By Jueseppi B.
It seems since Senator Rand Paul has chosen the subject of drones for his weak ass filibuster,….which by the way, is a stupid attempt by The The TeaTardedRepubliCANT Pseudo-Freudian Psycho-Sexual Secret-Whore Pro-caucasian Pro-Racist Anti-LGBT Anti-Feminist Reich Wing GOPretender Conselfishservative NRAsshole-Gun Loving Nut Bag racist white supremacist caucasian Party, to obstruct government progress….and nothing more……I think it necessary for all you Rand Paul idiots to actually know what the hell a drone is…..how long they have been in use…..and you need to comprehend that drones are NOT USED ON AMERICAN SOIL TO KILL YOU DUMBASS AMERICANS SITTING IN ANY FUCKIN CAFE’.
Sorry, I lost it for a second. Stupidity tends to make me lose my sanity. Temporarily.
Below you’ll find a brief history of these dreaded drones…..but before I get into that, here’s something that struck me last night as Twitterland exploded in support of doofus ass Senator Rand Paul……This dickless wonder of a Senator, who by the way is a flaming racist, is against drones used by the United States Government…..BUT ALL IN FAVOR OF ASSAULT WEAPONS & HANDGUNS KILLING INNOCENT 6 AND 7 YEAR OLD CHILDREN IN SCHOOL.
Senator Rand Paul is against universal background checks, a ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines and any Gun Reform legislation because The NRAsshole told him so.
But he is 13 filibuster hours worth, against drones.
Think about THAT while you praise and “Stand With Rand.” You idiots.
Unmanned aerial vehicle
An unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), commonly known as a drone, is an aircraft without a human pilot on board. Its flight is controlled either autonomously by computers in the vehicle, or under the remote control of a pilot on the ground or in another vehicle.
There are a wide variety of drone shapes, sizes, configurations, and characteristics. Historically, UAVs were simple remotely piloted aircraft, but autonomous control is increasingly being employed.
They are deployed predominantly for military applications, but also used in a small but growing number of civil applications, such as policing, firefighting, and nonmilitary security work, such as surveillance of pipelines. UAVs are often preferred for missions that are too “dull, dirty, or dangerous” for manned aircraft.
History
The earliest attempt at a powered unmanned aerial vehicle was A. M. Low‘s “Aerial Target” of 1916. Nikola Tesla described a fleet of unmanned aerial combat vehicles in 1915. A number of remote-controlled airplane advances followed, including the Hewitt-Sperry Automatic Airplane, during and after World War I, including the first scale RPV (Remote Piloted Vehicle), developed by the film star and model airplane enthusiast Reginald Denny in 1935. More were made in the technology rush during World War II; these were used both to train antiaircraft gunners and to fly attack missions. Nazi Germany also produced and used various UAV aircraft during the course of WWII.Jet engines were applied after World War II, in such types as the Teledyne Ryan Firebee I of 1951, while companies like Beechcraft also got in the game with their Model 1001 for the United States Navy in 1955. Nevertheless, they were little more than remote-controlled airplanes until the Vietnam Era.
The birth of U.S. UAVs (called RPVs at the time) began in 1959 when United States Air Force (USAF) officers, concerned about losing pilots over hostile territory, began planning for the use of unmanned flights. This plan became intensified when Francis Gary Powers and his “secret” U-2 were shot down over the Soviet Union in 1960. Within days, the highly classified UAV program was launched under the code name of “Red Wagon”. The August 2 and August 4, 1964, clash in the Tonkin Gulf between naval units of the U.S. and North Vietnamese Navy initiated America’s highly classified UAVs into their first combat missions of the Vietnam War. When the “Red Chinese” showed photographs of downed U.S. UAVs via Wide World Photos, the official U.S. response was, “no comment.”
Only on February 26, 1973, during testimony before the United States House Committee on Appropriations, the U.S. military officially confirmed that they had been utilizing UAVs in Southeast Asia (Vietnam). While over 5,000 U.S. airmen had been killed and over 1,000 more were either missing in action (MIA), or captured (prisoners of war/POW); the USAF 100th Strategic Reconnaissance Wing had flown approximately 3,435 UAV missions during the war, at a cost of about 554 UAVs lost to all causes. In the words of USAF General George S. Brown, Commander, Air Force Systems Command in 1972, “The only reason we need (UAVs) is that we don’t want to needlessly expend the man in the cockpit.” Later that same year, General John C. Meyer, Commander in Chief, Strategic Air Command, stated, “we let the drone do the high-risk flying … the loss rate is high, but we are willing to risk more of them … they save lives!”
During the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Soviet-supplied surface to air missile batteries in Egypt and Syria caused heavy damage to Israeli fighter jets. As a result, Israel developed the first modern UAV. Israel pioneered the use of UAVs for real-time surveillance, electronic warfare and decoys. The images and radar decoying provided by these UAVs helped Israel to completely neutralize the Syrian air defenses at the start of the 1982 Lebanon War, resulting in no pilots downed. The first time drones were used as proof-of-concept of super-agility post-stall controlled flight in combat flight simulations was with tailless, Stealth-Technology-based three-dimensional Thrust Vectoring flight control jet steering in Israel in 1987.
With the maturing and miniaturization of applicable technologies as seen in the 1980s and 1990s, interest in UAVs grew within the higher echelons of the U.S. military. In the 1990s, the U.S. Department of Defense gave a contract to U.S. corporation AAI Corporation of Maryland along with Israeli company Mazlat. The U.S. Navy bought the AAI Pioneer UAV that was jointly developed by American AAI Corporation and Israeli Mazlat, this type of drone is still in use. Many of these Pioneer and newly developed U.S. UAVs were used in the 1991 Gulf War. UAVs were seen to offer the possibility of cheaper, more capable fighting machines that could be used without risk to aircrews. Initial generations were primarily surveillance aircraft, but some were armed (such as the General Atomics MQ-1 Predator, which utilized AGM-114 Hellfire air-to-ground missiles). An armed UAV is known as an unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV).
As a tool for search and rescue, UAVs can help find humans lost in the wilderness, trapped in collapsed buildings, or adrift at sea.
In February 2013, it was reported that at drones were used by at least 50 countries, several of which made their own – for example Iran, Israel and China.
The first UAV created was the Pioneer, which helps to identify artillery and boats (Carafano & Gudgel, 2007). Since its performance was so exemplary, they began to be used more and more, with new models constantly being introduced. As of 2008, the Air Force employed 5,331 drones, which is twice the number of manned planes (Singer, 2009b). Out of these, the Predators are the most commendable. Unlike other UAVs, the Predator was armed with Hellfire missiles so that it can terminate the target that it locates (Carafano & Gudgel, 2007).
This was done after Predators sighted Osama Bin Laden multiple times but could not do anything about it other than send back images. In addition, the Predator is capable of orchestrating attacks by pointing lasers at the targets (Singer, 2009b). This is important, as it puts a robot in a position to set off an attack. Their overall success is apparent because from June 2005 to June 2006 alone, Predators carried out 2,073 missions, and participated in 242 separate raids (Singer, 2009a).
In contrast to the Predator, which is remotely piloted via satellites by pilots located 7,500 miles away, the Global Hawk operates virtually autonomously (Singer, 2009b). The user merely hits the button for ‘take off’ and for ‘land’, while the UAV gets directions via GPS and reports back with a live feed. Global Hawks have the capability to fly from San Francisco, and map out the entire state of Maine, before having to return (Singer, 2009b).
In addition, some UAVs have become so small that they can be launched from one’s hand and maneuvered through the street (Singer, 2009a). These UAVs, known as Ravens, are especially useful in urban areas such as Iraq, in order to discover insurgents and potential ambushes the next block up (Carafano & Gudgel, 2007). Incidentally, UAVs are useful because that they can float around for days at a time. According to Carafano & Gudgel, insurgents are loathe to stay in the open for more than a few minutes at a time for fear of UAVs locating them (2007).
FAA designation
In the United States, the United States Navy and shortly after the Federal Aviation Administration have adopted the name unmanned aircraft(UA) to describe aircraft systems without a flight crew on board. More common names include UAV, drone, remotely piloted vehicle (RPV),remotely piloted aircraft (RPA), remotely operated aircraft (ROA). These “limited-size” (as defined by the FAI) unmanned aircraft flown in the USA’s National Airspace System, flown solely for recreation and sport purposes such as models, are generally flown under the voluntary safety standards of the Academy of Model Aeronautics, the United States’ national aeromodeling organization.
To operate a UA for non-recreational purposes in the United States, users must obtain a Certificate of Authorization (COA) to operate in national airspace. At the moment, COAs require a public entity as a sponsor. For example, when BP needed to observe oil spills, they operated the Aeryon Scout UAVs under a COA granted to the University of Alaska Fairbanks. COAs have been granted for both land and shipborne operations.
The term unmanned aircraft system (UAS) emphasizes the importance of other elements beyond an aircraft itself. A typical UAS consists of the:
- unmanned aircraft (UA)
- control system, such as Ground Control Station (GCS)
- control link, a specialized datalink
- other related support equipment.
For example, the RQ-7 Shadow UAS consists of four UAs, two GCSs, one portable GCS, one Launcher, two Ground Data Terminals (GDTs), one portable GDT, and one Remote Video Terminal. Certain military units are also fielded with a maintenance support vehicle.
Because of this systemic approach, unmanned aircraft systems have not been included in the United States Munitions List Category VIII – Aircraft and Associated Equipment. Vice versa, the “Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Systems” are clearly mentioned at paragraph 121-16 Missile Technology Control Regime Annex of the United States Munitions List. More precisely, the Missile Technology Control Regime Annex levels rocket and unmanned aerial vehicle systems together.
The term UAS was since adopted by the United States Department of Defense (DOD) and the British Civil Aviation Authority (CAA).
The term used previously for unmanned aircraft system was unmanned-aircraft vehicle system (UAVS).
Classification
UAVs typically fall into one of six functional categories (although multi-role airframe platforms are becoming more prevalent):
- Target and decoy – providing ground and aerial gunnery a target that simulates an enemy aircraft or missile
- Reconnaissance – providing battlefield intelligence
- Combat – providing attack capability for high-risk missions (see Unmanned combat air vehicle)
- Logistics – UAVs specifically designed for cargo and logistics operation
- Research and development – used to further develop UAV technologies to be integrated into field deployed UAV aircraft
- Civil and Commercial UAVs – UAVs specifically designed for civil and commercial applications
They can also be categorised in terms of range/altitude and the following has been advanced as relevant at such industry events as ParcAberporth Unmanned Systems forum:
- Hand-held 2,000 ft (600 m) altitude, about 2 km range
- Close 5,000 ft (1,500 m) altitude, up to 10 km range
- NATO type 10,000 ft (3,000 m) altitude, up to 50 km range
- Tactical 18,000 ft (5,500 m) altitude, about 160 km range
- MALE (medium altitude, long endurance) up to 30,000 ft (9,000 m) and range over 200 km
- HALE (high altitude, long endurance) over 30,000 ft (9,100 m) and indefinite range
- HYPERSONIC high-speed, supersonic (Mach 1–5) or hypersonic (Mach 5+) 50,000 ft (15,200 m) or suborbital altitude, range over 200 km
- ORBITAL low earth orbit (Mach 25+)
- CIS Lunar Earth-Moon transfer
- CACGS Computer Assisted Carrier Guidance System for UAVs
The United States military employs a tier system for categorizing its UAVs.
Classifications by the United States military
The modern concept of U.S. military UAVs is to have the various aircraft systems work together in support of personnel on the ground. The integration scheme is described in terms of a “Tier” system, and is used by military planners to designate the various individual aircraft elements in an overall usage plan for integrated operations. The Tiers do not refer to specific models of aircraft, but rather roles for which various models and their manufacturers competed. The U.S. Air Force and the U.S. Marine Corps each has its own tier system, and the two systems are themselves not integrated.
U.S. Air Force tiers
- Tier N/A: Small/Micro UAV. Role filled by BATMAV (Wasp Block III).
- Tier I: Low altitude, long endurance. Role filled by the Gnat 750.[24]
- Tier II: Medium altitude, long endurance (MALE). Role currently filled by the MQ-1 Predator and MQ-9 Reaper.
- Tier II+: High altitude, long endurance conventional UAV (or HALE UAV). Altitude: 60,000 to 65,000 feet (19,800 m), less than 300 knots (560 km/h) airspeed, 3,000-nautical-mile (6,000 km) radius, 24 hour time-on-station capability. Complementary to the Tier III- aircraft. Role currently filled by the RQ-4 Global Hawk.
- Tier III-: High altitude, long endurance low-observable UAV. Same parameters as, and complementary to, the Tier II+ aircraft. The RQ-3 DarkStar was originally intended to fulfill this role before it was “terminated”. Role now filled by RQ-170 Sentinel.
U.S. Marine Corps tiers
- Tier N/A: Micro UAV. Wasp III fills this role, driven largely by the desire for commonality with the USAF BATMAV.[27]
- Tier I: Role currently filled by the Dragon Eye but all ongoing and future procurement for the Dragon Eye program is going now to the RQ-11B Raven B.
- Tier II: Role currently filled by the ScanEagle.
- Tier III: For two decades, the role of medium range tactical UAV was filled by the Pioneer UAV. In July 2007, the Marine Corps announced its intention to retire the aging Pioneer fleet and transition to the RQ-7 Shadow Tactical Unmanned Aircraft System by AAI Corporation. The first Marine Shadow systems have already been delivered, and training for their respective Marine Corps units is underway.
U.S. Army tiers
- Tier I: Small UAV. Role filled by the RQ-11B Raven.
- Tier II: Short Range Tactical UAV. Role filled by the RQ-7B Shadow 200.
- Tier III: Medium Range Tactical UAV. Role currently filled by the MQ-5A/B Hunter and IGNAT/IGNAT-ER, but transitioning to the Extended Range Multi-Purpose (ERMP) MQ-1C Gray Eagle.
Future Combat Systems (FCS) (U.S. Army) classes
- Class I: For small units. Role to be filled by all new UAV with some similarity to micro air vehicle.
- Class II: For companies (cancelled).
- Class III: For battalions (cancelled).
- Class IV: For brigades. Role to be filled by the RQ-8A/B / MQ-8B Fire Scout.
Unmanned aircraft system
An unmanned aircraft system (UAS) includes ground stations and other elements besides the actual aircraft, the term was first officially used by the FAA in early 2005 and subsequently adopted by DoD that same year in their Unmanned Aircraft System Roadmap 2005–2030. Many people have mistakenly used the term Unmanned Aerial System, or Unmanned Air Vehicle System, as these designations were in provisional use at one time or another. The inclusion of the term aircraft emphasizes that regardless of the location of the pilot and flightcrew, the operations must comply with the same regulations and procedures as do those aircraft with the pilot and flightcrew on board. The official acronym UAS is also used by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and other government aviation regulatory organizations.
The military role of unmanned aircraft systems is growing at unprecedented rates. In 2005, tactical- and theater-level unmanned aircraft alone had flown over 100,000 flight hours in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom, in which they are organized under Task Force Liberty in Afghanistan and Task Force ODIN in Iraq. Rapid advances in technology are enabling more and more capability to be placed on smaller airframes which is spurring a large increase in the number of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (SUAS) being deployed on the battlefield.
The use of SUAS in combat is so new that no formal DoD wide reporting procedures have been established to track SUAS flight hours. As the capabilities grow for all types of UAS, nations continue to subsidize their research and development leading to further advances enabling them to perform a multitude of missions. UAS no longer only perform intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance missions, although this still remains their predominant type. Their roles have expanded to areas including electronic attack, strike missions, suppression and/or destruction of enemy air defense, network node or communications relay, combat search and rescue, and derivations of these themes. These UAS range in cost from a few thousand dollars to tens of millions of dollars, with aircraft ranging from less than one pound to over 40,000 pounds.
When the Obama administration announced in December 2009 the deployment of 30,000 new troops in Afghanistan, there was already an increase of attacks by pilot-less Predator drones against Taliban and al-Qaeda militants in Afghanistan and Pakistan’s tribal areas, of which one probably killed a key member of al-Qaeda. However, neither Osama bin Laden nor Ayman al-Zawahiri was the likely target, according to reports.
According to a report of the New America Foundation, armed drone strikes had dramatically increased under President Obama – even before his deployment decision. There were 43 such attacks between January and October 2009. The report draws on what it deems to be “credible” local and national media stories about the attacks. That compared with a total of 34 in all of 2008, President Bush’s last full year in office.
Between 2006 and 2009, drone-launched missiles allegedly had killed between 750 and 1,000 people in Pakistan, according to the report. Of these, about 20 people were said to be leaders of al-Qaeda, Taliban, and associated groups. Overall, 66% to 68% of the people killed were militants, and 31% to 33% were civilians. U.S. officials disputed the percentage for civilians. The U.S. Air Force has recently begun referring at least to larger UAS like Predator, Reaper, and Global Hawk as Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA), to highlight the fact that these systems are always controlled by a human operator at some location.
However, artificial intelligence is advancing to the point where the aircraft are easily capable of taking off, landing, and flying themselves. Then they simply have to be instructed as to their mission. The military distinguishes between “man in the loop”[piloted] and “man on the loop” [supervised] systems, with “fully autonomous”[issued orders] growing organically from the second into a third category. A.I. systems have been capable of making decisions and planning sequences of actions for decades; as of 2013, few fully autonomous systems have been constructed, but this is more a matter of convenience and technical implementation rather than any fundamental barrier.
To distinguish UAVs from missiles, a UAV is defined as a “powered, aerial vehicle that does not carry a human operator, uses aerodynamic forces to provide vehicle lift, can fly autonomously or be piloted remotely, can be expendable or recoverable, and can carry a lethal or nonlethal payload”. Therefore, cruise missiles are not considered UAVs, because, like many other guided missiles, the vehicle itself is a weapon that is not reused, even though it is also unmanned and in some cases remotely guided.
Uses
UAVs perform a wide variety of functions. The majority of these functions are some form of remote sensing; this is central to the reconnaissance role most UAVs fulfill. Less common UAV functions include interaction and transport.
Remote sensing
UAV remote sensing functions include electromagnetic spectrum sensors, gamma ray sensors, biological sensors, and chemical sensors. A UAV’s electromagnetic sensors typically include visual spectrum, infrared, or near infraredcameras as well as radar systems. Other electromagnetic wave detectors such as microwave and ultraviolet spectrum sensors may also be used, but are uncommon. Biological sensors are sensors capable of detecting the airborne presence of various microorganisms and other biological factors. Chemical sensors use laser spectroscopyto analyze the concentrations of each element in the air.
Commercial aerial surveillance
Aerial surveillance of large areas is made possible with low cost UAV systems. Surveillance applications include: livestock monitoring, wildfire mapping, pipeline security, home security, road patrol and anti-piracy. The trend for use of UAV technology in commercial aerial surveillance is expanding rapidly with increased development of automated object detection approaches.
Domestic policing
Drones are increasingly used for domestic police work in Canada and the United States (a dozen US police forces, including Seattle and Miami, had applied for drone permits by March 2013). Texas politician and commentator Jim Hightower has warned about potential privacy abuses from aerial surveillance.
Oil, gas and mineral exploration and production
UAVs can be used to perform geophysical surveys, in particular geomagnetic surveys where the processed measurements of the differential Earth’s magnetic field strength are used to calculate the nature of the underlying magnetic rock structure. A knowledge of the underlying rock structure helps trained geophysicists to predict the location of mineral deposits. The production side of oil and gas exploration and production entails the monitoring of the integrity of oil and gas pipelines and related installations. For above-ground pipelines, this monitoring activity could be performed using digital cameras mounted on one, or more, UAVs. The InView Unmanned Aircraft System is an example of a UAV developed for use in oil, gas and mineral exploration and production activities.
Transport
UAVs can transport goods using various means based on the configuration of the UAV itself. Most payloads are stored in an internal payload bay somewhere in the airframe. For many helicopter configurations, external payloads can be tethered to the bottom of the airframe. With fixed wing UAVs, payloads can also be attached to the airframe, but aerodynamics of the aircraft with the payload must be assessed. For such situations, payloads are often enclosed in aerodynamic pods for transport.
Scientific research
Unmanned aircraft are uniquely capable of penetrating areas which may be too dangerous for piloted craft. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) began utilizing the Aerosonde unmanned aircraft system in 2006 as a hurricane hunter. AAI Corporation subsidiary Aerosonde Pty Ltd. of Victoria, Australia, designs and manufactures the 35-pound system, which can fly into a hurricane and communicate near-real-time data directly to the National Hurricane Center in Florida.
Beyond the standard barometric pressure and temperature data typically culled from manned hurricane hunters, the Aerosonde system provides measurements far closer to the water’s surface than previously captured. Further applications for unmanned aircraft can be explored once solutions have been developed for their accommodation within national airspace, an issue currently under discussion by the Federal Aviation Administration. UAVSI, the UK manufacturer also produce a variant of their Vigilant light UAS (20 kg) designed specifically for scientific research in severe climates such as the Antarctic.
There have also been experiments with using UAVs as a construction and artwork tool. at locations such as the ETH Zurich.
Armed attacks
MQ-1 Predator UAVs armed with Hellfire missiles are increasingly used by the U.S. as platforms for hitting ground targets. Armed Predators were first used in late 2001 from bases in Pakistan and Uzbekistan, mostly aimed at assassinating high profile individuals (terrorist leaders etc.) inside Afghanistan. Since then, there have been many reported cases of such attacks taking place in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. The advantage of using an unmanned vehicle, rather than a manned aircraft, in such cases is to avoid a diplomatic embarrassment should the aircraft be shot down and the pilots captured, since the bombings take place in countries deemed friendly and without the official permission of those countries.
A Predator based in a neighboring Arab country was used to kill suspected al-Qaeda terrorists in Yemen on November 3, 2002. This marked the first use of an armed Predator as an attack aircraft outside of a theater of war such as Afghanistan.
Questions have been raised about the accuracy of the targeting of UAVs. In March 2009, The Guardian reported allegations that Israeli UAVs armed with missiles killed 48 Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip, including two small children in a field and a group of women and girls in an otherwise empty street. In June, Human Rights Watch investigated six UAV attacks which was reported to have resulted in civilian casualties, and alleged that Israeli forces either failed to take all feasible precautions to verify that the targets were combatants, or failed to distinguish between combatants and civilians.
In July 2009, Brookings Institution released a report stating that in the United States-led drone attacks in Pakistan, ten civilians died for every militant killed. S. Azmat Hassan, a former ambassador of Pakistan, said in July 2009 that American UAV attacks were turning Pakistani opinion against the United States, and that 35 or 40 such attacks only killed 8 or 9 top al-Qaeda operatives.
CIA officials became concerned in 2008 that targets in Pakistan were being tipped off to pending U.S. drone strikes by Pakistani intelligence, when the U.S. requested Pakistani permission prior to launching drone attacks. The Bush administration therefore decided in August 2008 to abandon the practice of obtaining Pakistani government permission before launching missiles from drones, and in the next six months the CIA carried out at least 38 Predator strikes in northwest Pakistan, compared with 10 in 2006 and 2007 combined.
The U.S. has claimed that the Predator strikes killed at least nine senior al-Qaeda leaders, and dozens of lower-ranking operatives, depleting its operational tier in what U.S. officials described as the most serious disruption of al-Qaeda since 2001. It was claimed that the Predator strikes took such a toll on al-Qaeda that militants began turning violently on one another out of confusion and distrust. A senior U.S. counter-terrorism official said: “They have started hunting down people who they think are responsible” for security breaches. “People are showing up dead, or disappearing.”
By October 2009, the CIA claimed to have killed more than half of the 20 most wanted al-Qaeda terrorist suspects in targeted killings using drones. By May 2010, counter-terrorism officials said that drone strikes in the Pakistani tribal areas had killed more than 500 militants since 2008, and no more than 30 (5%) nearby civilians—mainly family members who lived and traveled with the targets. Drones linger overhead after a strike, in some cases for hours, to enable the CIA to count the bodies and attempt to determine which, if any, are civilians. A Pakistani intelligence officer gave a higher estimate of civilian casualties, saying 20% of total deaths were civilians or non-combatants.
One issue with civilian casualties is the relative lack of discrimination of the 100 lb (45 kg) Hellfire, which was designed to eliminate tanks and attack bunkers. Smaller weapons such as the Raytheon Griffin and Small Tactical Munition are being developed as a less indiscriminate alternative, and development is underway on the still smaller, US Navy-developed Spike missile.
The payload-limited Predator A can also be armed with six Griffin missiles, as opposed to only two of the much-heavier Hellfires. Although it may never be known how many civilians have died as a result of U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan, there are estimates of hundreds or thousands of innocent bystanders who have perished in such attacks. Pakistani authorities released statistics indicating that between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2009, U.S. Predator and Reaper drone strikes have killed over 700 innocent civilians.
The website PakistanBodyCount.Org (by Zeeshan-ul-hassan Usmani, a Fulbright Scholar at the Florida Institute of Technology) shows 1065 civilian deaths between June 2004 to January 30, 2010 and tallying 103 drone strikes carried out by the United States. With the increase of drone strikes, according to the most recent story in The International News, January 2010 proved to be a deadly month in Pakistan with 123 innocent civilians killed. In addition, it has been reported that 160 children have died from drone attacks in Pakistan. Further, over 1000 civilians have been injured.
This evidence runs counter to the Obama administration’s claim that “nearly for the past year there hasn’t been a single collateral death” due to drone attacks. According to the February 24, 2010 policy analysis “The Year of the Drone” released by the New America Foundation, the civilian fatality rate since 2004 is approximately 32%. The study reports that 114 reported drone strikes in northwest Pakistan from 2004 to present killed between 830 to 1210 individuals, around 550 to 850 of whom were militants.
After more than 30 drone strikes hit civilian homes in Afghanistan in 2012, President Hamid Karzai demanded that such attacks end, but the practice continues in areas of Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia that are not in war zones. Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter has criticized such use of drones, “We don’t know how many hundreds of innocent civilians have been killed in these attacks…This would have been unthinkable in previous times.”
In 2012, the USAF trained more drone pilots than ordinary jet fighter pilots for the first time.
Singer states that, “an Air National Guard pilot in an F-16 saw flashing lights underneath him while flying over Afghanistan at twenty-three thousand feet and thought he was under fire from insurgents. Without getting required permission from his commanders, he dropped a 500-pound bomb on the lights. They instead turned out to be troops from Canada on a night training mission.” (2009a, p. 43). This is important because if that plane had been a UAV, it would have had more time to make its decision. Since the UAV has long- range cameras, it would have been able to get a visual on the potential target and discover that they were friendly (Singer, 2009a). In addition, it also would not feel fear or adrenaline that could potentially affect the decision of a person who fears for their life (Singer, 2009a).
In February 2013, U.S. senator Lindsey Graham stated that 4,756 people have been killed by U.S. UAVs.
Search and rescue
UAVs will likely play an increased role in search and rescue in the United States. This was demonstrated by the use of UAVs during the 2008 hurricanes that struck Louisiana and Texas. Micro UAVs, such as the Aeryon Scout have been used to perform Search and Rescue activities on a smaller scale, such as the search for missing persons.
For example, Predators, operating between 18,000–29,000 feet above sea level, performed search and rescue and damage assessment. Payloads carried were an optical sensor (which is a daytime and infra red camera) and a synthetic aperture radar. The Predator’s SAR is a sophisticated all-weather sensor capable of providing photographic-like images through clouds, rain or fog, and in daytime or nighttime conditions; all in real-time. A concept of coherent change detection in SAR images allows for exceptional search and rescue ability: photos taken before and after the storm hits are compared and a computer highlights areas of damage.
Conservation
In June 2012, WWF announced it will begin using UAVs in Nepal, to aid conservation efforts, following a successful trial of two aircraft in Chitwan National Park, with ambitions to expand to other countries, such as Tanzania and Malaysia. The global wildlife organization plans to train ten personnel to use the drones, with operational use beginning in the fall.
Forest fire detection
Another application of civil UAVs is prevention and early detection of forest fires. The chief exponent of this type of is the FT-ALTEA, developed by Flightech Systems. The possibility of constant flight, both day and night, makes the methods used until now (helicopters, watchtowers …) becoming obsolete. Its payload is provided by numerous cameras (HD, thermal, hyperspectral …) and multiple sensors that provide real-time emergency services not only information about the location of the outbreak of fire, to many data (wind speed temperature, humidity …) that are helpful for fire crews to conduct fire suppression.
Design and development considerations
UAV design and production is a global activity, with manufacturers all across the world. The United States and Israel were initial pioneers in this technology, and U.S. manufacturers have a market share of over 60% in 2006, with U.S. market share due to increase by 5–10% through 2016. Northrop Grumman and General Atomics are the dominant manufacturers in this industry, on the strength of the Global Hawk and Predator/Mariner systems. Israeli and European manufacturers form a second tier due to lower indigenous investments, and the governments of those nations have initiatives to acquire U.S. systems due to higher levels of capability. European market share represented just 4% of global revenue in 2006.
Development costs for American military UAVs, as with most military programs, have tended to overrun their initial estimates. This is mostly due to changes in requirements during development and a failure to leverage UAV development programs over multiple armed services. This has caused United States Navy UAV programs to increase in cost from 0% to 5% while United States Air Force UAV programs have increased from 60% to 284%.
Existing UAV systems
UAVs have been developed and deployed by many countries around the world. For a list of models by country, see: List of unmanned aerial vehicles. The use of unmanned aerial systems, however, is not limited to state powers: non-state actors can also build, buy and operate these combat vehicles.
The export of UAVs or technology capable of carrying a 500 kg payload at least 300 km is restricted in many countries by the Missile Technology Control Regime. At the center of the American military’s continued UAV research is the MQ-X, which builds upon the capabilities of the Reaper and Predator drones. As currently conceived, the MQ-X would be a stealthier and faster fighter-plane sized UAV capable of any number of missions: high-performance surveillance; attack options, including retractable cannons and bomb or missile payloads; and cargo capacity.
China has exhibited some UAV designs, but its ability to operate them is limited by the lack of high endurance domestic engines, satellite infrastructure and operational experience.
Historical events involving UAVs
- During the Persian Gulf War, Iraqi Army forces surrendered to the UAVs of the USS Wisconsin.
- In October 2002, a few days before the U.S. Senate vote on the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution, about 75 senators were told in closed session that Saddam Hussein had the means of delivering biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction by UAV drones that could be launched from ships off the Atlantic coast to attack U.S. eastern seaboard cities. Colin Powell suggested in his presentation to the United Nations that they had been transported out of Iraq and could be launched against the U.S. It was later revealed that Iraq’s UAV fleet consisted of only a few outdated Czech training drones. At the time, there was a vigorous dispute within the intelligence community as to whether CIA’s conclusions about Iraqi UAVs were accurate. The U.S. Air Force,the agency most familiar with UAVs, denied outright that Iraq possessed any offensive UAV capability.
- The first US targeted UAV killing outside the conventional battlefield took place on November 3, 2002, in the Marib district of Yemen. Six alleged terrorists were killed in their SUV by a UAV-fired missile. The command centre was in Tampa, Florida, USA.
- In December 2002, the first ever dogfight involving a UAV occurred when an Iraqi MiG-25 and a U.S. RQ-1 Predator fired missiles at each other. The MiG’s missile destroyed the Predator.
- The U.S. deployed UAVs in Yemen to search for and kill Anwar al-Awlaki, an American and Yemen imam, firing at and failing to kill him at least once, before he was killed in a drone attack in Yemen on 30 September 2011. The targeted killing of an American citizen was unprecedented. However, nearly nine years earlier in 2002, US citizen Kemal Darwish was one of six men killed by the first UAV strike outside a war zone, in Yemen.
- In December 2011, Iran captured a United States’ RQ-170 unmanned aerial vehicle which flew over Iran, and rejected President Barack Obama‘s request to return it to the US. Iranian officials claim to have recovered data from the U.S. surveillance drone. However, it is not clear how Iran brought it down. There have also been reports that Iran spoofed the GPS signal used by the drone and tricked it into landing on an Iranian runway.
Domestic aerial surveillance
Although UAVs are today most commonly associated with military actions, UAVs are increasingly used by civilian government agencies, businesses, and private individuals. In the United States, for example, government agencies use drones to patrol the nation’s borders, scout property, and hunt down fugitives. One of the first authorized for domestic usage was the ShadowHawk UAV in service in Montgomery County, Texas and is being used by their SWAT and emergency management offices.
Drones over the United States
Surveillance and policing
UAVs can be powerful surveillance tools, capable of carrying face recognition systems, license plate scanners, thermal imaging cameras, open WiFi sniffers, and other sensors. The Electronic Frontier Foundation filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit on January 10, 2012 against the Federal Aviation Administration. As a result of the lawsuit, the FAA released for the first time a list of the names of all public and private entities that have applied for authorizations to fly drones domestically. Some of these government licenses belong to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, a component of the Department of Homeland Security. Drones have been used by CBP to patrol of United States borders since 2005, and the Agency currently owns 10 drones.
A May 2012 report issued by the DHS Inspector General found that CBP “needs to improve planning of its unmanned aircraft systems program to address its level of operation, program funding, and resource requirements, along with stakeholder needs.” Also, despite the Bureau’s limited mission to safeguard the borders, the Bureau often flies missions for the FBI, the Department of Defense, NOAA, local law enforcement, and other agencies. In December 2011, the CBP made headlines when reporters discovered that the agency’s drones were being used to assist local law enforcement in North Dakota without receiving prior approval from the FAA or any other agency.
Individuals in the United States have few legal privacy protections from aerial surveillance conducted through UAVs. In Florida v. Riley, the United States Supreme Court held that individuals on their own private property do not have right to privacy from police observation from public airspace. The weakness of legal protection from UAV surveillance have led to calls from civil liberties advocacy groups for the U.S. government to issue laws and regulations that establish both privacy protections and greater transparency regarding the use of UAVs to gather information about individuals. As an example, the ACLU has warned of a possible “nightmare scenario” in the future where the police might be able with computer technology to combine mobile phone tracking with drone video signals and build up a database of the people’s routine daily movements.
On February 24, 2012, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, joined by over 100 organizations, experts, and members of the public, submitted a petition to the FAA requesting a public rule-making on the privacy impact of drone use in US airspace. In June 2012, Senator Rand Paul and Representative Austin Scott both introduced legislation that would require law enforcement to obtain a warrant before using a drone to conduct criminal surveillance. (Rand Paul is concerned about a warrant before drone usage by law enforcement, but universal background checks on all gun purchases are violating our god given 2nd amendment rights) EPIC has stated that transparency and accountability must be built into the FAA’s system of drone regulation in order to provide basic protections to the public.
While Congress rapidly moves ahead to authorize further use of domestic drones, many remain skeptical regarding privacy concerns. Some privacy scholars argue that the domestic use of drones for surveillance will ultimately benefit privacy by encouraging society to demand greater privacy rights.
Associated today with the theatre of war, the widespread domestic use of drones for surveillance seems inevitable. Existing privacy lawwill not stand in its way. It may be tempting to conclude on this basis that drones will further erode our individual and collective privacy. Yet the opposite may happen. Drones may help restore our mental model of a privacy violation. They could be just the visceral jolt society needs to drag privacy law into the twenty-first century.
Non-police uses
Law enforcement and other government agencies are not the only entities that use UAVs. Private citizens and media organizations use UAVs as well. Occupy Wall Street journalist Tim Pool uses what he calls an Occucopter, for live feed coverage of Occupy movement events. The “occucopter” is an inexpensive Parrot AR.Drone radio controlled quadrotor, with cameras attached and controllable by Android devices or iOSdevices such as the iPhone. In February 2012 an animal rights group used a MikroKopter small helicopter drone to film hunters shooting pigeons in South Carolina. The hunters shot the drone down. UAVs also have been shown to have many other uses in civilian uses such as agriculture, Hollywood, and in the construction industry.
UAVs in popular culture
UAVs have been used in many episodes of the science-fiction television series Stargate SG-1, and a UCAV, called Sentient, was central to the action film Stealth. UAVs are also used in computer and video games such as F.E.A.R., in Famous, Tom Clancy’s Ghost Recon, and the popular Call of Duty and Battlefield franchises.
Public opinion
In February 2013, Fairleigh Dickinson University‘s PublicMind poll found that 48% of American voters think it is “illegal for the U.S. government to target its own citizens living abroad with drone attacks. Just 24% say that it’s legal.” ”The public clearly makes an assumption very different from that of the Obama administration or Mr. Brennan: the public thinks targeting American citizens abroad is out of bounds,” Peter Woolley, founding director of PublicMind and professor of political science at FDU, said to CNN.
In the same poll, however, by a wide six–to-one margin (75%-13%), voters approved of the U.S. military using drones to carry out attacks abroad “on people and other targets deemed a threat to the U.S.” Republicans, men and whites approve more strongly than Democrats, women, and non-whites, but approval is robust in all demographic categories. Voters also approve by a strong three-to-one margin (65%-21%) the CIA using drones to carry out attacks abroad, but this approval is significantly less than approval for the U.S. military carrying out such attacks.
Now that the history/information segment is over, lets talk common sense. Yes, living in America, I comprehend common sense is not that common at all.
Rand Paul, has never a day in his worthless life, fought a war, a battle, an engagement or even a fist fight. If you dumbass Americans wish to “Stand With Rand”, might I suggest you first investigate Rand’s history. He’s a flaming racist exactly like his daddy.
“In June 2012, Senator Rand Paul and Representative Austin Scott both introduced legislation that would require law enforcement to obtain a warrant before using a drone to conduct criminal surveillance. ”
Rand Paul is concerned about a warrant being obtained before drone usage is allowed by law enforcement, but universal background checks on all gun purchases are violating our God given 2nd amendment rights.
Now you tell me this, all you “Stand With Rand” idiots…..which is more of a concern to Americans: Drones used in war zones or as useful aircraft assistance as described above…..or Americans being able to walk into a gun show, or up to the trunk of an automobile in an alley, and purchase automatic/semi-automatic assault weapons & handguns…with NO background checks or the customary 5 day cooling off period…and NO Identification?
You need ID to vote, but no ID is needed to buy weapons of death designed to kill humans.
This asswipe racist Rand Paul, uses the non issue of drones, which he never objected to when his buddy, then President George Dubbya Bush, was using drones, as a reason to block now President Barack Hussein Obama’s Constitutional right to appoint his nominees to vital cabinet positions.
Why did Rand decide to do this jack ass filibuster? R.A.C.I.S.M.
So, to all you “Stand With Rand” dipshits…think this over as you iron your KKK hoodies……When Americans are more concerned about The United States Military using military hardware during times of war than, they are about 27 people (20 children under 8 years of age, in case YOU forgot) being massacred by assault weapons, or Americans being homeless, hungry, poor, unemployed, sick with no health care and this close to sequestration furloughs….America becomes a place I despise.
Rand Paul is an idiot. After all is said and done, what did his filibuster accomplish, because Barack’s appointments will pass.
And drone usage will also continue under Barack Hussein Obama, OUR Black American President.
As it has under past caucasian Presidents Of The United States.
Filed under: Bad News, Bullying, Business, Causes, Celebrity, Comedy, Congress, Court Room/Legal, Democrats/Democratic, Disaster, Dumb Shit, Economy, Event, GOPukes/RepubliCANTS, Gun Control, Gun Violence, History, Jobs, Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security, News, NRA, Opinion, Photographs, Politics, POTUS Obama, Race, Racism, Speech, Stories, The White House, Thoughts Opinions & Ideas, War & the Military, White House Blog, World News Tagged: | 13 Hour Rand Paul Drone Filibuster, Filibuster, GOP, Hewitt-Sperry Automatic Airplane, Nikola Tesla, Rand Paul, Teledyne, UAV, United States, Unmanned aerial vehicle, World War II




























































They were going to use drones in Operation Northwoods too (1962). They have been around for quite sometime. Has anyone here read the declassified document Operation Northwoods? It reads very similar to what happened on 9/11….
If you were to believe the current racist caucasian cabal in D.C., you’d believe the Obama administration and especially Barack Obama himself, invented the use of drones and bombs in warfare.
Google is a powerful tool.
[...] Unmanned Aerial Vehicle: AKA Drones (theobamacrat.com) [...]
As long as there are no weapons carried by these drones and if Homeland Security wants to use them on American citizens they MUST get a court order. I would feel better about drones if they dismissed the Patriot Act; which is very intrusive to our constitutional rights. Drones have been used for decades now. If you read the declassified documents Operation Northwoods, they were planning on using drones on American soil to start a war with Cuba. If they could do that 50 years ago, you could understand the fear that people have about using them. I am personally against them period!
I’m way more concerned with the ease of obtaining assault weapons/handguns/high capacity magazines than I am with drones, or drone usage on American soil. No drone has ever walked into an American building in an American city during an American day, and killed innocent American citizens.
Maybe I’m just silly but common sense, logic & critical thinking tells me I am in greater danger of dying from a Bushmaster 223, in the hands of some NRAsshole, who didn’t have to pass a background check or even supply current valid ID, than I am of dying from a drone strike.
You should be concerned about it all. Read the Northwoods documents, Our gov did 9/11 too. Don’t trust them.
I was trying to reblog this, but for some reason it never loads the reblog button anymore;-/
I am disturbed by the politics getting in the way of common sense. The violence, wars, drones, invasion of privacy, Patriot Act etc under Bush were not ok with me-tho they were apparently fine with lots of people who now object to the exact same things under Obama, presumably because he is a Democrat and a black man.
I find it disturbing that we would even see a competition whether to do background checks for guns, OR stop killing innocent people whether we are using drones, soldiers or missiles-ALL of these things are common sense.
Every way we can make less violence, more freedom, privacy,caring and community should be explored. Every way we kill people for ANY reason should be limited or eliminated.
I am under no illusion that the “War on Terror”, War on Drugs or any other WAR is protecting ME from anything.
They are ALL protecting corporate profits and that is all.
I am heartbroken when Democrats join in the whole bloodbaths for dollars party, no matter why they do it.
I prefer President Obama to be our President for many reasons, but I am losing hope that any President no matter how wise, compassionate or dedicated can now turn our “military industrial complex” aside from its voracious orgy of killing and profit.
I thought if ANY one could do it, Barack Obama would be the one. But it seems that Americans routinely believe that office has far more reach and power than it really has.
We also desperately want to believe that what Eisenhower warned us about all those years ago is some sort of chimera, or conspiracy theory-but who would be in a better position to know than the President?
And how likely is it to be just a coincidence that the next President, who took that warning to heart and acted on it, AND the Presidential candidate after him(RFK) who also did so were both murdered?
War is never the answer, no matter what the question. So for me, tho I admire and support my President, Barack Obama, I am no more supportive of these policies when he is the figurehead in front of them than I was when that figurehead was dubya.
I personally feel great compassion and sympathy for President Obama, because I find it very difficult to imagine that a man with his knowledge, his past of activism for the people, his compassion for and understanding of others can take these actions, sign off on these policies and be the figurehead for these things he surely did not design, without great suffering in his own heart, conscience and soul.
I could imagine men like Reagan, Bush I&II, even Clinton relegating the deaths of brown children in places like El Salvador, Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine or Pakistan to the realm of “collateral damages” or acceptable risk.
But our President now has obviously compassion for children in his heart, as we saw after Sandy Hook, and he has brown children of his own. I believe it would take a nearly psychotic form of denial for him to be able to accept such trite and obviously false excuses, and feel comfortable with these actions. (like drone strikes that kill children)
I believe if the corporate-military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about did not now have an unreasonable level of influence over our government, President Obama would have changed the course we are on, from one of endless war and violence to one of of peace, renewal, technological breakthroughs and improvement of the well being of the mass of humanity both here in America and around the world.
I cannot feign support for things that are fundamentally wrong just because someone I believe in is forced to front for them-especially when it is plain that had he the freedom to choose, he would close Guantanamo, he would bring our troops home from the wars and engage in diplomacy to prevent more wars instead of killing people to supposedly solve problems.
Barack Obama is too educated and too intelligent to follow the bellicose course we are now on by his own design. It is a course doomed to fail-any student of history knows that.
When I read in the paper this week that a Democrat I once admired (Barbara Boxer) sponsored a bill to require us to go to war when a foreign power(Israel) decides we should, and a gun loving Republican spent 13 hours filibustering a nomination in protest of war machines, I thought I had woken up on the other side of Alice’s mirror.
As long as the 1% can keep us divided and bickering over details, they can continue to play marionnettes with our politicians, and “The SIMS” with our government and country.
That is what disturbs me most about all this political theater-it really is a repeat of the bread and circuses while Rome was falling into ruin.
Perhaps I am naive, but I did my graduate work in globalization and international relations, so I am pretty clear on how things work.People tell me I am wrong and Obama is just like the rest, that he is just as power mad and greedy etc but I just do not see that in him.
He is making the best of what he has to work with, but I believe the violent agenda is not what he would choose-but what good would following the Kennedy brothers into martyrdom do? He is doing as much good as he CAN do-but I think we should be aware rather than allow the 1% to use his goodness to sell us their violence.
I agree 5000%, ALL wars & killing of humans is the wrong method for solving any issue we might have. I am not clear how we humans should handle conflicts but death is a bit overkill, and no pun is intended. My beef, as it were, is with using things this Black American President does against him, while applauding the very same things done by past caucasian POTUS as “American”.
Racism is a very ugly thing.
As for you being unable to reblog….WP has been mucking up the site for weeks now, just like Facebook, WP can’t seem to leave perfect alone.
I hope you are doing good ohnwentsya.
My beef, as it were, is with using things this Black American President does against him, while applauding the very same things done by past caucasian POTUS as “American”.
Absolutely! People go against the rest of their stated beliefs just to oppose something because it is Obama in charge, that they had no problem with before. It is bizarre.
And they deny their actions and attitudes are racist-I’ve never seen such a motley collection of absurd accusations online as I have seen about our current President.
I think that is why the 1% allowed Barack Obama to get into the running in the first place-they knew they could use that dynamic to their benefit.
What I had hoped, and still do tho with less surety, is that he is playing a mean game of chess with them and will, in the end turn the tables on them, and use the position he has achieved to help us create the deep level changes we all want to see.
If he is able to stop the Keystone XL, he will be remembered not only as the first non-white President, but as the President who put America on the path to sustainability and a positive future and restored the hope in people that the world can and will be run by us, not the 1%.
Writing about IdleNoMore and it’s connection to environmental justice, I was completely shocked at the level of blatant racism that at least some people still feel totally comfortable displaying on public news sites.
With people like Justice Scalia trying to pretend it isn’t an issue, there are so many who seem to take for granted that their racist attitude is *normal*.
I am very grateful that you are exposing it every day and calling them on their idiocy, because every time I’ve tried to fight it, I end up crying (it doesn’t stop me trying, just don’t feel very effective!!)
My husband who teases me for using the internet, blogging, reading blogs etc (mainly because I get upset by the idiots) and has no interest in any of it has heard of your blog in a good way-so you are definitely having an impact!
(He tends to confuse racists as when they call him “Chief” he thanks them for being aware that he is in charge;-)
People like you….will help save our planet. We need about 12 billion more just like you.
I completely agree with using drones. Think of the “stand-off” that kills police. Think of the little boy kidnapped and held in a bunker where a drone could identify the human’s locations from their heat. People are so fucking paranoid! (Excuse my French.)
People, Americans, are so stupid. The POTUS has NO authority to use drones on American soil against criminals…that falls under the jurisdiction of local law enforcement.
You should be paranoid if you knew what I know!
Sorry, I said what I am worried about. you worry about drones. I’ll worry about what worries me.
My brain works on common sense, logic & critical thinking. No offense meat, but knowing what you know would fuck up my shit.
Well… governments are creepy. Not much can be done about that. That’s why I tend to lean toward the notion that less government and more liberty is the way to go. That said….
I think the suspension of Habeas Corpus and the use of military hardware to take out American Citizens in extraordinary circumstances started with Washington in the Whiskey Rebellion, and was pretty much decided for all time by Lincoln in 1861. Lots of people screamed about it at the time, but history validated the measures. So unless Rand Paul regards the death of Albert Sidney Johnston and a couple of hundred thousand other Americans to be the murder of U.S. Citizens by a totalitarian government, he might want to pipe down, This precedent was repeated by President U.S. Grant with military actions against the Ku Klux Klan.that put down it’s first manifestation, and kept it down for many years. On the other hand, this power was abused with an attack on protesting WWI veterans in the 1920′s, and many times has been abused, by proxy and directly, during the Labor Movement, ( The White People Movement nobody is supposed to know about.)
I don’t give a blank check to Government to tread on me, but I think Mr. Holder was making it very clear that the use of that kind of force, without due process, would be an act taken against a major threat to the security of the nation and it’s people. I think Mr. Holder is simply stating what most Americans would expect. But more than that, he is stating a position that was staked by our government, practically from day one.
This entire “drone” issue is just the latest tactic by the racist TeaTardedRepubliCANT party to draw attention from the real issue at hand, jobs, unemployment, sequester cuts, gun reform, SS, Medicare, Medicaid, WIC, furloughs of government employees. Remember The Ground Zero Mosque?
But I certainly agree with you, that covering the dereliction of the GOP in addressing more important issues, and the racial/racist undercurrents of their relentless opposition to anything this president tries to do is the motive behind the whole flap. In that sense, yes, it’s much like the Mosque mess.
But there is another aspect to this. What Rand Paul is doing here is conflating the rights of Americans to defend themselves from their government, i.e. use of drones and lethal force by the police without due process [ An issue where the Obama Administration seems even more aggressive than Bush ], as opposed to the role of Government to protect the people from foreign and domestic threats, which is what Eric Holder is talking about, [ also an area where the Obama administration seems more aggressive than Bush.] It is pretty clear Obama is not going to allow another 9/11 on his watch, which is fine by me. It is also clear Obama has escalated the war on drugs and expansion of police powers to that end, which I do not support. It’s apples and oranges really, and Rand Paul is screaming that both are bananas. Kind of like him.
To be honest, at this time in American history, I’d rather have a government controlled by Barack than a government controlled by Koch loving, racist Congressional representatives such as Rand, McCain, Graham and Bachmann. I trust this administration to do whats best for America. Which includes protection from domestic terrorism.
I can’t imagine any time in American history that I would not prefer Barrack over that crowd. And twice on Sunday.
I thought you’d be a tad bit more relaxed with Barack behind the controls. Politics since 2008 have never been dull for a moment.
Great piece so I will keep it simple. The best part of Rand Paul ran down his mothers leg after his no good daddy prematurely ejaculated his racist DNA. Too bad the shit-kicking slut wasn’t a consistent swallower=We wouldn’t have to be subjected to the views of this hate filled hypocrite.
Yes, you summed it up pretty good for me Mr. Daryl.
THANK YOU FOR THIS VALUABLE INFORMATION REGARDING THE HISTORICAL USE OF “DRONES”. THESE CRAZY “POLI-TRICK-ANS, LIKE RACIST RAND, ACT LIKE PRESIDENT OBAMA WAS THE FIRST TO UTILIZE THEM! I WILL SPREAD THIS INFORMATION AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE TO SHUT UP THOSE SORE LOSERS AND “HATERS” , THE REBUKE-ICANS.
Thank you Ms. Evelyn.