Who and where are the terrorists again? Who has the assassination list? Groups Concerned Over Arming Of Domestic Drones May 23, 2012 1:18 PM WASHINGTON (CBSDC) – With the use of domestic drones increasing, concern has not just come up over privacy issues, but also over the potential use of lethal force by the unmanned aircraft. Drones have been used overseas to target and kill high-level terror leaders and are also being used along the U.S.-Mexico border in the battle against illegal immigration. But now, these drones are starting to be used domestically at an increasing rate. The Federal Aviation Administration has allowed several police departments to use drones across the U.S. They are controlled from a remote location and use infrared sensors and high-resolution cameras. Chief Deputy Randy McDaniel of the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office in Texas told The Daily that his department is considering using rubber bullets and tear gas on its drone. “Those are things that law enforcement utilizes day in and day out and in certain situations it might be advantageous to have this type of system on the UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle),” McDaniel told The Daily. The use of potential force from drones has raised the ire of the American Civil Liberties Union. “It’s simply not appropriate to use any of force, lethal or non-lethal, on a drone,” Catherine Crump, staff attorney for the ACLU, told CBSDC. Crump feels one of the biggest problems with the use of drones is the remote location where they are operated from. “When the officer is on the scene, they have full access to info about what has transpired there,” Crump explained to CBSDC. “An officer at a remote location far away does not have the same level of access.” The ACLU is also worried about potential drones malfunctioning and falling from the sky, adding that they are keeping a close eye on the use of these unmanned aircraft by police departments. “We don’t need a situation where Americans feel there is in an invisible eye in the sky,” Jay Stanley, senior policy analyst at ACLU, told CBSDC. Joshua Foust, fellow at the American Security Project, feels domestic drones should not be armed. “I think from a legal perspective, there is nothing problematic about floating a drone over a city,” Foust told CBSDC. “In terms of getting armed drones, I would be very nervous about that happening right now.” McDaniel says that his community should not be worried about the department using a drone. “We’ve never gone into surveillance for sake of surveillance unless there is criminal activity afoot,” McDaniel told The Daily. “Just to see what you’re doing in your backyard pool — we don’t care.” But the concern for the ACLU is just too great that an American’s constitutional rights will be trampled with the use of drones. “The prospect of people out in public being Tased or targeted by force by flying drones where no officers is physically present on the scene,” Crump says, “raises the prospect of unconstitutional force being used on individuals.” ----------------------------------------------------------------- Domestic Drones https://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/domestic-drones U.S. law enforcement has been expanding its use of domestic drones for surveillance purposes. This type of routine aerial surveillance in American life would profoundly change the character of public life in the United States. Rules must be put in place to ensure that we can enjoy the benefits of this new technology without bringing us closer to a "surveillance society" in which our every move is monitored, tracked, recorded, and scrutinized by the authorities. Drone manufacturers are also considering offering police the option of arming these remote-controlled aircraft with (nonlethal for now) weapons like rubber bullets, Tasers, and tear gas.
My favorite part of this jaw-droppingly Orwellian article is the idiot sheriff from Texas who claims tear gas and rubber bullets are used "day in and day out". No doubt he wishes that was true... Remember folks...we should just trust the president, the CIA, the army etc. And I guess now we should just trust the police too. No doubt they have "intel" on who's good and bad. And we have no reason to extrapolate from past abuses and be concerned. That's crazy talk. Right?
Armed UAVs are a bad idea, but a logical extension of the militarization of our police forces over the last 40 years, caused in large part by using the War on Drugs as a strategy for combating drug abuse. However, this is not something that should be blamed on Obama (of course, Hightop blames Obama for anything and everything) as it is police forces that are using the drones and pushing for them to be armed.
So, Hightop, are you now for the federal government regulating how local and state governments can use drones? What happened to your anti-regulation campaign?
I'm not real comfortable having drones quietly filming everything in people's backyards, nevermind the guns. A citizen can have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the backyard. A police chopper flying by is one thing, but you can hear it and know it's there, and they aren't filming everything as they go. A police drone can film you in a private space without your knowledge. Given that they want rubber bullets and tear gas, it sounds like they want it for crowd control to quell riots without putting officers in harm's way. Sounds reasonable, but I think I'd rather just keep the cops in harm's way. For the sake of democracy, the government shouldn't have the power to suppress the people without paying any price in blood.
A compromise might be to have the drones just record and not viewed live, then require a court order to view just a certain area or previous recording. I'm betting there would be a lot more* unsolved abductions and unsolved burglaries. *err less Note: We have satellites that can read a licenses plate laying flat on the ground. You don't think there might be people capable of watching you BBQ now?
