Possession of an Infernal Device
What happens when the government is engaged in the use of an infernal machine?
A police or government agent is not exempt by definition in so much as calling a device infernal and legislating against it’s possession implies that it has no productive use. Thus, if a drone is used to spy in an illegal manner, or to otherwise do physical or psychological harm, it is unequivocally an infernal machine. The fact that an infernal machine is bad, is maintained irrespective of who is in possession. The police can only be in possession because they took the infernal machine from someone who might use it to harm others.
There can never be a scenario where the police, or a government agent can be the one using an infernal machine to harm others.
Yet, this is what is done with drones.
Law cannot be completely flexible. There has been a habeas corpus since the Magna Carta, but since the Bush administration the rights of the habeas corpus have been taken away from us, so now there’s no way to file a paper saying there’s proof that the wrong person was injured or killed.
Next, the Bush administration made torture legal. It is, of course, illegal to make torture legal, as established by the Nuremberg trials the Geneva convention, and every law on the books.
This trend toward a weakening of the law cannot be allowed to continue to the point that we have a George Orwell world with an eye in the sky, and the slogan “Big Brother IS watching you.”