Posted on 06/09/2012 6:00:56 PM PDT by neverdem
Domestic shock-and-awe is now becoming par for the course.
Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell thinks the use of unmanned aerial drones for domestic law enforcement is—his word—"great." As he told WTOP radio in Washington recently, "[It] cuts down on manpower in the air, and also [is] more safe. That’s why we use it on the battlefield."
Well, yes. But there is a slight difference between Baltimore and Basra or Kansas and Kandahar: We’re not at war in Baltimore or Kansas. We’re not trying to vanquish enemy forces in Washington, or repel an invasion inNorth Dakota.
Admittedly, you might not know that by looking at today’s hyper-militarized police forces. In recent years they have been stocking up on body armor, flashbang grenades, assault rifles, and armored vehicles like the Lenco BearCat G3—an 8-ton, quarter-million-dollar behemoth that is all the rage in burgs both big and small. (Among the localities that have bought a BearCat G3 is Warren County, Va., a bucolic place of 40,000 that averages one homicide every three years. If that.)
But domestic shock-and-awe is now becoming par for the course. Earlier this year Virginia State Police officers donned combat gear to face down a small group of pro-choice protesters at the Capitol here in Richmond—a level of overkill on the order of opening the door to an Easy-Bake Oven with a splitting maul.
Now law-enforcement agencies around the country are buying drones. During the Clinton years, homegrown militia groups used to warn about black helicopters in whisper mode spying on American citizens. The paranoid fantasies seemed funny at the time. That was then. As of this writing more than 300 state and local police departments have bought drones and applied for federal permission to use them.
Some drones are in domestic use already. The EPA has been using them to overfly farms in Nebraska and Iowa to look for any possible violations of the Clean Water Act. Does the agency have any probable cause to conduct such searches? No. The dragnet surveillance violates the Fourth Amendment, but it is being carried out with impunity.
Last year a sheriff in Nelson County, North Dakota, called in a Predator drone to help find three men with rifles on a sprawling family farm. According to a December story in the Los Angeles Times, “local police say they have used two unarmed Predators based at Grand Forks Air Force Base to fly at least two dozen surveillance flights since June. The FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration have used Predators for other domestic investigations, officials said.”
But it’s not as if the drones are in constant use! Oh, no. As Bill Macki, the head of the Grand Forks SWAT team, said, “We don’t use them on every call-out. If we have something in town like an apartment complex, we don’t call them.” That is certainly a load off.
Are there legitimate reasons to use drones domestically? Certainly—and advocates like to cite the missing-child hypothetical as an example. Fine. Drones also are being used to patrol the U.S. border. And a recent story in The Times-Dispatch noted that Virginia Tech has a drone as well—to study atmospheric microbial life by collecting airborne spore samples. Even private eyes and paparazzi are getting in on the game.
Yet there also are reasons not to accept the drone-ification of the American skies with bovine complacency. For one thing, they add another piece to the mosaic of the modern surveillance state.
That mosaic already includes a proliferating number of cameras in public places, from Palm Springs toWashington, D.C.—where police officers in the Joint Operations Command can watch live video feeds from dozens of streetcorner cams around the city. The mosaic also includes dragnet surveillance efforts such as the poking and prodding of little old ladies at the nation’s airports; New York’s controversial “stop-and-frisk” policy; and the routine use of police checkpoints on city streets – along with manifold databases such as the Department of Homeland Security’s Automated Targeting System, which vacuums up information about everything from car rentals to email contacts.
Supporters of drones cite court precedents holding that law-enforcement agencies can conduct aerial surveillance without a warrant. Drones, they contend, are simply the next logical step in the technological evolution. They might be right.
On the other hand, law enforcement and the Obama administration made much the same argument last year, in a case about using GPS devices to monitor a suspect’s movements over an extended period of time. Supporters of GPS tracking contended that it was no different from putting a tail on somebody. The Justices rejected that argument 9-0.
It’s not hard to see how their concern about the effect of long-term, surreptitious surveillance on the right to privacy in that case could translate to the routine use of domestic drones watching people from 10,000 feet up. As C.S. Lewis wrote in The Chronicles of Narnia, “If there’s a wasp in the room I like to be able to see it.”
more taxes = more police = more of a police state
I hope everyone realizes that in a few year drones will be the size of bumblebees and cheap enough for our rulers to track all of us 24/7.
If the courts do not slap this down now it’s going to be tough to live free in a short time.
We can also see who our true freedom loving politicians are. Statist “drone” O’Donnell fails big time.
Statist “drone” O’Donnell fails big time.Exactly.
How can anyone doubt that we are living in a police state now and the bosses are government. Freedom is nearly gone.
On the other hand, law enforcement and the Obama administration made much the same argument last year, in a case about using GPS devices to monitor a suspect’s movements over an extended period of time. Supporters of GPS tracking contended that it was no different from putting a tail on somebody. The Justices rejected that argument 9-0.
This part of the article is intellectually dishonest. The Justices did not reject the use of GPS tracking. They rejected the use of it without first obtaining a search warrant from a court and I have no problem with that.
As I have stated on other threads today - technology is neither good nor bad. It is what we do with the technology that counts. If a drone can locate a missing hiker and save their life it is good. If a drone is used on the border to stop drug runners or illegals most people consider that good. If a drone is used to find violations by a farmer for a regulated activity most people think that is bad. If a drone is used to enforce the speed limit on the interstate most people would not like it.
The march of technology is not something that can be stopped and it has the capacity for good and evil depending on how it is used. The use of technology by government is decided by congress, the administration, and ultimately the final decision lies with our courts. This is why we must work tirelessly to have a government that respects freedom unlike the current regime that wants control. The technology for a despotic police state already exists. The desire to use technology like that is present in the current administration and many rats in congress. Luckily, the courts and GOP minority in government are strongly opposed. ABO so he does not get the swing votes on the court for stuff like this because these new technologies are currently decided by a court that is one vote away from implementing the full progressive agenda.
This was briefly discussed on a previous thread -
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2892977/posts
The potential biblical prophecy ramifactions for those interested were mentioned on -
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2893568/posts
Do you want to know how to really piss off a cop?
Tell him he works for the taxpayers.
"Safe".
The magic word of the new millennium; anything to make us "safe". Safe in our chains.
Mission creep. What works well to put down dissent in the third world sh!tholes we currently occupy will work just as well work on our home turf. This is just a prelude of things to come for America.
Do not count on Republicans to be on the side of freedom when it comes to privacy issues. Just last week two Republican legislators in New York were promoting a bill to end anonymous posting on the internet.
Why would you want to lie to him?
You work for him, comrade. Don't believe me? Try not paying his salary by skipping out on your taxes and see who shows up with guns, armored vehicles, and drones.
I don’t count on Republicrats and there are plenty of nanny staters in the GOP. I was pretty pleased with most of the new house members that we elected in 2010 and more of them are winning congressional primaries.
However, nobody will advance the nanny state more than this administration if they are given an unrestrained 4 years to continue their assault on the constitution.
That's the problem!
--- "The Fox", Sherwood Smith
People in authority (in power) are easily succumbed to its siren song. Even people on the 'right' side.
Did you think defense contractors were just going to disappear with the federal cuts? Go after the officials that approve budgets for LE if you don’t like this.
"Some drones are in domestic use already. The EPA has been using them to overfly farms in Nebraska and Iowa to look for any possible violations of the Clean Water Act. Does the agency have any probable cause to conduct such searches? No. The dragnet surveillance violates the Fourth Amendment, but it is being carried out with impunity."
Did you get distracted and miss that?
But see, this is the kind of thing that’s only bad when the Obama administration or some other leftist is doing it.
When it’s a “law and order” Republican like McDonnell, suddenly it becomes okay.
That’s how the two heads of the anti-liberty Party work. the Democrat head distracts people with class warfare, while the Republican head distracts them with the “need” for (their brand of) law and order.
As fast as the bumble bee drones come on the scene, personal use micro bumble bee drones will be available to be sent up to attack them!
Then, there are CO2 lasers ~ these can be readily assembled out of ordinary household appliances ~ and they broadcast in light frequencies invisible to the human eye.
I think you would be well advised to read The Weapon Shops of Isher (free downloads on the net in fact).
Just one darned thing after another. Where will it end?
The inevitable evolution of drones will be to fund themselves, personnel, facilities, and more drones. There will be increasing fees to pay for them, have a new shed on your property? An abandoned car? Do you mow often enough? is that spot that won’t grow anything on your property from toxic waste? Why is that car in your driveway licensed out-of-state? That Jet-ski in your back yard isn’t cross-referenced to your personal property taxes...your thermostat is set to high in the winter...your woodpile hasn’t been inspected for bark-moths...it never ends.
Localities and municipalities will craft new laws that are optimized for drone enforcement and their revenue enhancement.
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.