One Drone Thread to Rule them ALL

[seemslikeadream]

Brennan Drone Hearing today at 2:30pm....I'm gonna watch

Ten Questions to Ask John Brennan at his CIA Confirmation Hearing
by Medea Benjamin / February 5th, 2013

John Brennan’s confirmation hearing to become head of the CIA will take place at the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday, February 7. There is suddenly a flurry of attention around a white paper that lays out the administration’s legal justification for killing Americans with drones overseas, and some of the Senators are vowing to ask Brennan “tough questions,” since Brennan has been the mastermind of the lethal drone attacks. But why have the Senators, especially those on the Intelligence Committee who are supposed to exercise oversight of the CIA, waited until now to make public statements about their unease with the killing of Americans that took place back in September and October of 2011? For over a year human rights groups and activists have been trying, unsuccessfully, to get an answer as to why our government killed the 17-year-old American boy Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, and have had no help from the Senators’ offices.

We look forward to hearing the Senators question Brennan about the legal justifications used by the Obama administration to kill three Americans in Yemen, as we are deeply concerned about their deaths and the precedent it sets for the rights of US citizens.

But we are also concerned about the thousands of Pakistanis, Yeminis and Somalis who have been killed by remote control in nations with whom we are not at war. If CODEPINK had a chance to question John Brennan as his hearing on Thursday, here are some questions we would ask:

1.You have claimed that due to the precision of drone strikes, there have been only a handful of civilian casualties. How many civilians deaths have you recorded, and in what countries? What proportion of total casualties do those figures represent? How do you regard the sources such as the Bureau of Investigative Journalism that estimates drone casualties in Pakistan alone range from 2,629-3,461,with as many as 891 reported to be civilians and 176 reported to be children? Have you reviewed the photographic evidence of death and injury presented by residents of the drone strike areas? If so, what is your response?

2. According to a report in the New York Times, Washington counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent. Please tell us if this is indeed true, and if so, elaborate on the legal precedent for this categorization. In areas where the US is using drones, fighters do not wear uniforms and regularly intermingle with civilians. How does the CIA distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate targets?

3.In a June 2011 report to Congress, the Obama administration explained that drone attacks did not require congressional approval under the War Powers Resolution because drone attacks did not involve “sustained fighting,” “active exchanges of fire,” an involvement of US casualties, or a “serious threat” of such casualties. Is it your understanding that the initiation of lethal force overseas does not require congressional approval?

4. If the legal basis for the use of lethal drones is the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), can this authorization be extended to any country through Presidential authority? Are there any geographic limitations on the use of drone strikes? Does the intelligence community have the authority to carry out lethal drone strikes inside the United States? How do you respond to the charge that the US thinks it can send drones anywhere it wants and kill anyone it wants, all on the basis of secret information?

5. Assassination targets are selected using a “disposition matrix.” Please identify the criteria by which a person’s name is entered into the matrix. News reports have mentioned that teenagers have been included in this list. Is there an age criteria?

6. In Pakistan and perhaps elsewhere, the CIA has been authorized to conduct “signature strikes,” killing people on the basis of suspicious activity. What are the criteria for authorizing a signature strike? Do you think the CIA should continue to have the right to conduct such strikes? Do you think the CIA should be involved in drone strikes at all, or should this program be turned over to the military? If you think the CIA should return to its original focus on intelligence gathering, why hasn’t this happened? As Director of the CIA, will you discontinue the CIA’s use of lethal drones?

7. Article 51 of the U.N. Charter, which the US has implicitly invoked to justify strikes, requires that “measures taken by Members in the exercise of [their] right to self-defense . . . be immediately reported to the Security Council.” Please elaborate on why the United States uses Article 51 to justify drone strikes but ignores the clause demanding transparency.

8. The majority of prisoners incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay were found to be innocent and were released. These individuals landed in Guantanamo as victims of mistaken identity or as a result of bounties for their capture. How likely is it that the intelligence that gets a person killed by a drone strike may be as faulty as that which put innocent individuals in Guantanamo?

9. You have stated that there is little evidence drone strikes are causing widespread anti-American sentiment or recruits for extremist groups. Do you stand by this statement now, as we have seen an expansion of Al Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula, possibly triple the number that existed when the drone strikes began? Do you have concerns about the “blowback” caused by what General McChrystal has called a “visceral hatred” of U.S. drones?

10. If a civilian is harmed by a drone strike in Afghanistan, the family is entitled to compensation from US authorities. But this is not the case in other countries where the US government is using lethal drones. Why is this the case? Do you think the US government should help people who are innocent victims of our drone strikes and if so, why haven’t you put a program in place to do this?

US newspapers accused of complicity as drone report reopens security debate
New York Times and Washington Post knew about secret drone base in Saudi Arabia but agreed not to disclose it to the public

[seemslikeadream]

US Drone Strike Kills Five in North Waziristan
Follows Up on Pakistan Condemnation With Another Attack
by Jason Ditz, February 06, 2013

Less than 24 hours after Pakistani Ambassador to the United States Sherry Rehman condemned continued US drone strikes and denied charges that the Pakistani government was quietly complicit, the US struck again.

The latest attack saw six missiles destroying a house in Tehsil Ghulam Khan in North Waziristan Agency, killing five unidentified people. Locals recovered the bodies of the slain, but said they could not identify anyone.

Unusually, even the Pakistani security forces have yet to call the slain “suspects,” which may suggest that the anger over civilian killings and fear of fallout in Pakistan’s upcoming elections has them less eager to shrug off attacks on seemingly random cities.

Pakistani opposition parties are running on promises to stop US drone attacks, something the current government has failed to do. The ruling PPP insist that the US attacks are a violation of their sovereignty, but the US claims they assume “tacit consent” from them.

[seemslikeadream]

Brennan 's opening remarks have been interrupted 5 times by protesters and now they are clearing the room

[elfismiles]

Wash. state residents kill Seattle Police drone program

After Wednesday night's Public Safety, Civil Rights and Technology Committee hearing in Seattle, where residents raised concern over the Seattle Police Departments attempt to use surveillance drones, the program was successfully killed.

After President Obama signed a bill last February that will allow as many as 30,000 drones to be flown by anyone from police to the Department of Homeland Security within the United States, Seattle became one of 50 organizations in the country to be granted permission from the federal government to start using drones.

“Today I spoke with Seattle Police Chief John Diaz and we agreed that it was time to end the unmanned aerial vehicle program so that SPD can focus its resources on public safety and the community building work that is the department’s priority. The vehicles will be returned to the vendor,” Mayor McGinn wrote.

The city was in the process of developing an ordinance to set up guidelines and regulations for drone use, but Seattle residents weren't having it. During an October public meeting where the department's drone was being showcased, police were overwhelmed by protesters also.

“The testimony opposing drones has been overwhelmingly clear that the 11 people who testified this afternoon, all of whom testified against the use of drones, was symbolic of the general reaction we are getting,” said Chairman Bruce Harrell.

Despite the privacy issues, many point to the fact that the department has been under federal investigation for "multiple cases of excessive force and biased policing" according to the U.S. Department of Justice.

One attendee at the City Council meeting, Alex Zimerman, President of StandUP-America, who has firsthand experience with corrupt governments after growing up in Russia, says he found this as no surprise that the unchecked Seattle Council had attempted to overreach their power.

"With 50% considered poor in America and another 30% just holding on, we need these 80% ordinary citizens to ‘StandUP’ to the corruption of the government.We need to StandUP against this dirty mafia family in the government," said Zimerman.

StandUP-America says they are proud that citizens showed up to voice their distrust in the drone program and encourage citizens to attend more meetings to stop any and all corruption.

Mia Jacobson, the group’s secretary said "If 11 voices can protect the people from flying government robots watching their every move - what can 20 voices do? What can your voice accomplish? The time has come to StandUP and bring back America which is of the People, by the People and for the People."

Sam Bellomio, Vice President of StandUP-America, who has been attending council meetings for years by himself, credits the citizens’ participation to stopping the drone program. Bellomio has now filed with the State and City to run for City Council so that one day citizens may be back in control of their Council and not politicians.

Charlottesville, Va., also made news after it ordered a two-year moratorium on the use of drones, becoming the first city in the U.S. to do so.

http://www.examiner.com/article/wash-st ... ne-program

[elfismiles]

Robot helicopters help out in war zones
http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/21083919/r ... z2KJXn1XRL

[Allegro]

Cartoon release on February 11, 2013.

[elfismiles]

Dorner: A drone target on U.S. soil
Salon-by Natasha Lennard-5 hours ago
Updated, 1:30 p.m. ET: Ralph DeSio of Customs and Border Patrol has contacted Salon to state that reports that he confirmed the use of drones ...
http://www.salon.com/2013/02/11/dorner_ ... _u_s_soil/

Christopher Dorner Is Officially A Drone Target: First On American Soil
The Inquisitr-by Dusten Carlson-20 hours ago
Dorner, a former LAPD officer accused of killing three people, is the first official human target for airborne drones on United States soil. The use ...
http://www.inquisitr.com/518108/christo ... ican-soil/

Say What?! Ex-LAPD Cop Christopher Dorner Will Be America's 1st ...
Global Grind-7 hours ago
This weekend, authorities offered a $1 million reward for information leading to the arrest of Dorner. But the use of drones, which has been met ...
http://globalgrind.com/news/ex-lapd-cop ... il-details

Are Spy Drones Being Used to Find Fugitive Christopher Dorner?
The Atlantic Wire-9 hours ago
The Internet erupted with some pretty shocking news yesterday: that the police were using drones to find wanted cop-killer Christopher Dorner. If true, it would be ...
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national ... ner/61987/

The LAPD Is Not Using Drones to Hunt Fugitive Christopher Dorner
Mashable-3 hours ago
http://mashable.com/2013/02/11/lapd-drones-dorner/

Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai/3 hours ago

Drones are not being used in what could be the biggest manhunt in the history of the Los Angeles Police Department, according to the government agency responsible for supplying such equipment.

UK newspaper Express was the first outlet to report that the LAPD was using flying robots from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to hunt down Christopher Dorner, a former police officer and Navy reservist suspected of killing three people.

The LAPD has been tirelessly searching for Dorner for almost a week now. One of his alleged victims was a police officer and there is a $1 million dollar reward for information leading to his capture.

According to the paper, Dorner had become "the first human target for remotely-controlled airborne drones on U.S. soil." Several media outlets picked up on the story. MSN Now declared, "It's official: The drone war has come home to America."

As it turns out, none of that is true.

"Reports that U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) are being used are incorrect. CBP UAS are not flying in support of the search," a spokesperson from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection told Mashable via email.

The statement from the CBP comes as others had already cast doubt on the original report's claim.

Parker Higgins, an activist for the digital rights group Electronic Frontier Foundation, called the allegations of drone use "suspect" and went on to thoroughly undermine the idea in a blog post.

First of all, drones have already been used in at least one other similar situation. The CBP, a subsidiary of the Department of Homeland Security, is allowed to loan out its MQ-9 Reaper drones to police departments in certain cases. That's what happened when police in North Dakota used a CBP drone to help track down three men who had allegedly stolen six cows from a nearby ranch.

To back up its claim, Express quoted an unnamed source inside the LAPD, who told the paper that "the thermal imaging cameras the drones use may be our only hope of finding him. On the ground, it’s like looking for a needle in a haystack."

Higgins, who also manages the Twitter account Drones didn't buy it: "How did a tiny paper in the United Kingdom get such a juicy source more than 10,000 miles away?"

Mashable has reached out to an editor at Express to ask for more information but we haven't heard back.


SEE ALSO: Are Drones Watching Your Town?

The LAPD won't deny or confirm whether they are using flying bots. Public Information Officer Alex Martinez told Mashable that the department doesn't discuss these issues with the press. "That would tip off any suspect watching media, right?" he said in a phone interview. "So, to answer your question, we're not gonna answer that. Obviously because he has access to media and we're not going to let him know how we're approaching him."

Image via Gary Williams/Getty Images
Topics: christopher dorner, Drones, Los Angeles, U.S., US & World

http://mashable.com/2013/02/11/lapd-drones-dorner/

[elfismiles]

I'm not a Rand fan ... but "even a stopped clock is right twice a day":

weeklystandard version of this micro-article appears to be down / deleted
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/sen ... 01204.html

Senator to ‘Hold’ Nominee for CIA Director
DANIEL HALPER
Weekly Standard
Feb 14, 2013

Senator Rand Paul is pledging to “hold” John Brennan’s nomination for CIA director, a statement from his Senate office reports.

“I have asked Mr. Brennan if he believed that the President has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and my question remains unanswered. I will not allow a vote on this nomination until Mr. Brennan openly responds to the questions and concerns my colleagues and I share.” Paul’s statement reads.

“These issues must be discussed openly so that the American people can understand what constraints exist on the government’s power to use lethal force against its citizens. Before confirming Mr. Brennan as the head of the CIA, it must be apparent that he understands and will honor the protections provided to every American by the Constitution.”

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/sen ... 01204.html
http://www.prisonplanet.com/senator-to- ... ector.html

[elfismiles]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ5ctYUquBc

[dbcooper41]

looks like they're gonna slip this in while the old psychic sphincter is still stretched from the chris dorner charade. i mean who could object if it keeps us safe from cop killing evil doers?
http://www.wral.com/faa-takes-step-toward-widespread-us-drone-flights/12111140/

Industry experts predict the takeoff of a multibillion-dollar market for
civilian drones as soon as the FAA completes regulations to make sure they don't
pose a safety hazard to other aircraft.

The FAA is required by a law enacted a year ago to develop sites where civilian
and military drones can be tested in preparation for integration into U.S.
airspace that's currently limited to manned aircraft.
The law also requires that the FAA allow drones wide access to U.S. airspace by
2015,

By JOAN LOWY, Associated Press
WASHINGTON — A future in which unmanned drones are as common in U.S. skies as
helicopters and airliners has moved a step closer to reality with a government
request for proposals to create six drone test sites around the country.
The Federal Aviation Administration made the request Thursday, kicking off what
is anticipated to be an intense competition between states hoping to win one of
the sites.
The FAA also posted online a draft plan for protecting people's privacy from the
eyes in the sky. The plan would require each test site to follow federal and
state laws and make a privacy policy publicly available.
Privacy advocates worry that a proliferation of drones will lead to a
"surveillance society" in which the movements of Americans are routinely
monitored, tracked, recorded and scrutinized by the authorities.
The military has come to rely heavily on drones overseas. Now there is
tremendous demand to use drones in the U.S. for all kinds of tasks that are too
dirty, dull or dangerous for manned aircraft. Drones, which range from the size
of a hummingbird to the high-flying Global Hawks that weigh about 15,000 pounds
without fuel, also are often cheaper than manned aircraft. The biggest market is
expected to be state and local police departments.
Industry experts predict the takeoff of a multibillion-dollar market for
civilian drones as soon as the FAA completes regulations to make sure they don't
pose a safety hazard to other aircraft.
Potential civilian users are as varied as the drones themselves. Power companies
want them to monitor transmission lines. Farmers want to fly them over fields to
detect which crops need water. Ranchers want them to count cows. Film companies
want to use drones to help make movies. Journalists are exploring drones'
newsgathering potential.
The FAA plans to begin integrating drones starting with small aircraft weighing
less than about 55 pounds. The agency forecasts an estimated 10,000 civilian
drones will be in use in the U.S. within five years.
The FAA is required by a law enacted a year ago to develop sites where civilian
and military drones can be tested in preparation for integration into U.S.
airspace that's currently limited to manned aircraft.
The law also requires that the FAA allow drones wide access to U.S. airspace by
2015, but the agency is behind schedule on that.
The test sites are planned to evaluate what requirements are needed to ensure
the drones don't collide with planes or endanger people or property on the
ground. Remotely controlled drones don't have a pilot who can see other aircraft
the way an onboard plane or helicopter pilot can.
There's also concern that links between drones and their on-the-ground operators
can be broken or hacked, causing the operator to lose control of the aircraft.
"This research will give us valuable information about how best to ensure the
safe introduction of this advanced technology into our nation's skies,"
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said in a statement.
The test sites are also expected to boost the local economy of the communities
where they are located.
Customs and Border Patrol uses drones along the U.S.-Mexico border. And the FAA
has granted several hundred permits to universities, police departments and
other government agencies to use small, low-flying drones. For example, the
sheriff's department in Montgomery County, Texas, has a 50-pound ShadowHawk
helicopter drone intended to supplement its SWAT team.
The sheriff's department hasn't armed its drone, although the ShadowHawk can be
equipped with a 40 mm grenade launcher and a 12-guage shotgun. The prospect of
armed drones patrolling U.S. skies has alarmed some lawmakers and their
constituents. More than a dozen bills have been introduced in Congress and state
legislatures to curb drone use and protect privacy.
President Barack Obama was asked Thursday about concerns that the administration
believes it's legal to strike American citizens abroad with drones and whether
that's allowed against citizens in the U.S.
"There's never been a drone used on an American citizen on American soil," the
president said, speaking during an online chat sponsored by Google in which he
was promoting his policy initiatives.
"We respect and have a whole bunch of safeguards in terms of how we conduct
counterterrorism operations outside of the United States. The rules outside of
the United States are going to be different than the rules inside the United
States, in part because our capacity, for example, to capture terrorists in the
United States are very different than in the foothills or mountains of
Afghanistan or Pakistan."
He said he would work with Congress to make sure the American public understands
"what the constraints are, what the legal parameters are, and that's something
that I take very seriously."
Earlier this week, an FAA official told a meeting of potential test site bidders
that aviation regulations prohibit dropping anything from an aircraft, which
could be interpreted to bar arming civilian drones, according to an industry
official present at the meeting who requested anonymity because he wasn't
authorized to speak publicly.

[dbcooper41]

and btw, if you read my much earlier posts about the robots at wtc and the HRI meeting you will see several names listed.
the majority of them were/are heavily involved in UAV(drones) research.
so who really profited from 9/11?
i'm just sayin'

[elfismiles]

Even Hobby Drones Could Be Made Illegal In Texas
A bill sponsored by a Dallas legislator would make it a crime to take photos of private land using a remote-controlled drone.
By Rebecca Boyle
Posted 02.12.2013 at 9:03 am
http://www.popsci.com/technology/articl ... and-drones
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... 00912I.htm

An Unmanned Aerial Vehicle This remote-controlled aircraft, equipped with a point-and-shoot digital camera, cost drone hobbyist and advocate Patrick Egan about $300, camera included. The airplane cost him $29 several years ago; now the same kit costs $39. Courtesy Patrick Egan
On a hazy day last January, an unmanned aircraft enthusiast piloted his camera-equipped drone in the vicinity of a Dallas meatpacking plant, cruising around 400 feet in the air. To test his equipment, he took some photos of the Trinity River with a point-and-shoot camera mounted to his $75 foam airframe. When he retrieved the remote-controlled aircraft, he noticed something odd in the photos: A crimson stream, which appeared to be blood, leaking into a river tributary.

The pilot, whose name has not been released, notified Texas environmental authorities, who launched an investigation. On Dec. 26, a grand jury handed down several indictments against the owners of the Columbia Packing Company for dumping pig blood into a creek. They now face hefty fines and even prison time stemming from the water pollution, and the plant has since been shuttered. Neighbors had complained about noxious fumes and other issues for a while, according to the local news. But investigators didn’t get involved until this drone pilot took his pictures.

Under a new law proposed in the Texas legislature, sponsored by a lawmaker from the Dallas suburbs, this type of activity could soon be criminal. Not the pollution--the drone.

Texas House Bill 912--and similar laws under debate right now in Oregon and elsewhere--are driving a burgeoning debate about how to use and control unmanned air systems, from an AR.Drone to a quadcopter. The Federal Aviation Administration is in the process of drafting new rules governing unmanned aircraft in civilian airspace, including military-style aircraft. But in the meantime, plenty of cheap, easy-to-use aircraft are already popular among hobbyists and, increasingly, activists and law enforcement.

Drones don't have to be Predators to cause privacy concerns, in other words. In recent months, they've led to new legislative action in California, Florida, Missouri, North Dakota, Oregon and Virginia.

Texas state Rep. Lance Gooden, a Republican, is the sponsor of the latest bill, which would make it a misdemeanor to take photos with an unmanned aircraft. It’s unique because it criminalizes taking any data--photos, sound, temperature, even odor--of private property using an unmanned aircraft without the permission of the property owner. Law enforcement officers could only use drones while executing a search warrant or if they had probable cause to believe someone is committing a felony, and firefighters can only use drones for fighting fire or to rescue a person whose life is “in imminent danger.” Texas’ border-patrolling Predator drones are exempt within 25 miles of the Mexican border. There are additional penalties for possession, display or distribution of data captured by an illegally flown drone. Gooden said the goal is to protect Texans’ privacy.

For most people, when you say unmanned aerial vehicle, they think the Department of Defense--‘Oh man, the Predator, that one with the missile on it.' That’s the disconnect.
“We’re not trying to get rid of drones; drones can be used for great purposes. We’re not trying to interfere with hobbyists’ use of drones. But you have a right to privacy on your property,” he said in an interview.

Ben Gielow, general counsel and government relations manager for the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, countered that limiting privacy concerns to unmanned aircraft makes little sense. “The response would be, what about manned aircraft doing the same type of mission, taking the same pictures? What about satellites and Google Earth?” he said. “What’s the difference if you have a picture from a manned aircraft or an unmanned aircraft? This is really a data issue; it’s about how the data is going to be used. So let’s have a conversation about that.”

He and other drone experts said the bill demonstrates how much drones are misunderstood in this country, and underscores why hobbyists and aircraft makers should be taking a more active role in explaining the technology’s potential benefits. Gielow and others described unmanned aircraft as simply another tool, easily, cheaply and legally used by law enforcement and civilians for a host of reasons.

“Just like any tool, yes it could be abused and used to do wrong. We need to ensure that there is transparency and accountability with the folks that use this technology,” Gielow said. “An outright ban, I think, would be a shame--not only for this new industry, but also for all the potential applications to do good.”

Those applications are numerous, according to Patrick Egan, an editor at the unmanned systems news site SUAS News and a civilian researcher for the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command. Organic farms could use aerial surveillance to monitor crop health and target insect or weed infestations, he said. Ecologists and animal welfare agencies could use them to hunt down poachers and monitor savannah wildlife. The U.S. Geological Survey, which has a vibrant drone program, uses unmanned aircraft to look at fault zones, woodlands, wildfires, invasive species and more. Ranchers could use it to monitor rangeland; environmental agencies could use it for air sampling; and developing countries could use it to check crop health. The drone industry just has an image problem, Egan said.

“For most people, when you say unmanned aerial vehicle, they think the Department of Defense--‘Oh man, the Predator, that one with the missile on it,’” Egan said. “The public has a perception of the military spying and taking out al Qaeda, and to me that’s the disconnect. People don’t understand that you can feed a hungry world with this technology, you can do public and private asset management, you can do a myriad of good things with this technology that don’t get press.”



Microdrone: A microdrone like this one was shot down by pigeon hunters in South Carolina last February. Activists who use drones could find themselves in violation of new laws being debated in several states. Mikrodrones

Gooden said he doesn’t want to limit beneficial drone uses, from law enforcement pursuing criminal suspects to power companies checking downed lines. “But under no circumstances, ever, should people lose their right to privacy just because people want to take pictures,” he said.

These are bipartisan concerns, evidenced by the involvement of Gooden’s Senate cosponsor, Democratic state Sen. John Whitmire, and in Oregon anyway, the American Civil Liberties Union. “We are not and should not be a surveillance state. Drones should never be used for mass surveillance,” Becky Straus, legislative director of the ACLU's Oregon office, told U.S. News & World Report.

Todd Humphreys, director of the Radionavigation Laboratory at the University of Texas at Austin and a hobbyist who uses quadcopter drones for research, said he can sympathize with that worry, especially as drones become more ubiquitous. But it’s complicated.

“If there are folks operating on private land, flying over it and taking pictures, that would bother me, if it were my backyard or my barbecue or whatnot. So I sympathize with people who would find that intrusive,” he said in an interview. “But the legislation doesn’t discriminate between ill intent and intent to surveil, and incidental surveillance. If I am doing research on university lands, and I pitch my quadcopter in a banking maneuver, there’s definitely private land out there in the field of view of my camera right now. And it’s this incidental byproduct of my fairly innocent mission that is getting me crosswise with the law.”

That’s interesting because that type of incidental surveillance is exactly what led to the bloody river discovery. Had the Dallas hobbyist not been taking pictures of the river--which, as Gooden pointed out, is a public waterway--he never would have seen the illegal activity.


Related Articles
Drones Will Be Admitted to Standard US Airspace By 2015
Anti-Surveillance Hoodie And Scarf Prevent Drones From Tracking You
Civilian Drones to Search for Downed Power Lines During Blackouts

Tags
Technology, Rebecca Boyle, drones, law, lawmakers, politics, texas, unmanned aerial vehicles, unmanned air vehicles“The idea of slaughterhouse waste going out in the drinking water, that’s not cool,” said Egan. “What is cool is that these people are being indicted on these charges because of that picture. He was just out there tooling around with his equipment.”

Gooden maintains that the hobbyist could have deleted any pictures showing private property and notified authorities, who would have then had probable cause for a search. “But if he decides he wants to move his drone over private property, that is not something that would be admissible under this bill,” Gooden said.

Laws governing airspace are already complex, and adding new layers specific to drones are unlikely to clarify matters. In its 1946 decision in United States v. Causby, the U.S. Supreme Court declared navigable airspace to be “a public highway” and within the public domain. Because of this, there’s no reason why a privately owned human-occupied aircraft can’t fly over private property. What’s more, federal laws and court doctrines hold that Americans should have no expectation of privacy in publicly viewable spaces, as Gielow put it. They do in homes and covered areas, but not open land.

Gooden countered that drones expand access--you’d hear a manned airplane or helicopter--and they glimpse areas and activities that would otherwise be invisible from a public vantage point. “If you have a ranch, you can pretty much expect that there are areas of your property that are not going to be visible to anyone. In a city, there are areas of maybe your back porch or windows that people can’t peer into,” he said. “But with these drones, you can come into someone’s back yard, turn on a camera and film their every move. This bill would simply say that’s not acceptable.”

While the FAA and state lawmakers continue to tackle the problem, drone operators and private landowners seem to have reached at least one possible solution. About two weeks after the bloody river discovery, an animal rights group flew a microdrone above private property in South Carolina, aiming to film what they said was a live pigeon shoot. The shoot never took place, but a low-caliber gunshot did take down the drone.

Humphrey said that’s a "Texas solution."

“I say go ahead and fly drones over private property, and those who own it are legally entitled, if they wish, to try to shoot down your drone,” he said, only half kidding. “Let the market decide.”
.

http://www.popsci.com/technology/articl ... and-drones
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... 00912I.htm

Published on Thursday, February 14, 2013 by Common Dreams
Desmond Tutu Blasts US Drones: American or Not, All Victims Are Human
Tutu: 'Does the US really want to tell those of us in the rest of the world that our lives are not of the same value as yours?'
- Lauren McCauley, staff writer

In a letter to the New York Times published Wednesday, South African Nobel Peace Prize laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu challenged the hypocrisy of the US and its citizens for accepting a killer drone program when it pertains to foreign suspects while demanding judicial review when those targets are American citizens.


Longtime peace activist and Nobel Prize winner, Archbishop Desmond Tutu. (Photograph: Zak Hussein/PA) He writes:

Do the United States and its people really want to tell those of us who live in the rest of the world that our lives are not of the same value as yours? That President Obama can sign off on a decision to kill us with less worry about judicial scrutiny than if the target is an American? Would your Supreme Court really want to tell humankind that we, like the slave Dred Scott in the 19th century, are not as human as you are? I cannot believe it.

I used to say of apartheid that it dehumanized its perpetrators as much as, if not more than, its victims. Your response as a society to Osama bin Laden and his followers threatens to undermine your moral standards and your humanity.

Tutu was responding specifically to an earlier New York Times piece which discussed the idea of a "special court" or tribunal to review drone strikes against US citizens. Though not entirely new, the plan has gained momentum since last week's confirmation hearing of CIA director nominee John Brennan during which lawmakers, including Senators Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Angus King (I-Maine), discussed the option.

During the hearing, Senator King reportedly said he thought the court "would pass constitutional muster only if it were limited to cases involving American citizens."
.
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/02/14-3

[conniption]

dandelionsalad


Recipe for Endless Profits to War Profiteers and Their Legally-Bribed Politicians

by Ed Ciaccio
Posted on February 17, 2013
by dandelionsalad


Image by Steve Rhodes via Flickr


Ingredients (or should it be Ingreedients?):

> Imperialist ideologues of all political parties

> Arms manufacturers (war profiteers)

> Politicians with no conscience nor regard for international laws or the Constitution

> Corporate media


Instructions:

1. Use 9/11/01 terrorism to frighten USans into financially & psychologically supporting endless wars, interventions, and “special-ops” abroad and elimination of civil liberties at home so maximum control of dissent is achieved.

2. Declare an endless “War on Terror”, knowing terror is a tactic which can NEVER be eradicated, unlike enemies such as Nazi Germany or the USSR.

3. Declare that the “War on Terror” takes place EVERYWHERE: the world is the battlefield. Therefore, Congress’ Constitutional power to declare war can be bypassed by using the Presidential Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) meant for Afghanistan after 9/11/01 to be used indefinitely everywhere on and above earth, including cyberspace.

4. Use technological developments such as pilotless drones to answer the complaint that we are exposing so many of our soldiers to so many wars abroad. Drones are the “perfect” solution to the problem of “fighting” the endless “War on Terror” EVERYWHERE (including in the U.S.) with fewer and fewer U.S. casualties.

5. In response to critics of drone warfare, attack all reports of excessive civilian casualties and legally justify these extra-judicial executions with Orwellian “legal” arguments, including making up a whole new meaning of the word “imminent”.

6. Count on corporate media, which stand to reap some of the billions in profits from this endless “War on Terror”, to not raise any serious questions in a sustained way.

7. Also count on most USans to continue their behavior of not caring about foreign casualties of U.S. wars, including civilians, but being swayed by the “Drones are keeping our soldiers safe from harm” argument so that drone warfare is supported by most USans, regardless of the moral and legal arguments against it.

8. To make sure this policy becomes embedded in the “continuing employment” sector of military/weapons spending, make sure contractors and sub-contractors of drone manufacturing are distributed in as many Congressional Districts as possible, just as all military spending/weapons programs are, so every member of Congress has a vested and invested interest in never closing down a war-making plant, as has been the practice since World War II ended.

Serves: all those who place power and profit above law and humanity.

Remember that this recipe works for Democrats and Republicans in office.

Also remember that, no matter how terrible and horrific war-making is for most humans, other creatures, and the planet itself, war-making is always great for business in the corporate capitalistic system. And that’s what REALLY counts.

Inevitable Consequences:

Profitable:

1. Arms makers/war profiteers and their Wall Street funders/stockholders are assured of an endless stream of profits and revenues from this growing, unlimited market.

2. Politicians who support this policy are assured of an endless stream of campaign contributions from this growing, unlimited market.

3. The illusion of “keeping our soldiers out of harm’s way” guarantees popular support.

4. Creating and sustaining jobs in nearly every Congressional District also guarantees popular support.

Inconvenient:

1. More and more civilians will be killed, leading to more and more calls for revenge against the U.S. and its global allies. But the silver lining here is that those increased numbers of vengeful “terrorists” will only support the need for MORE military spending, including more drones. Besides, if corporate media does its assigned job, few reports, let alone images, of civilians killed by U.S. drones will ever reach the U.S. public. Even PBS has cooperated with this.

2. Lessening need of “Top Gun” fighter pilots and bombers will decrease the glorified status of those roles, leading to reduced applicants for them. But a massive P.R. campaign to glorify drone controllers could compensate. There’s a job for military advertising agencies: Make Drone Controllers as Popular as Tom Cruise in “Top Gun”.

Comforting Conclusions

So, as we move into the rest of the 21st century, rest assured that the Military-Corporate-Congressional-Media Complex is not only alive and well, but thriving. New weapons and policies to deploy them merely mean new ways of extracting mega-profits from death-dealing, state terrorism, and mass murder, all under the aegis of “patriotism”, “defending our homeland”, and keeping us “safe and free.”

Sequestration or not, more than half the federal discretionary budget will continue to be spent on these weapons and policies to keep the cash flowing to the war profiteers and their loyal political servants in federal, state, and local governments. Though the federal government may refuse to create most jobs, it sure as hell will continue to create all these war-profiteering and political jobs, as it has since 1940.


Ed Ciaccio’s first book, Heartlines: Selected Personal Works 1966-2011, is now available at http://www.createspace.com/3722975 or http://www.amazon.com/.

[elfismiles]

Thanks for that article conniption.

Articles about this drone simulation video are making the rounds, but as usual, these msm news sources are way behind the curve as I'm pretty sure we've discussed that video here years ago:

Like a Swarm of Lethal Bugs: The Most Terrifying Drone Video Yet - Atlantic
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/a ... et/273270/

U.S. Air Force developing terrifying swarms of tiny unmanned drones that can hover, crawl and even kill targets
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... rgets.html

[harry ashburn]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ds-newsxml

USAF developing terrifying swarms of tiny unmanned drones that can hover, crawl and even kill targets