Posted on 02/08/2012 8:11:18 AM PST by rarestia
Look! Up in the sky! Is it a bird? Is it a plane? It’s … a drone, and it’s watching you. That’s what privacy advocates fear from a bill Congress passed this week to make it easier for the government to fly unmanned spy planes in U.S. airspace.
The FAA Reauthorization Act, which President Obama is expected to sign, also orders the Federal Aviation Administration to develop regulations for the testing and licensing of commercial drones by 2015.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Congress is full of drones.
If we had actually won in Iraq and Afghanistan, you may have a point. Drones are a useful tool, but nothing more. The PR fallout from dropping JDAMs in the U.S. and the video winding up on YouTube would quickly outweigh the benefits of doing so. The effects on the Iraqi, Afghan and Pakistani media in turning support away from U.S. efforts is instructive in this.
Once we figure out their airspeed and altitude, they’ll make great targets.
Big city police departments are getting grants for the purchase of drones through Homeland Security. To “fly” a drone, an officer needs to get a Helicopter Pilot’s ground license.
>America’s dominated all of the wars in which She’s engaged because she owned the air and the sea. If the Feds own the air with drones, any attempts by civilians to rise against the Federal government will be met with drone attacks.
>
>This is checkmate, really. I’ve seen the post that answers “what good is one citizen with a gun against an army?” That answers the question for ground operations, but owning the air... I’d like to see a corollary to that.
No, it’s not checkmate.
You cannot, I say again, CANNOT control a land with only airpower.
Consider for a moment the derringer, nice small concealable gun. (And there ate the one-shot zip-gun constructions of the design to consider.)
Imagine your local bureaucrat/overlord walking along and you have one of these; what is to stop you from ending his life with it. (Or even a knife, or a piano-wire...)
You might think that the man’s security would prevent it; but here’s the rub they don’t want you to realize: 1) the government DOES NOT have the manpower to provide security for every one of its agents; and 2) security is by no means a sure counter to an assassination attempt.
No, it wouldn’t be “honorable,” but it would get the job done.
{All of the above is also considering only a “lone gunman” situation... but it applies even moreso to a mob.}
It will take a “Today is a good day to die” attitude to get us out from under where we are. Voting will not solve this. Debating will not solve this.
>A little-noticed change in federal law packs an important change in who is in charge the next time a state is devastated by a disaster such as Hurricane Katrina.
>
>To the dismay of the nation’s governors, the White House now will be empowered to go over a governor’s head and call up National Guard troops to aid a state in time of natural
>disasters or other public emergencies. Up to now, governors were the sole commanders in chief of citizen soldiers in local Guard units during emergencies within the state.
>
>A conflict over who should control Guard units arose in the days after Hurricane Katrina in 2005. President Bush sought to federalize control of Guardsmen in Louisiana in the
>chaos after the hurricane, but Gov. Kathleen Blanco (D) refused to relinquish command.
Interesting, but invalid.
Why? Because [most of] the States have in their own constitutions language giving the control of their National Guard/militia to the governor; such an act of congress (which is NOT at the level of Constitutional Amendment) is a violation of the 5th Amendment which states in part “nor [shall a person] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;” and such an act is tantamount to the deprivation of the liberty of setting their own state’s law (via their State Constitution).
That is, of course, in addition to the 10th Amendment arguments against such.
>Of course McCain is a big YEA, he sponsored NDAA. Very creepy when you consider the big picture and the fact he was the GOP candidate.
My conclusion, given the party’s actions juxtaposed against their stated party-planks, is that the GOP (as a party) is about ‘suckering’ people.
You know, the “spark” might be calling up the militia at all.
Consider this: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2698298/posts
P.S. Another great book, BTW!
The skies are sure getting crowded, 30,000 drones to monitor us and all the weather modification (aka chemtrails) planes also, to sicken us and kill us off faster.
:-)
I agree with you. The daily bombardment of aluminum and barium from our skies, the inability to freely fly (or drive or attend football games) without “papers, please,” (but only applicable to dumb American taxpayers), irradiation and strip searches, dogs sniffing us anywhere 100 miles within the southern border, NDAA, the unPatriot Act, a military-style police force in every small town, a banana republic in the voting booth, red-light cams on every other corner, and personally, not even a pittance of SS to look forward to, after paying in for umpteen years. But, people still think any (rigged) election will fix this.
I do wish I were in my 80s or 90s and didn’t have to see what’s coming next. My parents already lived through this once, and barely escaped the Communists. This time there is no place left to go.
noooooooooo! Must I add Ava to my long list of crimes too??!! I guess I’d better go hide in my desert silo now...
However, New York is now testing tech to see weapons through clothing. Put one of those on every street corner in DC, and the chances of getting concealed weapons close enough to a bureaucrat/overlord would be pretty nil.
Then again, where there's a will, there's a way.
Wars can’t be won with air power alone. In addition, the common citizen can get a drone up, not to mention hack into systems.
Question is with all these drones, how do they not pose a risk to civilian aircraft? If feds are following someone on the ground how will they pay attention to their route?
Post 25 by thesearethetimes contains a list.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.