[Kokukirin]

Better re-read that case you cited.

Justice O'Connor's opinion: "it is not conclusive to observe, as the plurality does, that "[a]ny member of the public could legally have been flying over Riley's property in a helicopter at the altitude of 400 feet and could have observed Riley's greenhouse." Nor is it conclusive that police helicopters may often fly at 400 feet. If the public rarely, if ever, travels overhead at such altitudes, the observation cannot be said to be from a vantage point generally used by the public and Riley cannot be said to have "knowingly expose[d]" his greenhouse to public view.

Nevertheless, O'Connor concurred with the plurality opinion because she thought the defendant still needed to show that public use of the relevant airspace was uncommon. The Justice closed by saying flights less than 400 feet (120 m) in altitude "may be sufficiently rare that police surveillance from such altitudes would violate reasonable expectations of privacy."

A drone helicopter, such as the Shadowhawk, is not a public vehicle (since it can be armed with a 40 mm grenade launcher or shotgun), has nightvision thermal-imaging, motion detectors, etc.; and therefore would violate reasonable expectations of privacy and security under the 4th Amendment.

The part you quoted is not really concerning whether the plane is armed or have nightvision, but whether the view from the helicopter is commonly accessed by the public.

If the UAV has a mean to penetrate your roof and look at places that you don't expect people to see from outside, and does so without a warrant, then it is a violation of your Constitutional rights. But it does not violate if it is just flying overhead and look down.

They're called the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, you may have heard about them.

Starting a war and inheriting a war are quite different things.

Obama kept Gates on to continue the Bush policies.

Both Afghanistan and Iraq were started while Rumsfeld was Secretary of Defense. I guess you can say Obama continued Bush policies in the sense of following the plan to stabilize the countries and pull out as scheduled. And that's a sensible thing to do.

Then you acknowledge my point that both Presidents sought UN approval.
Glad you concede that point.

The key point is that Bush went on to declare war when UN opposed it. But yeah, feel free to keep ignoring it and pretend you get it right.

Bush used the UN IAEA report as an excuse to go to war with Iraq, Obama is doing the same damn thing.

Um , didn't the IAEA report that they did not find evidence of active nuclear weapon development before the Iraq War? The UN inspectors were still working in Iraq to verify Iraq's compliance when US decided to strike.

Obama looks very reluctant to go to war. For one, oil price will skyrocket if the war begins, and that is bad for the still vulnerable economy and consequently his chance at re-election. He has been trying to hold Israel back from starting their own airstrikes, preferring to impose tough economic sanctions to force Iran to back down.

It may still come to war, but to claim Obama is hawkish like Bush is pretty ridiculous.

Clearly you are confused here.
The foreign polices with regard to Iraq and Afghanistan were the same, as is the idea that the US needs to police the world.

As stated above, starting wars and inheriting wars are entirely different matters.

Regarding US policing the world, well, it is a long-standing US foreign and military strategy. One can hardly expect Obama to abandon it.

These are rather weak and overly broad examples to demonstrate Obama's policies being same as Bush's.

That is no excuse for the President and is nearly the same type of thinking that went into why Bush and Blair acted without the UN. They claimed that time was short and Saddam would have WMDs of a nuclear nature.

Qaddafi's force closing in on Benghazi was a fact. The WMDs story was a lie, and the situation would not be nearly as urgent as Libya even if it were true.