The Most Terrifying Drone Ever! Run Away! 14MAR13

I, for one, do not trust our government on their drone policy, and am glad this is now a matter of legislative and public discussion as there are issues concerning civil liberties and human rights to be considered. Those calling for control and regulation of local, state and federal government use of drones in the U.S. are not helped by people like Glenn Greenwald. From HuffPost.....

When I began the day, I promised myself I wasn't going to write about drones or anti-drone crusader and Guardian blogger Glenn Greenwald or the war on terrorism again, mainly because I covered the topic here last week and several more times elsewhere. But the drone topic continues to be fueled by misinformation and a considerable dose of hysteria.

Now, once again, it's important and increasingly mandatory that I reiterate my position on the administration's use of drones because of the degree of kneejerkery circulating through the tubes. For what it's worth, the president should be stripped of his war powers via a repeal of the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, the war on terrorism should end and the use of drones by the military and CIA should be regulated by Congress. Simple and direct.

That said, there's also a lot of nonsense floating around out there which goes far beyond rational, reasonable activism on the problem. For example, Greenwald tweeted the following note the other day, and I can't help but respond:

The link takes you to a story out of Monroe, North Carolina, where the local police department has ordered -- stop the presses and alert Code Pink! -- a drone to augment its law enforcement efforts.

Based on Greenwald's tweet, you might be thinking, Holy crap on a stick! Drones patrolling the skies of Monroe, North Carolina (wherever that is) -- launching Hellfire missiles at moonshiners and big city carpetbaggers! It's the rise of the machines! Damn you, Skynet! Run away! Run away! DRONES!

But of course this tweet was a stellar example of the hyperbole that Greenwald markets to his followers on the drones issue. The sensationalism works especially well on Twitter with people who merely read the screaming slug-line and frantically retweet it without clicking the link. If we merely read the text, we're led to believe that local police departments are evolving into huckleberry-sized drone franchisees of the Obama administration's counterterrorism weapon of choice. And, worse, it appears as if terrifying drones have been "married" to the (admittedly worthless) drug war. Drones and the drug war: an incendiary Venn Diagram guaranteed to spark a geyser of outraged megadittoes from Greenwald's acolytes. What ho?! Local Gomers pursuing harmless, giggly pot smokers with drones?! Due process is truly dead! IEEEEE!

If we click on the article itself, however, we quickly discover what's really going on.

1) The drone is a Maveric UAV, designed and marketed by a local Monroe outfit called Condor Aerial. Maverics don't carry weaponry of any kind and can't provide long-term surveillance due to its maximum 90-minute flight time.

2) Based on the news story, the police department intends to use the drone essentially as they would a helicopter for the stated purposes of "rescue, natural disasters, pursuits and other aerial needs," including situations like "a bank robbery, or any incident where the officers are pursuing someone on foot." Though, at $44,000, the drone is considerably less expensive to purchase and maintain than a chopper. Unless the drone develops artificial intelligence and begins to think for itself, I'm having a difficult time distinguishing it from any other law enforcement aircraft beyond the fact that its pilot is on the ground. And, hell, they can put a deadly police sniper on a helicopter. Not so with the Maveric.

3) The word "drugs" or the phrase "drug war" don't appear anywhere in the article. It's possible that Greenwald interpreted "asset forfeiture" as being specifically about drug dealers (the government uses this admittedly dubious process on all sorts of criminals), but there's not a single mention to that effect. Though I suppose it's possible, it's definitely not a fact pulled from the article he linked.

4) The Maveric has been available since 2003 and 160 law enforcement agencies nationwide are already using similar tools.

5) And finally, here's a photo of the Maveric drone:

Scary, huh. It looks like a stubbier, steampunkish B52 or maybe the dropship from the Aliensmovie, capable of totally blasting you into vapor. Now imagine Barney Fife in Bungledick, North Carolina with this behemoth war machine at his disposal.

But wait. Before you lapse into an oh-so-sweet outrage coma because it's a big scary drone, here's the Maveric shown to scale:

I hasten to note that I pulled this directly from the Condor Aerial website and I absolutely didn't Photoshop anything. Yeah, so, it's tiny. When I saw this pic, I actually said out loud to no one, "It's a radio-controlled toy airplane with a fancy camera!" I mean, if the police began to chase you with this thing, you could feasibly thwack it out of the sky with a tennis racquet or a well-aimed dodgeball.

Conclusion: it's not the kind of "drone" Greenwald wanted you to think it was.

Seriously, though, I absolutely agree that it's always a good idea to keep a tenacious eye on government authority. Anyone who's read my posts against the (formerly) naked body scannersand the perpetual fearmongering of the previous administration knows I'm hardly a fan of government overreach on this front. But if we, as citizens and activists, want to be taken as grown-ups, it seems to me as if we need to pick our battles wisely, and this stupid little toy (albeit anexpensive stupid little toy) probably shouldn't be one of those battles.

As for Greenwald, the misleading nature of his tweet speaks volumes about how not every screed he blurts into the tubes should be taken as gospel. Rather, he's an activist who's clearly willing to grab any miniscule dollop of nothing and, using his obvious talent for writing, expand it intosomething that you should be outraged about -- or else you're an apologist for sinister personality cults and power-drunk authoritarian zealots. It's a compelling yet deceptive rhetorical cocktail: Here's an obvious trespass you should be viscerally offended by, and, if you don't mash the panic-button because, say, you realize that this big bad drone is really a radio-controlled toy, here's a hearty pile of shame-on-you to suck on. I don't know for sure, but it seems as if Greenwald believes that by issuing hyperbolic missives peppered with this-other-smart-person-agrees-with-me-so-I'm-right-and-you're-not-one-of-us shaming, he'll be seen as a steadfastly vigilant activist even if not everything he writes passes the sniff test. It's all a means to an end. If he can make his disciples poop their big boy pants about the Monroe PD's "drone," he's scored a crucial push-back in his ongoing struggle against the forces of evil. Evil toys.

Okay then. That's all. For now.

What's next?

Cross-posted at The Daily Banter.
Subscribe to the uncensored and totally raw Bob & Chez Show After Party podcast.
Click here to listen to the Bubble Genius Bob & Chez Show podcast.
BobCesca.com Blog with special thanks to William White.

 

Follow Bob Cesca on Twitter: www.twitter.com/bobcesca_go

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/the-most-terrifying-drone_b_2877222.html?utm_source=Alert-blogger&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Email%2BNotifications

Ban on Arming Domestic Drones: Let’s Draw a Line in the Sand 15JUN12

THIS may seem like a chicken little argument to some, but our law enforcement history shows this is a very valid concern, and outlawing domestic use of all armed drones by law enforcement in the U.S. is the right course action for Congress to take. This from the ACLU.....

Last week Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) and the House of Representatives drew an important line in the sand. Holt offered an amendment to the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations bill to bar any DHS funding for “the purchase, operation, or maintenance of armed unmanned aerial vehicles.” (The amendment was adopted and the bill has passed the House.) While moves to arm domestic drones are widely seen as beyond the pale and have not really been contemplated (with the exception of one sheriff in Texas who mused about mounting less-lethal weapons like rubber bullets on unmanned aircraft), we believe it’s crucial to get ahead of any possible trend.
We have unfortunately sometimes seen our overseas battlefields bleed across our own borders. As part of the debate over the National Defense Authorization Act and indefinite detention, for example, we already witnessed a willingness by Congress to move the battlefield in the war on terror into our own backyards. Importing weaponized drones to the domestic context would be the latest and arguably most extreme example of the militarization of our police. This trend, fueled in part by companies seeking domestic markets for weapons of war, has already led to many tragic abuses.
From their controversial deployment for targeted killings and other uses abroad, we know that armed drones are incredibly powerful and dangerous weapons. When domestic law enforcement officers can use force from a distance, it may become too easy for them to do so. When it becomes easier to do surveillance, surveillance is used more, and when it becomes easier to use force, force will be used more. We have seen this dynamic with “less lethal” weapons such as Tasers; since 2001, over 500 people in the United States have died after being tased, according to Amnesty International, and Tasers are often used in clearly unnecessary situations—for example, in retaliation against nonviolent people who have angered a police officer. Drones may also be more likely to result in harm to innocent bystanders.
As we have documented extensively, the most urgent threat that domestic drones pose at this time is as instruments of mass surveillance and other invasions of privacy. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) has proposed legislation to address these concerns, and we agree that Fourth Amendment principles must certainly govern any domestic use of drones.
But we believe that support for the Holt Amendment sends a powerful message: armed drones have no place in America. We must not rush into embracing a dangerous new military technology.
Support the Hold Amendment here.
http://www.aclu.org/blog/technology-and-liberty-free-speech-national-security/ban-arming-domestic-drones