Forum Index » GEAR » quadcopter/drones for backpacking (the future is coming)


Display Avatars Sort By:
Brian UL
(MAYNARD76)

Locale: New England
Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Judge, jury and executioner': Legal experts fear implications of White House drone memo on 02/06/2013 05:31:59 MST Print View

This isn't some conspiracy ,it's real.
When I was a little boy America was supposed to be the good guy. We didn't torture, we didn't spy on citizens and search them without a warrant. We believed all people were equal under the law it didn't matter if you we're a rich Wall Street banker a politician or a janitor. Back then all people where innocent until proven guilty by s court of law.
All that has changed. We are not that country anymore. There is nothing special about America anymore were just like any other corrupt country.The only thing special about us is our military power. international law is meaningless Who will challenge us? Will Australia? We have no transparency we don't even know for sure what our own government is up too. We are slowly becoming another third world nation a country for and by special interest. War on terror,war on drugs war,war,war. And even our press fails us and whistleblowers are the new public enemy and any one who protest and complains about corruption and growing inequality is told to just stop whining. There needs to be some major changes and major social upheaval to get back our civil and constitutional rights with a lawful and transparent government that serves the public interest.

Arapiles .
(Arapiles) - M

Locale: Melbourne
Re: Search & Rescue drone applications on 02/06/2013 05:47:57 MST Print View

"OTOH, I AM serious about an "open drone hunting season". If I knew private drones were monitoring an area for invasion of privacy reasons I'd be very tempted to shoot them down."

Edited

Edited by Arapiles on 06/15/2013 21:49:42 MDT.

Katharina ....
(Kat_P) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Coast
Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Judge, jury and executioner': Legal experts fear implications of White House drone memo on 02/06/2013 06:08:46 MST Print View

Roger:
"The so-called 'legal experts' in this case are probably Tea Party supporters solely concerned with attacking Obama. THAT is politics. "


So very wrong Roger. Among many other non Tea Party members...my brother supports Obama, is not a US citizen, IS one of the legal experts , teaching and publishing on such matters in several languages and in charge of the Legal team for another county's armed forced on active duty.....and he vehemently condemns this.

In my opinion, you are the one dragging politics into this.

Nick Gatel
(ngatel) - MLife

Locale: Southern California
@ Roger re: war on 02/06/2013 06:33:34 MST Print View

Roger,

The US Constitution is very clear on the purpose of out military;

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions"

I don't recall Afghanistan or Iraq invading us.

The Constitution does not grant the Government the authority to engage in nation building or going to war at the request of other countries.

The Constitution is also explicit on dealing with traitors;

"The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed."

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."

We created the terrorist problem by interfering with governments. Most of the despots we have killed or supported their killing, we at one time supported with military and/or financial aid -- something not authorized by our Constitution.

I was in the military and support a strong US military, but I more strongly support our Constitution and Declaration of Independence.

Sent with my iPhone - please forgive any spelling or grammar errors.

Michael Duke
(mpd1690) - F
Re: @ Roger re: war on 02/06/2013 07:03:03 MST Print View

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions"

The problem here is that this is a power granted to Congress, but it does not exclude other military action. It is saying that congress has the power "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions", but it does not say what they don't have the power to do nor that they have exclusive jurisdiction.

What I am curious about is when is your right to trial suspended? I assume that imminent danger voids it, but what exactly does that constitute?

Nick Gatel
(ngatel) - MLife

Locale: Southern California
Re: Re: @ Roger re: war on 02/06/2013 07:09:08 MST Print View

Michael,

Refer to The Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights for the freedoms that cannot be restricted.

Michael Duke
(mpd1690) - F
Re: Re: Re: @ Roger re: war on 02/06/2013 07:25:35 MST Print View

But all of those can be restricted. You cant yell fire in a crowded building with no fire. You can't own certain weapons. If you start shooting at someone, you essentially waive your right to trial. What constitutes an excessive fine? The constitution and the amendments are full of restrictions, regulations, and exceptions.

Edited by mpd1690 on 02/06/2013 07:26:27 MST.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Judge, jury and executioner': Legal experts fear implications of White House drone memo on 02/06/2013 08:21:10 MST Print View

Drone strikes in Afganistan may qualify as war and thus make sense

What about Yemen? or other countries that we're not at war with?

Drones make it too easy, with no human lives at risk

If we do drone attacks against someone that can't defend themselves, they'll be more likely to retaliate with some terrorist attack

I'm not being critical of what they've done so much as we need to move in the direction of having fewer military actions. More effective to build roads and hospitals in Afganistan or wherever. At least we're "out" of Iraq and getting out of Afganistan.

Jeremy Platt
(jeremy089786) - F

Locale: Sydney
new drone on 02/06/2013 13:33:32 MST Print View

and now for a 16g drone that can fly at 35km/h in bad conditions and transmit video feed for 30mins. Pretty good for a modest...125000 pounds each!

http://www.gizmag.com/black-hornet-nano-uav/26118/

Doug I.
(idester) - MLife

Locale: MidAtlantic
Re: new drone on 02/06/2013 14:03:38 MST Print View

I am definitely getting one of those things! At current exchange rates, that's only 195,675 dollars!

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: 'Judge, jury and executioner': Legal experts fear implications of White House drone memo on 02/06/2013 16:44:25 MST Print View

"I play video games with my 11 year old son quite a bit. He's good. I mean really good. I know he plays online (I play online with him) but I recently found out he's got a "reputation", even amongst college and adult gamers."

Your son is already obsolete.

The computer does all the real time stuff. Too much time delay from video camera to satelite to operator back to satelite back to drone.

Which takes us to Asimov's laws for robots:

A robot will not harm a human

A robot will obey humans unless it violates rule #1

Samuel C. Farrington
(scfhome) - M

Locale: Chocorua NH, USA
al-Awlaki on 02/06/2013 23:22:58 MST Print View

The arguments invoking US citizenship against Roger's premises miss a few points:

The US Constition prescribes what creates US citizenship, but not all that may forfeit it. Section 349(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act [8 U.S.C. 1481(a)(3)] provides for loss of U.S. nationality if an American voluntarily and with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship enters or serves in foreign armed forces engaged in hostilities against the United States.

None of us can have listened to every utterance by Awlaki about his US origins, but it would not be at all surprising if somewhere along the line he took occasion to renunciate his US citizenship.

Even without that, a federal lawsuit involving this issue was dismissed by a federal judge (a 'legal expert'?) who found the issue perplexing and declined to act on the basis of "political questions."

The whole subject is well covered in a NY Times article at:
http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/a/anwar_al_awlaki/index.html
The article discusses at length the grounds upon which the Obama administration determined to proceed against al-Alwaki as it did. Those who disagree with Roger might learn something from it.

In an era where global organizations are becoming increasingly powerful, moreso than many sovereign states, direct military hostilities by such organizations against the USA may be far more threatening than those originating from foreign countries. Sometimes offense is not just the best defense, it is the only means of defense.

With respect to Roger's comments about the motives of the salon.com initiative, I also noted that some of the those pushing the citizenship argument had strong Republican Party complections. Sometimes someone a little removed from a situation can see it more clearly than those of us who are directly involved in the midst of it.

None of that negates my aforementioned over-riding concern about the slaughter of innocent people from "collateral damage," not to mention provisions in several recent defense authorization acts making provision for the arrest and indefinite detention, incommunicado, of persons, including US citizens, determined by the US military to be terrorists. Shades of the disappeared in countries ruled by fascist regimes.

When I wrote to my Republican Senator about this, I got over five single spaced pages of argument that boiled down to, 'We've always been able to do this, so it is OK to codify it in a law.' What puzzles me is how we so often get wound up in the US about some issues, and ignore more serious issues looming over us. Haven't quite figured it out, but maybe it has something to do with the diminution of the quality of communication on the internet, twitter, facebook, talk radio and TV, etc., the dumbing down of our educational system, and mindless fads that seem to rage on in this environment.
We can do much better, and must if we want to survive.

Edited by scfhome on 02/06/2013 23:31:39 MST.

Roger Caffin
(rcaffin) - BPL Staff - MLife

Locale: Wollemi & Kosciusko NPs, Europe
Re: al-Awlaki on 02/07/2013 01:43:22 MST Print View

I asked the following simple question:
'Imagine you are leading a US Army patrol in, say, Afganistan, patrol an area known to be threatened by Al-Quaeda. You come under fire. Are these 'legal experts' demanding that the patrol leader trot up to the enemy combatants to ask them 'Any of you chaps American?''

I see Sam has been game to answer this simple question, but so far no-one else has really. Thanks you Sam.

So let me up the ante by asking another very simple question - and there is a bonus question with it.

Imagine that US armed forces cannot return fire without first checking to see whether any of the hostiles are (or had been) American citizens. US solders in Afghanistan will get killed as a result (how many thousand body bags so far?).
Question: how do you explain this command to the parents, wives and children of the dead US soldiers?

Bonus question following this one:
How many weeks will it be before every US soldier resigns from the US Army as a result?

I await lots of really helpful answers to these simple questions (but no avoiding the issue).

Cheers

Mark Fowler
(KramRelwof) - MLife

Locale: Namadgi
Re: @ Roger re: war on 02/07/2013 03:09:01 MST Print View

Nick Gatel commented "The Constitution does not grant the Government the authority to engage in nation building or going to war at the request of other countries."

Gee Roger, It's a pity the Australian Constitution doesn't contain the same requirement.
We wouldn't have been dragged in to supporting the US in Vietnam, Iraq 1 or Iraq 2 or, no doubt other conflicts - or would we!

Doug I.
(idester) - MLife

Locale: MidAtlantic
Re: Re: new drone on 02/07/2013 10:15:44 MST Print View

Wait! I changed my mind. Instead of a drone, I want a rolling iPad holder to hike ahead of me and show me what's coming up! Anybody can have a drone, I'll be the only kid on the block with a Double telepresence robot!

From the marketers:

Live Vicariously Through Your iPad -- It will probably be some time before the Double telepresence robot from Double Robotics becomes commonplace, but it easily took the prize for the coolest product at Macworld/iWorld. Double consists of a self-balancing driving cylinder with an extensible stalk, topped by an iPad. The idea is that you can use another iPad over the Internet to control where your Double goes and see what its iPad camera sees while displaying your face on its iPad, all in real time. You can even raise and lower the stalk to maintain face-to-face conversation whether the other people are sitting or standing. ... Double weighs only 15 pounds (6.8 kg) and can operate all day on a single charge. It’s not cheap though, listing for $2,499 and available for pre-order for $1,999, with an early 2013 ship date.

.double

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: new drone on 02/07/2013 10:22:51 MST Print View

Or, you could just stay at home and let it do your hike for you

Samuel C. Farrington
(scfhome) - M

Locale: Chocorua NH, USA
Roger's bonus question on 02/07/2013 15:35:59 MST Print View

Roger,
In my day, resignation was not an option for an enlisted man, and it is even less so now (repeated tours etc.) But I get your point.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Roger's bonus question on 02/07/2013 15:46:06 MST Print View

Obviously if you have people on the ground you can't make them make a legal case against someone before shooting them

So, it's okay to have drones in Afganistan and maybe across the border into Pakistan (although Pakistan may not agree)

But what about other countries in the world - less clear

And rather than having so much military action we should use peaceful techniques like building roads and hospitals

Nick Gatel
(ngatel) - MLife

Locale: Southern California
Re: Re: al-Awlaki on 02/07/2013 18:52:49 MST Print View

Roger,

I think there is quite a difference between returning hostile fire vs "surgically" removing a single individual with a drone.

I can see it now...

some pimply kid in on vacation in Kabul with his family jokingly posts on Facebook that he has joined al-Qaeda. A CIA computer picks it up, identifies the ISP, tracks it to his cell phone, satellites in orbit lock onto the cell phone, a drone is launched, poof, no kid.

Far fetched? Maybe. But then I am in Colorado Springs, 1000 miles from home, posting with with a phone. Inconceivable to me 4 years ago.

What if we had these drones and policies in 1972? Would we have targeted Hanoi Jane? Many government officials thought so. Not saying she was right or wrong, but many called for her to be charged with treason. But today the President and military could be the judge, jury and executioner.

hanoi jane

Scary. No due process.

HK Newman
(hknewman) - MLife

Locale: Western US
Re: Re: al-Awlaki on 02/07/2013 19:19:29 MST Print View

I asked the following simple question:
'Imagine you are leading a US Army patrol in, say, Afganistan, patrol an area known to be threatened by Al-Quaeda. You come under fire. Are these 'legal experts' demanding that the patrol leader trot up to the enemy combatants to ask them 'Any of you chaps American?''

I see Sam has been game to answer this simple question, ..

Imagine that US armed forces cannot return fire without first checking to see whether any of the hostiles are (or had been) American citizens. US solders in Afghanistan will get killed as a result (how many thousand body bags so far?).


Having been there recently -- If shot at, the military can shoot back. If a European is observed wandering about but not firing a weapon, then that's of interest. Of course, the Taliban will have an interest too and you'd try to identify said non-native.

Bonus question following this one:
How many weeks will it be before every US soldier resigns from the US Army as a result?


FWIW, I can answer this having prepped reserve unit for Iraq deployment. In reality, once activated, there's no real resignations in lieu of deployment for US enlisted or officer anymore, except for some sort of verifiable hardship granted by a general (which may lead to a discharge as deployment is the job). Now the US military will process the resignation or discharge during the deployment, .. it will be waiting upon return from Afghanistan.

There's refusal to follow lawful orders but that's a military justice issue. Bottom line: A US troop is allowed lawful self-defense (to put it mildly...). Even with the new sights, if a combatant is putting some out effective fire, it will be returned --.

For my prize, can I get one of the foxier BPL girls wrapped in cuben fiber?

Add: There's some militarily neat things about "drones" but, IMO, there needs to be a clear-cut case the target is an actual combatant or terrorist. How do we define terrorist? Also, remember the rest of the world is catching up on this technology...

Edited by hknewman on 02/07/2013 19:53:36 MST.