Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Big Brother / Microchipping / Problem-Reaction-Solution

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-05-2011, 12:04 AM   #21
tits mcgee
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Where the slime lives
Posts: 1,686
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yamayama View Post
Why does the CIA have its own fleet of fully weaponised Predator drones?
Mostly so they can kill unsuspecting brown skinned peasants enjoying themselves at weddings and family gatherings.
tits mcgee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2011, 08:11 PM   #22
yamayama
Inactive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,073
Likes: 8 (4 Posts)
Default

Heres some info on the british version of the Predator drone; Taranis.


http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/tanaris/



Quote:
A fully developed Taranis air vehicle is capable of delivering weapons to a battlefield in another continent with a high level of autonomy. In July 2010, the MoD unveiled the fully-developed Taranis prototype. The first flight trials of the unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV) will start in 2011.
Unmanned combat air vehicle

The project, which took place over the next four years (2007 to 2010), was directed towards designing and flying an unmanned aircraft, gathering the evidence needed to inform decisions about a future long-range offensive aircraft and evaluating UAVs' contribution to the RAF's future mix of aircraft.

Taranis is stealthy, fast, able to carry out test deployment of a range of munitions over a number of targets, and to defend itself against manned and other unmanned enemy aircraft.
yamayama is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2011, 09:37 PM   #23
kahn2010
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Mars
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

i find it interesting that the USA is designing and building new manned aircraft as well as these drones....


whereas China and Russia for example concentrate fully on manned aircraft, and only use UAV's for recon and support for all branches of their military.....

I think Russia and China even stated that they prefer the tried and tested manned aircraft over UAV's because they have a longer range, pack more firepower etc.... and advancing technology means they can get smaller, carry MORE firepower, go farther and outmenouvre automated systems....

and of course you have the human factor, the unpredictability that a UAV would never be able to account for.....

EDIT: Didnt the USA and UK say that they were reviewing the UAV programmes sometime in the last year/recently after there were several instances of friendly fire, and in the US a rogue prototype attack helicopter UAV making its way to the white house......ala terminator..
__________________
Your political compass:
Economic Left/Right: -6.88 (Left)
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.03 (Libertarian)

'Those who sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither' -Benjamin Franklin

Last edited by kahn2010; 10-05-2011 at 09:38 PM.
kahn2010 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-05-2011, 09:46 AM   #24
yamayama
Inactive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,073
Likes: 8 (4 Posts)
Default

Here is another excellent commentary piece from todays The Guardian;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...-killed-drones



Quote:
Ken Macdonald, the former director of public prosecutions, is right to question the morality and legality of US drone strikes in Pakistan (The Predator paradox, 6 May). As he states, in 2010 alone there were 118 US drone strikes in Pakistan with estimates of up to 1,000 people killed. Some of these may well have been aimed at so-called "high-value targets"; but as Macdonald rightly points out, "several hundred innocent people of all ages have also died".

So it is a shame that this rare critique of unmanned drone strikes says nothing about Britain's own use of armed drones. There is a virtual wall of silence surrounding such strikes. We do know that between June 2008 and December 2010, more than 124 people were killed in Afghanistan by British drones. We know this not because of any ministerial statement, parliamentary question, or Freedom of Information (FoI) request, but because of a boastful, off-the-cuff remark to journalists by the prime minister during his last visit to Afghanistan.

I have repeatedly tried to obtain information about the circumstances of British drone strikes under FoI legislation, but all requests have been refused as being "prejudicial to the defence of our armed forces" or, more recently, simply ignored. A parliamentary question asked by my MP, Andrew Smith, about whether British drones were firing the thermobaric variant of the Hellfire missile – a variant that British forces are known to possess – was refused as "its disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the capability, effectiveness or security of our armed forces".

Macdonald suggests that "tossing a dime would be a better way of identifying a 'high-value terrorist' than relying on US military intelligence", and that "Guantánamo proves the tragic inability of the US military to differentiate between an enemy and an incidental bystander".

I have heard similar sentiments in my investigations from British military officers and officials – the implicit assumption being, of course, that British forces would never be so inaccurate with their targeting or reckless with their drone strikes.

However, without accountability and scrutiny, without proper information about the circumstances of these strikes, we cannot pretend to be legally or ethically superior to the US in this matter. Macdonald would no doubt agree with Philip Alston, the then UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial killing, writing for the Guardian website last year, who said of drone strikes that "accountability is an independent requirement of international law. When complete secrecy prevails, it is negated".

With controversy growing, it is high time that the defence secretary, Liam Fox, makes a full statement to the House of Commons, giving as much detail as possible about Britain's drone strikes. In particular we need to know whether all those killed in the strikes were directly participating in hostilities at the time; whether the UK has or would use drones for assassinations of so-called high-value targets; and whether any civilians are known to have been killed or injured by UK drones.


And here is a comment from the piece;


Quote:
Drone warfare is the future of combat, just like 20 mile long range shelling from warships was a leap forward in technology, even longer range artillery and then missiles which can traverse much longer distances. The arms race has been going on for thousands of years and will always continue.
The days when you looked your enemy in the eye on the battlefield are long gone.
It is in a way more discriminate than the former technologies as the platform is up there and a decision can be made by the operator to fire based on high resolution images or the latest intel, whereas once a missile is launched there are literally a few minutes and then it either impacts or you self detonate it before it reaches the target.
yamayama is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-05-2011, 02:00 PM   #25
yamayama
Inactive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,073
Likes: 8 (4 Posts)
Default

A weaponised drone for each individual state in the USA? So we would have an almost 100 strong fleet to patrol the USA 24 hours a day;

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/...ve-inside.html



Quote:
AP noted last year:

Unmanned aircraft have proved their usefulness and reliability in the war zones of Afghanistan and Iraq. Now the pressure’s on to allow them in the skies over the United States.

The Federal Aviation Administration has been asked to issue flying rights for a range of pilotless planes to carry out civilian and law-enforcement functions but has been hesitant to act.


The Washington Post reported in January:


The operation outside Austin presaged what could prove to be one of the most far-reaching and potentially controversial uses of drones: as a new and relatively cheap surveillance tool in domestic law enforcement.

For now, the use of drones for high-risk operations is exceedingly rare. The Federal Aviation Administration - which controls the national airspace - requires the few police departments with drones to seek emergency authorization if they want to deploy one in an actual operation. Because of concerns about safety, it only occasionally grants permission.

But by 2013, the FAA expects to have formulated new rules that would allow police across the country to routinely fly lightweight, unarmed drones up to 400 feet above the ground - high enough for them to be largely invisible eyes in the sky.

Such technology could allow police to record the activities of the public below with high-resolution, infrared and thermal-imaging cameras.

One manufacturer already advertises one of its small systems as ideal for "urban monitoring." The military, often a first user of technologies that migrate to civilian life, is about to deploy a system in Afghanistan that will be able to scan an area the size of a small town. And the most sophisticated robotics use artificial intelligence to seek out and record certain kinds of suspicious activity.

But when drones come to perch in numbers over American communities, they will drive fresh debates about the boundaries of privacy. The sheer power of some of the cameras that can be mounted on them is likely to bring fresh search-and-seizure cases before the courts, and concern about the technology's potential misuse could unsettle the public.

"Drones raise the prospect of much more pervasive surveillance," said Jay Stanley, a senior policy analyst with the American Civil Liberties Union's Speech, Privacy and Technology Project. "We are not against them, absolutely. They can be a valuable tool in certain kinds of operations. But what we don't want to see is their pervasive use to watch over the American people."

***

In a 1986 Supreme Court case, justices were asked whether a police department violated constitutional protections against illegal search and seizure after it flew a small plane above the back yard of a man suspected of growing marijuana. The court ruled that "the Fourth Amendment simply does not require the police traveling in the public airways at this altitude to obtain a warrant in order to observe what is visible to the naked eye."

In a 2001 case, however, also involving a search for marijuana, the court was more skeptical of police tactics. It ruled that an Oregon police department conducted an illegal search when it used a thermal imaging device to detect heat coming from the home of an man suspected of growing marijuana indoors. [Don't worry, though. Yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that the police can bust down a door and enter your property without a warrant if they smell marijuana or hear sounds that are suggestive of destruction of evidence. The case revolved around the warrantless search of an apartment in Kentucky, Lexington. Bye-bye 4th Amendment.]
***

When KPRC-TV in Houston, which is owned by The Washington Post Co., discovered a secret drone air show for dozens of officers at a remote location 70 miles from Houston, police officials were forced to call a hasty news conference to explain their interest in the technology.

A senior officer in Houston then mentioned to reporters that drones might ultimately be used for recording traffic violations.


Wired pointed out in February:


Campers may soon be able to regularly see something bigger and badder when climbing the High Peaks: Reaper drones flown by the New York Air National Guard’s 174th Fighter Wing based in Syracuse, New York.

And drones aren’t just buzzing over the Adirondacks. The proposal to begin training missions there is part of a bigger push to build a drone infrastructure for flying missions throughout the United States. So new drone bases are being built. The FAA is setting aside airspace for drone flights.

***


The latest example is the amendment proposed by Senators Charles Schumer (D-New York) and Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) to the “FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Act” (S.223) that would increase the number of “National Airspace System” test sites from four to ten. At least one of these sites would have to include a “significant portion” of public land.

The Adirondacks, in Schumer’s home state, clearly fit this bill. And not surprisingly, there is also a proposal to use the Juniper Military Area, located in Wyden’s home state of Oregon, as another drone test area.

But Schumer and Wyden are, if anything, playing catch-up in a race that has already seen the establishment of unmanned aerial vehicle test and training sites at Grand Forks Air Force Base in Grand Forks, North Dakota; the National Air Intelligence Center in Springfield, Ohio; Langley AFB in Hampton, Virginia; Ellsworth AFB in Rapid City, South Dakota; Mountain Home AFB in Mountain Home, Idaho; and Whiteman AFB in Knob Noster, Missouri. Thanks to President Teddy Roosevelt and the establishment of the National Parks system, we can probably expect that the other 42 states not already mentioned will be competing to serve up some of their public land as drone proving grounds.

In addition to test and training site Federal education and stimulus money is being used to create nonmilitary drone education programs. The Department of Aviation at the University of North Dakota, located in Grand Forks and the operator of the test and training site at Grand Forks AFB, now offers the first Bachelors of Science program in Unmanned Aircraft Systems Operations. The Aviation Maintenance Technology program at Northland Community and Technical College, located in Thief River Falls, Minnesota just 40 miles east of Grand Forks, will soon offer courses in the repair of UAVs.

***

Although it is hard to predict where the drone infrastructure will grow, if other defense contracting projects are a reliable guide, the drone-ification of America will probably continue until there is a drone aerodrome in every state ...
yamayama is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-05-2011, 02:12 PM   #26
tsaritsin
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 321
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

CIA = Coke Into America
__________________
"Religion is what keeps the Poor, from Murdering the Rich." - Napoleon Bonaparte

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55kzqT8_5aA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_MWs7pPwDs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26DD0...eature=related
tsaritsin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-05-2011, 04:48 PM   #27
yamayama
Inactive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,073
Likes: 8 (4 Posts)
Default

Heres a video showing John Yoo wiggle out of a question of whether or not the US president has the authority to use weaponised drones against American civilians on American home soil.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=uzisji8C6Uo

Last edited by yamayama; 18-05-2011 at 04:48 PM.
yamayama is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-05-2011, 04:50 PM   #28
ragnarok
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Humanchester
Posts: 16,494
Likes: 5 (5 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yamayama View Post
Heres a video showing John Yoo wiggle out of a question of whether or not the US president has the authority to use weaponised drones against American civilians on American home soil.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=uzisji8C6Uo
Of course he can - he's the president. All he needs to do is find a reasonable excuse first. There'd have been some hilarious fuck-ups if his predecessor had such toys available.

Last edited by ragnarok; 18-05-2011 at 04:52 PM.
ragnarok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-05-2011, 09:28 AM   #29
yamayama
Inactive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,073
Likes: 8 (4 Posts)
Default

http://cryptogon.com/?p=22499



Quote:
Deep in the Mojave Desert, surrounded by tiers of barbed-wire fence, the nation’s largest defense contractors work in secrecy designing and building the latest military aircraft at Air Force Plant 42.

The military’s top weapons buyer quietly visited the Palmdale facility this month to talk with leading aerospace executives about plans to build a fleet of radar-evading bombers that the military hopes to have ready for action by the mid-2020s.

The plane would be the first long-range bomber built in the U.S. since the last of the 21 bat-winged B-2 stealth bombers by Northrop Grumman Corp. rolled off the assembly lines at Plant 42 more than a decade ago. The Air Force owns the 5,800-acre industrial park and leases space to aerospace contractors.

Now on the Pentagon wish list is a proposed fleet of 80 to 100 nuclear-capable bombers that could operate with or without a pilot in the cockpit.

Pentagon weapons acquisition chief Ashton Carter met separately with representatives of Northrop, Boeing Co. and Lockheed Martin Corp., Pentagon spokeswoman Cheryl Irwin said. These companies are expected to vie for the estimated $55-billion contract that is expected to provide jobs and decades of work for Southern California’s aerospace industry.
yamayama is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-05-2011, 11:28 AM   #30
tesla
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Nottz, Home of the Body Bag
Posts: 593
Likes: 49 (27 Posts)
Default

excellent thread
__________________
I hate to say it "I told you so"
tesla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-05-2011, 08:50 AM   #31
yamayama
Inactive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,073
Likes: 8 (4 Posts)
Default

http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailybeast/2...nestomexico%CA




Quote:
President Barack Obama apparently thinks that respect for rule of law is only important north of the Rio Grande. In a desperate attempt to help Mexico´s President Felipe Calderón with his "drug war," Obama has authorized the U.S. military and other government agents to violate the Mexican constitution.

U.S. agents both actively participate in the wiretapping of drug-trafficking suspects in Mexico and carry their weapons when they travel south of the border, according to The New York Times. As of last month, U.S. military-intelligence drones similar to those deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq began to operate in Mexican airspace. Such actions are entirely unprecedented in the history of U.S.-Mexican relations and could easily backfire as the Mexican population rejects such a blatant attack on its sovereignty.

Imagine armed Mexican agents tapping phone lines and flying military planes over Texas and Arizona in search of gun-shop owners and straw-buyers responsible for arming the drug cartels in Mexico. Such actions would not be tolerated by the American people and any suggestion that this were taking place would lead immediately to a high-level congressional inquiry. Although international coordination and support is always helpful, the U.S. legal framework correctly conceives of law enforcement as an eminently domestic affair.

The same is true in Mexico. Mexican law explicitly prohibits foreign agents from carrying weapons or being directly in charge of wiretaps or criminal investigations on Mexican territory. The Mexican constitution also requires the president to gain approval of its senate before allowing foreign military operations in domestic airspace. The general outcry in Mexico against these actions is therefore not a result of backward "nationalistic elements in the political elite," as one expert has claimed, but a healthy defense of fundamental constitutional principles. This Thursday, Mexico’s foreign secretary, Patricia Espinoza, received a well-deserved shellacking at the hands of leading senators from all of the major political parties, including the sitting government’s Nacional Action party.

The fact that the Calderón administration has turned a blind eye, or even encouraged, such blatant violations of the law should not provide solace but generate concern. Calderon has generally trampled on the rule of law since inaugurating his "drug war" four years ago. His government has avoided attacking head-on the institutional, financial, social, and economic roots of the problem. Instead, with U.S. support, it has preferred a "decapitation" strategy aimed at killing top drug lords and permitting inter-cartel fighting in the hope that this will weaken the criminals in the long run.

The problem with this strategy is that it becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish between the tactics of the drug cartels and those of the government. Instead of investigating and prosecuting crimes, the assumed "criminals" are simply wiped out without any due process. In addition, innocent bystanders often fall dead at military checkpoints or during government attacks on the cartels. Mexico’s National Human Rights Commission reported at least 110 such cases during 2010 alone. In one recent incident, troops even decorated a dead capo´s body with dollar bills and golden jewelry and exhibited it as if it were a trophy in their “war on drugs.”

By following along with Calderón's reckless strategy, the Obama administration loses all moral high ground. This is particularly relevant today given the serious blow the U.S. government has taken recently for its "Fast & Furious" program. In this program the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives intentionally allowed at least 1,700 assault weapons to cross the border and find their way into the hands of some of the most blood-thirsty Mexican criminals. The Mexican congress, civil society groups, and even the Catholic Church have all forcefully protested against the program. The U.S. ambassador to Mexico, Carlos Pascual, has come under heavy fire for not adequately informing the Mexican government of these actions.


By following along with Calderón's reckless strategy, the Obama administration loses all moral high ground.

The use of U.S. military drones and other illegal tactics in Mexico could also deal a death blow to Calderon. Forty-three percent of the population now disagrees with the way the generally pro-American Mexican president is handling the bilateral relationship, up 12 percentage points from last year. And the more Calderon is perceived as passive in his relationship to the U.S., the more his approval ratings fall. Although Obama probably thinks that he is strengthening Calderon with his actions, the U.S. president is actually weakening his Mexican counterpart in the eyes of the Mexican people.

Instead of sending drones across the border, the U.S. government should stop the southern flow of weapons. Obama´s opinion piece last Sunday in the Arizona Daily Star opens up a much-needed debate on the issue of enforcing existing gun laws in the context of the attack on Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. Nevertheless, Obama simply failed to mention the link between this issue and the 35,000 deaths south of the border over the past four years. In addition to strengthening background checks for U.S. purchasers, the ATF also needs to significantly boost its surveillance of the illegal resale and exportation of assault weapons to Mexico. This sort of lapse confirms Obama´s underlying lack of commitment to Mexico and the Mexican people. It is time to change course before it is too late.

John M. Ackerman is a professor at the Institute for Legal Research of the National Autonomous University of Mexico, editor in chief of the Mexican Law Review, and a columnist for Proceso magazine and La Jornada newspaper. His website is johnackerman.blogspot.com.
yamayama is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-05-2011, 09:42 AM   #32
yamayama
Inactive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,073
Likes: 8 (4 Posts)
Default

Now we know the reason why a lot of aircraft are being cut in the UK;

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/RA...adron_999.html



Quote:
A new Reaper squadron is to form at RAF Waddington in Lincolnshire which will control the aircraft over Afghanistan from the UK for the first time. Speaking at the disbandment of Number XIII Tornado Squadron at RAF Marham last week, Chief of the Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Stephen Dalton, announced that the squadron number will transfer to a second Reaper squadron next year.

With its array of high tech sensors and precision-guided weapons, the remotely-piloted Reaper aircraft, which is based in Afghanistan, can carry out a wide range of missions that are currently controlled by 39 Squadron crews on the other side of the world at Creech Air Force Base in Nevada.

Reaper can use its sensors day and night to spy on insurgent activity for hours at a time and at a range where it is undetectable from the ground.

Air Chief Marshal Dalton said: "The Royal Air Force is today delivering air power operations in Afghanistan, Libya and the Falkland Islands and, as XIII Squadron's Tornados have shown, making a fantastic contribution to the very positive progress in the military campaigns in all these locations.

"I am confident that XIII Squadron's reputation and distinguished history will be carried forward as it transitions to be a part of our Remotely Piloted Force employing the Reaper over Afghanistan."

He added: "This transition will see us bring Reaper mission control to the UK, make more efficient and effective use of our resources in exploiting this growing capability, and enable the operation of significantly more combat intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance aircraft over Afghanistan 24-hours-a-day."

The Defence Secretary, Dr Liam Fox, said: "Reaper aircraft are providing valuable support to our front line troops in Afghanistan. We are committed to providing the best available equipment to our Armed Forces.

"The formation of this new squadron follows our doubling of the Reaper capability to ten aircraft, which represents an increased investment of GBP135m.

"This extra squadron will help us get the best out of this valuable armed reconnaissance aircraft."

XIII Squadron was formed in 1915 and has continued its long and distinguished record through both world wars and operations over Iraq and Afghanistan. Notably, in 2009, XIII Squadron conducted the last Tornado sortie over Iraq in support of Operation TELIC.

In the summer of 2010, XIII Squadron deployed on Operation HERRICK in Afghanistan providing close air support and combat intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance during a very busy fighting season.

Finally, just a few weeks from disbandment, XIII Squadron were at the forefront of operations over Libya, delivering deep strike with the RAF's Stormshadow missile.
yamayama is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-05-2011, 10:33 AM   #33
cpfc12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,594
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by martg View Post
The law has never meant anything to intelligence services, they break the law all the time.
The military does the (mostly) legal stuff
the intelligence services do the black ops.
it's been going on since the 17th century.
Yes the military really play it by the book, pfft, get real !
Most of the Iraqi kisd who where raped and killed in the 2003 invasion, where done so by british and american soldiers.
cpfc12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2011, 09:47 AM   #34
yamayama
Inactive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,073
Likes: 8 (4 Posts)
Default

This video raises issues that i have had for a long time; in that when are we going to start getting Star Wars type drones? When the arms manufacturers start building these sci fi type drones the mainstream media is going to use sci fi comparisons like Star Wars to sell these things to the public has a "good thing". And when that happens once they seem "normal" these types of drone will be used for civillian monitoring and false flag ops against our own military.

The future is bleak. The future is drone.






http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-f2O...mbedded#at=160
yamayama is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2011, 08:04 AM   #35
yamayama
Inactive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,073
Likes: 8 (4 Posts)
Default

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011...dge-says-go-p/


Quote:
A Las Vegas judge on Thursday handed down a decision that got a mixed reaction from protesters of drone warfare who were arrested for trespassing nearly two years ago at Creech Air Force Base in Southern Nevada.

Judge William Jansen, in a 20-page decision, ruled that the "Creech 14" who protested April 9, 2009, at the base, were guilty of the crime of trespassing.

But the judge also decided that the defendants, who stood trial for the misdemeanor offense last September in his courtroom, would be given credit for the time they served in jail and would be free to go.

"Go in peace," were Jansen's final words to the defendants after an hour-long court proceeding this morning in Las Vegas Justice Court.

The judge also urged them to use diplomacy, rather than trespassing, in their attempts to get U.S. drone warfare policy changed.

There was some scattered applause in the crowded courtroom upon hearing the defendants wouldn't get jail time — but the defendants weren't pleased about the judge's guilty verdict.

The protesters had argued there was "necessity" that compelled them to act. As someone might trespass onto private property to save a child from a burning building, they said they were trying to stop drone warfare from killing civilians thousands of miles away in Afghanistan.

However, in his conclusion, Jansen said that "Defendants' motivation for why they committed the offense is irrelevant and does not constitute a defense to the charge. Moreover, defendants are unable to show that their conduct was compelled by true 'necessity' as that doctrine has been defined by various courts."

Those found guilty of the misdemeanor charge are the Rev. John Dear, a Jesuit priest; Dennis DuVall; Renee Espeland; Judy Homanich; Kathy Kelly; the Rev. Steve Kelly, a Jesuit priest; Mariah Klusmire; Brad Lyttle; Libby Pappalardo; Sister Megan Rice, a member of the Sisters of the Holy Child Jesus; Brian Terrell; Eve Tetaz; and the Revs. Louie Vitali and Jerry Zawada, both Franciscan priests.

Vitali, a friar who at one time worked in a Las Vegas Catholic parish, was not at the hearing because he is currently serving a six-month sentence in the federal prison in Lompoc, Calif., for protesting at the Ft. Benning, Ga., 'School of the Americas," which peace activists say has taught foreign military leaders interrogation techniques they use in torturing political prisoners in their home countries.

Thursday's hearing drew about 40 supporters for the defendants from around the country, who filled the courtroom.

Jansen gave each of the defendants a copy of his decision and asked them if they could also give copies to former Johnson Administration Attorney General Ramsey Clark, retired Air Force Col. Ann Wright, and Bill Quigley, a Loyal University professor. Those three had provided testimony for the defendants at the September trial. Jansen said after reviewing the transcript of that trial, he and law clerk spent four months analyzing the case in federal and state law regarding the use of the defense of "necessity."

Before Jansen sentenced them, he allowed them to make statements. Each of those who spoke said they disagreed that what they were doing wasn't out of necessity.

Sister Megan Rice told the judge that the protesters entered Creech on April 9, 2009, intending to speak to and advise the commanding officer.

"I had to speak then and I do now," Rice said. "The evil of killing and destroying people in lands 8,000 miles away, of using bombs targeted by Air Force technicians who control computer-programmed joysticks was and is emblazoned upon my awareness. I see this form of warfare as an evolution toward human execution fostered in the psyche of a nation by immoral, addictive, excessive and illegal practice of developing more and more nuclear weapons."

Rice said Nobel Peace Prize winner Desmond Tutu has said "to remain neutral in situations of injustice is to be complicit in that injustice."

Rice said she had written letters and sought meetings with the base commander to warn him about the need to disobey orders that conflict with U.S. and international laws. She said she had to enter the base in order to obey "higher orders."

"I have listened to the victims of drone warfare," she said. Lebanon victims told her they had been treated like insects.

"My non-violent resistance was an is an absolute necessity," she said.

Brian Terrel, a defendant from Maloy, Iowa, said he "respectfully disagreed" with the judge there was no imminent harm occurring at Creech Air Force Base. Terrel said that after the September trial he had spent three weeks in December in Afghanistan and saw the victims of the drone attacks, including a 9-year-old child who lost an arm in an air attack,

He also said he had read an article about post-traumatic distress being suffered by soldiers carrying out drone attacks on computer screens at Creech.

"One thing that really is haunting me is that one operator said 'I am 7,000 miles away from the killing. I am 18 inches away from the killing.' One, being the distance between Creech Air Force Base and Afghanistan and the other the distance between his nose and the computer screen and the video he was seeing of human beings being dismembered," Terrel said.

He said the drones "are giving an illusion of distance. The 7,000 miles between Creech Air Force Base and Kandahar (the second largest city of Afghanistan) is an illusion. We are very, very close. The harm is imminent. The harm is real. "

Terrel said the analogy that was first mentioned by Ramsey Clark in September about disregarding a no-trespassing sign to enter into a burning building to save a child "is so close to the reality, it is the reality. "

Dennis DuVall criticized the judge's decision that the trespassing didn't fall under the argument of necessity, calling it "outrageous."

DuVall also said drones don't prevent or eliminate terrorism, but instead incite more hatred, revenge and retaliation against American military.

Every time there's a drone strike and innocent people are killed, more IEDs are built to try to harm U.S. soldiers, he said.

DuVall said a year after the protesters were arrested for trespassing at Creech, he was in New York City at a nuclear disarmament march on Times Square where a car bomb was almost detonated.

"The builder of the car bomb, this young man, Faisal Shahzad, in the New York Post the next day says why he did it: revenge for drone attacks in Pakistan," DuVall said, pointing out that those attacks originated at Creech, where the defendants trespassed. "If that isn't necessity, then what the hell is?"
yamayama is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2011, 04:46 PM   #36
yamayama
Inactive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,073
Likes: 8 (4 Posts)
Default

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapc...led/index.html



Quote:
The man described by counterterrorism officials as al Qaeda's "military brain," Ilyas Kashmiri, was killed in a drone strike Friday night in Pakistan, a spokesman for his group, the jihadist Harakat-ul-Jihad-Islami, said.

Pakistani and U.S. officials, however, said they have not confirmed Kashmiri's death.

Kashmiri was killed, along with some aides, in a strike at 11:15 p.m., spokesman Abu Hanzla Kashar said.

"The oppressor U.S. is our only target and, God willing, we will take revenge on the U.S. soon with full force," he said

A senior Pakistani military official said that in all, nine were killed by the drone strike. The official reiterated that they had not confirmed Kashmiri's demise.

Kashmiri, who was known to operate in North Waziristan, had moved to South Waziristan and was seen at the site of the attack on Friday, the official said.

If confirmed, his death would be the first major kill or capture since Osama Bin Laden, and the highest profile drone target since Beitullah Mehsud in 2009.

It could also be seen as an embarrassment for Pakistanis, who have twice in just over one month, had a major al Qaeda figure killed on their territory without their participation.

U.S. drones now operate entirely autonomously in Pakistan, a Pakistani intelligence source has told CNN. Whereas before the United States cooperated with Pakistan and used their intelligence, today, the Americans have an intelligence network that allows them to go after terrorists unilaterally.

Kashmiri, a veteran jihadist, is considered one of the most dangerous men in the world by counterterrorism officials on three continents.

He was commander of "Brigade 313" of Harakat-ul-Jihad-Islami, which has formed a close relationship with al Qaeda.
Quote:
Kashmiri is also said to have ties with David Coleman Headley, the U.S. citizen who confessed to helping scout

targets for the Mumbai attack in November 2008. After his arrest, Headley said he had twice met Kashmiri.

During questioning by India's National Intelligence Agency, which was given access to him in Chicago, Illinois, in June 2010, Headley said he'd been taken to Pakistan's tribal territories to meet Kashmiri early in 2009.

A copy of the interrogation obtained by CNN reveals that Kashmiri sent Headley on another trip to survey targets in India. One place he said he videotaped was a bakery that was later attacked in Pune in February 2010.

Kashmiri in his early years fought the Indians in the disputed territory of Kashmir and the Russians in Afghanistan, where he lost an eye.

He famously escaped from an Indian jail and went to fight with a unit of Pakistan's special forces. Eventually, he fell out with his sponsors in the Pakistani military, and moved his operations to North Waziristan.

At one point, he was arrested in connection with an attempt to assassinate Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, in 2003. For reasons unknown, Kashmiri was released a short time later.
yamayama is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2011, 11:42 AM   #37
yamayama
Inactive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,073
Likes: 8 (4 Posts)
Default

Really good piece on drones at the Prison Planet site today;


http://www.prisonplanet.com/drone-su...in-danger.html






yamayama is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2011, 03:44 PM   #38
yamayama
Inactive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,073
Likes: 8 (4 Posts)
Default

The disturbing thing about this video is how relaxed the drone pilots are. Its has if they are talking about an X Box game, and not a piece of military tech. One moment in the video shows the female drone pilot smiling has she relayed her experience of using hellfire rockets on "enemy combatants".

Would they be that relaxed if their Predator Drones were carrying nukes.....




yamayama is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2011, 09:15 AM   #39
yamayama
Inactive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,073
Likes: 8 (4 Posts)
Default

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/183994.html


Quote:
Experts revealed that those Pakistani civilians who have come under the unauthorized drone airstrike in Pakistan's troubled northwest have been afflicted with complicated skin, eye and respiratory diseases due to the deadly chemical materials used in the missiles, the Press TV correspondent in Peshawar reported on Thursday.

According to journalists and experts from Waziristan that is a mountainous region of northwest Pakistan which has often been the focal point of US drone attacks, they have received numerous reports from several people and local doctors pointing at the hazardous effects of the ongoing drone attacks on the entire population.

"Since these drone strikes have been carried out, we have witnessed several peculiar disease cases, and our press club have been frequently visited by those complainants, who have developed skin and bronchial diseases in the aftermath of drone airstrikes. I'd like to add further that the agriculture and the livestock are also showing pitiable condition," journalist Safdar Dawar told Press TV.

An expert from Waziristan says his daughter died of blood cancer soon after she had developed a skin disease, which was no more than the toxic effect of chemical substances used in the non-UN-sanctioned drone strikes.

"I myself lost my daughter, who was just 28 months old, she developed a skin disease and later on she was diagnosed, within a month, with blood cancer. At that time people were talking about the chemical bombings being carried out. The same is the case now that wherever the drone attacks are carried out, people in that area are complaining about skin diseases, lung infections, throat infections and various kinds of other diseases," Pakistani political expert Safiullah Gul said.

The report strikes at the heart of growing tension between the United States and Pakistan over the US aerial attacks on Pakistani soil.

Washington claims the airstrikes target militants. However, the attacks have killed hundreds of civilians in Pakistan since 2008, local reports say.


So how long before the CIA and military feel comfortable putting nuclear missiles into UAV drones?....
yamayama is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2011, 10:09 AM   #40
yamayama
Inactive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,073
Likes: 8 (4 Posts)
Default

Its amazing how long those Predator drones can loiter and follow a target for miles with no threat to its aerial position;




yamayama is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:07 PM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.