Slashdot Mirror
First City In the US To Pass an Anti-Drone Resolution
An anonymous reader writes "According to an Al-Jazeera report, 'Charlottesville, Virginia is the first city in the United States to pass an anti-drone resolution. The writing of the resolution coincides with a leaked memo outlining the legal case for drone strikes on U.S. citizens and a Federal Aviation Administration plan to allow the deployment of some 30,000 domestic drones.' The finalized resolution is fairly weak, but it's a start. There is also some anti-drone legislation in the Oregon state Senate, and it has much bigger teeth. It defines public airspace as anything above your shoelaces, and the wording for 'drone' is broad enough to include RC helicopters and the like."
I get why people are disturbed by assassinations and spying. What I don't get is why there is such a big deal made about the fact that it is being done by drones. What does it matter if the pilot is physically in the airplane or on the ground watching a video feed from a drone? Anything that can be done from a drone could have been done by an airplane with a pilot in it. Drones are just safer for the pilot, and makes it easier to go to the bathroom.
Rather than passing this kind of narrow minded anti-drone legislation, why don't they pass anti assassination or anti-spying legislation, if it's assassinations and spying that you are actually worried about. Anti-drone legislation only makes sense if you want pilots in those airplanes for some reason (e.g. because pilots are better at avoiding midair collisions, etc).
Excuse me, am I a junior McVeigh?
I would also suggest that a government that needs to conduct drone surveillance is far more paranoid than I am. And one that performs drone assassination is less moral than I am.
I'm a liberal (not a Democrat mind you, Democrats are just the New GOP and the old GOP is merely a parody of itself) -- but I'm totally for States' Rights. The more I see what the Federales do, the more I would love to see a secessionist movement not rooted in white supremecy groups or religious freakery. The greatest threat to liberal values in the world today is the US Federal government and a constitutional amendment allowing unilateral peaceful secession of states would be a very interesting thing to have. Even if states didn't suddenly jump ship, the very existence of that right would make the Feds a bit more circumspect (at least probably, but who knows, they're pretty stuck up).
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
As much as I hate that narcissistic slacker, it's not all Obama's fault. It's a powerful central government that has a limitless appetite for power, so both Democrats and Republicans are to blame. They don't care about the citizens whatsoever. All they care about is power.
We need to get rid of all incumbents every election. Don't let them get used to the power. Then, after a few elections, maybe we can get people in office who will start dismantling the massive bureaucracy that has taken over Washington. Congress passes one law, and then the bureaucrats create a thousand nit-picking regulations from it.
Call me a conservative, a liberal, or even a libertarian; I don't really care. But, folks, if we don't get a handle on the size of government, we're all going to suffer. Remember the old saying, "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take everything you have." (including all of your freedoms)
There is absolutely nothing irrational with concerns about tyranny. Go read a history book and realize that the fear is very rational. Hell, go read Plato's Republic and see that fear nor tyranny are new.
Let me clue you in:
Study Hegalian dialectic. Create dialogue -> Present dilemma -> Provide solution. This method has been effective in stripping you of your constitutional rights. It has also resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands in the last century alone. Hitler, Mao, Stalin, and the US Government have all used this method. If you have doubts about the US Government, Fast and Furious has been well documented for the public to see. If you prove one, there are probably a lot more hiding in the bushes.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.