A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State (26 page)

Moreover, the use of tasers and other weapons of compliance empowers law enforcement officials to resort to non-lethal weapons in situations where previously no force would have been used at all, such as routine traffic stops or peaceful protests. And as force becomes easier and more common, with police neutralizing masses of people for the slightest disturbance and only facing relatively minor repercussions, constitutionally protected protests will be rendered useless.

No Revolt

There are also totalitarian ramifications to be considered. Governmental coercion is largely restrained by the fact that people will resist governmental violence that crosses a certain threshold. But when the threshold is subtle and justified under the rubric of being more humane or combating terrorism (as in requiring airline passengers to wear taser bracelets), it becomes more difficult to find the outrage necessary to oppose it.

Lest we forget, government domination is not usually accomplished by methods so dramatic that they spark a backlash from citizens. Thus, the real threat to freedom posed by such non-lethal weapons is a governmental system of coercion so well designed that it does not breed revolt.

CHAPTER 21

Attack of the Drones

Although it is hard to predict where the drone infrastructure will grow, if other defense contracting projects are a reliable guide, the drone-ification of America will probably continue until there is a drone aerodrome in every state and a drone degree program to go With it."
⁴⁷⁹
–Richard Wheeler,
Wired

I
magine a robot hovering overhead as you go about your day, driving to and from work, heading to the grocery store, or stopping by a friend's house. The robot records your every movement with a surveillance camera and streams the information to a government command center. If you make a wrong move, or even appear to be doing something suspicious, the police will respond quickly and you'll soon be under arrest. Worse, you might find yourself tasered into compliance by the robot floating on high. Even if you don't do anything suspicious, the information of your whereabouts, including what stores and offices you visit, what political rallies you attend, and what people you meet will be recorded, saved and easily accessed at a later date by the police and/or other government agents.

Coming Home to Roost

This is a frightening thought, but you don't have to imagine this scenario. Thanks to the introduction of drones into American airspace, we are only a few years away from the realization of this total surveillance and compliance society.

Drones–pilotless, remote controlled aircraft that have been used extensively in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan to assassinate suspected terrorists,
⁴⁸⁰
as well as innocent civilians
⁴⁸¹
–have increasingly found favor with both military and law enforcement officials. "The more we have used them," stated Defense Secretary Robert Gates, "the more we have identified their potential in a broader and broader set of circumstances."
⁴⁸²
In fact, President Obama's 2012 military budget provided strong funding for drones with intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities, with $4.8 billion set aside just "to develop and procure additional Global Hawk Class (RQ-4), Predator Class (MQ1/9), and other less expensive, low-altitude systems."
⁴⁸³

Parrot Drone (Parrot SA)

Little surprise, then, that in early 2012 Congress passed and President Obama signed into law the FAA Reauthorization Act, which mandates that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) create a comprehensive program for the integration of drone technology into the national air space by 2015. By 2020 it is anticipated that there will be 30,000 drones crisscrossing the skies of America, all part of an industry that could be worth hundreds of millions of dollars per year.
⁴⁸⁴

While there are undoubtedly legitimate uses for drone technology domestically, such as locating missing persons, domestic drones will be armed with "less-lethal" weaponry, including rubber bullets, bean bag guns, and tasers, while flying over political demonstrations, sporting events, and concert arenas. Eventually, these drones will be armed with the lethal weaponry that is currently being used overseas in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The power of these machines is not to be underestimated. Many are equipped with cameras that provide a live video feed, as well as heat sensors and radar. Some are capable of peering at figures from 20,000 feet up and twenty-five miles away. They can also keep track of sixty-five persons of interest at once.
⁴⁸⁵
Some drones are capable of hijacking Wi-Fi networks and intercepting electronic communications such as text messages.
⁴⁸⁶
The Army has developed drones with facial recognition software,
⁴⁸⁷
as well as drones that can complete a target-and-kill mission without any human instruction or interaction.
⁴⁸⁸

Thus, with this single piece of legislation, Congress, in conjunction with the president, opened the floodgates to an entirely new era of surveillance and domestic police tactics–one in which no person is safe from the prying eyes of the government or the reach of its weapons. Yet the fact that these drones are coming home to roost (and fly) in domestic airspace should come as no surprise to those who have been paying attention. The U.S. government has a history of commandeering military technology for use against Americans. We saw this happen with tear gas, tasers, sound cannons, and assault vehicles, all of which were first used on the battlefield before being deployed against civilians at home.

The Hit Man

As President Obama learned first-hand, drones are the ultimate killing and spying machines. Indeed, the use of drones to target and kill insurgents became a centerpiece of the president's war on terror.

President Obama
[Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

As the
New York Times
revealed in 2012,
⁴⁸⁹
President Obama, operating off government "kill list," personally directed who should be targeted for death by military drones. Every few weeks, Obama and approximately a hundred members of his national security team gathered for their "Terror Tuesday" meetings in which they handpicked the next so-called national security "threat" to die by way of the American military/CIA drone program.
⁴⁹⁰
Obama signed off personally on about a third of
_{the
drone
str}
ik
_eS
.
⁴⁹¹
(By the time he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009, Obama had given the go-ahead to more drone strikes than Bush did during his entire presidency
⁴⁹²
By the third year of his presidency, two times as many suspected terrorists had been approved for killing by drone strikes than had been put in Guantanamo Bay during George W. Bush's presidency
⁴⁹³
) It's not only suspected terrorists whose death warrants were personally signed by the president but innocent civilians geographically situated near a strike zone, as well, whether or not they have any ties to a suspected terrorist. As an anonymous government official on Obama's drone campaign observed, "They count the corpses and they're not really sure who they are."
⁴⁹⁴
In fact, Obama's first authorized drone attack in Yemen led to the deaths of fourteen women and twenty-one children, and only one al-Qaeda affiliate.
⁴⁹⁵

Whatever one may say about the dubious merits of the President's kill list, there can be no doubt about the fact that President Obama managed to create a radical and chilling new power allowing future presidents to kill anyone at will. This includes American citizens whom the president might deem a threat to the nation's security. Indeed, in a decision he claimed was "an easy one,"
⁴⁹⁶
Obama killed two American citizens in this fashion: Anwar al-Awlaki, an American cleric living in Yemen who served as a propagandist for al-Qaeda, and his 16-year-old son.
⁴⁹⁷

Entirely lacking in accountability
⁴⁹⁸
and legal justification as required by the Constitution, Obama's kill list takes to new heights Richard Nixon's brazen claim that "if the president does it, it's not illegal."
⁴⁹⁹
The ramifications are far-reaching, especially now that Obama has authorized the use of drones domestically.

Drone Ed

This is not a problem that's going to go away quickly or quietly. In fact, the FAA is facing mounting pressure from state governments and localities to issue flying rights for a range of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to carry out civilian and law-enforcement activities. As the Associated Press reports, "Tornado researchers want to send them into storms to gather data. Energy companies want to use them to monitor pipelines. State police hope to send them up to capture images of speeding cars' license plates. Local police envision using them to track fleeing suspects."
⁵⁰⁰

Even universities are getting in on the drone action. As Richard Wheeler writing for
Wired
magazine points out:

Federal education and stimulus money is being used to create nonmilitary drone education programs. The Department of Aviation at the University of North Dakota, located in Grand Forks and the operator of the test and training site at Grand Forks AFB, now offers the first Bachelors of Science program in Unmanned Aircraft Systems Operations. The Aviation Maintenance Technology program at Northland Community and Technical College, located in Thief River Falls, Minnesota just 40 miles east of Grand Forks, will soon offer courses in the repair of UAVs.
⁵⁰¹

The University of North Dakota is also offering a four-year degree in piloting drones in what is soon expected to be a $20 billion industry.

Up in the Sky

Unbeknownst to most Americans, remote-controlled aircraft have been employed domestically for years now. They were first used as a national security tool for patrolling America's borders and then as a means of monitoring citizens. For example, back in 2006, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department was testing out a SkySeer drone for use in police work. With a 6.5-foot wingspan, the lightweight SkySeer can be folded up like a kite and stored in a shoulder pack. At 250 feet, it can barely be seen with the naked eye.
⁵⁰²

As another news story that same year reported, "one North Carolina county is using a UAV equipped with low-light and infrared cameras to keep watch on its citizens. The aircraft has been dispatched to monitor gatherings of motorcycle riders at the Gaston County fairgrounds from just a few hundred feet in the air–close enough to identify faces–and many more uses, such as the aerial detection of marijuana fields, are planned."
⁵⁰³