[Editor's Note: For more on this topic, see David Swanson's Resolution for Drone Free Skies. -MyFDL Editor]
Assorted Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
No city is an island, Entire of itself. Each is a piece of the continent, A part of the main.
I write from Charlottesville, Va., but am hopeful that this message applies to your city, town, or county as well.
In the absence of state or federal laws, localities around the United States are proceeding to put unmanned aerial vehicles in our skies as they see fit. The federal government has authorized the flight of 30,000 drones, and the use of drones up to 400 feet by police departments, at least 300 of which already have surveillance drones in operation.
States and localities can ban or regulate such actions. Or they can proceed to endanger our health and our civil rights.
In Montgomery County, Texas, the Sheriff showed off a drone to the media but crashed it into his armored vehicle (thereby, I guess, proving that he needed an armored vehicle).
When the Dept. of Homeland Security challenged the University of Texas-Austin to hack into a drone and take control of it, the response was “No problem,” and it was quickly done.
Drones are not safe. Surveillance by drones cannot comply with the Fourth Amendment. And the arming of drones with tear gas and rubber bullets, already underway in many U.S. localities, is an outrageous threat to our First Amendment right to assemble and petition our governments for a redress of grievances.
If Charlottesville were to remain silent while (how shall I put this delicately?) crack-pot cities continue setting de facto law, we would all be worse off.
Charlottesville City Council routinely informs the state general assembly of its wishes. That state assembly has already been considering legislation on drones. Charlottesville has a responsibility to speak up, as well as to act locally on its own behalf.
Moreover, Charlottesville’s influence spreads. Its past resolutions on Iraq, military spending, uranium, and other matters have inspired other localities and the U.S. Conference of Mayors to raise their voices as well. Some of these resolutions have been directed to the federal government, to which the residents of Charlottesville pay taxes and whose laws the residents of Charlottesville are subject to.
This is how our republic is supposed to work. City council members in Virginia take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Cities and towns routinely send petitions to Congress for all kinds of requests. This is allowed under Clause 3, Rule XII, Section 819, of the Rules of the House of Representatives. This clause is routinely used to accept petitions from cities, and memorials from states, all across America. The same is established in the Jefferson Manual, the rule book for the House originally written by Thomas Jefferson for the Senate.
In 1967 a court in California ruled (Farley v. Healey , 67 Cal.2d 325) that “one of the purposes of local government is to represent its citizens before the Congress, the Legislature, and administrative agencies in matters over which the local government has no power. Even in matters of foreign policy it is not uncommon for local legislative bodies to make their positions known.”
Abolitionists passed local resolutions against U.S. policies on slavery. The anti-apartheid movement did the same, as did the nuclear freeze movement, the movement against the PATRIOT Act, the movement in favor of the Kyoto Protocol, etc.
We are not an island. If we become environmentally sustainable, others will ruin our climate. If we ban assault weapons, they’ll arrive at our borders. And if the skies of the United States are filled with drones, it will become ever more difficult for Charlottesville to keep them out.
Just over a year ago, the Charlottesville City Council passed a resolution calling for an end to “foreign ground and drone wars.” U.S. drone wars are now under investigation by the United Nations as possible crimes. We now know that individuals are targeted without so much as identifying their names. We now know that hundreds of children have been killed. We now know that at least three Americans have been targeted and killed. The view of our city should be restated in the context of local and state actions on drones. This is an action desired by local people, affecting local people, and costing the local budget exactly nothing.
Each man’s death diminishes me, For I am involved in mankind. Therefore, send not to know For whom the bell tolls, It tolls for thee.
–
David Swanson’s books include War Is A Lie. He blogs at http://davidswanson.org and War Is A Crime and works as Campaign Coordinator for the online activist organization RootsAction. He hosts Talk Nation Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @davidcnswanson and Facebook. Subscribe or unsubscribe from David’s email lists here.
U.S. Navy photo by Photographer’s Mate 2nd Class Daniel J. McLain



6 Comments

Most USans will not become concerned about (or even conscious of) domestic drone use until it is already too late. As for our drones killing people abroad, as long as USans are brainwashed to believe this immoral, illegal warfare is “making us more secure by killing al-Qaida members”, they will support it.
Unfortunately, most people learn the hard way, after the fact.
Killing a “suspect” and then giving due process is the current law of the land. Until a drone fires a hellfire missile and kills a person carrying an American Express plum card the PTB will apologize for Obama’s abandonement of Constitutional rights and human rights worldwide.
There are already many drones in the sky. Go down to the local park on a weekend and see the radio-controlled planes. There are others up there that you won’t see.
wiki – on Aerial photography–
Aerial photography is the taking of photographs of the ground from an elevated position. The term usually refers to images in which the camera is not supported by a ground-based structure. Cameras may be hand held or mounted, and photographs may be taken by a photographer, triggered remotely or triggered automatically. Platforms for aerial photography include fixed-wing aircraft, helicopters, multirotor Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), balloons, blimps and dirigibles, rockets, kites, poles, parachutes, and vehicle mounted poles. Aerial photography should not be confused with Air-to-Air Photography, when aircraft serve both as a photo platform and subject.
Advances in radio controlled models have made it possible for model aircraft to conduct low-altitude aerial photography. This has benefited real-estate advertising, where commercial and residential properties are the photographic subject. Full-size, manned aircraft are prohibited from low flights above populated locations. Small scale model aircraft offer increased photographic access to these previously restricted areas. Miniature vehicles do not replace full size aircraft, as full size aircraft are capable of longer flight times, higher altitudes, and greater equipment payloads. They are, however, useful in any situation in which a full-scale aircraft would be dangerous to operate. Examples would include the inspection of transformers atop power transmission lines and slow, low-level flight over agricultural fields, both of which can be accomplished by a large-scale radio controlled helicopter. Professional-grade, gyroscopically stabilized camera platforms are available for use under such a model; a large model helicopter with a 26cc gasoline engine can hoist a payload of approximately seven kilograms (15 lbs).
“Killing a person and then giving due process…’ No, due process is not given, either before or after killing. Obama has simply unilaterally written it out of the Constitution.
I agree with the column as to eliminating surveillance drones. However, I am not sure they violate the Fourth Amendment.
In order for the Fourth Amendment to be violated, there must first be a reasonable expectation of privacy. If I am out and about in public places, or on public streets and sidewalks, I am not sure that I can claim to have had a reasonable expectation of privacy.
That is not necessarily my position, but it has been the Supreme Court’s.
If drones look in your windows and through your walls and into your cell phone will that surpass your expectations?