Comments on: Should the military, and predator drones in particular, be used by US law enforcement?

By: Sytec

Sytec — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 01:39:34 +0000

As mentioned, technology will march on. I think some strict guidelines should be laid out (or more likely clarified from existing law). But with wireless wiretipes and indefinite incarceration of her own citizens being acceptable, and the privitization of the prison system…. let’s just say I doubt I will agree with how drones will be used.

By: SundogA

SundogA — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 04:52:26 +0000

andrewD, your argument is non-sensical. If the US does ANY military actiona against ANY country, they have the right to hit us back anywhere they can. There’s no rule about them being restricted to the theatre of operations. If an enemy country (that is, one we are at war with) can insert spec force teams into the US, they will – to disrupt our logistics, cripple our command and control functions, attack our bomber bases (which regularly fly operations anywhere in the world from the continental US) and kill our upper-echelon commanders (Civilian government is always a valid target). And I for one would be fine with this – it might make our idiot politicos and more hawkish civilians a little more hesitant about foreign adventurism if it was understood they could, perfectly legally, be the victims.
Anyway, as I understand it Predators and other combat drones are usually flown from in-theatre command bases, not from continental US bases.

By: John Moeller

John Moeller — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 21:09:28 +0000

Using an unarmed drone I think is a no-brainer; as others have said, it’s not a lot different from using a manned aircraft. But FFS, disarm it.

I also think that it should not be the military running these things. Local law enforcement and state troopers can pony up the cash for tech to find local criminals. Put the hemorrhagic military funds to better use for the country, like education and science.

By: andrewD

andrewD — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 18:45:56 +0000

The real question is “should the military be allowed to use Drones under any circumstances”. My answer would be a catagorical No
As an aside, how would you all respond if the use of Drones resulted in combat activities on US soil by the victims of Drone attacks? I suggest uniformed special forces operations against the Drone control centers would be justified under the laws of war, which would (as International law) over rule US domestic law.

By: Trebuchet

Trebuchet — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 17:36:50 +0000

I really don’t see a lot of difference between using drones and using manned aircraft, which has been going on for decades. Also, the drones in question were not military, but operated by Customs & Border Protection, although they were based at a USAF facility.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 17:27:05 +0000

They would probably never use missles, but honestly, something like this:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/xblog/2011/12/12/uk-cops-testing-anti-protester-blinding-ray-gun/

or maybe pepper spary is well within the range of possibilities.

By: rob

rob — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 17:18:05 +0000

i would like to see a separation of the citizen police force and the military. the military should take care of the concerns of the security of the nation and the police should take care of concerns the security of the citizens. loaning a military asset to the police blurs the line.

grim hyperbolic thought: how long until predators use hellfire missles on perps evading police in high speed chases? or on jaywalkers? parking infractions?

By: SundogA

SundogA — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:17:03 +0000

I don’t think this one comes as a “should”. Rather, it’s a “when” as far as UAVs are concerned.
Tech cannot be stopped, the Djinn cannot be returned to the bottle, and this tech is out there right now. What are needed are reasonable and clear guidelines on where, when, why and how UAVs (and UGVs, or even UUVs) may be used by law enforcement and emergency services. The example above is the appropriate use of a resource to ensure the safety of officers and the swift, non-violent apprehension of suspects. We need guidelines to ensure that the use of these devices remains inoccuous.
As to the broader question of the military being involved in law enforcement, lets just say that the Posse Comitatus law seems to me a good one.

By: jamessweet

jamessweet — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 15:54:49 +0000

Against the backdrop of the drug war, it is difficult-to-impossible to answer the general question of whether UAVs are ever an appropriate tool for domestic law enforcement. In the example here, the use was innocuous enough (though one might reasonably question whether the expense was justified, but certainly I see no abuse of civil liberties taking place here — I don’t think anybody is going to be defending the right of rifle-brandishing cattle thieves to elude detection!). But in an era of prohibition, any tool which provides the capacity of unrestricted surveillance is potentially problematic. This goes doubly so when the tool in question could be militarized at the drop of a hat — the ongoing militarization of law enforcement has been an almost exclusively bad thing.

In a prohibition context, every citizen is a potential criminal, making a tool like this extremely disturbing. This goes doubly so because it’s the kind of thing where informal warrantless searches will be a constant temptation.

Repeal our antiquated drug laws, and then I think it is possible to discuss a potential role for UAVs in domestic law enforcement. Until that time, however, it’s a virtual certainty that such a tool will be blatantly abused.