Skip to main content

Drone On

Unmanned flying machines that are typically operated by a person using a game controller often fly over places such as Pakistan. For the most part, they watch and attack.

Drone strikes happen much more frequently since Obama has been living in the White House. According to the New American Foundation, there has been 339 total number of drone strikes in Pakistan since 2004. Of those, 293 were since 2009. In 2009, only 2 strikes happened under Bush.

Let’s break down the numbers. Under 8 years of Bush, there were 48 drone strikes in Pakistan. In 4 years of Obama, there have been 291. The latest was just the 29th of November. I shudder to think what another 4 years will bring. Troops will still remain after the 2014 end date.

Now, these drone attacks do not happen on their own. The President must authorize each and every attack. That’s a lot of drone strikes for a guy who said that he was bringing the troops home and ending our wars. And let’s not forget the drone strike in Yemen that took out that guy who was an American citizen.

In addition to striking mostly in Pakistan, drones also take video of areas and situations all over the more hostile regions. Supposedly, there was a drone taking video of the Benghazi attack.

Recently, our esteemed politicians and those who believe themselves to be smarter than we (sometimes one in the same) decided that drones over the US would be a good idea. Drones would keep us “safe.”

Safe from whom exactly?

I do not want drones flying over US soil. These machines would be monitoring us—our every movement and possibly our every word. Some may call me paranoid. Some may wonder what I have to hide. After all, only those with something to hide have something to fear.

We can justify so much when something isn’t in our immediate view. The problem I have is that every one of us will be treated like a criminal. If we are all regarded as criminals, then who remains innocent? What happens to liberty when privacy disappears?

Unfortunately, the Constitution does not confine the government from passing laws that restrict our privacy. However, the Fourth Amendment may apply. It says, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated….” All we need to do is define drone observation as an unreasonable search, which would violate the right of people to be secure. What’s the chance of that happening in “safety”-first America?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Faltering of the Republican Party

Everywhere you look, someone is talking about why the Republicans lost the Presidential election and only gained one seat in the House and lost two in the Senate. I haven’t been listening to anyone. Ruminating over the past few days, I have come up with my own theory—the Republican Party itself. If you are a regular reader of my opinions, then you will know that I am not a proponent of the two party system or an any number party system for that matter. However, I feel the Republican message is not what voters really want to hear. The Republicans think they have this large conservative base that they need to appease. That is why Romney picked Ryan as his running mate, which was a huge mistake. Ryan is too far right, although left of Santorum. This “base” is not as big as the pundits would lead us to believe. These people are the ultra conservative fringe of the party. People such as myself are where the party’s focus should be if they wish to survive. Unfortunately, they ...

Debate Dichotomy

Gary Johnson is not allowed to participate in the debate tonight. I honestly think that both parties are afraid of his political allure. I don’t think the debates between Obama and Romney are that important. It’ll be the same ol’ same old crap we’ve been hearing over and over from both of them. However, if Gary Johnson were included, then the debates would matter. Different ideas would be heard. Discourse might actually happen in this country. We need to change the dialogue. The media gatekeepers perpetuate this stale rhetoric. Our ears are tired of being filled with the load of nothingness. Too many of us have turned our backs. Too many of us have said that there is nothing we can do. This is simply not true. We can do something. The Constitution gives us the right of peaceful assembly. In this digital age, assembly may need to take place on the internet. Open a dialogue in which everyone can participate. It is time we no longer feel powerless. Our votes do cou...

Fight or Flight

Mid East violence has hit a new high against the US. Flags burn. Embassies and consulates are being attacked. At least one diplomat is dead. Anti-American chants reverberate through the streets. At what point do we bring our people home? Humans have retained basic survival instincts since the beginnings of humanity—fight or flight. Both of these actions increase our chance of survival. What does not is just sticking around for the heck of it. In these highly violent areas, we are neither fighting nor fleeing. Sure, we shut down the embassy in Indonesia. But why are we allowing these sorts of attacks? Workers in the embassies or consulates are innocent civilians. Most do not even have proper military defense for these little bits of America in foreign lands. Declaring war is not a feasible option. We simply do not have the resources to attack an entire string of nations after our three “wars” (including our involvement in Libya). Nor do we have the stomach to sustain a lon...