PETA Is Buying Drones To Spy On Farmers And Hunters

Another animal rights group is shopping for drones it will use to watch for animal abuse -- and gun owners are setting their sights in anticipation.

Drone Shot Down By Hunter - Good Eye!

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals said this week it plans to purchase drones -- small, remote-controlled, camera-carrying aircraft -- to watch for illegal activity among hunters.
In a press release, PETA said it would "monitor those who are out in the woods with death on their minds," using spotlights or feed lures, or drinking alcohol while in possession of a firearm. PETA also intends to fly the remote-controlled aircraft over factory farms, fishing spots and "other venues where animals routinely suffer and die," it said.

The group doesn't yet have any drones or specific locations where it intends to fly them, and organizers don't know when they'll attempt to put them in the air. The organization wants to watch bear hunters, in particular, PETA President Ingrid Newkirk told CNN. Bear hunting is legal, but Newkirk said PETA would look for hunters luring bears with food or killing mothers with cubs at their sides.
"The talk is usually about drones being used as killing machines, but PETA drones will be used to save lives," Newkirk said in a news release.

In the United States, people can fly model aircraft without approval from the Federal Aviation Administration if they keep the drone in line of sight, lower than 400 feet above ground and away from airports and air traffic. Other types of unmanned aircraft systems need FAA approval, according to the agency.

Newkirk said PETA plans to follow U.S. requirements while flying drones and will fly them overseas, where there may be fewer restrictions. PETA is active in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Germany, Hong Kong and India.
As news of PETA's plan spread, gun owners reacted online. The shooting sports website AmmoLand responded by posting a PETA drone practice target for readers to use at the shooting range.
"Sounds to me like this will create a whole new shooting sport," the site said. "PETA Drone Target Shooting."
Readers at the blog Guns.com posted similar comments.
Newkirk said she wasn't concerned.
"I'd rather have them shoot something inanimate than an innocent doe," she said. "It's not the bedroom; it's the great outdoors, so let's see what they're up to."
It isn't the first time an animal rights group has considered using drones to track hunters. Showing Animals Respect and Kindness, or SHARK, has launched camera-carrying aircraft hundreds of times to film pigeon shoots, said Steve Hindi, the organization's president. During pigeon shoots, hunters try to shoot birds after they're released from cages or mechanically launched. Hindi posts the footage online and sends links to state and local law enforcement, but hasn't gotten much response.
Twice, SHARK's drones have been shot while filming pigeon shoots at Wing Pointe shooting resort in Berks County, Pennsylvania, Hindi said. In a press release from November, SHARK said the camera feed went out on a drone camera after a single shot from the shooting range.
State police investigators said they couldn't identify who shot the drone at Wing Pointe, and couldn't prove whether it was an accident, said David Beohm, spokesman for the Pennsylvania State Police. Beohm said the drone was flying in airspace restricted by the FAA.
Hindi said he doesn't believe the shooting was an accident.
"It was a damn good shot," he said.
CNN contacted Wing Pointe, but representatives declined to comment. Pigeon shoots are legal in Pennsylvania.
Law enforcement officers tried to prevent SHARK from flying a drone in South Carolina in February 2012, Hindi said. A shot brought down the drone soon after it went into the air, and it crashed into a highway, Hindi said.
The Colleton County Sheriff's Office filed an incident report. It's still an open case, and no one has been charged.
Hindi said he's gotten calls from people who say they'll fly drones over his house. He said he doesn't care, and that he'll continue to fly drones as long as it's legal.
"We have these knee-jerk reactions about drones, when the average person has no worries," he said.

from CNN



More on Drones:

New Evidence That Team Obama Misled Us About the Drone War

We Must Not Be Free...

Name The Star...

Medicating Children...

Will children taking Ritalin be classified as mentally ill and therefore not be able to own guns?

Beautiful Babe Bestows Bannister Benefits

More Hot Ladies:

http://ninetymilesfromtyranny.blogspot.com/2013/01/late-night-ladies-links.html

Lovely Lady Lumps

More Hot Ladies:

http://ninetymilesfromtyranny.blogspot.com/2013/01/late-night-ladies-links.html

Late Night Ladies

More Hot Ladies:

http://ninetymilesfromtyranny.blogspot.com/2013/01/late-night-ladies-links.html

Vintage Smut

Girls With Guns

New Evidence That Team Obama Misled Us About the Drone War

Official speeches are crafted to give the impression that we're mostly targeting al-Qaeda members. We're not.
CONOR FRIEDERSDORF

The Obama Administration is deliberately misleading Americans about the drone war it is waging in Pakistan.

Can anyone read the McClatchy Newspapers summary of top-secret intelligence reports and continue to deny it? Set aside the morality and effectiveness of the CIA's targeted-killing program. Isn't it important for Congress and the people to know the truth about the War on Terrorism? Many Americans remain furious that the Bush Administration gave Iraq War speeches that elided inconvenient truths and implied facts that turned out to be fictions. Is the objection merely that the Iraq War turned out badly? Or is misleading Congress and the public itself problematic, especially when the subject is as serious as killing people in foreign countries?

To justify frequent drone strikes that regularly kill innocent people, risk serving as a terrorist recruiting tool, and terrorize whole communities understandably averse to drones buzzing above their homes, Obama Administration officials give the impression that al-Qaeda terrorists are the main targets. As it turns out, they haven't just helped hide the fact that the Bush Administration kicked off America's drone campaign in Pakistan by killing someone at the request of Pakistan's government -- as Jonathan S. Landay explains, Obama officials have misled us about their own behavior. "Contrary to assurances it has deployed U.S. drones only against known senior leaders of al Qaida and allied groups, the Obama administration has targeted and killed hundreds of suspected lower-level Afghan, Pakistani and unidentified 'other' militants in scores of strikes in Pakistan's rugged tribal area, classified U.S. intelligence reports show," he reports.

The misleading rhetoric includes words spoken by President Obama himself:
The administration has said that strikes by the CIA's missile-firing Predator and Reaper drones are authorized only against "specific senior operational leaders of al Qaida and associated forces" involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks who are plotting "imminent" violent attacks on Americans. "It has to be a threat that is serious and not speculative," President Barack Obama said in a Sept. 6, 2012, interview with CNN. "It has to be a situation in which we can't capture the individual before they move forward on some sort of operational plot against the United States." Copies of the top-secret U.S. intelligence reports reviewed by McClatchy, however, show that drone strikes in Pakistan over a four-year period didn't adhere to those standards.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/04/09/188062/obamas-drone-war-kills-others.html#storylink=cpy

In fact, the documents "show that drone operators weren't always certain who they were killing." Under what legal theory does the Obama Administration justify that behavior? It won't tell us.

Instead John Brennan is trotted out to mislead us while acting as if he is being admirably forthcoming. "On April 30, 2012, Brennan gave the most detailed explanation of Obama's drone program. He referred to al Qaida 73 times, the Afghan Taliban three times and mentioned no other group by name," Landay writes. But the classified documents McClatchy reviewed demonstrate that, during the months about which they have information, al-Qaeda members were a minority of people killed by drones, and killing senior al-Qaeda leaders was rare.

I've written before about how the Obama Administration misleadingly invokes and twists the word "imminent." I've also complained about the effort to portray Hellfire missiles as "surgical" instruments. Proponents of drone strikes talk about how unmanned aerial vehicles can hover for hours to verify that the person in their sites is an appropriate target and avoid killing anyone else. That's a misleading account of how things sometimes work in the field, as retired Brig. Gen. Craig Nixon explained to an audience I was in last year at the Aspen Ideas Festival.

The McClatchy report concludes with another example of a drone strike gone wrong:
Consider one attack on Feb. 18, 2010.

Information, according to one U.S. intelligence account, indicated that Badruddin Haqqani, the then-No. 2 leader of the Haqqani network, would be at a relative's funeral that day in North Waziristan. Watching the video feed from a drone high above the mourners, CIA operators in the United States identified a man they believed could be Badruddin Haqqani from the deference and numerous greetings he received. The man also supervised a private family viewing of the body.

Yet despite a targeting process that the administration says meets "the highest possible standards," it wasn't Badruddin Haqqani who died when one of the drone's missiles ripped apart the target's car after he'd left the funeral.

It was his younger brother, Mohammad.

Friends later told reporters that Mohammad Haqqani was a religious student in his 20s uninvolved in terrorism; the U.S. intelligence report called him an active member -- but not a leader -- of the Haqqani network. At least one other unidentified occupant of his vehicle perished, according to the report.

In its drone-strike database, the New America Foundation scores that drone strike as having killed three to four "militants," zero unknown persons, and zero civilians. I've argued that the New America data very likely undercounts the number of civilians that are killed in drone strikes.

There has long been evidence indicating the Obama Administration was misleading the country about the nature of its drone war in Pakistan. This latest report only confirms the suspicions that critics of the program have articulated. And there is reason to believe that even it understates the magnitude of executive branch deception. Says Marcy Wheeler, "This report is perhaps most interesting for the fact that CIA, in its own documents, claims that none of the 40-some people killed at Datta Khel on May 17, 2011 were civilians. In other words, the CIA is lying -- even internally -- about drone strikes as blatantly as it did about torture." The New York Times report on that strike stated that "missiles fired from American drone aircraft struck a meeting of local people in northwest Pakistan who had gathered with Taliban mediators to settle a dispute over a chromite mine. The attack, a Pakistani intelligence official said, killed 26 of 32 people present, some of them Taliban fighters, but the majority elders and local people not attached to the militants. The civilian death toll appeared to be among the worst in the scores of strikes carried out recently in Pakistan's tribal areas by the C.I.A., which runs the drones."

The appropriate response when a president is caught misleading the country about a war he's waging is more scrutiny. There's no telling what else the Obama Administration is hiding. It is the job of Congress to find out, and the prerogative of Americans to know the nature of killing done on their behalf.

from The Atlantic


More On Drones:

Burrito Bomber: open source hardware-based drone autonomously delivers Mexican food

Dualism And Hypocrisy...

Just Get A Gun.