Adonis Diaries

Posts Tagged ‘police State

USA attacked by drones: Sooner than expected…

By 2020, it is estimated that as many as 30,000 drones will be used in US domestic airspace

Drones on domestic surveillance duties are already deployed by police and corporations. In time, they will likely be fitted with missiles and weapons, and hovering over US skies

I have a question. What operations are far less complex and cheaper to execute:

1. Sending kamikazes in commercial airplanes, or

2. Dispatching drones fitted with powerful missiles, and controlled from outside US territories, and targeting  sensitive sites like nuclear centers, depots of chemical weapons, depleted uranium bombs, electrical communication centers….

If your answer is that the second option is far easier to plan and execute, then why Obama is intent on giving ideas to these extremist jihadists, by targeting their potential leaders with drones every week, and using double tap tactics to kill the rescue teams?

 published in the, on Dec. 21, 2012 under: ”

The coming drone attack on America”

“People often ask me, in terms of my argument about “ten steps” that mark the descent to a police state or closed society, at what stage we are.

With the importation of what will be tens of thousands of drones, by both US military and by commercial interests, into US airspace, with a specific mandate to engage in surveillance and with the capacity for weaponization – which is due to begin in earnest at the start of the new year – it means that the police state is now officially here.

In February of this year, Congress passed the FAA Reauthorization Act, with its provision to deploy fleets of drones domestically. Jennifer Lynch, an attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, notes that this followed a major lobbying effort, “a huge push by […] the defense sector” to promote the use of drones in American skies: 30,000 of them are expected to be in use by 2020, some as small as hummingbirdsmeaning that you won’t necessarily see them, tracking your meeting with your fellow-activists, with your accountant or your congressman, or filming your cruising the bars or your assignation with your lover, as its video-gathering whirs.

Others will be as big as passenger planes. Business-friendly media stress their planned abundant use by corporations: police in Seattle have already deployed them.

An unclassified US air force document reported by CBS (pdf) news expands on this unprecedented and unconstitutional step – one that formally brings the military into the role of controlling domestic populations on US soil, which is the bright line that separates a democracy from a military oligarchy.

(The US constitution allows for the deployment of National Guard units by governors, who are answerable to the people; but this system is intended, as is posse comitatus, to prevent the military from taking action aimed at US citizens domestically.)

The air force document explains that the air force will be overseeing the deployment of its own military surveillance drones within the borders of the US; that it may keep video and other data it collects with these drones for 90 days without a warrant – and will then, retroactively, determine if the material can be retained – which does away for good with the fourth amendment in these cases.

While the drones are not supposed to specifically “conduct non-consensual surveillance on on specifically identified US persons”, according to the document, the wording allows for domestic military surveillance of non-“specifically identified” people (that is, a group of activists or protesters) and it comes with the important caveat, also seemingly wholly unconstitutional, that it may not target individuals “unless expressly approved by the secretary of Defense”.

In other words, the Pentagon can now send a domestic drone to hover outside your apartment window, collecting footage of you and your family, if the secretary of Defense approves it. Or it may track you and your friends and pick up audio of your conversations, on your way to protest or vote or talk to your representative, if you are not “specifically identified”, a determination that is so vague as to be meaningless.

What happens to those images, that audio? “Distribution of domestic imagery” can go to various other government agencies without your consent, and that imagery can, in that case, be distributed to various government agencies; it may also include your most private moments and most personal activities. The authorized “collected information may incidentally include US persons or private property without consent”. Jennifer Lynch of the Electronic Frontier Foundation told CBS:

In some records that were released by the air force recently … under their rules, they are allowed to fly drones in public areas and record information on domestic situations.

This document accompanies a major federal push for drone deployment this year in the United States, accompanied by federal policies to encourage law enforcement agencies to obtain and use them locally, as well as by federal support for their commercial deployment. That is to say: now HSBC, Chase, Halliburton etc can have their very own fleets of domestic surveillance drones. The FAA recently established a more efficient process for local police departments to get permits for their own squadrons of drones.

Given the Department of Homeland Security militarization of police departments, once the circle is completed with San Francisco or New York or Chicago local cops having their own drone fleet – and with Chase, HSBC and other banks having hired local police, as I reported here last week – the meshing of military, domestic law enforcement, and commercial interests is absolute. You don’t need a messy, distressing declaration of martial law.

And drone fleets owned by private corporations means that a first amendment right of assembly is now over: if Occupy is massing outside of a bank, send the drone fleet to surveil, track and harass them. If citizens rally outside the local Capitol? Same thing.

As one of my readers put it, the scary thing about this new arrangement is deniability: bad things done to citizens by drones can be denied by private interests – “Oh, that must have been an LAPD drone” – and LAPD can insist that it must have been a private industry drone. For where, of course, will be the accountability from citizens buzzed or worse by these things?

Domestic drone use is here, and the meshing has begun: local cops in Grand Forks, North Dakota called in a DHS Predator drone – the same make that has caused hundreds of civilian casualties in Pakistan – over a dispute involving a herd of cattle. The military roll out in process and planned, within the US, is massive: the Christian Science Monitor reports that a total of 110 military sites for drone activity are either built or will be built, in 39 states. That covers America.

We don’t need a military takeover: with these capabilities on US soil and this air force white paper authorization for data collection, the military will be effectively in control of the private lives of American citizens. And these drones are not yet weaponized.

“I don’t think it’s crazy to worry about weaponized drones. There is a real consensus that has emerged against allowing weaponized drones domestically. The International Association of Chiefs of Police has recommended against it,” warns Jay Stanley, senior policy analyst at the ACLU, noting that there is already political pressure in favor of weaponization:

“At the same time, it is inevitable that we will see [increased] pressure to allow weaponized drones. The way that it will unfold is probably this: somebody will want to put a relatively ‘soft’ nonlethal weapon on a drone for crowd control. And then things will ratchet up from there.”

And the risk of that? The New America Foundation’s report on drone use in Pakistan noted that the Guardian had confirmed 193 children’s deaths from drone attacks in seven years. It noted that for the deaths of ten militants, 1,400 civilians with no involvement in terrorism also died. Not surprisingly, everyone in that region is traumatized: children scream when they hear drones. An NYU and Stanford Law School report notes that drones “terrorize citizens 24 hours a day”.

If US drones may first be weaponized with crowd-control features, not lethal force features, but with no risk to military or to police departments or DHS, the playing field for freedom of assembly is changed forever. So is our private life, as the ACLU’s Stanley explains:

“Our biggest concerns about the deployment of drones domestically is that they will be used to create pervasive surveillance networks. The danger would be that an ordinary individual once they step out of their house will be monitored by a drone everywhere they walk or drive. They may not be aware of it. They might monitored or tracked by some silent invisible drone everywhere they walk or drive.”

“So what? Why should they worry?” I asked.

“Your comings and goings can be very revealing of who you are and what you are doing and reveal very intrusive things about you – what houses of worship you are going to, political meetings, particular doctors, your friends’ and lovers’ houses.”

I mentioned the air force white paper. “Isn’t the military not supposed to be spying on Americans?” I asked.

“Yes, the posse comitatus act passed in the 19th century forbids a military role in law enforcement among Americans.”

What can we do if we want to oppose this? I wondered. According to Stanley, many states are passing legislation banning domestic drone use.

Once again, in the fight to keep America a republic, grassroots activism is pitched in an unequal contest against a militarized federal government.


Most probably you are not aware or you are not taking seriously the fact that everything you write, say, or move on social platforms (Tweeter, Facebook…) or on your portable phone is recorded and coded, second by second, somewhere in Big Brothers intelligence agencies on the superpower supercomputer intelligence gathering centers.  If you are connected and manages to secure clearances then, you may have access to your big file and write your diary and autobiography.  Big Brother can know you far better than you know yourself and his analysis is far more accurate and precise than your well-intentioned introspection work.  Big Brother is able to analyse your desires, your preferences, your best friends, and your potential enemies better than you can:  You are leaving behind you a numeric trace anytime you write, talk, or move.

Social scientists no longer have to run complex experiments on live subjects or handing out questionnaires and then collecting data.  Social scientists and research psychologists with access to valuable pieces of intelligence (research usually instigated by government and private enterprises linked to government) have located an inestimable trove of zillion of data.  Social scientists can now predict individual behavior and social behavior mathematically.  They can predict accurately the product and services that will enjoy great success within a week of its launching on the market.  They can predict election outcomes with great accuracy.  Social scientists discovered that with all our unpredictability we end up behaving in mathematical trends.  There is a breaking point in any trends when qualitative shift sets in instantaneously.  Movements start with individual liking and preferences and then peer pressures and mass communication decide on the outcome of a product, a service, or a candidate.  Social scientists track number of “buzz” generated by social platform users to comprehend social trends.

Before this outbreak of fast communication, social scientists felt the heat of being labelled as quasi-scientists; which means dealing in soft sciences that offer suggestions and options rather than accurate answers.  Since mankind has hundreds of variables to be controlled in order for any experiment to be valid and not ending up to have confounding results (results that hide the effects of pertinent variables that were not controlled) then, social scientists and psychologists had to run difficult and time-consuming experiments on hundreds of willing subjects and still feeling not satisfied with the results.

Now, social scientists can selected and stratify millions of data and still deal with enough cases that reduce hazard errors to the bare minimum.  Data is no longer the beast; the problem is how to access data without antagonizing Big Brother.

The only dilemma is: “How can we prevent the restauration of a police State?”  The police State has been around since antiquity and didn’t need so much data to institute efficient ideological political systems.  This new trend in instant communication is playing to the advantage of the common people in making a difference and preventing further exacerbation of policing mentality and trends.




June 2023

Blog Stats

  • 1,522,235 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by

Join 770 other subscribers
%d bloggers like this: