Thread: Krauthammer On Drones Flying In US: "Stop It Here, Stop It Now"

Krauthammer On Drones Flying In US: "Stop It Here, Stop It Now"

May 14, 2012

Video at the page Link: Krauthammer On Drones Flying In US: "Stop It Here, Stop It Now" | RealClearPolitics

"I'm going to go hard left on you here, I'm going ACLU," syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer said in opposition to the use of drones on the U.S. homeland. "I don't want regulations, I don't want restrictions, I want a ban on this. Drones are instruments of war. The Founders had a great aversion to any instruments of war, the use of the military inside even the United States. It didn't like standing armies, it has all kinds of statutes of using the army in the country."

"A drone is a high-tech version of an old army and a musket. It ought to be used in Somalia to hunt bad guys but not in America. I don't want to see it hovering over anybody's home. Yes, you can say we have satellites, we've got Google Street View and London has a camera on every street corner but that's not an excuse to cave in on everything else and accept a society where you're always under -- being watched by the government. This is not what we want," Krauthammer said on the panel portion of FOX News' "Special Report."

"I would say that you ban it under all circumstances and I would predict, I'm not encouraging, but I an predicting that the first guy who uses a Second Amendment weapon to bring a drone down that's been hovering over his house is going to be a folk hero in this country," Krauthammer said tonight.

"I would say the price of liberty. You can hear a helicopter, you can't hear a drone. You know, if you hear a helicopter you hide under a bush. Well, you can't with this which is why it's effective in Pakistan and elsewhere. It's deft and it's silent. I don't think we want a society where if there are the objects, hovering over streaming, real-time information about you, your family, your car, your location," Krauthammer said later in the segment.

"It's not worth it," he said.

"The Founders we're deeply opposed to the militarization of civil society. There is all kinds of aversions to it and this is importing it because, as you say, it's cheap, it's easy, it's silent. It's something that you can easily deploy. It's going to be, I think the bane of our existence. Stop it here, stop it now," Krauthammer said at the end of the panel segment. "Strong letter to follow."

Krauthammer On Drones Flying In US: "Stop It Here, Stop It Now" | RealClearPolitics

Feds clearing way for drones over your house

Krauthammer predicts 'rifles aimed at the sky all across America'

Published: 3 hours ago
by Bob Unruh



The federal government is moving quickly to open the skies over America to drones – both for commercial and government purposes – and respected Washington Post and Fox News commentator Charles Krauthammer is forecasting “rifles aimed at the sky all across America.”

The comments from Krauthammer, who won the Pulitzer Prize for commentary in 1987 after serving as a speechwriter for Vice President Walter Mondale and then beginning his journalism career at The New Republic, were on “Special Report” with Bret Baier.

“I would predict, I’m not encouraging, but I predict the first guy who uses a Second Amendment weapon to bring a drone down that’s been hovering over his house is going to be a folk hero in this country,” Krauthammer said.

The conversation arose as the federal government announced it is beginning to allow public safety agencies to fly unmanned aircraft – drones – with fewer and fewer restrictions.

According to yesterday’s report from Bloomberg, police, fire and other government agencies now are being allowed to fly drones weighing as much as 25 pounds without special approvals previously needed.

The Federal Aviation Administration said on its website that the move was an interim step until the agency finishes rules that will open the door for commercial operation of drones, as well as those uses for government purposes.

Congress has adopted the position of encouraging more drone flights, with the “goal of adapting technology used by the military in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

See what “ONE NATION UNDER SURVEILLANCE? really means.

The FAA said it had gotten requests from 61 police departments, agencies or universities to fly drones, including the Army, Air Force, Navy and others.

The move toward drones, which will offer virtually unlimited spy options to watch U.S. citizens, has raised all sorts of privacy concerns, about which Krauthammer expressed an unreserved horror.

“I’m going to go hard left on you here. I’m going to go ACLU. I don’t want regulations. I don’t want restrictions – I want a ban on this. Drones are instruments of war. The Founders had a great aversion to any instruments of war, the use of the military inside of the United States. They didn’t like standing armies, It has all kinds of statutes against using the Army in the country.

“A drone is a high-tech version of an old Army and a musket. It ought to be used in Somalia to hunt bad guys, but not in America. I don’t want to see it hovering over anybody’s home.”

His said there’s a difference from other technology applications.

“Yes, you can say we have satellites, we’ve got Google Street. And London has a camera on every street corner. But that is not an excuse to cave in on everything else and accept a society where you are always under – being watched by the government. This is not what we want. I would say ban it under all circumstances.

“And I would predict, I’m not encouraging, but I predict the first guy who uses a Second Amendment weapon to bring a drone down that’s been hovering over his house is going to be a folk hero in this country.”

On the panel too was Mara Liasson, of National Public Radio.

“I don’t know if you can do that. Arean’t they awfully high up?”

No problem, Krauthammer suggested.

“You may have to use a lot of them. You may have to use a very high powered one. You may have to use a bazooka. I’m not encouraging. I’m simply making a prediction.”

Baier pointed out that a drone already has been used in a criminal investigation in America, with the case of a North Dakota man arrested for activities observed with a drone.

Krauthammer was allowing no compromises.

“I don’t think we want a society where if there are these objects hovering over, streaming real-time information about you, your family, your car, your location. We know it’s going to be abused. Yes, you say sure, we’re going to start restricting here, so we can save maybe $80,000. It’s not worth it.”

“Stop it here, stop it now,” he said.

He said otherwise, there would be “rifles aimed at the sky all across America.”

Also raising concerns is the Electronic Privacy Information Center, which has told the Federal Aviation Administration there needs to be transparency and accountability in drone operations.

The organization has recommended the development of privacy protections before drones are used widely in the nation’s airspaces.

EPIC said it was part of a coalition of more than 100 organizations, experts and others who petitioned the FAA to conduct a formal rulemaking procedure on the privacy implications of domestic drone use.

Several members of Congress also have expressed to the FAA their concerns over the privacy implications of drone use. In a letter to the FAA, the congressmen said, “There is … potential for drone technology to enable invasive and pervasive surveillance without adequate privacy protections.”

EPIC noted that because of their design and technology, drone surveillance “often occurs without the knowledge of the individual being monitored.”

“These vehicles can gather detailed information on individuals,” the organization reports.

The federal government already has issued 78 certificates for commercial drone operations, along with 273 active government licenses.

Among the specifics: “The Miami-Dade Police Department in Florida used federal grant money to purchase a small drone vehicle. Reports dating back to 2008 explain that Miami was seeking to use a small drone … ‘to gather real time information in situations which may be too dangerous for officers.’ However, police have admitted that the drone can be used to look into houses,” EPIC reported.

EPIC documented that “the increased use of drones poses an ongoing threat to every person residing with the United States. Companies are developing ‘paparazzi drones’ in order to follow and photograph celebrities. Private detectives are starting to use drones to track their targets. Google, Inc., has deployed street-level drones in other countries to supplement the images of Street View. Criminals and others may use drones for purposes of stalking and harassment.”

The organization warned, “The consequences of increased government surveillance through the use of drones are even more troubling. The ability to link facial recognition capabilities on drone cameras to the FBI’s Next Generation Identification database or DHS’ IDENT database, two of the largest collections of biometric date in the world, increase the First Amendment risks for would-be political dissidents. In addition, the use of drones implicates significant Fourth Amendment interests and well established common law privacy rights.”

The units, EPIC documents, can peer “inside high-level windows, and through solid barriers, such as fences, trees, and even walls.”

Feds clearing way for drones over your house

Guest Post: Drone Warfare In America


Submitted by Tyler Durden on 05/15/2012 11:12 -0400
Submitted by John Aziz of Azizonomics

Drone Warfare in America

How would Obama supporters feel if they learned that their beloved President was running far-to-the-authoritarian-right of arch-hawk Charles Krauthammer on one particular civil liberties issue?

Sadly, the answer is that the most Obama supporters probably wouldn’t feel very much at all, because support for Obama has always predominantly been emotion-driven (he promised change “you can believe in”, not “change that I can logically convince you will be beneficial“).

But I digress. Charles Krauthammer weighed in on FOX yesterday to telegraph his opposition to bringing drone warfare to the skies of America.



Krauthammer said:

I’m going to go hard left on you here, I’m going ACLU. I don’t want regulations, I don’t want restrictions, I want a ban on this. Drones are instruments of war. The Founders had a great aversion to any instruments of war, the use of the military inside even the United States. It didn’t like standing armies, it has all kinds of statutes of using the army in the country.

I would say that you ban it under all circumstances and I would predict, I’m not encouraging, but I am predicting that the first guy who uses a Second Amendment weapon to bring a drone down that’s been hovering over his house is going to be a folk hero in this country.

The Founders we’re deeply opposed to the militarisation of civil society. There is all kinds of aversions to it and this is importing it because, as you say, it’s cheap, it’s easy, it’s silent. It’s something that you can easily deploy. It’s going to be, I think the bane of our existence. Stop it here, stop it now.

And this is a big deal. A recent report by Micah Zenko noted:

Worried about the militarization of U.S. airspace by unmanned aerial vehicles? As of October, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) had reportedly issued 285 active certificates for 85 users, covering 82 drone types. The FAA has refused to say who received the clearances, but it wasestimated over a year ago that 35 percent were held by the Pentagon, 11 percent by NASA, and 5 percent by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). And it’s growing. U.S. Customs and Border Protection already operates eight Predator drones. Under pressure from the congressional Unmanned Systems Caucus – yes, there’s already a drone lobby, with 50 members — two additional Predators were sent to Texas in the fall, though a DHS official noted: “We didn’t ask for them.” Last June, a Predator drone intended to patrol the U.S.-Canada border helped locate three suspected cattle rustlers in North Dakota in what was the first reported use of a drone to arrest U.S. citizens.

But I’m going to go even further than the threat to civil liberties: I am fairly certain that the militarisation of U.S. airspace by drones is itself a huge national security threat. While Zenko notes that drones “tend to crash”, the downing of a U.S. drone over Iran late last year — supposedly via an Iranian hack — seems to suggest that it is possible for drones to be commandeered by hackers or hostile powers. And if that’s not the case today, then it almost certainly will be tomorrow. Putting drones into the air above the United States is like going to sleep on a bed of dynamite. It’s an invitation to anyone to try and commandeer a plane, possibly one stocked with high-tech weaponry.

The Federal government would do well to quit groping Grandma at the TSA checkpoint, and start worrying about the potential negative side-effects of systems they are putting into place. All the TSA security theater in the world cannot stop a determined hacker from commandeering a drone.

Charles Krauthammer is right (and after the Iraq invasion which he championed I never thought I would say that): it could be the bane of our existence. Stop it here. Stop it now.


Guest Post: Drone Warfare In America | ZeroHedge