Begin forwarded message:
> From: "Sardar" <sar...@spiritone.com> > Date: July 3, 2010 7:02:59 PM PDT > To: "Sardar" <recon1968br...@yahoo.com> > Subject: Drones Over America: Tyranny at Home > > Drones Over America: Tyranny at Home > a.. > > John W. Whitehead > NJ Today > July 3, 2010 > > "A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe > companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been > always the instruments of tyranny at home."-James Madison > > The U.S. government has a history of commandeering military technology for > use against Americans. We saw this happen with tear gas, tasers and sound > cannons, all of which were first used on the battlefield before being > deployed against civilians at home. Now the drones-pilotless, remote > controlled aircraft that have been used in Iraq and Afghanistan-are coming > home to roost. > > [opinion] > > Drones, a $2 billion cornerstone of the Obama administration's war efforts, > have increasingly found favor with both military and law enforcement > officials. "The more we have used them," stated Defense Secretary Robert > Gates, "the more we have identified their potential in a broader and broader > set of circumstances." > > Now the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is facing mounting pressure > from state governments and localities to issue flying rights for a range of > unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to carry out civilian and law-enforcement > activities. As the Associated Press reports, "Tornado researchers want to > send them into storms to gather data. Energy companies want to use them to > monitor pipelines. State police hope to send them up to capture images of > speeding cars' license plates. Local police envision using them to track > fleeing suspects." Unfortunately, to a drone, everyone is a suspect because > drone technology makes no distinction between the law-abiding individual and > the suspect. Everyone gets monitored, photographed, tracked and targeted. > > The FAA, citing concerns over the need to regulate air traffic and establish > anti-collision rules for the aircrafts and their operators, has thus far been > reluctant to grant broad approval for the use of UAVs in American airspace. > However, unbeknownst to most Americans, remote controlled aircraft have been > employed domestically for years now. They were first used as a national > security tool for patrolling America's borders and then as a means of > monitoring citizens. For example, back in 2006, the Los Angeles County > Sheriff's Department was testing out a SkySeer drone for use in police work. > With a 6.5-foot wingspan, the lightweight SkySeer can be folded up like a > kite and stored in a shoulder pack. At 250 feet, it can barely be seen with > the naked eye. > > As another news story that same year reported, "one North Carolina county is > using a UAV equipped with low-light and infrared cameras to keep watch on its > citizens. The aircraft has been dispatched to monitor gatherings of > motorcycle riders at the Gaston County fairgrounds from just a few hundred > feet in the air-close enough to identify faces-and many more uses, such as > the aerial detection of marijuana fields, are planned." In 2007, insect-like > drones were seen hovering over political rallies in New York and Washington, > seemingly spying on protesters. An eyewitness reported that the drones > "looked kind of like dragonflies or little helicopters." > > > Drone technology has advanced dramatically in the ensuing years, with > surveillance drones getting smaller, more sophisticated and more lethal with > each evolution. Modeling their prototype for a single-winged rotorcraft on > the maple seed's unique design, aerospace engineering students at the > University of Maryland have created the world's smallest controllable > surveillance drones, capable of hovering to record conversations or movements > of citizens. > > Thus far, the domestic use of drones has been primarily for surveillance > purposes and, as far as we know, has been limited in scope. Eventually, > however, police departments and intelligence agencies will make drones a > routine part of their operations. However, you can be sure they won't limit > themselves to just surveillance. > > Police today use whatever tools are at their disposal in order to anticipate > and forestall crime. This means employing technology to attain total control. > Technology, which functions without discrimination because it exists without > discrimination, tends to be applied everywhere it can be applied. Thus, the > logical aim of technologically equipped police who operate as technicians > must be control, containment and eventually restriction of freedom. > > In this way, under the guise of keeping Americans safe and controlled, > airborne drones will have to be equipped with an assortment of lethal and > nonlethal weapons in order to effectuate control of citizens on the ground. > The arsenal of nonlethal weapons will likely include Long Range Acoustic > Devices (LRADs), which are used to break up protests or riots by sending a > piercing sound into crowds and can cause serious hearing damage; > high-intensity strobe lights, which can cause dizziness, disorientation and > loss of balance and make it virtually impossible to run away; and tasers, > which administer a powerful electric shock. > > Since June 2001, over 350 people, including women, children and elderly > individuals, have died in the U.S. after being shocked with "non-lethal" > tasers. "Imagine how incidents would skyrocket," notes Paul Joseph Watson for > PrisonPlanet.com, "once the personal element of using a Taser is removed and > they are strapped to marauding surveillance drones, eliminating any > responsibility for deaths and injuries that occur." > > "Also available to police," writes Watson, "will be a drone that can fire > tear gas as well as rubber pellets to disperse anyone still living under the > delusion that they were born in a democratic country." In fact, the French > company Tecknisolar Seni has built a drone armed with a double-barreled 44 mm > Flash-Ball gun. The one-kilo Flash-Ball resembles a large caliber handgun and > fires so-called non-lethal rounds, including tear gas and rubber impact > rounds to bring down a suspect. Despite being labeled a "non-lethal weapon," > this, too, is not without its dangers. As David Hambling writes for Wired > News, "Like other impact rounds, the Flash-Ball is meant to be aimed at the > body-firing from a remote, flying platform is likely to increase the risk of > head injury." > > One thing is clear: while the idea of airborne drones policing America's > streets may seem far-fetched, like something out of a sci-fi movie, it is no > longer in the realm of the impossible. Now, it's just a matter of how soon > you can expect them to be patrolling your own neighborhood. The crucial > question, however, is whether Americans will be able to limit the > government's use of such surveillance tools or whether we will be caught in > an electronic nightmare from which there is no escape. > > http://www.prisonplanet.com/drones-over-america-tyranny-at-home.html
