Killer Drones Coming To America!

Like all new fads that start overseas and eventually make their way here to the US as the next “new thing”, drones are on their way to our friendly skies. From AP via Google News:

Unmanned aircraft have proved their usefulness and reliability in the war zones of Afghanistan and Iraq. Now the pressure’s on to allow them in the skies over the United States.

The Federal Aviation Administration has been asked to issue flying rights for a range of pilotless planes to carry out civilian and law-enforcement functions but has been hesitant to act. Officials are worried that they might plow into airliners, cargo planes and corporate jets that zoom around at high altitudes, or helicopters and hot air balloons that fly as low as a few hundred feet off the ground.

On top of that, these pilotless aircraft come in a variety of sizes. Some are as big as a small airliner, others the size of a backpack. The tiniest are small enough to fly through a house window.

Exciting! Cops want to use them to catch speeders, monitor traffic and track suspects (that is pretty much all of us). Border Patrol and Sheriff Joe Arpaio want to use them to chase down the brown (skinned that is). Fed Ex wants them so they don’t have to actually pay pilots. And the NSA wants them to spy on “suspicious” people (like the writers on this blog). Hey, it’s all good; what’s the loss of a little privacy when it comes to protecting America?

There is a tremendous pressure and need to fly unmanned aircraft in (civilian) airspace,” Hank Krakowski, FAA’s head of air traffic operations, told European aviation officials recently. “We are having constant conversations and discussions, particularly with the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security, to figure out how we can do this safely with all these different sizes of vehicles.

Excellent! Because I will feel a lot better when the DOD and DHS have the “civilian airspace” saturated with their freaking drones; won’t you? Of course you will. And we are on the way there too. From Government Executive:

The Homeland Security Department expanded the use of unmanned drones along the U.S.-Mexico border this week, flying for the first time this sort of advanced technology in west Texas.

The Predator B unmanned aerial vehicle is providing support to U.S. Customs and Border Protection to help interdict drug smugglers and detect people trying to enter the United States illegally, key lawmakers said.

Texas lawmakers have been clamoring for years to have an unmanned drone assist in border security operations, but the move had been delayed by bureaucratic wrangling between DHS and the Federal Aviation Administration. Drone flights along the Southwest border had been limited to regions in Arizona and New Mexico.
……
By putting eyes in the sky along the Rio Grande, we will gather real-time intelligence on the ground to augment the good work of federal, state and local law enforcement….

Well, so drones are here among us, at least those of us near the Mexican border; and they are here to stay. Government drones are going to be ever more pervasive and ubiquitous throughout the entirety of the country if the law and order types in the federal, state and local governments have anything to say about it. And they will have their say; count on it. Swell, eh?

So, with all of the Afghani, Pakistani and Iraqi wedding parties that have been taken out by US Predator drone strikes, how long before they hit one of our precious wedding celebrations right here in the homeland of the good old “real America”? What will the NeoCon wingnuts say when it hits their own chosen ones?

[Incredibly awesome graphic by the one and only Darkblack. If you are not familiar with his work, or have not seen it lately, please go peruse the masterpieces at his homebase. Seriously good artwork and incredible music there.]

image_print
71 replies
  1. klynn says:

    So if a drone trespasses onto your property, without due cause and notification of such, you can shoot it down without penalty right?

    And darn it…She does look like his daughter!

  2. JThomason says:

    Awesome graphic. Reminds one of some of the early Jane Hamsher graphics when emptywheel was yet over at TNH.

  3. phred says:

    So let me get this straight… Ms. “The federal government doesn’t have the talent or resources to deal with the BP oil spill” Napolitano wants to get her grubby little mitts on UAVs? Did I read that right bmaz?

    Some moron who doesn’t have the sense that God gave a gnat, who has absolutely no frickin’ clue of precisely what resources are at the federal government’s disposal, is utterly unqualified for her job, suddently thinks she ought to be allowed to play with the DoD’s toys? Unfuckingbelievable.

    We are so screwed.

    • bmaz says:

      Janet is undoubtedly more on the law and order end than you may fancy; but make no mistake, she is absolutely qualified for the job. Certainly as qualified as anybody else you could put in that thankless job. And Napolitano is extremely bright; I can personally attest to and vouch for that. Not saying you would agree with her on everything policy wise, but don’t mistake her experience, intellect or skills; all are very good.

      • phred says:

        she is absolutely qualified for the job. Certainly as qualified as anybody else you could put in that thankless job.

        I respectfully disagree.

        The federal response to the oil spill has been both negligent and incompetent. The only other possibility is a level of corruption so extreme as to warrant impeachment from office.

        It is the job of the President and his cabinet to cope competently in the public’s best interest in a crisis and they have not done so.

        I realize that part of Napolitano’s portfolio is border security, but it is also most definitely to respond effectively to natural and man-made disasters.

        We have got to stop putting professional fund-raisers (aka politicians) in jobs where real technical expertise is required. Brownie failed and Napolitano failed because neither was qualified to do the job they were hired to do.

        She might be a fine lawyer and she might even be reasonably intelligent, but when it comes to science and technology she is clearly in way over her head. Or she is willing to sacrifice her personal reputation to do the bidding of BP rather than act in the best interest of the public she has sworn to serve. Either way, she is not who we need in that office.

        • bmaz says:

          She is far, far more than “reasonably intelligent. Furthermore, despite what you may read or believe, Napolitano is not even close to being in charge of the response. The entire matter is being driven by the White House and DOE. The normal functions of all the agencies has been superseded in an extremely bizarre manner on orders from the White House. To give an example, the EPA ought to be very much involved in the assessment and direction of cleanup. You heard anything substantive about the EPA?? The answer is no, no you haven’t. They are perplexed too from my understanding. Same thing in a lot of places. Just because Thad Allen bleats that he is under DHS, you should not buy into that Napolitano is directing everything; I guarantee you she is not. Things are not what they seem. You are dead wrong about who and what Janet Napolitano is.

        • phred says:

          So, by that standard the entire cabinet is supposed to sit down and shut up in deference to the King? At what point do officers in our government stand up and say enough is enough? When do they stop being good little soldiers? I expect a lot more from our government officials.

          If someone gives me a job, I do it. I have been in a position where I disagreed strongly with a boss’ approach to a given job, so I quit rather than remain in an untenable position.

          I expect similar conduct by our officials. If they cannot bring change within their position, then at least a very public resignation can draw attention to a serious problem and force change via external pressure.

          You seem to think Napolitano’s silence is acceptable. I do not. Not only that, she hasn’t remained silent. She did make a public statement weeks ago that the federal government did not have the resources nor the talent to deal with the spill which is why they had to wait on BP. That was a shockingly false (or possibly ignorant) statement to make.

          Don’t get me wrong, the problem goes way beyond Napolitano. Lubchenko is a lot worse and I haven’t the slightest idea of what Chu is doing. There is plenty of blame to go around and I think we need to start at the top with Obama.

          But my point is, that our federal officials are not competent with technology. They defer too readily to corporations and contractors. Do you seriously think we should allow them to deploy UAVs for any purpose whatsoever on our own soil? The possibility of such technology (which has been repeatedly demonstrated overseas to be lethally imprecise) being used here on our citizenry is frightening. Really really frightening.

          I have not seen a level of competence demonstrated by federal officials in the last decade to make me sanguine about this possibility in the least. It isn’t just Napolitano, it is a political class that has been repeatedly wrong about everything. Giving them extraordinarily dangerous weapons to wield domestically strikes me as a spectacularly bad idea.

        • fatster says:

          President Obama taps Michael Bromwich as watchdog for offshore oil drilling

          “The man appointed Tuesday by President Obama to oversee offshore oil drilling has no experience with oil and gas issues, but he has a reputation for cleaning up embattled organizations.”

          LINK.

        • fatster says:

          It’ll be interesting to see what happens to the mo-bettah Lieberman-Kerry bill.

          Climate bill architects Kerry, Lieberman vote against repealing oil industry tax breaks

          “Kerry, the Democrats’ designated crusader for clean energy reform and tough emissions regulations, said through a spokesman he was not opposed to the substance of the amendment, but rather the timing at which it was introduced.”

          LINK.

        • bobschacht says:

          But my point is, that our federal officials are not competent with technology. They defer too readily to corporations and contractors.

          Exactly. This is the institutional culture established by Bush and Cheney over the course of 8 years in all Federal Agencies. And keep in mind that there is a large stack of Obama nominations that Congress is sitting on, due to Senatorial holds and other obstacles.

          Bob in AZ

        • bobschacht says:

          To give an example, the EPA ought to be very much involved in the assessment and direction of cleanup. You heard anything substantive about the EPA?? The answer is no, no you haven’t.

          Actually, I have. The last time I heard anything, the EPA ordered BP to stop using Corexit. The result? BP flipped a finger at the EPA and continued using Corexit. So, I guess the WH/DOE? refused to back up the EPA on this, and Lisa Jackson was reduced to doing cameo appearances on CNN, pretending to do stuff.

          I think part of phred’s problem with Napolitano is that she took over a huge enormous bureaucracy created under Bush and staffed by Bush managers. Napolitano is a good administrator, but it takes even a good administrator a while to tame a huge bureaucracy. She probably did a bunch of house-cleaning early on, but this crisis is revealing a new class of personnel issues that she will have to deal with.

          We are seeing the same problems more publicly at the Dept of the Interior with MMS. Salazar did some initial housecleaning, but the present crisis has revealed a deeply embedded institutional culture that will take a while to reform, even after the agency is split up.

          Bob in AZ

        • b2020 says:

          Whatever her competence and intelligence, there is only one fact I need to know about her: she choose to accept a position in the Obama administration, and she has not resigned yet.

          Greenwald today refers to this
          http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0610/ACLU_chief_disgusted_with_Obama.html?showall

          Quote: “I’m not disgusted at President Obama personally. It’s President Obama’s policies on civil liberties and national security issues I’m disgusted by. It’s not a personal attack,” Romero said.

          That is more generosity that I can muster. I am disgusted with Obama the person, and that is not an attack, that is a rational human response to any individual who chooses freely to aid and abet torture. Hostis humanis generis. If Napolitano sees fit to associate herself with such an administration and such a president, then her intelligence and competence are utterly irrelevant.

          Granted, though, that the Katrina 2.0 slow-motion clusterfuck is a hole drilled by Bygones Obama personally, start to indefinitely detained finish, and that Napolitano, whatever her failings, has nothing to do with it. However, if she were to resign in disgust, I’d rather it be over the unacceptable crime of torture, instead of mere White House ineptitude.

        • Mason says:

          She is far, far more than “reasonably intelligent. Furthermore, despite what you may read or believe, Napolitano is not even close to being in charge of the response. The entire matter is being driven by the White House and DOE. The normal functions of all the agencies has been superseded in an extremely bizarre manner on orders from the White House. To give an example, the EPA ought to be very much involved in the assessment and direction of cleanup. You heard anything substantive about the EPA?? The answer is no, no you haven’t. They are perplexed too from my understanding. Same thing in a lot of places. Just because Thad Allen bleats that he is under DHS, you should not buy into that Napolitano is directing everything; I guarantee you she is not. Things are not what they seem. You are dead wrong about who and what Janet Napolitano is.

          Bmaz,

          I think you’re telling us that Obama’s obsession with secrecy and his desire to severely punish whistleblowers applies with equal and perhaps greater force within his administration. That is, there are people in a small inner circle who are in the know, which includes BP, and people within his administration like Janet Napolitano, Lisa Jackson, and Jane Lubchenko who are not within that circle who are expected to do and say what they are told without asking questions. Their desire to be of service and their fear of reprisals for “talking out of school,” keeps them in line for the time being, but they cannot help but wonder what’s up and fear the worst.

          You and I have discussed the sedimentary formation fracturing problem and the absolute necessity for BP’s engineers to intersect the very slender well bore with the relief well far enough above the reservoir to avoid opening another path from the reservoir to the surface, yet close enough to the reservoir to be well below the compromised part of the well. The race against time is to intersect that virtual needle in the proverbial haystack before the well widens into a volcanic vent or the sedimentary formation collapses into the reservoir. I sense that you and I agree that the survival of life on this planet, or most of it, may depend on winning this race against time as Obama shuts out his own people and defers to BP, a proven textbook villain with its own agenda and a racketeering enterprise in the RICO sense of that term.

          Rather disquieting, isn’t it?

  4. bobschacht says:

    That is some seriously good photoshopping!

    But think of the economic implications: All the thousands of people who will be hired to watch tedious hours of raw video, looking for something actionable. Hey, its just like watching TV, right?

    Bob in AZ

    • Starbuck says:

      “That is some seriously good photoshopping!”

      Not!

      Magnify it and look at the skin tones of both Reagan’s face and her bosom, then look at her face. So obvious. It’s Photoshop 101.

  5. PJEvans says:

    They might not get a wedding party along the border, but I expect that they’d get groups of hikers. Or birdwatchers.

  6. Jim White says:

    Once drones are commonplace here, then the push will be to arm them. What comes after that?

    Darkblack is just such a bad influence. Everyone knows smoking is bad for you.

    • ghostof911 says:

      What comes after that?

      If you’re not using your imagination, you can bet that the nice people at Wackenhut, the ArmorGroup, and Xe are using theirs.

  7. BeRad says:

    Is this what is known as ‘bringing the war back home?’ No wait, that had something to do with massive protests, raiding draft offices, pouring blood on selective service records…This time around, it’s the gummint, not the people, which is bringing the war back home. Sure glad we’ve made progress on that front!

  8. SueDe says:

    Couple of things:

    “…if the law and order types in the federal, state and local governments have anything to say about it.” So far it seems there is no one left in government who is NOT a law and order type. No matter who we elect, they vote for wars, they vote for setting up an ungodly bureaucracy called Homeland Security, and none of them made a peep when Obama decided it was legal to send assassins after U.S. citizens who were “suspected” of consorting with “terrorists.”

    Regarding the taking out of U.S. wedding parties, it may be that gays and lesbians should re-think that legalized marriage idea they’ve been favoring, since their wedding parties will be the first ones the drones would home in on, especially if the Republicans are ever put back in charge of national security.

  9. transparait says:

    Hey, why not put guns on them too?

    edit: sorry, I see the usefulness of this idea has already been noted.

  10. cheriej says:

    Is Jan Brewer planning on getting married soon?

    She seems to think the drones are such a good idea…I think she belongs in the giggle house with the rest of the inmates who think the same thing.

  11. JohnJ says:

    With a little bit of thermal imaging, they could keep us safe no matter what room of your house you are, and whatever you are doing.

    (shhh…honey, isn’t that the third time that drone has passed over since we started?)

  12. Mary says:

    That is a scarey good picture.

    I’m just thinking it might be even better if it was Obama instead of Ronnie. Complete with the cig and his marriage to the right.

  13. jerryy says:

    Using the drones for surveillance (speeding tickets, etc) could, sooner rather than later, cause a direct confrontation on the rights of corporations versus the rights of citizens. Many makers of radar guns will rather see speeding charges dropped instead of turning the hardware and the source code to run the hardware over to be examined by competent programmers working for defendants (the manufacturers claim ‘trade secrets’). Additionally, red light camera prosecutions have mixed results since cameras don’t do well when being cross examined.

    Would ‘national security’ be claimed to protect the drone manufacturers’ secrets and override our right to examine evidence thus allowing prosecutions to go forward?

    • workingclass says:

      There is not much need for judges in a Fascist Dictatorship. The police will assign “guilt” quickly and efficiently.

  14. razorbrain says:

    Heh. The first one that flies in through my window will get flushed down the toilet, in pieces if necessary. They can bill me.

  15. onitgoes says:

    I have to recommend based solely on the photoshop. I mean: it’s fan-effen-tastic. woo-hoo.

    The newsie side of this post, otoh, while unsurprising is not so good.

    Thanks for the laugh while I am once again assuming the fetal position and sucking my thumb.

    What’s that about an ill wind not boding well?

  16. eCAHNomics says:

    As I typed on a couple of threads on this subject today, if I didn’t see one in midtown-east Manhattan about a year ago, I saw a tolerable imitation of one. Think they’ve been in use in U.S. for awhile now.

    • victortruex says:

      As I typed on a couple of threads on this subject today, if I didn’t see one in midtown-east Manhattan about a year ago, I saw a tolerable imitation of one. Think they’ve been in use in U.S. for awhile now.

      The local CBS TV station in NYC briefly ran a story on its website, then quickly pulled it down, about a manned drone (technical staff aboard, but piloted from remote location) was used to find the most recent NY terror suspect after he temporarily slipped out of FBI surveillance. Rayne caught a screengrab and put up a thread about it.

  17. CTuttle says:

    Damnit, I want armed Predators patrolling the US-Canada border…! Gotta keep the likes of Dark Black out…! By ‘extreme prejudice’ if need be…! ;-)

  18. gordonot says:

    I think they’ve got ’em small enough to fly up your nose and big enough to fly into the Twin Towers…wait, to late?

  19. seeker561 says:

    I expect a burgeoning domestic market in “stingers” as the rumored black UN helicopters turn into tangible black drones. Then again they may turn up sporting NASCAR like paintjobs featuring the corporate logos of their sponsors.

  20. eCAHNomics says:

    Gee, if the prez & (some) cabinet level officials are so smart and competent, how come teh country is in such a mess. Oh, I get it, it’s all W’s fault.

  21. eCAHNomics says:

    WRT drones, do they fall under the second amendment? Will NRA argue that we can all own them, and armed?

  22. Marion in Savannah says:

    Oh, sweet suffering Jesus… This is just one more reason that I’m very glad that I’m 64½ and both of my parents were dead before they were 70. If I’m lucky I’ll be dead before this shit gets too much worse.

    • Kassandra says:

      I don’t know, we could have a good 20 years of suffering ahead of us before we buy the farm.
      I’m SO glad my mother died before Bush “took” office.

  23. whattheincorporated says:

    Let’s look at a timeline.

    Use of drones for recon > use of drones to kill terrorists > authorization of assassinating american citizens abroad > americans assassinated in drone strike > push to put drones in america for recon >

    How I see the future

    Use of drones to kill “terrorists” > drones are said to be effective and precise enough to use on criminals > first criminal killed by drone strike > media ignores civilian death toll like we do abroad

  24. dmnolan says:

    It’s for our own good. To protect us against ourselves. But I wouldn’t worry about drones because Janet Nepolitano has assured us that we are protected by “rigid protocols.”

  25. eCAHNomics says:

    I don’t know why anyone should be surprised. All this stuff that starts abroad either originated in the U.S., unbeknownst to us (wouldn’t be a bit surprised if drone testing wasn’t carried out extensively on U.S. civilians before being employed militarily), or migrates to U.S. from abroad. Have you all looked at how city police are attired for the most benign crowd control these days? Have you paid attention to the arsenals now under the control of hoodlums who masquerade as small town police?

    • nahant says:

      Very true… mass release would push the earth straight in sever warming and acidification of the oceans from increased CO2 … meaning the bottom of the food chain disappears along with all mollusk creatures.. We feed of of that food chain…

  26. razorbrain says:

    If if will help keep the deficit down, I volunteer right now to have a camera implanted up my ass. I think it’s a duty for every good American to do the same. So “they” don’t have to spend so much trying to see what’s up there.

    • workingclass says:

      I too would willingly accept a butt cam. We could start a group. Like Promise Keepers.

  27. skinla says:

    If you think little bit you will know who could be pushing this kind of business on to American civilians. Most likely, these are the same people:

    – Who have Obama and the Congress in their pocket.
    – Who do not want independent investigation of recent kidnapping and killing of civilians (including Americans) on humanitarian ship sailing to Gaza.
    – Who did not see anything reprehensible about not protecting (and retaliating) Americans citizens on those ships from criminal actions of Israel.
    – Who wanted full body x-ray scan of airport passengers after the panty bomber fiasco. Ex-Homeland Secretary, Michael Chartoff was wanted to sell these machines to the U.S. airports.
    – who have gotten hundreds of millions of dollars of business from Homeland Security installing surveillance systems and fence at the U.S. border in the name of preventing Mexican immigrants.

    All you got to know is that a number of THESE DRONES ARE probably MADE IN ISRAEL. Hey, most of our elected government official, including the President, seems to be working for Israel and not for the people who elected them. They got to provide whatever the masters want (Israel and its Americans Jewish supporters).

  28. GregDiablo says:

    Someone calling into Alex Jones’ radio show the other day said she already saw a truck of these drones in central Texas. She genuinely sounded scared to be relaying this information.

    • seeker561 says:

      Fort Hood is in central Texas, a major staging area for overseas operations. I wouldn’t be too shocked to see just about anything out there.

    • Starbuck says:

      Yeah and these things are made only 40 miles from where I live. Their ads for engineering help looked great, until I realized exactly what they build.

  29. aurora says:

    Fed Ex, huh — that’s how they’ll be delivering packages? and will the USPS be following suit with the Drony Express?

  30. captjjyossarian says:

    That’d work great if they also put RFID chips in everyone.

    They could track all enemies of the state like… antiwar protestors, civil rights activists and little old ladies that conspire in thier bible groups.

  31. workingclass says:

    Flying robots that kill people aptly personify the American Empire. Soon they will be used to kill upity Americans in the United States. Like Greens for example. And their families and neighbors. And groups of people who might be Greens. And fire pups…………………..

Comments are closed.