been following them all day, obstructing federal law enforcement from being able to operate in secret. The subject didn't obey the lawful order to shoot himself with his own gun, so our brave agents were forced to shoot him ten times in the back and send his family a bill for the bullets. We fully stand behind their actions helping keep us all safe from the woke"

(who am I kidding, even my fake statement is too coherent for this clown car of fascists)

salawat

13 days ago

Do not attribute to fascists/tin pot governments any concern over law/rulemaking with judicious consideration for minimizing blast radius or logistical/legal concerns for the populace. At this point, they are hardcore speed running the delegitinazation of the U.S. state in just about every practical sense.

Sevii

13 days ago

Potential criminal charges are enough to deter most people.

tdb7893

13 days ago

Woah woah woah, let's not encourage domestic terrorism here! Because they'll bring criminal charges and that's also what they'll call you so you better not get caught.

TheRealPomax

13 days ago

Are you saying the FAA has a permanent and up to date list of ICE operations? Because if so, that's a public list and something that some might be very interested in for knowing when and where ICE is operating.

And if they don't, there is no basis for enforcement, so we're done.

actionfromafar

13 days ago

It's just an extra chilling effect. Or yet another reason to shoot you and your terrist drone.

ottah

13 days ago

This is literally been the entire purpose of all drone regulations. Hobby aircraft have never been a legitimate public safety issue, but they are an issue for the state's ability to hide. There is and will always be a public interest in recording activity happening in public places, but a majority of drone laws essentially make it impossible to legally record public events from a private drone.

PlatoIsADisease

13 days ago

When I was a child I was a libertarian. I was screaming about how these regulations were going to be enforced at gunpoint, how this was just a way for the establishment to make money, etc...

I'm not a libertarian anymore, but I can tell you, I was a genius fortune teller.

My assets performed really well ignoring economic orthodoxy about supposed 2% inflation.

foxglacier

13 days ago

I wonder if these vessels, convoys, etc. are going to jam drones or use some other anti-drone weapon and this NOTAM allows that by saying "we can intercept or destroy it if it comes too close". That way they don't have to identify how much of a threat each individual drone is.

roughly

13 days ago

Loudly broadcasting electronic signals out of something you’re trying to keep hidden seems like a tactical error, but these cats aren’t the best trained, are they?

terminalshort

13 days ago

They aren't trying to keep hidden. They are trying to avoid their murders from being filmed by drones with cameras. Jamming is perfectly compatible with this goal.

foxglacier

9 days ago

It's convoys of vehicles, not individual people or even individual vehicles. They're not a secret and not committing drive-by shootings.

ultrarunner

13 days ago

That's when the fiber optic lines will become necessary

CamperBob2

13 days ago

My understanding is that DJI drones no longer enforce no-fly zones. Supposedly they still warn you when entering a restricted zone, but hard geofencing functionality is no longer in effect. Anyone know if that's true?

thedougd

13 days ago

There’s a checkbox in the app that implies that. I haven’t had a reason or way to test it yet.

I can confirm altitude restrictions can be turned off.

arthurcolle

13 days ago

I highly doubt this

Edit: owner of matrice m100 and a few other DJI drones

jacquesm

13 days ago

Matrice is a nice bit of kit. Building that kind of functionality from scratch with the same weight and range is very difficult.

arthurcolle

13 days ago

I was unable to ever get it to fly reliably without GPS. It was probably stupid to drop $7K on drone GPUs and all kind of gadgetry (6 battery bay for rapid charging, etc), but it was just really really hard to pilot around in Maryland (Montgomery County). I would constantly have it throw up warnings and alerts, even only hovering a few feet above the ground for small scale testing. I would have to disable the GPS to do small scale testing, and then with GPS enabled, it would straight up not allow me to pilot it. When I moved to Miami, brought it down there, but I managed to find an apartment right smack-dab in the MIA no-fly zone as well. The smaller drone was allowed to fly though, so I eventually got a small Mini 2 IIRC, which was a lot easier to pilot, but I was just so disappointed in not being able to use the larger scaled up version. I wanted to do realtime facial recognition (not at scale, just to show that commercial drones can be turned into research demonstrators) on the onboard GPU (apparently just a NVDA Jetson from 2017 era)

The irony is the M100 is genuinely great hardware - the payload capacity, the SDK access, the flight time with extra batteries. But DJI's geofencing treats the entire DC metro like a no-go zone, which makes sense from their liability perspective but means the thing is basically a $7K shelf ornament unless you want to deal with LAANC authorizations for every single flight.

jacquesm

13 days ago

Gah that sucks. I've looked at the hardware specs and basically ended up drooling over it and realizing that my homebrew stuff will never be able to compete. But the optics alone on that DJI stuff is nothing short of science fiction compared to what you can put together on a hobbyists budget. But for $7K you can build an octocopter with twice the range and twice the payload, which may not be as impressive on paper but can be pretty useful as well.

The larger agricultural drones are also amazingly impressive, those I've seen up close doing real work and they are so reliable it is almost boring.

I wonder what the reason is that yours behaves the way it does, that sounds like a real challenge to find out though with the closed system like that.

Drones that rely on GPS are very iffy as soon as the GPS fails, I've seen more than one inexplicable 'fly-away' happen. I've found a really neat trick to test drones that are not 'known good': just find yourself a long stretch of really light chain and tie it to the drone. As long as it behaves: no problem. But if it tries to take off by itself at some point the length of chain weighs more than the drone can handle and it will stop ascending. That way at least you have some kind of safety measure that does not immediately impact the drone in a material way as long as it is near to you.

arthurcolle

13 days ago

Since them I've acquired a 3D printer, so I've increased the surface area of expensive things I can break.

If I can ever figure out how to repurpose some of these electronics maybe for some kind of AI robot (yes, the gimbal + camera optics are so nice, it feels like a sci fi eyeball from 2037!) I will be back in business.

Some people sell exploits to "jailbreaks DJI drone firmware but with current US admin I don't think it is prudent to do too much "off-label" usage of this kind of tech.

But seeing this geofencing post.... I just had too much experience trying to get around these restrictions to actually believe that they'd drop the geofencing, especially after a consumer drone ban.

Thank you for the chain suggestion, that would have been intelligent to do. Matter of fact, my father may have made that suggestion at the time. Alas, that was a very move fast and break things period of my life.

jacquesm

13 days ago

I'm flying very experimental drones (~1 Kg only so not super heavy, but still, you don't want one to land on your head) in an urban environment so I really care a lot about keeping things safe and within my yard. This seems like it was the easiest way to get really hard safety guarantees. That thing is going nowhere further than the length of the tether. Building drones is fun, there is a ton to learn and the constraints are crazy enough that you have to be very creative.

If there is one resource I can point you to that may help to inspire you have a look at this:

https://www.drehmflight.com/

Top engineering skills, very likable character and an amazing source of hard tech knowledge.

arthurcolle

13 days ago

Thank you so much for sharing this excellent resource.

I'm watching this youtube video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlD0C5CrWcA) and he apparently built this out to support his Master's research at the University of Maryland, where I went to school for undergrad.

The long arm of the DMV no-fly zone is no joke!

jacquesm

12 days ago

In one of his videos he claims he's 'not a software guy' and then proceeds to put together a piece of control software that is more flexible and far better laid out than whatever is out there in common usage.

He's right in many ways, unfortunately I really need all those other features as well, but I think there is something to be said for ripping the inner control loops (rate, level, stabilization) out of say Arducopter and replacing it with this stuff on a separate micro controller. It's much easier to divorce stability and primary flight characteristics from things like high level mission planning and such and it isn't rare at all for such things to get in each others way in the usual suspects (Betaflight, INAV, Arducopter and various derivatives of these three).

CamperBob2

13 days ago

I just had too much experience trying to get around these restrictions to actually believe that they'd drop the geofencing, especially after a consumer drone ban.

DJI has got to be pretty sore about the ban. The geofencing was always voluntary on their part as I understand it, basically an attempt to proactively engage with the US and other aviation authorities in good faith. Then, when Trump blew up the truce by ordering the FCC not to approve future products, they may have felt they had no reason to continue to cooperate.

That's what I was wondering -- whether or not that speculation really does describe the situation accurately. If it does, it sounds like good news for you, since that hardware may now be usable after a firmware update. I only have a 249g first-gen Mini, myself... and being out in the middle of nowhere, I don't know if it ever had those restrictions to begin with.

user

13 days ago

[deleted]

JohnTHaller

13 days ago

Impossible to comply with other than to stop using drones and filming, which is the goal of this. Gotta prevent more recordings of executions.

hedora

13 days ago

So, is the FAA going to provide something like IceBlock so that it's possible to obey the new regulations?

rolph

12 days ago

"drones" dont have to fly, they can move on wheels, or if your slick you have rotors that double as wheels.

i dont think the concern is drone weaponry, but the photography, and intelligence that may be derived.

i expect to see an attempt to work against any cameras that may cover activities

buildbot

13 days ago

Doesn’t anything under 250g basically slip under the radar (not literally radar). Seems like most drones they care about might end up not being trackable anyway.

angry_octet

12 days ago

AI enabled drone navigation is going to be supercharged by this overreach. Autonomous and not reliant on communications, able to deal with GPS denial.

hackable_sand

13 days ago

Remember that words have no meaning

You can still fly drones in and around ICE agents, bases, etc. and literally their words cannot stop the drone.

dmitrygr

13 days ago

> But how will i know where such zones are ?!

Pilot here. This is not unprecedented. The same kind of thing applies to all major sporting events. They have no-fly zones but FAA provides NO official source for getting the info of when such events occur and why. It is left to the pilots to find out all major sporting events and stadiums around and when they have events, under serious penalties. It forces pilots to care about sportsball.

squigz

13 days ago

Aren't NOTAMs published for those with specific information about the TFR, including location and time window?

dmitrygr

13 days ago

NO. They just say “any event”

squigz

13 days ago

What about SEAMS, mentioned here? https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/where_can_i_fly/airs...

dmitrygr

13 days ago

iirc, it is not considered official data, so if it makes a mistake and you violate a TFR, YOU are on the hook.

squigz

13 days ago

Reading up on this more, it seems to be based on stadium/venue capacity, which means any possible TFRs are at a limited number of areas for very specific series, for which there is data available [1]

The TFR in TFA appears to be much more ambiguous than this. I'm not sure they're really comparable.

https://adds-faa.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/faa::stadiums/...

dmitrygr

13 days ago

Ha!

Which specific series? Why do i need to know when sportsball happens, any variety of it? Oh, and concerts too. Why do i need to know when taylor swift is in town?

Nope, it is not nearly that simple, and consequences can be dire.

squigz

13 days ago

> SPECIFIED BELOW WITHIN AN AREA DEFINED AS: 3 NMR OF A QUALIFYING STADIUM OR OTHER SPORTING VENUE HOSTING A QUALIFYING EVENT UP TO AND INCLUDING 3000FT AGL. QUALIFYING LOCATIONS AND EVENTS ARE DEFINED AS ANY STADIUM OR OTHER SPORTING VENUE HAVING A SEATING CAPACITY OF 30,000 OR MORE WHERE: A. A REGULAR OR POST SEASON MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL, NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE, OR NCAA DIVISION ONE FOOTBALL GAME IS OCCURRING; OR B. A NASCAR CUP, INDY CAR, OR CHAMP SERIES RACE IS OCCURRING, EXCLUDING QUALIFYING AND PRE-RACE EVENTS.

https://tfr.faa.gov/tfr3/?page=detail_0_0367

I don't disagree with you that there should be no onus on pilots to have to hunt for this information (which is why I would guess that SEAMS is maintained, but not sure) - my point only is that this isn't really comparable to the TFR mentioned in TFA. All the Stadium TFRs are static; the "national defence" TFRs are not.

> Nope, it is not nearly that simple, and consequences can be dire.

Isn't ATC going to yell at you before you enter such a TFR?