Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

phantom power

(25,966 posts)
Wed Feb 15, 2012, 06:12 PM Feb 2012

Drone plane manufacturing industry is writing the legislation that governs their use in the US

Matt Stoller at Republic Report has uncovered a very intriguing document showing that the drone plane manufacturing industry is writing the legislation that governs their use in the United States. They openly brag about it:

Drones are mainly associated with the Predator airships that patrol the Afghanistan sky. But thanks to a bipartisan vote last week, the public can expect 30,000 domestic drones flying over the United States in the next eight years...

Yesterday, we reported how the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVS), a drone trade group, actually doubled its recent lobbying expenses. Today, we report on a PowerPoint presentation put together by top AUVS lobbyists Michael Toscano, Mario Mairena, and Ben Gielow. The lobby group — which maintains an official partnership in Congress with Reps. Buck McKeon (R-CA), Henry Cuellar (D-TX), and dozens of other lawmakers — was the driving force behind the domestic drone decision passed last week. In the presentation obtained by Republic Report, there are several fascinating concerns raised by the lobbyists.


The report lists a few items, but this one has to be the most chilling:

Pages 10-12: The drone industry eagerly anticipates that civil drone use, including use of drones for “suspect tracking” by law enforcement, will soon eclipse military use of drones. Under a section called “Challenges facing UAS,” the lobbyists listed “Civil Liberties.”


http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2012/02/drones-and-military-industrial-complex.html
41 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Drone plane manufacturing industry is writing the legislation that governs their use in the US (Original Post) phantom power Feb 2012 OP
And let me guess gratuitous Feb 2012 #1
This is where we need a Constitutional amendment! atreides1 Feb 2012 #2
fascism fascisthunter Feb 2012 #3
I was asking about this last week, regarding the use of drones to kill people sabrina 1 Feb 2012 #4
My thoughts exactly, Sabrina. I want to fully support the President, but when I heard this: sad sally Feb 2012 #8
It is heart-breaking to read all of that. And I have been following the escalation sabrina 1 Feb 2012 #11
Yes, I have read Mr. Schahill's article. Tom Englehardt and Nick Turse also have sad sally Feb 2012 #12
It's almost as if the CIA/Blackwater operate with impunity. sabrina 1 Feb 2012 #20
This should be an OP. woo me with science Feb 2012 #27
+1000 G_j Feb 2012 #41
(Obama) ‘Drones have not caused a huge number of civilian casualties’ G_j Feb 2012 #34
I might have to buy some barrage balloons and chaff dispensers then. arbusto_baboso Feb 2012 #5
Dog bites man hifiguy Feb 2012 #6
Here's the leading manufacturer of these non-human killing machines writing laws governing their use sad sally Feb 2012 #7
Ooooo scary "drones" intaglio Feb 2012 #9
deliberate stalking/spying by government/police agencies who can kill without trial etc msongs Feb 2012 #10
Knee-Jerk response again intaglio Feb 2012 #18
Do you really believe all that tripe? Occulus Feb 2012 #23
It's better than being a conspiracy theorist intaglio Feb 2012 #24
so we should just shrug our shoulders over a huge expansion of domestic drones librechik Feb 2012 #33
Yup, intaglio Feb 2012 #38
How is *anything* to do with drones an iota different than a police helicopter? Stinky The Clown Feb 2012 #13
They don't need pilots KamaAina Feb 2012 #14
When they are killing people? sabrina 1 Feb 2012 #15
It's like a taser... phantom power Feb 2012 #16
They can be the size of birds now, woo me with science Feb 2012 #26
Who is to say that the goverment isn't using animal drones right now? nt bathroommonkey76 Feb 2012 #40
What about when they get to insect size? Fumesucker Feb 2012 #29
OK, here's my brilliant bit of "tinfoil" to add to this discussion... Peace Patriot Feb 2012 #17
I await, with bated breath, intaglio Feb 2012 #19
You make a broad generalization about "conspiracies" with no examples... Peace Patriot Feb 2012 #21
In other words intaglio Feb 2012 #25
i think you underestimate the motive of billions of dollars of profit... Peace Patriot Feb 2012 #30
Where to begin intaglio Feb 2012 #37
Yet that confluence of power relied on one lunatic to shoot Giffords up... Dreamer Tatum Feb 2012 #39
Mitre Corp = MIT Research Stinky The Clown Feb 2012 #28
K&R woo me with science Feb 2012 #22
That is what happens when we have no one in charge Rex Feb 2012 #31
When drones go rogue... sad sally Feb 2012 #32
Well that should give the local news channels Rex Feb 2012 #35
Yay! Another black hole for tax payer money! Nt xchrom Feb 2012 #36

gratuitous

(82,849 posts)
1. And let me guess
Wed Feb 15, 2012, 06:19 PM
Feb 2012

Legislation will be written to allow for as broad a use of UAVs as possible, with all sorts of built-in exceptions to those pesky passages in the Constitution that appear to limit the government's authority to intrude on the person of citizens. Hey, if you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to fear, right Jamal Tarhuni? Right Brandon Mayfield?

So, no big deal. Nothing to see here. Move along.

atreides1

(16,072 posts)
2. This is where we need a Constitutional amendment!
Wed Feb 15, 2012, 06:21 PM
Feb 2012

A very simple worded amendment: "Only those who are elected to Represent the People of the United States will be allowed to write and introduce laws. No corporate entities, representavtives of any PACs, or those who have a vested interest in said laws, will have any input into said laws."

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
4. I was asking about this last week, regarding the use of drones to kill people
Wed Feb 15, 2012, 06:22 PM
Feb 2012

in so many countries, and why there has been so little outrage here in the US, despite the outrage everywhere else. Someone suggested 'follow the money'.

How depraved we have become. Money is everything and even killing innocent people is not beyond those who crave it and can never have enough of it.

And shame on every elected official who goes along these policies as they are as guilty as those most responsible.

sad sally

(2,627 posts)
8. My thoughts exactly, Sabrina. I want to fully support the President, but when I heard this:
Wed Feb 15, 2012, 07:02 PM
Feb 2012

Speaking publicly for the first time on the controversial CIA drone strikes, Obama claimed last week they are used strictly to target terrorists, rejecting what he called ‘this perception we’re just sending in a whole bunch of strikes willy-nilly’.

‘Drones have not caused a huge number of civilian casualties’, he told a questioner at an on-line forum. ‘This is a targeted, focused effort at people who are on a list of active terrorists trying to go in and harm Americans’.

http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/02/04/obama-terror-drones-cia-tactics-in-pakistan-include-targeting-rescuers-and-funerals/

I can only shake my head and ask how on earth did this method of killing - no, murdering innocent people - become acceptable to Americans with absolutely no legal documents or rules of war* allowing it? It turns us into barbarians.

*It is a war crime under the Geneva Conventions to attack rescuers wearing emblems of the Red Cross or Red Crescent. But what if rescuers wear no emblems, or if civilians are mixed in with militants, as the Bureau’s investigation into drone attacks in Waziristan has repeatedly found?

Do the administration’s claims of legality add up? And what of the specific instances of attacks on rescuers and mourners uncovered by the Bureau?

According to a wide range of international law experts consulted by the Bureau, for the CIA’s drone attacks in Pakistan and Yemen to be legal they would at the very least need to be covered by the Laws of Armed Conflict (LOAC).

Professor Dapo Akande, who heads Oxford University’s Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict, believes that under LOAC the killing of civilian rescuers is problematic: ‘The question is, can rescuing be regarded as taking part in hostilities, to which for me the answer is clearly “No”. That rescuing is not taking part in hostilities.’

If LOAC does not apply – as some respected lawyers believe is the case – then the far more restrictive international human rights law (IHRL) applies. This explicitly forbids attacks except in the most restricted circumstances, namely when the possibility of being attacked is absolutely imminent.

http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/02/04/a-question-of-legality/


Naz Modirzadeh, Associate Director of the Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research (HPCR) at Harvard University, said, ‘Not to mince words here, if it is not in a situation of armed conflict, unless it falls into the very narrow area of imminent threat then it is an extra-judicial execution’, she said. ‘We don’t even need to get to the nuance of who’s who, and are people there for rescue or not. Because each death is illegal. Each death is a murder in that case.’

The Khaisoor incident** was not a one time incident. Between May 2009 and June 2011, at least fifteen attacks on rescuers were reported by credible news media, including the New York Times, CNN, Associated Press, ABC News and Al Jazeera.

It is notoriously difficult for the media to operate safely in Pakistan’s tribal areas. Both militants and the military routinely threaten journalists. Yet for three months a team of local researchers has been seeking independent confirmation of these strikes.

**This was the first confirmed attack on rescuers took place in North Waziristan on May 16 2009. According to Mushtaq Yusufzai, a local journalist, Taliban militants had gathered in the village of Khaisor. After praying at the local mosque, they were preparing to cross the nearby border into Afghanistan to launch an attack on US forces. But the US struck first.

A CIA drone fired its missiles into the Taliban group, killing at least a dozen people. Villagers joined surviving Taliban as they tried to retrieve the dead and injured.

But as rescuers clambered through the demolished house the drones struck again. Two missiles slammed into the rubble, killing many more. At least 29 people died in total.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
11. It is heart-breaking to read all of that. And I have been following the escalation
Wed Feb 15, 2012, 07:21 PM
Feb 2012

of the use of these deadly and cowardly weapons since Bush first started using them.

There is only one way that the President could be excused for what he said and that would be if he is being fed false information.

There is simply no question from the years of reporting on this issue, that many, many more civilians have been killed than terrorists. Maybe someone should show him some of the photos or introduce him to some of those, like I believe, Robert Fisk who witnessed the aftermath of one of these strikes, the children blown to bits, the women hardly recognizable.

Thank you for keeping on telling the truth, despite the efforts made to cover all this up.

I don't know if you read Jeremy Schahill's excellent article on the 'Secret War In Pakistan' but he talks about the use of drones, who is operating that system and from where. Airc, it is the CIA with help from Blackwater, now with a different name. Murderers still working for the US it seems.

I feel for the victims, I've seen their pleas to their governments to stop this killing. No one gets a pass for these kinds of actions imo. I didn't give one to Bush, nor did most on the left, but the silence now is deafening.

sad sally

(2,627 posts)
12. Yes, I have read Mr. Schahill's article. Tom Englehardt and Nick Turse also have
Wed Feb 15, 2012, 07:42 PM
Feb 2012

done some excellent digging thru freedom of information documents about the drone bases (tomdispatch).

It's especially troubling that the CIA, and who knows what other clandestine agencies, become more and more military-like and run these killing operations (in our country's name) that we know less and less, and blindly accept that its okay.

I also fear that the President may be being set up as a "patsy," and while he does and will always have the protection of presidential status, there may be those who would try to charge him with war crimes in the future. We know that Bush and Cheney could certainly be included in those types of charges and weren't, so maybe whatever truly wrongs presidents are guilty of the next one protects the last...it may be one of those rules we're not privy to.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
20. It's almost as if the CIA/Blackwater operate with impunity.
Thu Feb 16, 2012, 03:22 AM
Feb 2012

Does anyone have control over them anymore, do they work for Global Arms Dealers, Defense Contractors??

When the drone program was suspended a few weeks ago after they murdered 24 Pakistani Troops, a member of the State Department was very relieved and stated 'we can't kill our way out of this'. I have read that there is a lot of conflict within the DOJ and State Dept. But it looks like they won, again.

And Congress appears to have no say in anything anymore. They have totally abdicated their Constitutional duties

G_j

(40,366 posts)
34. (Obama) ‘Drones have not caused a huge number of civilian casualties’
Fri Feb 17, 2012, 02:35 PM
Feb 2012

I guess it depends on what 'huge' means...

arbusto_baboso

(7,162 posts)
5. I might have to buy some barrage balloons and chaff dispensers then.
Wed Feb 15, 2012, 06:24 PM
Feb 2012

Not that I do anything illegal. I just don't like being watched for no good damned reason.

 

hifiguy

(33,688 posts)
6. Dog bites man
Wed Feb 15, 2012, 06:27 PM
Feb 2012

and I am sure their money has been spread around thickly on both sides of the aisle. The totalitarian state gets a few steps closer.

sad sally

(2,627 posts)
7. Here's the leading manufacturer of these non-human killing machines writing laws governing their use
Wed Feb 15, 2012, 06:30 PM
Feb 2012


General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. (GA-ASI), an affiliate of privately-held General Atomics, is a leading manufacturer of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), tactical reconnaissance radars, and surveillance systems. The company’s Aircraft Systems Group is a leading designer and manufacturer of proven, reliable UAS. It also manufactures a variety of solid-state digital Ground Control Stations (GCS) and provides pilot training and support services for UAS field operations. The Reconnaissance Systems Group designs, manufactures, and integrates the Lynx® Multi-mode Radar and the highly sophisticated Claw® sensor payload control and image analysis software on to both manned and unmanned surveillance aircraft. It also integrates other sensor and communication equipment into manned Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance (ISR) aircraft and develops emerging technologies in solid-state lasers, electo-optical sensors, and ultra-wideband data links for government applications.

GA-ASI has over 5,000 employees at multiple facilities in the San Diego area and in the Mojave Desert, just east of Los Angeles.

http://www.ga-asi.com/about/index.php?du

edited to add this procurement by the Pentagon:

December 31, 2011|By W.J. Hennigan

The Air Force has bought a new hunter-killer aircraft that is the fastest and largest armed drone in its fleet.

The Avenger, which cost the military $15 million, is the latest version of the Predator drones made by General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc., a San Diego-area company that also builds the robotic MQ-9 Reapers for the Air Force and CIA.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/31/business/la-fi-stealth-drone-20111231

intaglio

(8,170 posts)
9. Ooooo scary "drones"
Wed Feb 15, 2012, 07:05 PM
Feb 2012

Now start to think. Any model remote control model aircraft or helicopter is a "drone"; any home built quad rotor is a drone and many of those are semi autonomous. "Drones" operating only semi legally have caught companies polluting and legal, law enforcement operated drones have caught rustlers.

At present there is little or no operational or flight control legislation governing the use of remote control or semi-autonomous aircraft beyond line of sight and there needs to be such legislation to avoid hazard to regular air traffic.

Think, a quad rotor with an iPhone on board could film police violence with little chance of the operator being arrested and his phone "accidentally" destroyed.

Think, logging companies could be watched by environmental groups with little chance of the watchers being beaten to a pulp by the company goons.

Think, secure compounds can be watched more effectively, delicate environments can be monitored with low impact.

Now stop indulging in knee-jerk scaremongering.

msongs

(67,394 posts)
10. deliberate stalking/spying by government/police agencies who can kill without trial etc
Wed Feb 15, 2012, 07:18 PM
Feb 2012

we can park all the drones over you, though with 100K of them airspace might get a bit tight

intaglio

(8,170 posts)
18. Knee-Jerk response again
Thu Feb 16, 2012, 12:57 AM
Feb 2012

Government and police agencies can already stalk you and spy on you, they can already kill you without trial; all you can hope is that there is some executive or judicial oversight that restrains those actions or that can bring the perpetrators to heel. The use of UAVs does not change the reality but the lack of legislation governing the use of this technology makes it more dangerous both to the victims and the bystanders whilst also giving legitimate private use of UAVs some protection in law,

Life is not a Hollywood film, Skynet is not a reality; life and the world is messy, confusing and dangerous.

intaglio

(8,170 posts)
24. It's better than being a conspiracy theorist
Thu Feb 16, 2012, 08:23 PM
Feb 2012

The government, police, homeland security and others all can and do spy on ordinary citizens. You know this.

The police are known to kill people without warrant and "he was resisting arrest," or "I thought he was going to pull a gun," are usually considered sufficient justification.

So what is new? Just the scary word "Drone" and a panic over nothing.

librechik

(30,674 posts)
33. so we should just shrug our shoulders over a huge expansion of domestic drones
Fri Feb 17, 2012, 02:34 PM
Feb 2012

becasue cops already surveil? Not on this scale, and it will make your messy dangerous world many times worse. But we should just shut up and wait for the inevitable domestic abuses of the technology? Really? Sorry to bother you then! Hope you are NOT one of the first victims of this new policy.

intaglio

(8,170 posts)
38. Yup,
Fri Feb 17, 2012, 04:48 PM
Feb 2012

Just as people metaphorically shrugged their shoulders about digital spying, wiretaps, aerial bombardment of civilians and issuing guns as standard practise to law enforcement officers (UK).

There is difference about "drones" which puts it in the same class as digital spying; they are available to normal human beings to help them watch over the oppressors. As I have noted in another post such information will be acted upon only rarely but it does level the playing field a little.

Stinky The Clown

(67,786 posts)
13. How is *anything* to do with drones an iota different than a police helicopter?
Wed Feb 15, 2012, 08:01 PM
Feb 2012

Even a scintilla of difference?

A scad of difference?

A millimeter of difference?

A nuanced shade of difference?

 

KamaAina

(78,249 posts)
14. They don't need pilots
Wed Feb 15, 2012, 08:13 PM
Feb 2012

therefore it is much easier to deploy thousands and thousands of them.

I'd say that's at least a scad.

phantom power

(25,966 posts)
16. It's like a taser...
Wed Feb 15, 2012, 09:41 PM
Feb 2012

it makes it psychologically easier to use against other people. They're smaller than helicopters (and they'll keep getting smaller), and so they will become cheap and very ubiquitous.

The surveillance drones will eventually become bird sized, then insect sized. I don't know how small the armed ones will become. Either way, there will be a lot of them.

woo me with science

(32,139 posts)
26. They can be the size of birds now,
Thu Feb 16, 2012, 08:54 PM
Feb 2012

and soon, if not now, the size of insects. The surveillance possibilities are endless.

And they are unmanned, meaning you can deploy as many as you want.

Police in Texas are already using drones.

No, it is not the same as a helicopter.

Fumesucker

(45,851 posts)
29. What about when they get to insect size?
Thu Feb 16, 2012, 11:01 PM
Feb 2012

This is what they're putting on Youtube and telling us about..

What do you suppose is back in the black lab?

Peace Patriot

(24,010 posts)
17. OK, here's my brilliant bit of "tinfoil" to add to this discussion...
Wed Feb 15, 2012, 11:44 PM
Feb 2012

Did you know that Rep. Giffords had introduced a bill to ban the sale of drone aircraft and other USAF toys on the open market, and was targeted for murder in the mass killing in Arizona a week after John Wheeler was found dead from head injuries and his body dumped in a landfill in New Jersey?

John Wheeler--most famous for his work on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial--had one of the highest security clearances in the country and was also some kind of investigator and adviser (possibly "fixer&quot to several presidents, and to the Pentagon, on high level, top secret wrong-doing or mess-up's (for instance, the episode of the missing nukes during the Bush Junta). At the time of his mysterious death, he was working for Mitre Corporation on drone aircraft development and cyber security. Mitre is a HUGELY powerful and influential high technology corporation, which, for instance, programs all airport systems around the world, both civilian and military. (They wrote the book on NORAD.)

I've looked closely at the available details of Wheeler's death, and I'd say that, a) he was being hunted, b) he was kidnapped, drugged and released, and c) his persecutors/murderers wanted something from him (wanted him to do something? wanted him to give them something--possibly something he was hiding in the floorboards of his kitchen?). He refused and was murdered and this very patriotic man, with a top secret clearance, security advisor to a succession of presidents and to the Pentagon, West Point graduate and main force behind the Vietnam Veterans' Memorial, was dumped out with the garbage.

And nobody in the Corporate Press or in our national political establishment seemed to care about it at the time, and it quickly flowed into the great river of national forgetfulness.

Was he investigating corruption in the drone industry or the Air Force? Same month: The AF admitted that it had lied to a Senate committee on its drone aircraft operations, using the quibble that the law requiring disclosure of their operations did not mention drones because drones had not been invented when that law was written! Did Wheeler's death have something to do with this--something the AF or Mitre was trying to cover up?

Was Wheeler's death connected to another violent incident in the same 10-day period--the firey death of Ashley Turton, in her own garage in Washington DC, in her own BMW, which was half out of the garage. The vehicle spontaneously combusted on the very day that she closed a multi-billion dollar deal between her company, Progress Energy, and Duke Energy (which recently opened a big new aeronautical facility at Charlotte International). One of Progress Energy's projects was building new nuclear power plants. She was a Progress Energy lobbyist. She was married to Obama's liaison to the House and both she and her husband had done extensive legislative and congressional work. They had three small children. The week before she died, Turnot attended an important Democratic Party meeting in...Arizona! I don't know if Giffords attended that meeting, but it seems likely.

Giffords was on all the relevant committees that oversee high technology development by the military and its contractors. She also had a interest in green energy.

Wheeler and Turnot meet violent deaths and Giffords is gravely attacked, all within 10 days of each other--and all within spitting distance, time-wise, of an Air Force scandal. Wheeler's death was declared a murder. It is unsolved. Turnot's death was declared an accident (a pretty impossible one). The assault on Giffords was without motive, as far as I know, and seems to have been committed by a "programmed" madman (of the Sirhan Sirhan kind--scrambled brains, repetitive outflow, like their brains are stuck on certain things and fixed in a drug-induced, programmed haze that they can't get out of).

Wheeler dies first (on New Year's 2010), followed by the Dem Party meeting in Arizona (Jan. 5, which was attended by Turnot and might have been attended by Giffords). Then the attack on Giffords (three days later, Jan. 8). Then Turnot's firey death (Jan. 10).

I don't know if there are any connections. If there are connections, I don't know if Giffords has figured this out, suspects anything or even remembers submitting a bill to ban the sale of drone aircraft--or whether or not she met with Turnot at that Dem Party meeting in Arizona, or remembers anything about it.

If there is something in this, and she knows or suspects something, she would have to stay quiet about, I imagine--if she wants to stay alive.

Wheeler's behavior before his murder is chilling and fascinating. He cuts off all communications with everyone, for the two day period leading up to his murder, including an abrupt cutoff of his West Point buddies (they were exchanging emails about sports) and proceeds into a baffling saga, wandering around his home town on foot, seemingly dazed and in need of help. Several strangers offer help. He refuses all help and calls no one--not his wife (who was out of the country), not his lawyers, not his friends or colleagues, not his employer, not what must have been his extensive contacts in DC and in the region, not the police. He can't find his car. He tells someone his briefcase was stolen. He spends the night (Dec 30) at an unknown location, and shows up on a surveillance camera the next day having discarded his soiled coat jacket (the first shot of him on camera, the previous day, he looks like he's been mugged) and acquired a hooded sweatshirt. He hangs around a law office building and finally goes up to the law offices, asks to speak to a partner and disappears before the receptionist can find anyone. He shows up on the surveillance camera again, outside the building, heading off into the night. He was murdered that night and his body was found the next day in a landfill.

He had bipolar disorder but no history of drug or alcohol abuse. No one thought he was drunk. He did not act like he was on a "bender." He acted confused and hunted. And he further very clearly acted like he COULDN'T ask for, or accept, help. He was on his own, incommunicado, trapped maybe, in a dilemma. What was his dilemma? Why didn't he hitch a ride (which he had done many times) or call a taxi and go home (only 20 minutes away)? Why didn't he call the police or have someone call? Surely they would have taken him home--an advisor to presidents and the frigging Pentagon.

Another complication involves some smoke bombs that were set off at an unfinished house, across the street from his own. He had strongly objected to that construction, which violated a civil war memorial. His cell phone was found at the site. But it is completely absurd to posit that a West Point grad and top security advisor to presidents and the Pentagon, would smoke bomb anything and leave his cell phone behind (!)--as one of his West Point buddies pointed out. Wheeler was trained in demolition. As his West Point buddy said, if Wheeler had wanted that construction gone, it would have been gone, leaving no trace! The most logical conclusion is that somebody was setting him up--seeding a trail with evidence. But how did they get his cell phone, and when, where and why did he discard it? Did he think his pursuers were tracking him via his cell phone? That is a quite logical surmise, considering his other behavior and who he was. This was not a CIVILIAN in some kind of trouble. This was a highly trained, highly technology savvy, ex-military officer working for Mitre, for godssakes!

Turnot's death also has many anomalies. Basically, the fire that killed her could not have happened by accident. They said she was drunk. And I'd like to know how they could tell that, from a burnt-to-a-crisp body. They said she hit something in her garage, at very slow speed, and that engulfed her BMW in flames and she burned up in it. What was she supposed to have hit? No clue. How could a BMW become engulfed in flames even if she bumped a gas can or an electrical outlet, at 5 MPH? Think about it. A bit of gas splashes on the hood. An electric spark somehow alights on the gas. Poof! That bit of gas flames up. Then what? It goes out--and the hood has a dark spot on the paint! It doesn't engulf the BMW in flames and burn its occupant to a crisp. What could do that? Even if the gas/spark, that might have been caused by a very low speed crash into a couple of things in her garage, had gotten under the car, that would not blow up a BMW, and certainly not that fast (so she couldn't get out). It would likely have petered out--and any confluence of hit objects, in an ordinary garage, that could produce that result, would almost have to have been PLACED THERE and PLANNED.

And this devoted mother of three small children, who were at home at the time, was drinking so heavily at 5:00 in the morning, all alone, celebrating her big Progress/Duke deal, that she couldn't get her car into or out of her garage, or couldn't open the door and exit the car, when she saw a fire? It's not plausible--from any perspective. Really, I think this was murder and it was covered up.

Upshot, today: Drones abroad, drones at home, drones killing people without benefit of trial, drones spying God knows where, drones in Libya killing rebel troops, loyal troops and civilians alike, drones on the open market sold to friendly militaries and security forces, and it's only a matter of time before they show up all over. Drones galore!

WE PAID for the development of this technology (with John Wheeler in the middle of it, and Rep. Giffords trying to limit its proliferation, and the Air Force lying about it) and now it's the slickest item on the weapons market and a lot of people are making a lot of money from it.

Wheeler and Giffords are connected by mutual interest. With Turnot, there is no obvious connection except that she was in Arizona at a Democratic meeting three days before Giffords was attacked and five days before she herself burned to death in her BMW.

I'm thinking whistleblower. I'm thinking powerful assassins and I'm thinking cover up. Both Wheeler's and Turnot's deaths were bumped out of the news by the violence in Arizona. Neither one has been given a proper investigation. Wheeler's killer or killers are still at large. Turnot's death is inexplicable. The attack on Giffords had no motive that we know of, but it, for sure, shut her up. She has now resigned her congressional seat for health reasons.

Dec. 31. Wheeler beaten and dumped in a landfill.
Jan. 5. Meeting in Arizona.
Jan. 8. Giffords attacked, almost killed.
Jan. 10. Turnot burned to death.

?????????

intaglio

(8,170 posts)
19. I await, with bated breath,
Thu Feb 16, 2012, 01:07 AM
Feb 2012

This particular conspiracy theory showing up on Moonbattery or FR, with subsequent cameo appearances in the Conspiracy Theory subset of "Fundies Say the Darndest Things".

Conspiracies do happen but they are always less complicated and less all enveloping than the theorists like to imagine because every complication increases the chances of discovery exponentially.

Peace Patriot

(24,010 posts)
21. You make a broad generalization about "conspiracies" with no examples...
Thu Feb 16, 2012, 11:35 AM
Feb 2012

...let alone details and you ignore the very considerable detail that I've presented, based on research: the facts about each death are true, and the possible connections (the Dem Party meeting in AZ Feb. 5; Giffords particular interest in drone technology, her effort to ban sales; Wheeler working on that technology and having a history as a top government investigator; the coincidence of dates) are all true. And I leave nothing out that might explain, say, Wheeler's death (such as the strange smoke bomb incident and his objections to the house construction, or his being bipolar).

So why do you say nothing about the substance of my comment? Don't you think further investigation is warranted? You trust "the authorities," who called Turnot's death an "accident," and who can't find the killer or killers of a top AF drone expert at Mitre, with, as one of his West Point buddies said, one of the highest security clearances in the nation? You think these things are NORMAL--a top security consultant ending up as landfill, with not a clue as to why or how? a top lobbyist burning to death in her car?

You are content that the man who built the Vietnam War Veterans Memorial gets dumped in a landfill and nobody knows who did it? And what of Giffords, who was trying to ban drone sales? Is this not the oddest coincidence of all--besides the coincidence of these deaths and the AZ attack all in a 10 day period--that a man who might well have been investigating an AF scandal about drones, ends up dead, and a congresswoman who was trying to ban the sale of drones was slated for death eight days later?

And ain't it odd, as well, that Turnot had been in AZ at a political meeting (she lived in DC)--AZ, of all states--a few days before her BMW mysteriously incinerated her, and only three days before Giffords was shot?

You know, I ADMIT that connecting these events is a stretch--but they bother me. They bother me a lot. They bother me so much that I spent quite a lot of time looking into them. Don't they bother you, even a little bit? You don't think they should be more thoroughly investigated?

By the way, there are plenty of criminal conspiracies that are tangled webs--the BCII scandal, the Enron scandal, the Vatican banking scandal, the Iran-Contra conspiracy, the JFK assassination*, Allende's death in Chile and the car bomb death of his foreign minister in Washington DC, the Savings & Loan scandals, the outing of the CIA's entire WMD counter-proliferation program by Cheney and Rumsfeld (a very deep tangle, that one), the current spying and death squad conspiracy being unraveled by prosecutors in Colombia, numerous mafia and corruption conspiracies that involve many people and many crimes, banking scandals, mortgage scandals, terrorist conspiracies--many tangled webs of "laundered" money and disappeared money and hidden actors and mysterious deaths.

One thing that characterizes criminals is hubris. They think they can't be caught. And the more powerful they are, the more hubris do they have. Criminal conspiracies are thus very often tangled webs. Some have been untangled. Some have not (or not completely). But they most certainly do exist and it is not true that the level of complexity of the conspiracy has anything to do with the reality of the conspiracy. Criminals don't take your advice. They weave tangled webs all the time. In fact, complexity is one sure sign of a criminal conspiracy involving money.

It's just unthinking flak that to assert, for instance, that a complex conspiracy to assassinate a president could not be structured to use the actions of many people without those people knowing what they were doing. Lord, the CIA has done this, time and again, in foreign countries--USED people, fooled people, utilized their particular expertise at misdirection, at disinformation, at distraction, at cover stories, at laying false trails and telling false tales. No reason on earth to think that they couldn't do it here, for the foulest of deeds. And with privatization and outsourcing, there are many private parties out there, today, with the skills to create a very tangled web, for criminal purposes, without getting caught--and there are people and corporate entities of such immense wealth and power that they can and do purchase their only little private "CIA" to protect and expand their wealth and power with crimes, including murder. It is naive to say otherwise--that this or that couldn't happen, because it's too complex.

"Somebody would squeal"? Not if they're dead. Not if they're well paid off. Not if they're sufficiently frightened. Not if they don't know what they may have done to further a crime. Not if they have been sufficiently confused and misdirected. Not if they are criminals themselves. And not if they agree with goal of the crime. Furthermore, if the criminal conspirators are very clever and very powerful, they can create their own false reality--one that is too difficult to challenge, and can't be challenged without significant risk to livelihood, family and life itself. Social pressure, fear and rough treatment of any challengers can all add up to a conspiracy of silence, around a crime or crimes in which many people had some part, knowing or unknowing.

And this is a very, very real phenomenon. We see it in high schools. We see it in families. We see it in communities. We see it in churches and all manner of groups--lawyers, doctors, journalists, businesses, the priesthood, the military, the police. We see it in nations. The fear of going against the grain. Thus, terrible crimes can be committed and terrible tyrants can reign, with impunity. Powerful criminals can create their own false reality that no one dares challenge. A conspiracy can be very complex--and involve many crimes, over a long period of time--and remain hidden, due to fear and manipulation. Only with the greatest difficulty can conspiracies of silence be broken.

The child sex abuse scandal in the Catholic Church is a prime example. Many crimes, by many different priests, over many decades, and many coverups and many complex misdirections, for instance, bishops moving these child abusing priests around from parish to parish. The parishioners in one place don't know what the transferred priest has done in another parish because the bishop has the power to cover it up. They may unknowingly further more crimes by letting that priest counsel children. They may stifle their suspicions. They may shut children up because they don't want to believe it. Over all reigns a false reality, created by the bishops and the church, that priests are benevolent and celibate and agents of God. It took decades of work and immense suffering to unravel it. And it might not have been unraveled, except for a few courageous people who started putting the pieces together, against immense pressure to leave it alone.

That complex conspiracy to cover up crimes and protect criminals is a paradigm of what can happen when some people get too powerful. And we, very unfortunately, now have people, in government and the corporate world, who are that powerful and more so. They can and do commit crimes--very big crimes (for instance, the billion dollars that went missing in Iraq, or the torture dungeons in eastern Europe), some of which we eventually find out about and some of which we don't, and very few of which are ever successfully prosecuted. Hell, we had powerful criminals running the government for eight years. i'm sure we're seeing only the "tip of the iceberg" of what they got up to. And guess what the word is from President Obama? "We need to look forward not backward." A conspiracy of silence. Some people are TOO POWERFUL to investigate and prosecute, and can get away with murder and anything else they want to do, because it's too scary to oppose them.

I'm not saying that there was a conspiracy in this case, around these billion dollar pilotless weapons that are now all the rage in the "military-industrial" complex (or some other matter, such as the Progress/Duke Energy deal). But to say that it's not possible, because somebody would rat them out, is foolish.



------------------

*(An excellent book on this subject is "JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters," by James Douglass.)





intaglio

(8,170 posts)
25. In other words
Thu Feb 16, 2012, 08:37 PM
Feb 2012

You have constructed a typical conspiracy theory. The problem is that every convolution adds, geometrically, to the chance of the conspiracy being discovered and this is why government agencies keep it simple. If Giffords was needed dead or otherwise "taken out" of the game a car accident would have done, or any one of a number of simple one-on-one scenarios. Having a lunatic try (and fail) taking her out in a group of people who are all too likely to try and defend the target is not how any agency works.

You are actually like the "Truthers" who ignore all the avionic and engineering impossibilities to blame the government directly for 9/11

Peace Patriot

(24,010 posts)
30. i think you underestimate the motive of billions of dollars of profit...
Fri Feb 17, 2012, 02:03 PM
Feb 2012

...and don't understand the confluence of government and monstrous, transglobal corporations and war profiteers that has occurred.

The privatization of government has brought with it the corporate culture of secrecy, contempt for the law, evasion of the law, "buying" the law (privateers actually writing the law), LYING to the public, fleecing the public, looting "the commons," and contempt for democracy and the public good. In this context, literally anything is possible, as to cabals within the government/corporate complex bent on barely legal or outright illegal, criminal profiteering, of the million dollar (small) or trillion dollar (mindbogglingly large) variety. We see this almost everywhere we look in 'government,' where the public gaze can penetrate the thicket (and there's a whole lot that we can't see, that has been deliberately obscured, or that are only "tips of the iceberg" of cabalistic profiteering). Ever read/hear an analysis of the private USAID 'contractors' in Afghanistan (or South America, for that matter)? Jeez. Aren't you even suspicious as to how Blackwater became Xe, or how Halliburton got refinanced and moved its headquarters to the United Arab Emirates?

We are talking BIG LOOTERS, and a whole lot of "smaller" looters who are beholden to the most powerful cabals within and surrounding our government. These looters require secrecy and often bewildering complexity as cover for their crimes. I'll give you just one example. A USAID private contractor got a million dollar government contract to assist farmers in Afghanistan in converting from growing poppies to growing food crops. FIFTY PERCENT of that million dollars went to maintaining corporate lobbying offices in DC (to keep churning out new contract applications). TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT went to establishing luxurious, secure digs in Afghanistan for the corporation's U.S. personnel. And nobody knows what happened to the remaining 25%--but it was likely doled out to the local Karzai mafia to use for patronage and ended up supporting the illegal drug trade!

I don't think you have any idea how corrupt our government has become and how infested with the corporate 'culture' (private profit first, last and always--and the public good and the law be damned).

I also don't know where you get the notion that "government agencies keep it simple." Ever do your own taxes? Ever try to navigate the Medicare prescription drug program, for yourself or a loved one?

The bewildering complexity of government, these days, requires high priced accountants, high priced lawyers and other high priced specialists to navigate, and embedded in those government/corporate complexities is the potential for a vast amount of private profiteering (for instance, evasion of taxes) and crimes against humanity (private profiteering off the elderly poor, the disabled and the sick, with the privatization and looting of Medicare).

You wonder why we don't have single payer health care? Because it's TOO SIMPLE. Simple = honest, aboveboard and trackable. You wonder why we don't have citizens counting our votes in the public venue any more, and instead have one, private, far rightwing connected corporation--ES&S, which bought out Diebold--controlling 80% of the vote counts in the U.S. with 'TRADE SECRET' code--code that the public is forbidden to review? Because public vote counting means that you can SEE fraud, when it occurs, and have a chance to prevent it or expose it. And as for complexity, we had one Diebold advocate within government, in California, who actually SAID that a citizen advocate who was criticizing Diebold "is no expert." The citizen was, in fact, an expert on computers and programming. But no matter, the point was that ORDINARY people CAN'T UNDERSTAND a system run on computer code and should therefore shut the fuck up.

Do you have any idea how the conversion of our vote counting system from the public to the private venue has opened us up to cabals within that the government/corporate system, who might not have our best interests at heart, when they 'count' our votes with 'TRADE SECRET' code?

So, give me a break. Cabals are obviously at work. There are OBVIOUSLY conspiracies of every kind to loot our government, to loot us, to abolish our human and civil rights, and to turn government into an entity "of, by and for" the fascisti (the rich, the corporate and the bloodyminded) whose hallmark has ever been SECRECY and other methods of wrongful control including violence.

I have NOT constructed a "typical conspiracy theory" or any kind of "conspiracy theory." I have laid out some FACTS and discussed what I SMELL in those facts--something not right, too much coincidence, possible foul play with a profit purpose--a bothersome, intriguing set of events that I think needs further investigation. Possibly there is no link among these violent events that occurred within 10 days of each other and no link between any two. Another possibility is that foul play for profit was committed in each individual case (especially Wheeler and Turnot) with motives and perpetrators entirely unrelated to each other. I don't know. I said that. And, by the way, I used the word "tinfoil" facetiously. Anybody who tries to link anything to anything--who tries to penetrate the darkness of our very, VERY secretive "government/corporate complex"--is accused of "tinfoil" (insane paranoia). Thus, we are supposed to stand stupidly before foul play, violence, war and vast profiteering, and, indeed, the end of our democracy, and never connect one dot with another on our road to perdition!

You dismiss 9/11 investigators with a Freeper word, "Truthers." Did you ever look into the facts that such investigators have uncovered?

As with the facts that I've laid out, on the events in that ten-day period--Dec. 31, 2010 to Jan. 10, 2011--you don't seem interested in facts, only in a generalized put-down of anyone who has some facts to present. Your stance is that, because government agencies promote "simplicity" (and where you get that from, I don't know), no complex conspiracy or complex covering of asses is possible. Yours is the unreasonable view, not mine.

I wonder what you think of the S&L scandal, the Enron scandal, and the COMPLEX mortgage heist followed by the bankster bailout. You think that our "simple" government agencies were just innocently standing by, while these great crimes occurred? You think the perps were restricted to those few who got caught and got jettisoned by the "powers that be"? You may be that simple, but our corporate-run government is not. Government enabled those crimes in every case, and the powerful people who did that enabling, and most of the profiteers, are still running around free. WHO de-regulated the S&Ls? Hm? You see any of them in jail?

The same with all the other ground work that has been done, by powerful politicians and the powerful lawyers and lobbyists for the very rich, who conspire to loot us blind, to raid "the commons," to destroy good government, to hijack our military for horribly unjust corporate resource wars and to commit crime after crime for profit: the two entities--government and corporations--work intimately together, in complex ways, to impoverish the rest of us and to use the law for their own purposes.

Cabals and conspiracies abound in these abominable circumstances! We can hardly keep up with how many ways we are being looted and our democracy destroyed, nor with the complex rivalries and "wars" within the rampant cabals and conspiracies around us. (Ever wonder how/why Rumsfeld got ousted?) (Hint: Big internal war between the CIA and the Pentagon.) So much is hidden from us! We really have no idea how Bush Jr. got into the White House in the first place, for instance. (You really think that there was no cabal that subverted the Supreme Court? The judges just "honestly" thought that stopping the count of a Gore win in Florida was a good idea?) (Are you familiar with the Associated Press study that said that Gore won, published on 9/12/01?) To be "anti-conspiracy theory" is to promote stupidity, in my opinion. 'Never look at the facts yourself, just accept what you are told.' Not good. Thus cabals and conspiracies have free reign, untroubled by nosey citizens.

intaglio

(8,170 posts)
37. Where to begin
Fri Feb 17, 2012, 04:36 PM
Feb 2012

Businesses have always bought the law and the lawmakers, this has been standard operating procedure in every civilisation and government for which we have sufficient records. It is the other "Golden Rule" - whoever has the gold makes the rules - and democracy or its near imitators only slow down this process occasionally. The wealthy even use nonsense such as you are spouting to divert attention from their weakly concealed activities; Birtherism was fostered by corporations to weaken Obama and ceased when they realised he was just another politician, maybe a bit more honest but still a politician.

You never ask yourself why business needs to conceal their activities behind such elaborate and self defeating schemes. Most people are not in the least interested in the lawbreaking and rampant profiteering in the normal course of events, just so long as the comfortable poverty in which they are ensconced remains comfortable. This loss of status and comfort was the driver behind the #Occupy movement and as soon as that comfort is restored the bulk of the occupiers will (have) vanish(ed). There is one other thing that can stir up controversy and that is another businesses engaging in corporate warfare by driving protest movements.

Yes, I am a cynic ...

Stinky The Clown

(67,786 posts)
28. Mitre Corp = MIT Research
Thu Feb 16, 2012, 10:56 PM
Feb 2012

Mitre is a university arm. Johns Hopkins University's Applied Physics Lab (JHU-APL) is a similar organization.

Employees of both have .edu email addresses.

I believe CalTech has a similar arm.




sad sally

(2,627 posts)
32. When drones go rogue...
Fri Feb 17, 2012, 02:31 PM
Feb 2012

The Crash and Burn Future of Robot Warfare
What 70 Downed Drones Tell Us About the New American Way of War
By Nick Turse

American fighter jets screamed over the Iraqi countryside heading for the MQ-1 Predator drone, while its crew in California stood by helplessly. What had begun as an ordinary reconnaissance mission was now taking a ruinous turn. In an instant, the jets attacked and then it was all over. The Predator, one of the Air Force’s workhorse hunter/killer robots, had been obliterated.

An account of the spectacular end of that nearly $4 million drone in November 2007 is contained in a collection of Air Force accident investigation documents recently examined by TomDispatch. They catalog more than 70 catastrophic Air Force drone mishaps since 2000, each resulting in the loss of an aircraft or property damage of $2 million or more.

These official reports, some obtained by TomDispatch through the Freedom of Information Act, offer new insights into a largely covert, yet highly touted war-fighting, assassination, and spy program involving armed robots that are significantly less reliable than previously acknowledged. These planes, the latest wonder weapons in the U.S. military arsenal, are tested, launched, and piloted from a shadowy network of more than 60 bases spread around the globe, often in support of elite teams of special operations forces. Collectively, the Air Force documents offer a remarkable portrait of modern drone warfare, one rarely found in a decade of generally triumphalist or awestruck press accounts that seldom mention the limitations of drones, much less their mission failures.


The aerial disasters described draw attention not only to the technical limitations of drone warfare, but to larger conceptual flaws inherent in such operations. Launched and landed by aircrews close to battlefields in places like Afghanistan, the drones are controlled during missions by pilots and sensor operators -- often multiple teams over many hours -- from bases in places like Nevada and North Dakota. They are sometimes also monitored by “screeners” from private security contractors at stateside bases like Hurlburt Field in Florida. (A recent McClatchy report revealed that it takes nearly 170 people to keep a single Predator in the air for 24 hours.)

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175489/

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
35. Well that should give the local news channels
Fri Feb 17, 2012, 03:33 PM
Feb 2012

something to add after their reports! In other news...

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Drone plane manufacturing...