Unmanned Aerial Drones Coming Soon Above U.S. 841
cnet-declan writes "Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) have been flying over Iraq and Afghanistan, but now the Bush administration wants to use them for domestic surveillance. A top Homeland Security official told Congress today, according to this CNET News.com article, that: "We need additional technology to supplement manned aircraft surveillance and current ground assets to ensure more effective monitoring of United States territory." One county in North Carolina is already using UAVs to monitor public gatherings. But what happens when lots of relatively dumb drones have to share airspace with aircraft carrying passengers? A pilot's association is worried."
Well you know that old saying (Score:5, Insightful)
My new sig seems even more appropriate than usual.
"Security" makes it all OK? (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought that actions like appropriating the military for civilian law enforcement, spying on US citizens within the US, etc. were illegal. Why doesn't anyone seem to give a shit anymore?
We can't control our own borders... (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone else find that just a little weird?
Re:We can't control our own borders... (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyone else find that just a little weird?
The people in charge can control the borders. They just choose not to.
Re: Wryness (Score:1, Insightful)
There are a number of reasons, actually. (Score:4, Insightful)
The first is the same bread-and-circuses problem that plagued the Roman Empire. As long as they have beer and football, Mountain Dew and XBox, or their cell phones and MTV, most Americans are quite content.
The second is a lousy mass media. Many people who might take a stand against anti-freedom activities such as this aren't even aware of the issue, just because it isn't reported well by major news outlets.
The third is a lack of understanding. Low-quality history lessons in schools, often teaching what amounts to idealistic propaganda, have resulted in many youths (and now adults) not even being able to comprehend the issues at hand. They are unaware of how such 'security' measures were the hallmarks of numerous totalitarian regimes, just in the 20th century alone.
It's a multifaceted problem, and no solution is readily available.
Homeland... and the future... (Score:3, Insightful)
2084 (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyway, I'm too drunk to continue so please correct and extend what I've said. Goodnight.
Everybody is blinded (Score:5, Insightful)
Contrarian view (Score:2, Insightful)
The first is the same bread-and-circuses problem that plagued the Roman Empire. As long as they have beer and football, Mountain Dew and XBox, or their cell phones and MTV, most Americans are quite content.
Funny you should mention beer, football, cell phones, mass media, and MTV in your post about why UAV surveillance is evil.
Most people are disgusted by the post-SuperBowl riots that envitably ensue when a few celebrating football fans, drunk with beer, start using the occasion as an opportunity to cause mayhem. UAVs monitoring a crowd can make sure that troublemakers are quickly identified and subdued by police before they incite a violent riot.
MTV and other youth-oriented mass media are fairly blatant in their encouragement of young people to protest the G8 summit or the meeting of the World Bank by going ape shit. Gone are the days of peaceful protests. Leaders of political groups have realized that causing mayhem is one sure-fire way of attracting attention (positive or negative -- it doesn't matter) to their cause and making life tough for their political enemies. Attempts by police to remove troublemakers from the crowd of mostly-peaceful demonstrators is foiled as highly-organized groups use cell phones to adapt to police movements in real-time.
It's a multifaceted problem, and no solution is readily available.
Oh, indeed it is a multifaceted problem. It's not clear to me, however, that you have considered the other facet of surveillance and what it means in today's society. Technology is a tool. It can be used for good or for evil.
GMD
Time to move... (Score:5, Insightful)
There are only two choice at this point in my opinion:
1) Openly take back the government by hook or by crook. This is costly in life, money, and security but has been shown by other people of the world to work.
or
2) Leave the country until it collapses or someone cleans it up. Depending on how you look at it this could be construed as an abandonment of one's responsibilities as a US citizen but those of you with family and small children, like me, should seriously think about what kind of country they are going to grow up in. If they can't defend themselves then you have to move them elsewhere.
This is one of those times I wish I hadn't been right to wear my tinfoil. I wish I could see a path to be able to remove it. But I don't see that in my lifetime especially if these things get worse as I suspect they will.
In my opinion this is one step before the wall.
(Why isn't this article in the YRO section?)
I await the inevitable mod down by those that think I'm OT, Troll, Overrated, or Flamebait...
Re:Israel does this already... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:"Security" makes it all OK? (Score:5, Insightful)
Your take on democracy is a joke, and you don't seem to care while your over-inflated military launches illegal invasions against countries with oil or strategic significance. Your secret service and other agencies and corporations prop up dictators while it suites them (e.g. Saddam Hussein, Pervez Musharraf, the Israeli occupation of Palestine, the Teliban), giving them power, sophisticated weapons of mass destruction (missiles, illegal armaments, fighter jets), all while turning a blind eye to their various crimes (genocide, drug trafficking, torture, etc.), and of course giving them lots and lots of money.
You don't care about corruption at home (e.g. Florida vote rigging), you don't care about inaction at home (e.g. New Orleans), you don't care that you have a completely insane attitude to firearms (everybody should have one (which the rest of the world sees as ludicrous)), drugs (the war on drugs can be won, all pot smokers are criminals, drug abuse is a disease (for crying out loud)), etc., etc.), and you actually voted in George W. Bush. Is that guy really the very best example of humanity you could find to be your surpreme leader?
To the rest of the Western world, and then some, the U.S. is a country of lazy, fat, stupid, nut jobs who are too pathetic to question their leaders, question their government, or question the U.S. democratic system which keeps things as bad as they are. You are quite simply hopeless. All (a very few of) you do is winge and wonder how your rights could be slowly ebbing away and why nobody cares. Well *YOU* don't care, or you'd be protesting in the streets, you'd be throwing down your governement, you'd be routing out corruption, you'd curtail the corporations who would otherwise bleed the world dry for the sake of their shareholders' greed.
Who watches the watchers? (Score:2, Insightful)
Thats great, because I hear that naked people have the most to hide [popealien.com]
Re:2084 (Score:2, Insightful)
ONLY the World Trade Center buildings. (Score:2, Insightful)
Answer: ONLY the World Trade Center buildings.
I can accept a loss of structural integrity. I cannot see the physics behind a completely symmetrical collapse of THREE buildings.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
WHAT IS WRONG WITH THESE MORONS? (Score:4, Insightful)
What this says to me is that the Bush administration is fscking terrified that the tall grass is full of terrorists, and that we have zero resources capable of dealing with them in their own space (the CIA having been preoccupied with telling the boss what he wants to hear), and have so pissed off our former friends who might actually have some field intelligence, but would now prefer to see us twist in the wind, making an excellent target to draw out the terrorists.
Actually, that last bit doesn't hold water, 'cause plenty of European nations have been hit since 9-11. If anyone had any field intelligence, it would be used.
But why aren't we deploying surveillance drones over Saudi Arabia, or at least Pakistan? And we certainly ought to have every pile of rubble with a roof over it in Afghanistan bugged.
But this continued insistence on domestic surveillance looks for all the world as if the Bush administration is on the side of the terrorists, or is at least gearing up to declare martial law and replace our broken, wobbly charicature of a representative democracy with a theocratic monarchy.
Either that, or they're just incredibly, unbelievably inept.
Shouldn't be a problem?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Are they armed? How long until they are?
Re:Closing down of airspace (Score:5, Insightful)
So unless most airspace is declared class B, it's not really an issue. I really don't think the FAA / ATC want to deal with the millions of clearance requests, etc they'd encounter if they did something so drastic.
What's more likely is that they'll swiss-cheese the airspace with temporary flight restrictions (TFRs) around areas where the drones operate. Presumably they could become so numerous as to make private flight planning a bit difficult. Before then, however, there will probably be enough crashes with drones to result in them be forced into small saftey zones. If the Predator is any indication, there will be many, many crashes as UAVs get used more extensively -- which would totally undermine any safety-selling approach that might be tried.
Parent post summarized in one sentence: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Israel does this already... (Score:5, Insightful)
Israel has lots of unamerican "problems", like a state religion and the draft. We don't want those things here.
Re:There are a number of reasons, actually. (Score:5, Insightful)
You seem to be missing a point. That point being that the first 3 wars that you mentioned actually had goals that were achievable. The latter does have achievable goals. Or are you so naive to think that a "war on terrorism" can actually be won?
You also seem to be justifying an erosion of freedoms as ok and something that'll be returned after the conflict ends. Well since this war cannot be won, those freedoms will never return.
For that matter, what justifies this increase in surveillance? Are there operatives about everywhere? Must we fear everyone?
If we all remember the Simpsons episode (paraphrase):
Lisa: I have a rock. It keeps bears away.
Homer: How do I know this rock works.
Lisa: Do you see any bears around?
Momer: I'll give you $10 for it.
Lise: Dad, it doesn't really work.
Homer: $20!
Thus the administration is keeping everyone safe from the terrorists. Because do you see any of them around. Let's just keep letting them do whatever they want.
I've got news for you simpletons (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Goddamn Homeland Security Slush Fund... (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, please. I'm guessing that you only pay attention to negative details about people you disagree with. Look around some blue states now and then. Tell me why back-woods suburbs need a fleet of SUV patrol "cars" and a million dollar 4" thick bullet-proof vestibule in their police station lobby when the only violent crime in town in the last decade involved a drunk guy and a knife. Pick a party... Pick a state... They're all guilty of the pork.
Also, your last sentence doesn't seem to mean what you wanted it to mean... Either that or you have a really screwy vision of who needs the funds.
Re:the pilots shouldn't worry.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I wish the article said what kind of UAV is going to be used, because they can get pretty big: the RQ-1 Predator [wikipedia.org] is comperable in length, height, and weight to a Cessna 152 [wikipedia.org], and in wingspan it's 15 feet longer. The wrong paint scheme could render predator-sized UAV practically invisible, and a smaller UAV could easily be missed by a pilot. Given the damage that birds can do, a collision with all but the smallest ones could cause catastrophic damage to a small plane like a 152. I suspect that predator-sized UAVs will be out of budget for most applications, which means that pilots will have to start watching out for smaller and smaller traffic. The last thing pilots need, especially recreational pilots who don't fly daily, is another distraction to watch for. There are all sorts of restrictive rules for planes and pilots: I don't see why any of them should be relaxed for UAVs. Indeed, they should be subject to closer scrutiny simply because they have no brain.
If UAVs remain doing the jobs they're currently doing: monitoring borders and ports, I don't forsee many problems. If these things start making their way into more populated areas, big issues arise. The biggest issue that I can think of is one of th e first things I learned in flight school: the final responsibility for avoiding other air traffic always falls with the pilot. When the pilot is a computer, does it have any responsibility? This rule works best when there are real pilots in each plane; when one of the planes is a drone, the other pilots have double responsibility.
I vividly remember one graph from my textbook while I was taking flying lessons: there was a chart with 2 lines: NECESSARY pilot skill to operate the plane, and AVAILABLE pilot skill. During preflight and taxi, there was plenty of room between the two lines. During takeoff, the lines were closer but there was still a good margin. During cruise and nazvigation, there was once again a large safety margin. Landing was the interesting part: the available skill and necessary skill lines were really damn close. Plenty of pilots have more than enough skill to land safely all the time. It only takes one pilot who doesn't to make the news. Naturally, these UAVs would be in closest contact with other planes when around airports: the times when the pilot has the least amount of extra attention to spare for a UAV in the traffic pattern.
Do UAVs check above and below themselves before ascending or descending like human pilots do? Do they check for planes that don't have transponders or radios like human pilots? Do they take into account the fact that other planes might have malfunctioning equipment like human pilots? Did a pilot write the code that flies the UAV or was it a programmer working overtime to make a deadline? Personally, I would like these issues and more brought up to the aviation community and satisfactorily addressed before UAVs become a common sight in the sky.
Re:BY and FOR the people? (Score:5, Insightful)
-I don't know what the ends were on the floor trusses, but a sagging truss will put them in tension. I doubt they were designed for this.
-Heat shielding doesn't stand up too well to an exploding airplane.
-The design in question is not typical of steel buildings, which tend to be latticed structures rather than tubes.
Note that it's the floor collapsing that starts the process. A load-bearing exoskeleton is an inherently unstable design prevented from buckling only by the floors forcing it to stay aligned.
As you say, no warping was observed before collapse. It was the internal structure that failed before the collapse. As soon as the external structure drifted out of alignment it was over. Instantaneously. This is how buckling behaves.
(Oh, and this guy isn't much of a scientist. "Nobody has a good idea what happened. IT MUST HAVE BEEN THERMITE!" Typical crackpot paper . . . . . . )
(Science aside, how the hell could a deliberate demolition be pulled off without anyone finding out before or finding actual evidence after? Such things take rather a lot of setup to pull off.)
Re:SUAVs (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:There are a number of reasons, actually. (Score:2, Insightful)
Stalinist Communism was rolled back in Europe, the Americas, Africa and Asia for the most part.
Islamist Terrorism can be defeated or marginalized too.
Re:Goddamn Homeland Security Slush Fund... (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, you're omitting training, storage and repair costs and the time lost putting a cop in front of a TV screen instead of out on the streets.
classic "Look! There's Bigfoot!" Defense (Score:3, Insightful)
Take for example, the latest Downing Street memo. It revealed that prior to the invasion of Iraq, Bush thought the evidence of WMD was so weak that he suggested tricking Iraq into firing on a U-2 spyplane painted with UN colors. Wingnuts like Confederate Yankee dismissed [confederateyankee.mu.nu] the memo as nonsense, primarily on the grounds that you wouldn't be able to see the plane at it's operation altitude from the ground. That's a Bigfoot moment, because the fact that U-2's fly at 70,000 does nothing to debunk the idea that "putting food on our families" Bush wouldn't have hatched the scheme in the first place.
It mentions the federal government is only interested in using this to replace existing flights by manned aircraft at over 12,500 feet, with filed flight plans. This is your own local officials doing this backyard surveillance, not "the big evil Bush" that everyone seems to like to blame for everything. But MAN does throwing "the Bush administraion" in the summary really catch eyeballs, regardless of whether it's true or not.
More "Bigfoot" nonsense. Dismissing the involvment of the Bush Administration by talking about locals in this is like trying to claim that the Administration and the GOP majority in Congress didn't have anything to do with the Patriot Act because it is used & abused by local law enforcement. And you conviniently ignored the quote that was in the summary:
This might be news to you, but the Dept of Homeland Security is part of the Executive Branch, headed by a Cabinent-level official, with all top level officials either being directly appointed by Bush or appointed by appointees of Bush, which makes it part of the......drumroll please....Bush administration.
*sigh* Typical slashdot.
No, typical kneejerk defense by what appears to be a member of the Church of Bush. There have been many times when you guys end up falling all over yourselves in the rush to defend our dear president, only to be proven wrong later. See the Katrina [google.com] video or the Downing Street memos, for example. And that's just what's filtered out through a stonewalling GOP government. If the Dem's have the balls to actually go out and win the Senate or the House AND investigate the White House, the shit is really going to hit the fan.
Bush is draging this country down, and guys like you are helping him.
Re:Closing down of airspace (Score:3, Insightful)
IFR -- Instrument Flight Rules; there are no visibility and ceiling requirements when you're IFR since you're required to be in contact with ATC and controlled by them. VFR is Visual Flight Rules, i.e. you're flying by looking outside, so obviously there are various visibility and ceiling requirements. Airspace is not divided into IFR and VFR. Individual flights are operating under IFR or VFR. Contrary to what you see on TV, a VFR flight does not need to file a flight plan.
Class A is for IFR traffic only. All other classes allow VFR traffic. The lower classes have various different vis/celing requirements and ATC service. Class G is the lowest, where there is no ATC service and everyone just has to negotiate and cooperate (the "Small Airplane Big Sky" theory of collision avoidance). In the US the only Class G airspace is out west over unpopulated areas, and below a certain height above ground (a few thousand feet depending on various factors). Most airspace in the US is Class E; classes B, C, and D are around airports. In Class E airspace, IFR traffic needs to file a flight plan, get clearance etc. etc. but VFR traffic can just go, provided visibility requirements are met.
"Mode C" is a type of radar transponder. Unlike movie radar with green blips and pings, in the modern radar environment ATC knows not just where an airplane is but also how high it is, thanks to Mode C. In the US, although a Mode C transponder is not required (except within 30 nautical miles from a major airport like JFK), if your airplane has one you are required by law to turn it on. Airplanes that don't have Mode C transponders are usually old small airplanes without electrical systems or radios (like the Piper Cub). Your average Cessna has Mode C.
From a pilot's point of view, UAVs are no more an issue than any other military traffic. UAVs -- like airliners -- will know where the other airplanes are, even without help from ATC. UAVs will be controlled by ATC, just like the airliners and the military. We no more need to get rid of Class E airspace because of UAVs than because of airlines.
Although in the current political climate anything is possible. Shouldn't you need a clearance to drive on the freeway? A multi-ton chunk of metal travelling a 75 mph is a huge and deadly amount of energy, and elementary safety requires the government know exactly where every car is. Or do you have something to hide?
Re:Closing down of airspace (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, but if you've been paying attention the past few years, the FAA and the major airlines seem hellbent on removing general aviation from the US altogether (closing non-airline airports, insisting on implementing per request fees for ATC, trying to ground all aircraft built before the last few decades. And don't get me started on the stupidity of every major city wanting a Washington D.C. style Air Defense Identificaton Zone). I suspect having nothing flying anywhere near the ground except governemnt controled drones would suit them just fine.
What's more likely is that they'll swiss-cheese the airspace with temporary flight restrictions (TFRs) around areas where the drones operate. Presumably they could become so numerous as to make private flight planning a bit difficult.Or they'll just make private flying illegal.
Re:You must. (Score:2, Insightful)
It is a metaphor, not an analogy. I know that analogies are
We have been told that the enemy hates freedom. That, they don't want us to be free. Yet, you've also been told that in order to protect you from the enemy, they have to take away "some" of your freedom. Do you see the circle here? According to that logic, those who are in favor of taking away some freedom in order to gain safety, have actually given the enemy some of what it wants.
Freedom _does_ take sacrifice. The real question is:
Are you willing to sacrifice a bit of your safety for freedom?
I am.
Just as many are so willing to sacrifice other peoples lives for a false sense of security vis a vis Iraq, they should be ready to sacrifice a bit of _their_own_ safety for the real freedom of themselves, their families and their fellow citizens.
Get some balls people.
If being free means that the odds of me being killed in a terrorist attack goes from 1 in 300,000,000 to 1 in 200,000,000 (which are immensely conservative odds I'm giving here*)- I'm ready to make that sacrifice. Why? Becase being free is what this place is (was) all about.
[*] - Odds of a U.S. resident being killed by terrorists in a shopping mall, in the coming year, assuming the person spends two hours a week in malls and assuming terrorists destroy one mall (and everyone in it) each week
1 in 1,500,000
Assuming the terrorists destroyed one mall each month, the odds would climb to 1 in 6,000,000. This also assumes the total destruction of the entire mall; if that unlikely event didn't occur, the odds would become even more favorable.
http://www.aei-brookings.org/policy/page.php?id=1
Here is another saying for you, one that might be easier for you to grasp.
"I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
I, for one WELCOME our new UAV overlords! really.. (Score:1, Insightful)
I say, "Bring'em on!", can hardly wait till MY county orders a few. Gives a whole new meaning to "domestic" terrorism. Duuuh, Beer and Football anyone? Sit back, relax, and enjoy the American dream.
You know, in some cultures there is an undertone to teachings that when one villifies and harms others, one ultimately harms themselves.
Re:"Security" makes it all OK? (Score:4, Insightful)
Totally agree, and there's more... (Score:5, Insightful)
- The buildings did not fall neatly into their footprints. Look at this picture:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:World_Trade_Ce
- There were thousands of people in the buildings that day. The first attack took place around 9am--after many people had arrived at work. In fact the estimate is that at least 10,000 people were in WTC 1 and 2 when the first plane hit. They had arrived by subway, walking, cab, and driving--some had parked in the garage. They proceeded through the building that morning as normal. After the first hit, most of them evacuated safely--almost everyone below the point of impact in both buildings. YET not one of them has come forward with stories of seeing the building pillars in the parking garage wrapped with drums and det wire. No one had stories of elaborately laid wire harnesses throughout the floors of the building. Not that morning or any morning previous.
Wiring a building for controlled demolition is not a quick thing. It takes a long time to load in the explosives and wire it all up safely and reliably. And it's not something easily hidden. It's hard to bring down buildings like the WTC-- a big truck bomb won't do it. You have to distribute a lot of explosive around a lot of the support structure and set it all off in just the right sequence. It would probably be impossible to hide, especially in a building like the WTC towers, where the outer shell carries so much of the weight.
Yes, the firefighters heard noises that sounded like explosions. But I'm not interested in hearsay--I want to hear from the people who eye-witnessed demolition charges and equipment set that morning. Until then I'm not buying it.
Re:There are a number of reasons, actually. (Score:2, Insightful)
For proof of this, just take a look at CNN.com's front page right now. Apparently video footage of pigs jumping off a diving board is a far more pressing issue than the prospect of Enemy Of The State gaining documentary status.
Re:There are a number of reasons, actually. (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps, but it isn't "The War on Islamic Terrorism", it's "The War on Terrorism". Even if we pacify the Islamic terrorists, there will always be the potential that some other miscreants will get up to the same tricks. Since you can't brainwash everybody to forget that the techniques of terrorism exist, the threat of terrorism can never go away, and therefore the War on Terrorism can never be won. And I rather suspect that that is just how certain parts of our government like it.
Re:Contrarian view (Score:5, Insightful)
In the end they developed a largely new system of government that vastly differed from what else was around at the time and put a great deal of emphasis on limiting the powers of the government in favor of personal rights (note how the Bill of Rights largely makes use of negative rights by stating that "Congress shall make no law restricting the right of foo" rather than explicitly guaranteeing that right).
These are people that would be (rather rightly I think) seen as dissidents, potentially dangerous seperatists, and enemies of the state. It's quite likely that the average American would fear and distrust them if they were acting today.
Perhaps their biggest flaw was that, like most idealists, they assumed that people were as deeply passionate about these things as they were. That they cared strongly about injustice and the abuse of power and were willing to act on it.
They weren't patriots because they supported the current government. They were patriots because they didn't.
Re:2084 (Score:4, Insightful)
Just because we know about a lot doesn't mean that there isn't a lot more that isn't public knowledge. By analogy: if you turn on the light and see several cockroaches, it's a very good bet that your house has many other unseen cockroaches in it as well.
Re:"Security" makes it all OK? (Score:3, Insightful)
Won't the weapons come in handy when rebelling? In fact, isn't that the reason the right to bear arms is constitutionally protected, so that the people will be able to overthrow their government?
You don't care about corruption at home (e.g. Florida vote rigging)
If the votes are rigged, then how do you know anyone even voted for him?
Yes, it did happen. (Score:3, Insightful)
Not true. I doubt you heard of it, but in 1993 the tennis hall of SALK, a large tennis club in Stockholm, was destroyed in a fire. The hall collapses because the steel frame that span the roof is softened by the fire. The frame, which was curved in a semi-circular fashion, bends near the ground, exactly where you would expect from your solid mechanics course (if you took one).
Just because you never saw it before it doesn't mean it has never happened before.
Re:Israel does this already... (Score:1, Insightful)
The ability to steer, a dimwit for president with a need to invade some other guy's country, two towers in New York, and the will to do it.
Re:"Security" makes it all OK? (Score:2, Insightful)
Funny, when talking about WWII, it often sounds like the americans did it all, as if what UK and Russia did was so unsignifying that you could take credit for all of it.
freed people from the shackles of communism in east germany and former soviet states
And removed a dangerous socialist president (Salvador Allede) to replace with a more firendly dictator (Augusto Pinochet). You see, fighting against socialism/communism/terrorism or whatever the axis of evil of the day is isn't systematically a good thing. But the USA isn't about doing good in the world, otherwise we would have troops in Nepal, no, what has been done since Eisenhower left the oval office has been done mainly by interest, not to help other people out our to free people from an evil regime.
If there had been no Cold War, would the USA have done anything to stop communism? Of course not, think about China. If we helped the "freedom fighters" (before we rm'ed them to "terrorists") in the 80's in Afghanistan, if we fought against communism, it was to weaken the ennemy, wasn't it?
Better Late then Never? (Score:4, Insightful)
I know they had something like this in Orwelles 1984, I guess it just took us a little longer.
At this point, Bush should probably just go for broke and insert RFIDs into everyone scalp. I don't think he's gong to stop until this is implimented. So go for it. Hopefully we'll have sufficient liberal backlash to bring the country back into line with reality. At this rate we'll surpass most police states in a decade. I'm not exactly a liberal or a conservative, but this stuff is getting out of hand.
Here's hopin' for Civil War! (Score:1, Insightful)
Frankly, I hope most of you Christian right-wing assholes die in the process. Conservativism is fine, but that anti-sex, pro-war, anti-'thinking for yourselves' attitude has got to go.
Re:There are a number of reasons, actually. (Score:1, Insightful)
The Second World War was a war on fascism, it was ended although some fascist states continued to exsist (Spain, Argentina).
The Korean War ended in 1953 although technically the state of war still exists between the United States, the Republic of Korea, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the People's Republic of China and the United Nations states who sent forces to Korea.
A war can be ended even though the threat still exists. The threat will be marginalized and the various aspects of the war will spin down and fade into the background.
Re:"Security" makes it all OK? - Talk about Guns (Score:2, Insightful)
While I do agree with your sentiments for the most part, I just wanted to clarify something for you...
Because I DO care about "corruption at home" is the reason everyone should have the right to bear arms. I'm not advocating civil war or anything, but when it really comes down to it and when the shit really hits the fan, an armed society may be the only way to remove said corruption.
There's a famous American saying, which I'll paraphrase for you:
"In times of trouble, there are three boxes one can use- the soap box, the ballot box, and the ammo box- use in that order."
I'm no rabid NRA fan, but I understand that this is the exact reason the Founding Fathers wrote into the Constitution the "Right to Bear Arms".
Any strategist, (be they political, military, or religious) knows that to defeat a political movement, an enemy invader, or a native populace (say for example, German Jews) you remove their tools. The FBI silenced the Weather Underground, The Church burned its detractors (and many loyalists, too) alive, and the Nazis disallowed the owning of weapons by the Jews. This is the first step to destroying your opposition.
If and when the Neocon-agenda succeeds in removing our right to peacably assemble, to carry arms, when the presses fall silent except for "approved" literature, when Haebeous Corpus is suspended, and I no longer have the right to petition my government for redress---
YOU are going to want us to have those guns, I guarantee it. The present Administration would like us to believe "democracy is contagious", while they would like us to forget that CORRUPTION IS CONTAGIOUS, too.
That Neocon-agenda I mentioned earlier? There are some among us who are paying attention who feel that those days may have already come- that we are so mired in corruption, deceit, betrayal, and TREASON, (remember that part in the Presidential Pledge of Office about "upholding and protecting the Constitution"?) that the fetid stink of it all wafts from the top of the Capitol Dome all the way down to every city council and county board in the land.
It's hard to pick out that stink sometimes- it's so interspersed with the filth of corporate corruption in this nation that it's become nigh impossible to discern one from the other- for indeed they are both the same.
Don't begrudge me my guns- someday you may want me to pass one to you- you may "aim to misbehave" as they say.
I love America, (for all it's horrible, evil, and destructive history) and I believe in the American Dream and the American ideal that is written into the Constitution- that the beautiful language and ideals on those parchments stand for something, something unique and special, something that all men can aspire to.
The way the Neocons have sold my beloved nation away makes me want to cry- each and every day I read of the Fed reaching it's hands further and further into peoples homes, bank accounts, family life, credit history, etc. Common People just want to be free- the Neoncons just want Common People to be slaves.
TO BEGRUDGE US OUR GUNS IS THE LAST STEP TOWARDS MAKING US ALL SLAVES.
I know this sounds melodramatic, but in reality, this view is NOT: insanity, paranoia, conjecture, theory, conspiracy, or conspiracy theory- this is simply the history of mankind- of all groups who sought to control another.
So if you don't want the right to carry arms, fine. I realize most people don't- in fact, the only firearm I own is one given to me as a young man- a small, single-shot
A Young European's View on Things (Score:3, Insightful)
But I am surprised how many of you realize the problems that your society is having (Yes, I am adressing US citizens). We, in Europe, often speak about those issues of freedom being taken away in the name of a so-called War on Terror, and we see the same roots of the problem, being the media providing bread-and-games distraction, partial/idealistic education and other things.
But, I have come to realize, we unfairly generalize the US citizens, as if all of you didn't realize what's going on. But then, I see stuff like Sorry Everybody [sorryeverybody.com], and I am reminded that lots of you don't like the system either. And most of the comments on this article (which have been modded up) express an understanding of what is going wrong.
People - you have to do something!. I am not in the position to be lecturing you (since I am but a 19-year-old German student), but I wonder how come that so many of you see the problems, and yet Nothing Ever Happens. I wonder if it is because there's no way for the "extraparliamentary opposition" (read up on the German one [wikipedia.org]) to express itself, or because there simply is no movement which unites people who feel like you do, and like I do, too. What I see is a great potential for protest, but only in places like Slashdot does it become aparent.
There really is no important bottom line to this. It's what I perceive and what I wonder about.
Re:Israel does this already... (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's be careful that we don't overstate this issue. Saying unmanned reconnaisance is unconstitutional is not accurate. There is no difference constitutionally between manned aircraft and unmanned.
The angst here is against the Bush administration's policies, not unmanned drones.
Arguing the wrong point weakens the real discussion.
Re:Wryness (Score:1, Insightful)
I love how anyone making a point like this on the other side, for instance:
Democrats, since when are you spineless, cut-and-run dogs who hate democracy (of all things)?
is instantly "offtopiced" into oblivion.
BTW, I don't necessarily agree with either of those points. I personally have a much more positive view of the situation in Iraq than most here. It is always crappy when people are dying. Just remember that fewer are dying now than under Saddam, and those that live may actually end up with a decent country. The amazing thing is the sacrifice the all-volunteer US military is making for what it believes in.
War has never solved anything...except fascism, tyranny, oppression, slavery, and genocide. Think about it.
Re:Israel does this already... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Personal freedom? WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you joking? OK, one example off the top of my head. There are plenty more.
You are in an unfamiliar neighborhood. You pull over and waive someone down and ask for directions. He comes up to your car and you ask him for directions to the hotel. He points and gives you directions and you drive off.
That man later turns out to be a terrorist or drug dealer.
Now, thanks to ubiquitous surveilance, you are on videotape associating with a terrorist. This information can and will be taken out of context and used against you if, say you ever run for office or are accused of a minor crime.
Re:Israel does this already... (Score:4, Insightful)
That's a terrible idea, especially if you think it will improve security. Quite the opposite. All you need is one terrorist hacker to break into the system and grab control. Then instead of an attack by four planes you have every plane in the air becoming a weapon and/or target at the same time.
Re:"Security" makes it all OK? (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course that is possible... but it is also possible that foreigners are misinformed. Which is more likely? If I believed half of what I read in the Guardian, I'd hate America too.
Browncoat Sentiments (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:BY and FOR the people? (Score:1, Insightful)
strange then, how the buidings didnt collapse right away (while they were still on fire) but long after the fires had been put out.
Strange also that we can see in pictures and films that books & loose papers survived in these same rooms where exploding airplanes melted through heat-shielded support structures.
What a shame that all the rubble was immediately carted away & melted down before any investigation could be (or was allowed to be) started. We may never know.
every time 100 people die in an airplane crash the NTSB spends 2 years hunting down every last nut & bolt & peicing it all back together, even if they have to go scuba diving to get it. thousands die when 2 airplanes crash into buildings right in the middle of manhattan & not the slightest thought is given about examining the wreckage.
Odd isnt it?
All aboard...? (Score:3, Insightful)
American society despises intelligence, despises reason, despises logic. Is it any wonder when we laud and fawn over our sports "heroes" and entertainment "stars"? When more people vote for the next "American Idol" than vote for the person in charge of the entire nuclear arsenal of the United States (and then get a former coke addict and alcholic), we geeks realize there is something wrong. However, no matter what we say or inform our supposed non-geek peers about this and other issues, we are looked at with derision, with contempt. How dare we say they are wrong! How dare we upset the curve, once again!
Ultimately, the problems we see, the problems we know can and will grow larger, if only we controlled or eliminated them today (and they go way beyond mere societal issues), are all small and insignificant on the radars of the larger American society. For there to be any great change, the problems need to affect way more of the population, beyond just us little piss-ants of geekdom. Unfortunately, we geeks also know, given the technology and controls now in the hands of the controllers, that even if the problems become huge and unwieldy - so big as to drive stakes through the hearts, minds, and lives of the greater society - that ultimately there might not be a way out except through gross and sheer death. Millions of deaths. Those that die will be suicides, or worse.
I think I hear the trains pulling into the station - do you hear them...?
Re:"Security" makes it all OK? (Score:3, Insightful)
A few other factors to take into account:
Internal problems in the armed forces...
1. Reluctance/hesitation or even refusal to fire upon lesser or un-armed american civilians (by low-level troops)
2. Mass disobedience of orders (while following orders is deep rooted, the concept of "unlawful orders" is planted right alongside it)
3. Any given region in the US will be considered "home" by a number of troops... home state and neighboring states. Loyalty to homeland can be a hard thing to overcome. (Fighting people in their own backyard "protecting home" can be extremely difficult already. Now try to do it when 10% or more of your own force is a risk for defection and/or sabotage.)
4. Again... defection and/or internal sabotage.
5. If 3/4 of military forces and 95% of commander's attention is off in some other country... how convenient.
6. If an uprising managed to drag on for a while, interesting questions arise:
Who's gonna pay the troops?
With what money that the govt doesn't already owe some other country?
What countries aren't going to want debts paid up before the economy goes totally tits up? What will motivate unpaid soldiers to stick around?
Where would replacements for wounded/killed/deserted/otherwise gone soldiers come from? Not like you can institute a draft on the very people you are fighting.
Increasing capabilities of resistance:
1. Guerilla Warfare against people that look like you, talk like you, dress like you, and share the same cultural background. In their own backyard. That is a nightmare scenario for any professional millitary. How do they tell the opponents apart from themselves? Of course those opponents are going to exploit that weakness to the fullest.
2. Armories are scattered all over the country. They aren't exactly heavily guarded in a fashion that an armed mob couldn't handle. Not exactly helicopters and tanks, but still very useful.
3. Bases storing equipment aren't exactly always heavily guarded, either. Sabotage and theft is not out of the question.
4. The civilian population is full of former military, from all ranks and backgrounds. I don't doubt some of them would end up involved somehow... running/planning/training, etc. It'd be a matter of loyalty to home, or loyalty to the service. Doubtless plenty would end up on each side of that fence.
5. I'm sure there are allies to be found in the world that would jump on the opportunity to lend some aid/equipment/supplies or even another front to be fought. (Small, irritating ones... Wouldn't want to send their fingers heading for the Big Red Buttons. Maybe invade Guam or something ridiculous like that with a completely anonymous force. Then abandon it quickly. For no reason other than distraction.)
(Hey, I bet China would jump all over that shit. If we knock out our own military from the inside, guess who might get to rule the world next?
Lastly... waging war and supporting an army takes massive resources. There are invaluable logistical targets everywhere.
Want to halt all of those wonderful advanced weapons in their tracks? Kill their fuel supply/resupply. It's not like it is all produced and stored in some other country and they have it shipped here on a regular basis.
Where do the repair parts for the cool equipment come from?
How many sources are there for some of the exotic materials required for manufacture?
Now, I'm not saying that it wouldn't be ugly, or that an armed rebellion against our military would succeed. (Or even get past the "handful of people in a bar planning it stage".) There are way too many points of failure, and is borderline suicide to try.
BUT... I wouldn't write it off as absolutely impossible. At the very least it might not be quite the cakewalk people often
Re:Israel does this already... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:"Security" makes it all OK? (Score:3, Insightful)
Same situation in most places around the world right now. There is turmoil brewing in the middle east and nobody but the US and a few of our allies is doing anything about it.
Re:Israel does this already... (Score:3, Insightful)
Israel has boarders? Where are they, exactly?
Israel has lots of unamerican "problems", like a state religion and the draft. We don't want those things here.
Lets put a simple list together:
1) Administrative detention without charge or trial.
2) Turture of prisoners
3) Racial segragation (in that the Israeli Arabs have extreme difficulty buying land throughout most if Israel)
4) Inhumane treatment of detainees.
Funny, with the exception of #3, these problems are starting to look less and less unamerican.
Re:Revolution is now much harder (Score:3, Insightful)
You have the right to revolt; just not necessarily the guarantee of success.
Re:Israel does this already... (Score:3, Insightful)
The other issue is one of illegal annexation which I have not addressed in my posts. Current international humanitarian law strictly forbids military conquest as a way of making one's country bigger. In this view, the settlement blocks are illegal and all of them (outside the green line) ought to be removed.
I have stated elsewhere that the Palestinians have a legitimate right to fight back against this occupation and the illegal annexation of their land by the Israeli settlements. While I do not think that this right extends to, say, blowing up a bus in Haifa, I do think that settlers are probably fair and legitimate targets and certainly nobody can argue that with attacks aimed solely at the IDF.
Middle Eastern politics is a mess (and getting worse) and it is sad because we have some real opportunities here. We could (and should, IMO) offer a security guarantee to both Syria and Iran on the condition that they do not fund attacks on the civilian populace within Israel's Green Line (the '49 borders). We should make it clear that we will look the other way when attacks are made against targets in Golan, Gaza, and the West Bank, but will rescind this guarantee if they do not cut off funding to Hizbullah in the event that they send some of their rockets towards, say, Haifa. This might help keep them from meddling in Iraq, and might provide some real pressure that could be exerted on both the Israelis and Palestinians to keep things more civil.
WRT American civil liberties, I fully agree, BTW.