A US Spy Plane Has Been Flying Circles Over Seattle For Days (thedrive.com)

turkeydance shares Thursday's report from The Drive: A very unique U.S. Air Force surveillance aircraft has been flying highly defined circles over Seattle and its various suburbs for nine days now... The aircraft, which goes by the callsign "SPUD21" and wears a nondescript flat gray paint job with the only visible markings being a U.S. Air Force serial on its tail, is a CASA CN-235-300 transport aircraft that has been extensively modified... It is covered in a dizzying array of blisters, protrusions, humps and bumps. These include missile approach warning detectors and large fairings on its empennage for buckets of forward-firing decoy flares, as well as both microwave -- the dome antenna behind the wing and flat antenna modification in front of the wing -- and ultra high-frequency satellite communications -- the platter-like antenna behind the dome antenna. A communications intelligence suite also appears to be installed on the aircraft, with the antenna farm on the bottom of its fuselage being a clear indication of such a capability. But what's most interesting is the aircraft's apparent visual intelligence gathering installation...

This particular CN-235, with the serial 96-6042, is one of six that researchers commonly associated with the Air Force's top secret 427th Special Operations Squadron... The 427th occupies the same space with a host of other "black" U.S. military aviation elements, most of which are affiliated to some degree with Joint Special Operations Command and the Intelligence Community... [I]f the military placed the aircraft under civilian control to some degree and with an appropriate legal justification, the U.S. military could possibly fly it in support of a domestic operation or one focused on a foreign suspect or organization operating within the United States... It's also entirely possible, if not probable, that the aircraft could be involved in a realistic training exercise rather than an actual operation... The area could have simply provided a suitable urban area to test existing or new surveillance technologies, too, though this could spark serious privacy concerns if true.
Friday an Air Force Special Operations Command public affairs officer confirmed that the plane was one of theirs, describing its activity as "just a training mission," according to Russia Today.

Comments

Sources

[sheramil]

"According to 'Russia Today'"? Really?

North Korea Military Action Soon?

[jrmcferren]

This sounds exactly like the kind of equipment you would want overhead in a major combat operation. Both visual and communications intelligence along with the means to detect missiles and possibly defend itself are all capabilities you want during major combat operations.

Why have a drill over a major American City if they aren't trying to spy on Americans? Major cities have a large quantity of communications systems all over the spectrum. Police, Fire, Ambulance, Taxi, and even Amateur radio operate in the ranges of interest. They will be able to receive both local and distant broadcast stations that will change based on position and atmospheric conditions. This is simply an exercise in how to operate the equipment to find and decode various communications. Add a ground component with training signals intentionally generated by the military and this becomes more realistic.

As for privacy concerns, this is very valid and you should remember that no telecommunications network can be completely secure. It is also important to note that any communications intercepts of civilian communications will be concerned with capabilities, not content.

Re:Comparison

[Kiuas]

Feminism is the 'radical' idea that men and women should be treated equally.

The word you're looking for is egalitarianism.

I have no problem with there being people who identify as feminist and focus on issues faced by women. And there's a large group of feminists who are indeed also egalitarian. But to say that equality between sexes (or races, or any other groups) is a solely feminist idea, or that all feminists support total equality between the sexes is demonstrably wrong. As an example: here in Finland due to our small population size, having Russia right next door and us not being in NATO, all men have a constitutional obligation to enter the armed forces for basic training lasting between 6-12 months. Those that do not want to can enter into 'civillian service' which is essentially doing work in different kinds of public services (museums, ministries etc) for a year. If they do neither and are not relieved of this obligation for a medical reason, they'll face some jail time.

Women can enter into the Finnish Defense Forces since the 1990s, but very few of them do, Now, if the only legit interpretation of feminism was 'equality between the sexes', all feminists would have have to either oppose the current mandatory military service for men altogether, or be for expanding it to cover all women as well, as is the case for example in Israel.

This is not the case however. I have read Finnish feminists who are for expanding it to cover women as well, but many of them are quite fine with the status quo. Other such examples can be found as well. There are feminists who are for mandatory quotas of women in corporate boards, some are even for those in parliaments. The egalitarian position is that sex should be irrelevant when selecting board members or voting because a person's sex is not indicative of his/her abilities or competence. Nevertheless a certain subgroup of modern feminists seem to not realize or care about this and are essentially about trying to force a '50-50" gender split for the sake of 'equality', not caring that such an approach by itself goes against the equality of sexes by making sex a selection criteria. In a simplified case if 10 positions are open and you have 15 male and 5 female applicants, such a person would say that the 5 female applicants must get the position purely to achieve equality of sexes, which in turn disqualifies some men purely because they're men.

Again: the point here is not to say all feminists are like this, or to demonize all feminists or say that it's wrong to be a feminist, it's not. The point is that the phrase 'feminism is the 'radical' idea that men and women should be treated equally' is not always indicative of all people who identify as feminists, nor is feminism a requirement for holding that belief.