Rise of the Drones – UAVs After 9/11

[Ed Jewett]

An "historic partnership" with the devil

---

New York City, Cornell University and Israel's Technion

By Lawrence Davidson

2 January 2012

Lawrence Davidson views the newly-announced partnership between New York City, Cornell University and the Israel Institute of Technology, or the Technion, an institution that is is knee deep in Palestinian blood and "helps produce weapons and devices that both kill and maim civilians and assists in ghettoizing an entire population".

New York City

The announcement came from the mayor's office of New York City (NYC) on 19 December 2011 in the form of an 11-page declaration. It begins: "Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, Cornell University President David J. Skorton and Technion-Israel Institute of Technology President Peretz Lavie today announced an historic partnership to build a two-million-square-foot applied science and engineering campus on Roosevelt Island in New York City." This is the result of an Applied Sciences Competition that drew at least seven competitors from around the world.

Good news? Well, NYC officials certainly think so: "Thanks to this outstanding partnership ... New York City's goal of becoming a global leader in technological innovation is now within sight." And all it will cost the city is some public land on Roosevelt Island and "100 million dollars in city capital to assist with site infrastructure". Oh yes, and written in invisible ink, the forfeiture of one municipal soul". That is the catch. What we have here is a three way pact with the Devil. There is New York City and Cornell University and the Israel Institute of Technology the Technion.

Cornell University

Cornell University is a 147-year-old elite institution located in Ithaca New York. According to the announcement cited above, it is "a global leader in the fields of applied science, engineering technology and research, as well as commercialization and entrepreneurship". Just what NYC was looking for.
　
Cornell is led by David J. Skorton, a former professor of medicine and a proven college administrator. He has been the university's president since 2006. Among other things, President Skorton presents himself as an ethical leader. Back in 2009 he tried to demonstrate this status when, in response to Israel's attack on Gaza, he called attention to the fact that he had led the fight to have Cornell divest from where? From Sudan because of the Darfur crisis.
　
If you think that logic and consistency should have led Skorton to call for similar action to divest from Israel due to the war crimes committed in Gaza you would be disappointed. He claimed such action would be inappropriate because the case of Darfur "has been one of unilateral violence, whereas, sadly, the situation in and near Israel has been characterized [by] ... violent acts by both sides".

Just as sadly, Skorton's comparison was inaccurate. The Darfur tragedy is the product of an on-going separatist revolt against the central government in Khartoum. Sudan's central government has reacted to this with excessive force that has led to the destruction of much of the life and culture of the Darfur region. The Gaza tragedy, and indeed the entire Palestinian-Israeli conflict, began with Palestinian resistance to Zionist colonization and subsequent oppressive Israeli policies. The Israelis have reacted to on-going resistance with the excessive use of force that has destroyed much of the life and culture in the Palestinian occupied territories. They are not as different as Skorton made them out to be.
　
Perhaps President Skorton was unaware of these comparative facts when he took his public stand. However, even if he were aware of them his behaviour would likely have been the same. For Skorton is certainly pro-Israel. Only such a position could have allowed him to lead his university, which he has called "a national leader in research ethics" into an "historic partnership" with the devil.

Israel's Technion

The devil in this case is the Israel Institute of Technology, or the Technion for short.
[TABLE="width: 200, align: right"]
[TR]
[TD][TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 100%"]Technion is famous fordeveloping

• Weapons
  
• Combat & surveillance drones (used on Gaza civilians)
  
• Missiles (used on Gaza civilians)
  
• Cameras perched on Israel's illegal Apartheid Wall
  
• Accelerated programme for Israeli government scientists and engineers
  

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
The Technion describes itself this way: "A science and technology research university, among the world's top ten, dedicated to the creation of knowledge and the development of human capital and leadership, for the advancement of the state of Israel and all humanity." This would be quite impressive if weren't for the fact that the last nine words are a contradiction. The Technion is knee deep in blood, mostly Palestinian.
In April of 2011 a report entitled "Technion: Structures of Oppression" was published by Tadamon, "a Montreal based collective which works in solidarity with struggles for self-determination..." What it shows is that a good part of Technion's work is linked to weapons development for the Israeli military. Technion faculty and students are involved in helping develop combat and surveillance drones and medium range missiles, both of which have been used against Gaza civilians. Then there are the spy cameras perched on Israel's illegal Apartheid Wall. Technion had a hand in developing those too. Technion also has accelerated academic programmes for Israeli government scientists and engineers while discriminating against Palestinian students and applicants. This then is the institution that Cornell University, a "leader in research ethics" allied with in order to win the NYC contract. Is President Skorton trying to be the Odysseus of modern Ithaca? Claiming righteousness for his institution and himself while dealing with the devil? It won't work. We are best known by the friends we keep.
　
Both Technion and Israeli government officials were clearly elated about their victory in the NYC Applied Sciences Competition. Israel's NYC Consul, Ido Aharoni said that "this is of strategic importance in terms of positioning Israel not only in America, but all over the world, as a bastion of creativity and innovation." Technion President Peretz Lavie was just as effusive: "Together we have the means, ingenuity and willpower to make our world a better place by joining with Cornell University and the great people of New York City for this innovative new centre of learning and enterprise." I am sure the Palestinians are not impressed.

Choosing not to see

Why did the Cornell-Technion alliance get the job? Among the reasons are the following:
1. Elements within the Bloomberg administration were clearly impressed with Technion. They see the Israeli institution as "a winner of Nobel Prizes and incubator of high-tech businesses" and therefore it was "one of the few overseas institutions the city explicitly invited to participate". So, city leaders went out of their way to invite the Israelis into the competition.
　
2. Cornell University's successful acquisition of a 350-million-dollar gift to be dedicated to the NYC project. This came from Charles F. Feeney, a billionaire philanthropist and benefactor of Cornell University who gives money for, among other things, projects involving health programmes, children, population issues and "human rights". His gift meant that the Cornell-Technion alliance came to the table with their venture capital in pocket.
　
3. And, perhaps, the Bloomberg administration people were just carried away by all the Cornell-Technion talk of making the city the equivalent of high-tech nirvana. The mayor declared that "of all the applications we received, Cornell and the Technion was far and away the boldest and most ambitious... It will position the city as a leader in an array of applied science fields, create the jobs of the future," and generate millions of dollars the city. Deputy Mayor Robert Steel agreed. This is going to result in an "economic renaissance" for New York City.
Throughout this story certain words and phrases keep popping up:
1. President Skorton's "ethical" standing.
2. Cornell University's position as "a national leader in research ethics".
3. Technion's claim to be working for the "advancement ... of all humanity".
4. Charles Feeney's interest in supporting "human rights".
5. Mayor Bloomberg's determination to "create the jobs of the future".
All of this, of course, is based on a willful decision not to take notice of what the Israel Institute of Technology does. Technion is part and parcel of a racist, apartheid educational system; it helps produce weapons and devices that both kill and maim civilians and assists in ghettoizing an entire population. What ethical person or institution would want to partner with such an organization? Only those who choose not to see. Only those who "have no moral compass" and are therefore, according to Mayor Bloomberg, "losers".
　
The three participants in this "historic partnership" can carry on in this hypocritical fashion all they want. What they can't do is ask those who catch them at it to keep quiet. Hopefully, the word will spread that they have sold their institutional souls for a bit of gold and fame. Hopefully, soon protesters will show up, at least in New York City and Ithaca, to tell the public just what sort of deal with the devil has been entered into. Hopefully, these "leaders" will be made to feel as publicly uncomfortable as possible.

http://www.redress.cc/americas/ldavidson20120102

[Ed Jewett]

The Drones Are Coming Home

Posted by JacobSloan on January 3, 2012
Will baby-sized drones soon be used routinely for tracking residential property lines and other domestic purposes? With our nation's adventures in Iraq coming to an end, unmanned drones will need to be kept busy doing something…via BLDG BLOG:

A post on sUAS Newsa blog tracking the "small unmanned aviation system industry"we read about the possibility of drone aircraft being used to enforce residential property tax.
Citing a recent court ruling in Arkansas that "has approved the use of aerial imagery to collect data on property sizes," and making reference to the already-controversial state deployment of aerial surveillance tools, sUAS suggests that drones could someday be used to manage a near-realtime catalog of local property expansions, transfers, and other tax-relevant land alterations.
Whether enforcing local building codeskeeping an eye, for instance, on illegally built structures such as the so-called Achill Henge in Irelandor reconciling on-the-ground property lines with their administrative representations back in the city land archives, how soon will drones become a state tool for regional landscape management?
"Imagine your local planning officer having access to your back garden at a moment's notice!" sUAS writes with alarm. "With the pullback from Iraq and other spots under way, this scenario is much easier to imagine. Perhaps it's already happening."

[Ed Jewett]

I saw a small fold-up fist-sized remote-control helicopter as a Christmas gift last week.

[Ed Jewett]

America's "Mini Air Force": Long-range drones directed against China


by Michael Richardson

Global Research, January 5, 2012

[URL="http://www.japantim es.co.jp/ text/eo20120105m r.html"]Japan Times

[Excerpts]

-At present, jet fighters and bombers on U.S. carriers must take off within 800 km of their target, leaving the carriers within range of land-based missiles and combat aircraft. However, the new generation of sea-based drones bring developed by the U.S. could operate as far as 2,500 km from the carrier, putting the ships out of range.

-In fact the U.S. is now training more pilots to operate drones than to fly conventional fighters and bombers. Most of these pilots will work from bases in the continental U.S., often half a world away from the places where their planes are active.

America currently has a big lead in the number and sophistication of drones, and the sensors and weapons they carry. An estimated 7,000 drones are in service.

SINGAPORE: A recent offer by the Seychelles to refuel and replenish Chinese naval ships on anti-piracy patrols in the northwest Indian Ocean was seen as the latest sign of China's expanding naval power.

But it obscured an even more significant development: U.S. deployment of a mini-air force of long-range, remotely-piloted aircraft from a network of airfields in the Seychelles, the Horn of Africa and the Arabian Peninsula...

...

Use of the civilian airport in Victoria by several U.S. Reaper drones underscores a development that is changing the nature of military and intelligence operations in many Asia-Pacific countries as well as the West. Reapers can fly nearly 1,850 km from base, conduct their mission and return home. If armed, they can unleash Hellfire missiles as well as guided 227-kg bombs...

Increasing reliance on drones indicates that the future of airpower is likely to be largely unmanned, as governments seek to reduce combat casualties and remove as many of their expensive manned warships and aircraft as possible from hostile range.

...

The U.S. military has become so concerned at China's rapidly growing arsenal of anti-access and area-denial weapons that just over two years ago it authorized the navy and air force to collaborate on ways to off-set the Chinese challenge to America's capacity to project power and sustain its alliances and military partnerships in Asia.

In a 2010 report, Dr. Andrew Krepinevich, president of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington, wrote that with the spread of advanced technologies and their exploitation by other countries, especially China and to a lesser extent Iran, U.S. ability to "preserve military access to two key areas of vital interest, the Western Pacific and the Persian Gulf, is being increasingly challenged."

To move out of harm's way, the United States aims to deploy sea-based drones on its aircraft carriers in the Pacific by 2018. "They will play an integral part in our future operations in this region," according to Vice Admiral Scott Van Buskirk, commander of the U.S. 7th Fleet in the Pacific and Indian oceans. "Carrier-based unmanned aircraft systems have tremendous potential, especially in increasing the range and persistence of our intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance operations, as well as our ability to strike targets quickly."

At present, jet fighters and bombers on U.S. carriers must take off within 800 km of their target, leaving the carriers within range of land-based missiles and combat aircraft. However, the new generation of sea-based drones bring developed by the U.S. could operate as far as 2,500 km from the carrier, putting the ships out of range.

U.S. deployment of land-based drones has expanded rapidly in the past few years. Widely used in Iraq and Afghanistan, they have also been flown extensively over Pakistan in the hunt for militants, despite periodic protests from the government.

In fact the U.S. is now training more pilots to operate drones than to fly conventional fighters and bombers. Most of these pilots will work from bases in the continental U.S., often half a world away from the places where their planes are active.

America currently has a big lead in the number and sophistication of drones, and the sensors and weapons they carry. An estimated 7,000 drones are in service. Most are unarmed.

Although the biggest, such as Global Hawk, can easily fly across the Pacific and remain aloft for days, many are small and can be hand-launched to provide troops with instant video imagery of the battlefield, day or night. The U.S. Army is already buying 1,300 radio-controlled Raven planes each year. They are the size of a large model aircraft.

The California company that makes them has also started mass production of a new tube-launched, man-portable drone for the U.S. Army. In addition to surveillance, it will also work as an explosive-packed kamikaze missile that can be armed and locked on target by the controller to attack dug-in or fortified infantry positions, enemy missile teams and mortar emplacements.

As electronic systems for small drones are miniaturized and improved, production costs are falling and capabilities increasing. Ravens currently cost around $56,000 each. By contrast, the U.S. Predator drone, widely used for surveillance and attack in Afghanistan and Pakistan, costs at least $5 million, and another $5,000 an hour to fly. The Predator is about the size of a piloted light aircraft.

...The Australian government plans to buy up to seven high-altitude, long-endurance Global Hawks from the U.S. at an estimated cost of up to AU$2 billion. The opposition wants to increase the number to 15. Japan and South Korea are also talking to the Pentagon about possible bulk buys of Global Hawks.

...

Critics contend that drone proliferation may lead to unauthorized operation in foreign airspace, mounting civilian casualties and collateral damage, strained inter-state relations, and eventually result in the technology falling into the hands of terrorists. But despite possible risks, drones seem set to play an expanding military and intelligence role.

One firm that tracks defense and aerospace markets says global spending on research and procurement of drones over the next decade is expected to amount of more than $94 billion, including $9 billion on remotely piloted combat planes.

Michael Richardson is a visiting senior research fellow at the Institute of South East Asian Studies in Singapore.


Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/stopnato/ messages

Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff. wordpress. com

To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@ yahoogroups. com
[/URL]

[Peter Lemkin]

Two [at least] Occupy livestreamers now have mini-drones with cameras and wifi transmitters. I believe the first broadcast use will be at the demonstrations on Jan 16,17,18 in D.C. It will be interesting to see what the Police reaction is....will they allow them, shoot at them, send a stinger missile? They will only be used to get areal views of the demonstration, but no doubt the Police and authorities will claim they are being used for 'other' purposes.

[Ed Jewett]

US army testing cargo drone in Afghanistan

January 8, 2012 by legitgov

ShareThisUS army testing cargo drone in Afghanistan 08 Jan 2012 The US military is testing a revolutionary new drone for its arsenal, a pilot-less helicopter intended to fly cargo missions to remote outposts. This is the first time a chopper version of a drone designed for transport has ben used operationally. Two unmanned models of the Kaman K-MAX helicopters and a team of 16 company technicians and 8 Marines are conducting a 6-month evaluation program for the new craft at Camp Dwyer, a Marine Corps airfield in the Garmsir district of southern Helmand Province.

[Ed Jewett]

Are Drones Watching You?

By Jennifer Lynch
January 11, 2011" EFF" - -Today, EFF filed suit against the Federal Aviation Administration[/url] seeking information on drone flights in the United States. The FAA is the sole entity within the federal government capable of authorizing domestic drone flights, and for too long now, it has failed to release specific and detailed information on who is authorized to fly drones within US borders.
Up until a few years ago, most Americans didn't know much about drones or unmanned aircraft. However, the U.S. military has been using drones in its various wars and conflicts around the world for more than 15 years, using the Predator drone for the first time in Bosnia in 1995, and the Global Hawk drone in Afghanistan in 2001. In the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the US military has used several different types of drones to conduct surveillance for every major mission in the war. In Libya, President Obama authorized the use of armed Predator drones, even though we were not technically at war with the country. And most recently in Yemen, the [url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/01/world/middleeast/anwar-al-awlaki-is-killed-in-yemen.html?ref=anwaralawlaki]CIA used drones carrying Hellfire missiles to kill an American citizen, the cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. In all, almost one in every three U.S. warplanes is a drone, according to the Congressional Research Service. In 2005, the number was only 5%.
Now drones are also being used domestically for non-military purposes, raising significant privacy concerns. For example, this past December, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) purchased its ninth drone. It uses these drones inside the United States to patrol the U.S. borderswhich most would argue is within its agency mandatebut it also uses them to aid state and local police for routine law enforcement purposes. In fact, the Los Angeles Times reported in December that CBP used one of its Predators to roust out cattle rustlers in North Dakota. The Times quoted local police as saying they "have used two unarmed Predators based at Grand Forks Air Force Base to fly at least two dozen surveillance flights since June." State and local police are also using their own drones for routine law enforcement activities from catching drug dealers to finding missing persons. Some within law enforcement have even proposed using drones to record traffic violations.
Drones are capable of highly advanced and almost constant surveillance, and they can amass large amounts of data. They carry various types of equipment including live-feed video cameras, infrared cameras, heat sensors, and radar. Some newer drones carry super high resolution "gigapixel" cameras that can "track people and vehicles from altitudes above 20,000 feet[,] . . . [can] monitor up to 65 enemies of the State simultaneously[, and] . . . can see targets from almost 25 miles down range." Predator drones can eavesdrop on electronic transmissions, and one drone unveiled at DEFCON last year can crack Wi-Fi networks and intercept text messages and cell phone conversationswithout the knowledge or help of either the communications provider or the customer. Drones are also designed to carry weapons, and some have suggested that drones carrying weapons such as tasers and bean bag guns could be used domestically.
Many drones, by virtue of their design, their size, and how high they can fly, can operate undetected in urban and rural environments, allowing the government to spy on Americans without their knowledge. And even if Americans knew they were being spied on, it's unclear what laws would protect against this. AsRyan Calo, the ACLU (pdf) and many others have noted, Supreme Court case law has not been friendly to privacy in the public sphere, or even to privacy in areas like your backyard or corporate facilities that are off-limits to the public but can be viewed from above. The Supreme Court has also held that the Fourth Amendment's protections from unreasonable searches and seizures may not apply when it's not a human that is doing the searching. None of these cases bodes well for any future review of the privacy implications of drone surveillance.
However, there are some reasons to hope that the courts will find the ability of drones to monitor our activities constantly, both in public andthrough the use of heat sensors or other technologyinside our homes, goes too far. For example, in a 2001 case called Kyllo v. United States, the Supreme Court held the warrantless search of a home conducted from outside the home using thermal imaging violated the Fourth Amendment. The Court held that, "in the sanctity of the home, all details are intimate details"it didn't matter that the officers did not need to "enter" the home to "see" them. United States v. Jones, argued before the Supreme Court this term, could also have ramifications for drones. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeal's opinion in this case held that warrantless GPS-enabled 24/7 surveillance of a car violated the Fourth Amendment, noting, "When it comes to privacy . . . the whole may be more revealing than the parts." Though the outcome of the case at the Supreme Court is far from clear, the Court did seem surprised during oral argument that, under the government's theory of the case, the justices themselves could be tracked without a warrant and without probable cause. Drones that use heat sensors to "see" into the home and that can track one or many people around the clock wherever they go are not much different from the technologies at issue in Kyllo and Jones.
It is likely a court will be forced to address this issue in the not-to-distant future. The market for unmanned aircraft in the United States is expanding rapidly, and companies, public entities, and research institutions are developing newer, faster, stealthier, and more sophisticated drones every year. According to a July 15, 2010 FAA Fact Sheet (pdf), "[i]n the United States alone, approximately 50 companies, universities, and government organizations are developing and producing some 155 unmanned aircraft designs." According to one market research firm, approximately 70% of global growth and market share of unmanned aircraft systems is in the United States (pdf). In 2010 alone, expenditures on unmanned aircraft "reached more than US $3 billion (pdf) and constituted a growth of more than 12%." The market for these systems is only expected to increase: over the next 10 years the total expenditure for unmanned aircraft "is expected to surpass US $7 billion." And some have forecast that by the year 2018 there will be "more than 15,000 [unmanned aircraft systems] in service in the U.S., with a total of almost 30,000 deployed worldwide."
In 2011, Congress, the Defense Department, state and local governments, industry and researchers all placed significant pressure on the FAA to review and expand its current "Certificate of Authorization or Waiver (COA)" program. The FAA is also reviewing its own rules for small unmanned aircraft systems. The agency is expected to announce an expansion of the COA program this month. If it does, we may see (or be seen by) many more drones in the very near future.
EFF will keep monitoring this issue. We hope to learn from our lawsuit against the FAA which entities in the United Stateswhether they are government agencies, state or local law enforcement, research institutions or private companiesare currently authorized to fly drones and which entities are seeking or have been denied authorization. Once we have that information we will be better able to define the scope of the problem and can further assess and address the privacy issues at stake.
Jennifer Lynch is a staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation and works on open government, transparency and privacy issues as part of EFF's FOIA Litigation for Accountable Government (FLAG) Project.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info...e30221.htm

[Ed Jewett]

Who Is Operating Unmanned Aircraft in the U.S.? EFF Files Suit to Try to Find Out

January 12th, 2012Via: Electronic Frontier Foundation:
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed suit today against the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), demanding data on certifications and authorizations the agency has issued for the operation of unmanned aircraft, also known as drones.
Drones are designed to carry surveillance equipment including video cameras, infrared cameras and heat sensors, and radar that can allow for sophisticated and almost constant surveillance. They can also carry weapons. Traditionally, drones have been used almost exclusively by military and security organizations. However, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection uses drones inside the United States to patrol the U.S. borders, and state and local law enforcement are increasingly using unmanned aircraft for investigations into things like cattle rustling, drug dealing, and the search for missing persons.
Any drone flying over 400 feet needs a certification or authorization from the Federal Aviation Administration, part of the DOT. But there is currently no information available to the public about who specifically has obtained these authorizations or for what purposes. EFF filed a Freedom of Information Act request in April of 2011 for records of unmanned aircraft activities, but the DOT so far has failed to provide the information.
Posted in Dictatorship, Rise of the Machines, Technology

[Ed Jewett]

Dronology: US flying eye spies on people at home

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iaMA_pqP...r_embedded

[Ed Jewett]

HIGH TECH WARFARE: Drone Secrecy and the "Unmanned Combat Air Systems Concept of Use"

Click image to download document
[at link at bottom]

[It will get you this: http://dronewarsuk.files.wordpress.com/2...acted1.pdf ]


A little over a year ago I discovered someone in the MoD had written a document called An Unmanned Combat Air Systems Concept of Use'. It was mentioned in Defence Reporter, a useful bi-annual bulletin on research being carried out by the MoD's science and technology labs. The summary said the document:

"aims to provide a broad outline of how it is envisioned that an Unmanned Combat Air System (UCAS) will be employed both in preparation for, and when operationally deployed from 2020 and beyond. It provides a vision of a potential UCAS, from which questions will naturally be generated, possibilities assessed and conclusions drawn. These questions, analysis and conclusions will help build the UK's knowledge of a UCAS and therefore enhance our aptitude towards making future procurement decisions with regard to the utility of UCAS in any future force mix."

Naturally as someone very interested in the development of British combat drones it is a document I would find extremely useful. As the bulletin is aimed at journalists and academics as well as the defence industry I duly applied to the MoD's Knowledge and Information Services unit for a copy. After a couple of months back and forth about why I wanted the document, my request was refused.
I requested a copy of the document under the Freedom of Information Act (FoI) last summer and was again refused. I appealed this refusal (a process that is suppose to take no more than 40 days at the extreme) and now almost seven months later, have received a heavily redacted copy of the document (click image above) together with a long letter setting out all the reasons it has been so heavily redacted.
The letter acknowledges that "disclosure of information from the UCAS CONUSE document would demonstrate openness and improve public understanding on the development and employment of a potential UAS … would also increase confidence in the military's responsible current and future use of UAS, in particular help to allay concerns that the deployment of UAS are carried out in accordance with International Law…" Release of the full document however has been refused as it would "increase the security threat to our own forces and those of our allies." (The full letter is here.)
Apart from one or two paragraphs the document is almost entirely redacted. Information that would increase our confidence about current and future use' of drones has been removed along with almost everything else.
A couple of days ago someone commented here on the blog to the effect that the public has no right to comment on or have oversight of the development of new weapon systems as they do not know enough about it. Only the professionals and experts with inside knowledge are capable of having oversight and control it seems. Alas, of course the same was said about the banking/financial system until its recent virtual collapse…
It is imperative that there is proper, public accountability and control over the actions of our armed forces and the development of new weapon systems. We will continue to challenge the secrecy that surrounds the development and use of British drones.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?c...&aid=28785