Skynet Might Not Be That Far Off…

By Mr. Twisted

Remember that scene in Terminator 3 where the automated drone is attacking John Connor in the hallways of the location where Skynet was born? No? Well, that’s probably because T3 was a pretty crappy movie and you have most likely erased it from your memory banks.

However, though it seemed a bit far-fetched at the time, automated killing machines are here now and could become a bigger part of our lives than we would like—even within the United States.

Drone aircraft have become a staple of operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as playing a role in lesser-known uses of force in places like Pakistan, Yemen, and various locations on the Arabian peninsula. The “eyes in the sky” have been of great comfort to men on the ground in many of these places and used to gain a distinct tactical advantage on the battlefield. There is no question about the benefits gained for troops who have access to UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle) technology.

However, as with a great deal of technology developed for the battlefield—everything from trauma medicine to bomb disposal—these advancements make their way back home. It is an inherent quality of the military-industrial complex. Defense contractors develop something super cool and awesome and, when a war draws to a close, their funding dries up because those super cool and awesome pieces of technology are no longer needed. So, they take the logical step that any business would take—they seek a market for their product that has already been crafted and proven.

Enter the law enforcement community. With the growing concern of “safety” among the populace—shootings, drug-related crime, cross-border violence with Mexico, NFL players being out on the streets, etc.—the general public has been crying out for police departments to have more and more power. For UAV makers, this is a perfect fit; and police departments from local to federal see no end of benefits that a drone could bring them.

But don’t think for a second this is some wacky possibility that might happen and that we’re only mentioning it as a possibility in the coming future—it’s happening now. Congress has already passed the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) Reauthorization Act, which will allow literally thousands of drones to occupy domestic airspace—like, say, 30,000 of them by 2020. Additionally, the US Air Force has stated that it will be using its own drones for domestic purposes and also keeping all recorded data…without a warrant. So the most sophisticated data-gathering technology currently available to our military is now being adapted so that it can hover outside your house and take video of you doing whatever it is you do.

Hmmm… This makes me think of something…what is it….what is it….

Oh yeah, it’s the Fourth friggin’ Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Now, this may sound crazy to you, but in my eyes a UAV following me in my car to see what I’m up to; checking in at my house because I own a few AR15-variant rifles; or cruising around my neighborhood because there are a lot of “Tea Party activists” is as clear a violation of the Fourth Amendment as it gets. In fact, it was for this premise that the Fourth Amendment was designed. Governing bodies are, in theory, restricted from invading your privacy without justifiable cause.

But, lucky for you, the United States government can’t use its military on its own citizens, as per the Posse Comitatus Act….right?

I’d like to take this time to remind you that the recently-passed NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) Indefinite Detention Bill allows the US Military to, just as the title suggests, detain citizens indefinitely. Senator Rand Paul, a stalwart of libertarian ideals (and one of the few who voted against the bill) stated plainly that this piece of legislation was “fundamentally wrong” in terms of our rights being violated. The bill would allow US Military forces to apply “laws of war” to American citizens, on American soil, if they are thought to be a “terrorist.”

Before you go making assumptions regarding that term only applying to people from Derka Derka-stan, allow me to remind you that a mere three years ago, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano issued a report stating that “right wing extremism” and “returning veterans” were among our country’s top concerns for terrorist threats. That’s right—of all the biggest concerns of our country, those two categories ranked at the top for the Department of Homeland Security. Makes you feel loved, doesn’t it?

Let’s put all of this in context: in the last few months, we have had a couple of mass shootings (Aurora, CO and Newtown, CT) and a fairly major natural disaster (Hurricane Sandy) that have left a large number of people desperately wanting a government to do more, and your representatives in the federal government have authorized massive surveillance of its own citizens by way of drones and your indefinite detention by your own military—without a trial. One does not have to be a paranoid conspiracy theorist to see the trend, here.

Where I depart from conspiracy chasers is that their theories always involve a “they.” As in “they are coming for your guns…” The problem is, in the case of our current situation, “they” are your next door neighbors. “They” are the parents of kids at your kids’ school. “They” are your coworkers. We won’t lose freedom by some madman at the helm of a tyrannical government—we will lose it from average citizens begging for the government to take it away. Remember, the two bills mentioned above (the NDAA and the FAA Act) passed with heavy majorities. These were not protested by large numbers of people, nor were they heavily covered in the news. These things are seen as just normal proceedings by most Americans.

What say you, Ranger Up and Rhino Den nation? This is a subject that has, for above-mentioned reasons, a profound impact on both the active military and veteran community. What are your thoughts? Leave a comment agreeing, disagreeing, or telling me that we should have a “who’s our John Connor?” contest on The Den. All will be taken seriously, I can assure you.

 

 

18 Comments

1. 

   Daniel Belin

   January 3, 2013 at 12:39 pm

   I haven’t done nearly enough research on the topic to form a strong opinion, but there are certainly issues with both that particular clause of the NDAA and the FAA Reauthorization Act. It is unclear to me the legal distinction between the current aerial surveillance methods carried out using manned aircraft versus unmanned aircraft, aside from the potential for greater numbers of routine unmanned missions. The determination of legality vis-à-vis manned versus unmanned aircraft will undoubtedly take place in our court system, and I believe that it will be a perfect case for our common law system.

   While I personally still have confidence in our common law system to resolve the legality of evidence collection via unmanned aircraft, it is troubling to see constant challenges to our civil liberties in this day and age. Emotional response to crises, no matter which side of the political spectrum they originate from, have a way of causing quick erosion to our civil liberties. It reminds me of one of my favorite quotes from Star Trek (I did not ever expect to use Star Trek in a discourse on civil liberties, but I guess it shows the quality of my arguments):

   “With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured…the first thought forbidden…the first freedom denied – chains us all, irrevocably.”

   Perhaps we can have confidence in our system of checks and balances to head off the first few attacks on our civil liberties, but we must preempt future attacks in order to stymie a persistent erosion of our civil liberties. We must remain stalwart defenders of those liberties and freedoms we believe in, lest they one day be leeched from us by those who know no better.

   Reply
   • 

     Tony

     January 8, 2013 at 10:58 am

     Too many good points in this piece, so I’ll just amplify one: DeTocqueville predicted this over 170 years ago. A free nation won’t fall to tyrants, it will fall to protectors. The citizenry will think themselves free,but in reality all they do is remove their chains long enough to elect a new master, then promptly clamp the chains back on. The protectors will labor tirelessly to provide for our happiness, provided they are the sole source of that happiness. We’re not being crushed, we’re being “softened and guided”. The name of the chapter is “What Sort of Despotism Democratic Nations Have to Fear” and it’ll make your head spin.

     Reply
2. 

   Robbiek3/187

   January 3, 2013 at 1:52 pm

   Sadly, you are correct in how our freedoms will be both eroded and confiscated. It will be through our own hands and desires for “protection”.
   I don’t even doubt that a ruthless government will actually try to sell these unConstitutional drones as “budget savers” putting “cops” where none exist now. From there, it will be a nice frame job of “I thought you conservatives were for budget savings AND cops. How can you be against this???” and as usual the GOP will bend over and allow Obama and his Statist allies to have their way.
   Does freedom truly exist if no one defends it?

   Reply
3. 

   Antonio Aguilar

   January 3, 2013 at 2:21 pm

   We’ve had fly over surveillance for years now, and plain view doctrine has existed for even longer. A warrant is (rightly) still needed to look inside someone’s house in 90% of cases. Border Patrol, major urban police departments, and the Coast Guard have all been using air assets to get their job done for as long as I can remember. There isn’t much difference between a manned air craft and an unmanned.

   There are some provisions of the laws mentioned above that are troublesome and need to be revised or revoked, but some of the proposed answers coming from the aforementioned congressman’s camp are equally troublesome (i.e. privatizing law enforcement by selling contracts to the lowest bidder).

   The fact remains; there are enough criminals and real threats out there, and so few law enforcement, that you and me (law abiding people) have little to fear as far as threats from people in uniform. There simply are not enough police on the streets for us to go around spying on or harassing the average citizen.

   On any given day in any given city there are calls for service stacked up in pending and police are wishing that people would handle things themselves. I know from first hand experience that the current trend in law enforcement is not, as suggested, toward more power grabbing. We are actually trying to get citizens to do more for themselves with online reporting systems where they never have to speak to an officer face to face, neighborhood watch programs, and other such measures to return some of the policing duties to the people in their communities, not grab more power. More power means more responsibility, and there aren’t enough of us to even fully handle everything we already have to do.

   Reply
   • 

     Mr. Twisted

     January 3, 2013 at 2:50 pm

     Antonio,

     You stated that a “warrant is (rightly) still needed to look inside someone’s house in 90% of cases.” Ummm, what about the other 10%…?

     There is a difference between man and unmanned and it lies in the capability. There are no manned helicopters currently in existence that can over close enough to my house to collect data without my knowledge. A drone has that capability.

     While I do agree with you that there aren’t enough to go around harassing average people, this is not an argument about specific incidents nearly as much as it is about a philosophy of government and what that authority is and is not allowed to do to private citizens. I don’t think that most law enforcement wants “more power,” but I also don’t think that we should just allow them to continue gaining little bits at a time while Constitutional liberties suffer for it.

     Reply
     • 

       Antonio Aguilar

       January 3, 2013 at 5:09 pm

       In response to the question you asked about the other 10%, what I’m talking about is exigent circumstances and hot pursuit for example, or probable cause searches, etc. There are rare occasions where, according to multiple incidents of case law, it has been established that law enforcement can do searches without a warrant.

       Contrary to popular opinion, those searches, while allowed, are still considered unconstitutional at face value and it is up to the officer who did them to prove that he was acting within the bounds of established case law.

       As I mentioned, certain aspects of those laws probably do need to be changed or revoked. But, being in this community, I don’t see any evidence that there is any movement to encroach on peoples liberties or try to roll back the constitutional protections that people have. Most people in law enforcement are fairly conservative; we do our best to ensure that we are not violating people’s rights as we do our jobs.

       If politicians step in and make laws we don’t agree with, we have to enforce them but we don’t have to be happy about them and we will vote against those same politicians. The problem is more politicians than law enforcement.

       Even between the politicians and the cops combined I don’t think there’s enough people to man enough drones to spy on everyone, and there are so many real criminals out there to worry about, why would anyone want to waste time with the average Joe who hasn’t done anything wrong. If it takes us years sometimes to catch one bad guy, why bother wasting resources on someone who bought a new gun?

       Reply
4. 

   Madnorskie

   January 3, 2013 at 9:24 pm

   Hey Twisted,

   Fantastic article highlighting a topic that usually gets shoved to the backpages.

   I went to school in Florida and many have my friend’s were Cuban and Venezuelan. It was remarkable how consistent each of their parent’s stories were describing how everyone thought “It couldn’t happen here”, echoing the same line you would have heard in Russia in 1917, in Spain and Germany during the ’30s.

   Here in the US, we suffer from that same human delusion that the status quo will triumph and that our world will never change. However, it’s important for Americans to understand (especially veterans, who have paid a personal sacrifice to keep her free) that while we are the greatest nation on earth, there is nothing inherent about us or our country that exempts us from the consequences of history.

   Keep up the great work of reminding us to stay vigilant.

   Reply
5. 

   Chris

   January 3, 2013 at 11:35 pm

   I must admit, as a cop, I have mixed feelings about this. The thought of having access to this amazing technology to get more criminals off the street is very apealing. One of the most frustrating things a law enforcement officer can face is KNOWING that some toad is doing something illegal, but circumstances conspire against you and you can’t catch them doing it. Drones could be a big help.

   However, this issue also concerns me because there is always one bad apple that will misuse or abuse the tools they are given. And the definition of “criminal” can change quickly based soley on public opinion. We may be headed for a day (and I hope to hell it never comes to this) when owning what some worthless pencil dick of a politician decides to classify as an “assault weapon” is a criminal offense. So I guess I’d have to lock myself up for owning a couple of them. What I keep coming back to when I think about this is the old statement that absolute power corrupts absolutely. This technology, intended for useful and lawful purposes, could be turned against innocent, law abiding citizens for any number of reasons. I’d rather work harder and have the occasional shit bird get away than keep handing the government more and more power. Abraham Lincoln said it better than I ever could – “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.”

   Reply
6. 

   Dee

   January 4, 2013 at 11:56 am

   Ted Nugent is our John Conner!

   Reply
7. 

   Murphy

   January 4, 2013 at 12:19 pm

   I have worked in the IT industry for 17 years, ever since I got off of active duty. I can, personally, create a program that will parse the words out of your speech. I can do this out of commercial off-the-shelf technology. Our government uses a slightly more sophisticated version of this to parse words that could be… troublesome, let us say, to the American people. (i.e. – Terr’st attacks, imminent threats at home or abroad.)
   Now couple this with a data farm for that purpose (After all, this will crate more jobs!), and a few more drones (Gotta keep sales up for Boeing!).
   I joke at times, having a teenage daughter, that I am “going to strangle her.” This is a JOKE, obviously. Does the computer attached to the drone know this? Does the law officer know this after it goes from my lips, in my house, to my phone to the computer, to the analyst, to the dispatcher, to the officer at my door?
   Of course! The Federal, State, County, and Municipal Governments NEVER make mistakes… Right?
   I worry. Makes me want to build a homemade radar system for my back yard, but then I would have to wear an aluminum-foil hat…. Hey, I wonder if that would work…

   Reply
8. 

   TPAIN

   January 4, 2013 at 12:25 pm

   It’s a simple difference between overt and covert collection. If it feels wrong, it probably is. Don’t go saying that a UAV is overt either… smh.

   Reply
9. 

   Patty Crack N' Pack

   January 4, 2013 at 4:41 pm

   It’s amazing, as I comb through history books, to see how much the landscape of America has changed. We’ve gone from a more, or less, libertarian way of life to wanting the gov’t, or some powerful entity, to hold our hands 24/7.

   Studies have shown that human beings are actually getting dumber, but not for the reasons you’d think. One of the biggest theories is that in first world nations, natural selection isn’t in play as often so the retards have more and more chances to reproduce and have stupid offspring. This, coupled with manipulative politicians, has laid the ground work for the current issues in America.

   They pander to the mouth-breathing, sheepish population and paint the sheepdogs as wolves in order to stay office. Congratulations, we’ve become the very thing our forefathers feared most.

   Article: http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-11/are-people-getting-dumber-one-geneticist-thinks-so

   Reply
10. 

    C

    January 5, 2013 at 2:19 am

    Didn’t read the other responses due to drunken laziness but what your predicting sounds a lot like what Alexis De Tocqueville predicted in his writtings Democracy in America. But maybe I’m just drunk.

    Reply
11. 

    B.C.

    January 5, 2013 at 12:57 pm

    There is also the mounted FBI cctv cameras in the US and the “fema” camps that the media does not mention or the other sites ran by other agencies that consist of 3 letters.

    Reply
12. 

    LS

    January 7, 2013 at 10:43 am

    What is next? Precrime? Minority Report? Oh that’s right…it’s already here.

    Reply
13. 

    wreckinball

    January 8, 2013 at 2:15 pm

    Dudes, I’ve been tellin anyone who cares to listen to be carefull what you say about the current administration in office.”They” have the power to hear what you say and could possibly send you to a “re-educational” camp never to be seen again.So,if I go missing don’t say you wern’t told. Plus- you guys need to do some research on “fusion centers” and do a report on those too.

    Reply
14. 

    Dave

    January 8, 2013 at 9:50 pm

    Can you send a web link to the specific part of the NDAA that supports what you discussed in the article.

    Reply
15. 

    I am Jack

    January 23, 2013 at 2:27 am

    Well, down here on the street level police cruisers in Los Angeles are equipped with roof mounted video cameras and are constantly shooting video of cars everywhere they go. Seems like they got inspired by the Google Maps cars and decided to get in on a good thing. The department claims it’s perfectly legal to shoot video of vehicles (and people) in plain sight. So what are the Police doing with all of this video?…besides storing it sometimes for years? Why selling it to various companies of course! That’s right, the police department is shooting video of every car they can, be it driving, parked on the street or even parked in a private driveway and selling that video to companies who mine that data for their own monetary gain. And guess who’s paying the police to shoot the video of us so they can turn around and make money off of it? Yep…US. We are paying the Police to do this, like it or not…not.

    Reply