Future of drones

[grandchessboard]

Would you put it past TPTB to use this kind of tech to spy on Americans? How easy would it be to mount a camera and a grenade on one of these things?

http://youtu.be/YQIMGV5vtd4

Drone crash in Maryland. Don't worry... the Navy says it was just testing the drone when it crashed.

http://youtu.be/GGlIarp2pOQ

Your thoughts.

 

[mickbear]

the technology out there now is amazing.being in the aerial mapping business,i know what we can do and see with the cameras and lidar we have.the military and Gov. is a hole different story.trust me on this one,they dont need a drone to spy on anyone.

 

[Laufen]

Incorporating drones into domestic law enforcement will propbably lead to a huge erosion of rights, without our even knowing about it.

From an NPR interview. You can listen online free of charge and it's only 4 minutes.

text size A A A June 12, 2012 Without question, drones have become the U.S. weapon of choice in the fight against terrorism. Counterterrorism officials say they've come to rely on the pilotless aircraft for their surveillance capability and what officials say is precision targeting. That reliance has led to greater use in the past couple of years, especially in Pakistan and Yemen.

John Bellinger, a State Department legal adviser during the George W. Bush administration, says there are increasing concerns about the frequency of drone attacks.

"We have seen the Obama administration growing more sensitive to the concern that they themselves may be accused of violating international law and more concerned about use by other countries," he says.

The U.S. leads the rest of the world in the development and procurement of drones, but some 60 other nations also have some version of this new weapon. In a speech laying out the administration's justification for drone strikes, U.S. counterterrorism chief John Brennan made it clear the administration is considering how other countries may use drones in the future.

"President Obama and those of us on his national security team are very mindful that as our nation uses this technology, we are establishing precedents that other nations may follow," Brennan said. "If we want other nations to use these technologies responsibly, we must use them responsibly."

Brennan said the administration has determined it can conduct targeted drone strikes against suspected terrorists in order to prevent attacks on the U.S. and to save American lives, and he said there was nothing in international law that bans this. But Bellinger, now a partner at the law firm Arnold & Porter, says it doesn't matter what technology is involved, whether it's a drone or bullet, virtually no other country in the world buys into the U.S. rationale.

And, of course, terrorism is often in the eye of the beholder. You're going to see states use this justification to carry out attacks on human rights activists and political opponents.

- Tom Parker, Amnesty International
"This looks a lot like an assassination; the U.S. firmly believes that it is not - that this is a military action in self-defense against someone," he said. "But the human rights community is growing increasingly concerned about what they call targeted killings of particular individuals."

Bellinger says that at the moment, there is no treaty on drones or targeted killings of individuals in other countries.

Tom Parker, policy director for terrorism and counterterrorism at Amnesty international, says the U.S. needs to be careful because its rationale for the use of drones could be abused by others. For example, the Chinese could use it to go after people it considers a national security threat - maybe Uighur or Tibetan activists living in a third country, he says.

There is "absolutely nothing stopping them from using the same justification," he said. "And, of course, terrorism is often in the eye of the beholder. You're going to see states use this justification to carry out attacks on human rights activists and political opponents."

Kenneth Anderson, a professor at American University law school, and a fellow at the Hoover Institution, agrees the U.S. does need to be careful, and that's why the Obama administration has been carefully stating its policy.

"The United States has never said that all bets are off, you can do whatever you like, or cross these borders as long as you call it a terrorist threat,' " he said.

And, Anderson says, the U.S. didn't lay out what it sees as a rule of international law on the assumption that other countries will abuse that law.

"Instead, what you have to be willing to do is say, 'Come on, that's not a terrorist threat at all; you just want to go after that dissident,' " he says. "And I think that winds up being an important limiting principle for the United States that would put a bound on its conduct but also on others people's conduct as well."

At least that's the hope, Anderson says, for drones and this new type of warfare.

 

[grandchessboard]

Yes HGUN. Great points. They are going to come after all the country boys with John Deere hats that believe in the constitution and freedom. I know there are not many left but I think it was DHS that just listed people worried about their rights as potential terrorist. Loving the constitution and freedom now equals a thought crime. The answer to 1984 is 1776.

 

[Laufen]

The answer is thoughtful correspondence with your elected representatives. That IS their job after all. Armchair commandoism will not win you any " freedom".

 

[grandchessboard]

The answer is thoughtful correspondence with your elected representatives. That IS their job after all. Armchair commandoism will not win you any " freedom".

IMHO, we are too far down the rabbit hole for that to do any good. Now we are at the point where the worse it gets... the better it gets.

I'm way past any faith in the system.

There is nothing "armchair" about it. I'm taking control over what I have most influence on by getting my (and my family's) spiritual house in order, investments, prepping, and getting the skills necessary to give my family the best chance of surviving what is coming. Just trying to awaken others to do the same. Storing some food is more worth my time than writing some out of touch politician a letter. If that is your strategy then I sincerely wish the best for you and yours.

 

[Laufen]

IMHO, we are too far down the rabbit hole for that to do any good. Now we are at the point where the worse it gets... the better it gets.

I'm way past any faith in the system.

There is nothing "armchair" about it. I'm taking control over what I have most influence on by getting my (and my family's) spiritual house in order, investments, prepping, and getting the skills necessary to give my family the best chance of surviving what is coming. Just trying to awaken others to do the same. Storing some food is more worth my time than writing some out of touch politician a letter. If that is your strategy then I sincerely wish the best for you and yours.

How un-American (and I'm sure you'll disagree). I prefer to avoid fantasy end of times scenarios. It's always good to be prepared for an emergency, but avoidance is always the best policy. Giving up on the system put in place to give you a voice? That is your most powerful tool, don't toss it out because of cynicism. Also, be careful what you advocate on a public website.

 

[Tony2X]

I'm not growing weed or making shine so it don't bother me none.

 

[grandchessboard]

How un-American (and I'm sure you'll disagree).

No I agree that it is un-American to in certain ways. In other ways it is very American. The founding fathers could have written their tyrannical leaders. Did they?

LOL. You think this is fantasy... Look at the state of the world economy (I can't get into any political examples...bc it's not allowed here). Look at the black hole that is global derivatives. Look at how quickly the biggest financial scandal was MF Global and it was a year ago, and now a year later we a have a financial scandal that stinks of even more corruption- the manipulation of the Libor. The Libor is the sun of the financial universe. I think these people in charge of banks know that the West is in a state of collapse and their actions reflect inside knowledge. Most people are finically illiterate so most will not understand these examples but this not the place for political discussion so I can really use that as an example.

 

[Laufen]

No I agree that it is un-American to in certain ways. In other ways it is very American. The founding fathers could have written their tyrannical leaders. Did they?

LOL. You think this is fantasy... QUOTE]

Yes, yes I do. The US and Global economy is a complex system of which an enumerable amount of variables exist. To point to one, or even a few is to have a very poor understanding of economics. It's tough for people though. Our society so used to crowning winners and losers, and establishing "right and "wrong". This can be very difficult for people to live in a world that is mostly gray. Binaries are a myth outside of mathematics.