First City In the US To Pass an Anti-Drone Resolution 198
An anonymous reader writes "According to an Al-Jazeera report, 'Charlottesville, Virginia is the first city in the United States to pass an anti-drone resolution. The writing of the resolution coincides with a leaked memo outlining the legal case for drone strikes on U.S. citizens and a Federal Aviation Administration plan to allow the deployment of some 30,000 domestic drones.' The finalized resolution is fairly weak, but it's a start. There is also some anti-drone legislation in the Oregon state Senate, and it has much bigger teeth. It defines public airspace as anything above your shoelaces, and the wording for 'drone' is broad enough to include RC helicopters and the like."
Bring it (Score:5, Interesting)
The faster we slide to full on fascism, the sooner it will all collapse and we can finally re-evaluate our principles. I'm tired of this moderately predatory murder-based society being able to justify itself due to the prosperity created by the last vestiges of peace and voluntarism. Let's fucking drown ourselves in violence so we can finally recognize that none of this evil is justified. Let us kill the healthy host completely so that the parasite is exposed. Then perhaps we can start over without any illusion that violent parasitism is good in moderation.
What about RC planes with cameras? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Yeah, and what'll it do? (Score:5, Interesting)
The Government can ignore this just like they ignore a sovereign States authority (See DIA raids in CA on marijuana shops and farms). In fairness, the town must abide by State law which may invalidate the City law.
Until more people wake up and shake off the cobwebs, the police state will continue to grow. I hope like hell we catch it in time, but looking at media and education I have strong doubts.
Well, they may not be able to prevent Federal Drones, but State and County drones may be banned, especially if this City has a home-rule charter (giving them local law enforcement authority).
In Seattle, there is currently an uproar over drone use by Seattle PD [king5.com]. The Police have them, but haven't used them yet. They want to put them into use [seattle.gov], but the public is pretty much opposed, and SPD hasn't made a convincing use case, or even cited any recent incident where these might have been useful. (They carry small cameras, and by the looks of them do not provide any telemetry.)
The idea is to prevent your own law enforcement units from wasting their time peeping into back yards and windows. By the time State Authorities and the Feds arrive, the situation is totally out of hand anyway. The demand on state and fed resources is probably such that their arrival with drones in hand is less likely.
So just keeping your local PD/Sheriff from acquiring invasive tools goes a long way.
Gotta love inflammatory summaries. (Score:4, Interesting)
There is one major part that is left out in the summary;
The writing of the resolution coincides with a leaked memo outlining the legal case for drone strikes on U.S. citizens and a Federal Aviation Administration plan to allow the deployment of some 30,000 domestic drones.'
The leaked memo outlines the legal case for drone strikes on U.S. citizen on foreign soil. By neglecting that very important point and linking it to an FAA plan to allow drones in US airspace is implies that there will be 30,000 armed drones in US airspace. That is so far from the truth as to be laughable.
Re:Posse Comitatus Act (Score:4, Interesting)
Tell me what benefit such legal protection is to a man who is unmade into a smoking crater because of people who believe they have legal authority to do otherwise? Do we need to have a martyr and a legal determination, or can we simply and justly move as a functional democracy to repeal, ban, and/or repudiate this naked reservation of excessive force and power? Do you really believe that someone reserving the "authority" to murder someone is acceptable because we have laws against murder? How about when it's our President?
But the real (and begged) question is, do we truly believe that an _airstrike_ is an acceptable level of force to deal with the threat posed by a single individual?
We went wrong when our government got into the business of assassinating its enemies. Go back to _at least_ Kennedy (and the Cuban cigar ruse) for that. There is a reason why assassination carries a stigma as the kind of thing that rots and destroys any functioning society. It does, because the targets eventually become fungible and universal. Today's terrorist leader is tomorrow's Public Enemy #1 is today's inconvenient malcontent, and the dishonored dead all have friends who want revenge, and maybe can even get elected. It becomes, when used domestically, a internecine blood war.
In the meantime, if this kind of thing is proffered as acceptable in U.S. airspace, then we need to start assigning air raid precincts, training captains, and holding weekly drills like we did in WW-II. Just to limit the collateral damage. The Posse Comitatus act doesn't begin to put my mind at ease, unless I'm already dead. Then it's one of my last hopes for the future of those that survive me in a world where air strikes against individuals are considered reasonable force.