The Domestic Proliferation of Drones and their Challenges to American Democratic Values, Civil Liberties, Local Law Enforcement and National Security

March 1, 2013 Global Security, Human Rights & Conflict, International Relations, Intl Law, National Security Law, Paid Content, U.S. Natl. Security No comments

“The Domestic Proliferation of Drones and their Challenges to American Democratic Values, Civil Liberties, Local Law Enforcement and National Security” by Kapok Tree Diplomacy

Background

In today’s continuous national security state that blurs the lines between war and peace and civilian and military operations, the question becomes whether America must deliberately violate its values to protect its citizens?  John O. Brennan, Assistant to President Obama for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, declared that America’s values and national security “reinforce one another” and rejected the “false choice” between the nation’s security and its traditional values.[1] Jay Stanley and Catherine Crump from the ACLU counter that drones threaten U.S. citizens’ fourth amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure without a warrant and probable cause.[2]  This paper will assess whether the end justifies the means.

This essay will attempt to navigate the ethical tradeoffs between using domestic drones that can look inside private homes with thermal heat sensors and tap into cell phone and text conversations with all the good that drones can do in helping local law enforcement.[3] With the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issuing over 300 Certificates of Authorizations (COAs) since 2006 to entities like local law enforcement agencies and the DOD for permission to fly UAVs, the debate over their potential misuse has only just begun.[4]

{Complete essay contains 4,138 words; 14 double-spaced pages; 30 references}

The posts, views and opinions expressed in this paper are completely my own and do not represent the views or opinions of the Department of Defense (DoD), the Department of the Navy (DON) or any of the Armed Forces.

Table of Contents

I.    Background

II.   Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and Drone Capabilities

A.  Military Capabilities and Usage

B.  Domestic Capabilities and Usage

III.  Analysis – Domestic Drones

A.  Pros and Cons of Using Domestic Drones for Law Enforcement

B.  Pros and Cons of Using Domestic Drones for Border Surveillance

C.  American Values: Privacy and Civil Liberties Concerns

D.  International Law Concerns

IV.  Analysis – The Coming Drone Armageddon

V.   Conclusions and Recommendations

Works Cited in Introduction

[1] Brennan, John O. “Remarks of John O. Brennan, “Strengthening our Security by Adhering to our Values and   Laws.” Program on Law and Security, Harvard Law School. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/09/16/remarks-john-o-brennan-strengthening-our-security-adhering-our-values-an (accessed April 29, 2012).

[2] Stanley, Jay and Catherine Crump. Protecting Privacy from Aerial Surveillance: Recommendations for Government use of Drone Aircraft. American Civil Liberties Union, December 2011, 14. https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/protectingprivacyfromaerialsurveillance.pdf (accessed April 29, 2012).

[3] Finn, Peter, “Domestic use of Aerial Drones by Law Enforcement Likely to Prompt Privacy Debate,” The Washington Post, January 23, 2011 (accessed April 29, 2012).

[4] Lynch, Jennifer. “FAA Releases Lists of Drone Certificates—Many Questions Left Unanswered.” Electronic Frontier Foundation. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/04/faa-releases-its-list-drone-certificates-leaves-many-questions-unanswered (accessed April 29, 2012).

Ecuador and China: BFFs and Champions of the 21st Century Socialist Agenda

February 25, 2013 Christian Perspective, Free Content, Global Security, Intl. Political Economy, IR Theories 4 comments

© Kapok Tree Diplomacy. Feb 2013. All rights reserved. Jeff Dwiggins.   FREE CONTENT

Ecuador and China: BFFs and Champions of the 21st Century Socialist Agenda

Ecuador ChinaEcuador is a beautiful country with a rich and diverse culture, geography and history. My wife is from Ecuador, and I can’t say enough about the friendliness and generosity of her family and many others that I’ve met from Ecuador.  My hope is to someday visit the country, God willing, and take in all the sights, sounds, smells and experiences that up until now, I have only experienced through the anecdotal, photographic and video evidence.

However, I feel that my timetable and window for visiting the country is rapidly closing. If things continue in their current economic and political direction under President Correa, there may not be any socio-political stability left, not to mention the inevitable deterioration of the economy that always accompanies centrally-managed socialist states. See Cuba and Russia for good examples.  Moreover, I may have to learn Chinese in addition to Spanish to get around the country. So what exactly is going on in Ecuador? Didn’t Rafael Correa make everything better?

President Correa’s Vision

Leftist President Rafael Correa of Ecuador easily won a second term as president of Ecuador on February 16th with 56% of the vote compared to the 23% of his closest competitor, Guillermo Lasso, a banker from Guayaquil.[1]  Now President Correa will be able to continue his radical socialist agenda for another four years in Ecuador, especially if his party strengthens their hold on the Assembly. Not everyone in Ecuador is happy about that.

“There is a lot of apprehension that if he wins the Assembly, there will be a greater concentration of power,” said José Hernández, an editor of Hoy, a Quito daily newspaper. “He will try to flatten everyone who is in his way. He will try to dominate more because that’s his personality, and that’s what he wants to do.”[2] So just who is Rafael Correa? Read more

How well do the thoughts and intentions of the Framers of the Constitution on responsibility for national security still hold up today?

February 22, 2013 Free Content, National Security Law No comments

(C) Kapok Tree Diplomacy. Apr 2012. All rights reserved. Jeff Dwiggins

FREE CONTENT

The Framers for their part did have a lot to say about the delineation of powers in these areas. The Constitution is a good place to start in determining how those powers are enumerated and what limits if any apply to them. Madison

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution 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, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” (Passed 12/15/1791).

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution says:

“nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” (Passed 7/9/1868)

These amendments lay out the case for citizens’ right to privacy and limits on government instrusion in this matter without spelling out what constitutes “unreasonable.” Thus, if the President can save millions of lives by wiretapping a suspected terrorist under FISA, is this “reasonable?” Read more

Engaging the Dragon Through Peaceful Deterrence: Japan’s Need to Recalibrate Its Strategy of Accommodation with China

February 22, 2013 Global Security, International Relations, Paid Content No comments

“Engaging the Dragon Through Peaceful Deterrence: Japan’s Need to Recalibrate Its Strategy of Accommodation with China” by Kapok Tree Diplomacy

© Kapok Tree Diplomacy. Oct 2012. All rights reserved. Jeff Dwiggins. 

PREVIEW

Theoretical Framework

The grand strategies and values of Japan and China will be evaluated from a “Balance of Threat” and “Defensive Realism” theoretical framework.  This essay posits that given China’s rise and Japan’s moment of opportunity to counter, it is important to gauge the feasibility of a values-based concert of democracies within this theoretical framework. Stephen Walt argues that states tend to balance or bandwagon with a rising power depending on their assessment of the perceived threat.[1] Japan’s past, present and future behavior towards China is thus assessed within the parameters of defensive realism which point to Japanese formation of strategic alliances to deal with the anarchy and security dilemma that characterize the international system and create uncertainty of intentions and inadvertent mistrust and conflict.[2] Read more

Blind Man’s Bluff: Kazakhstan’s Mirage of Compliance with International Obligations to Uphold the Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Assembly and Association

February 20, 2013 Human Rights & Conflict, International Relations, Paid Content No comments

“Blind Man’s Bluff: Kazakhstan’s Mirage of Compliance with International Obligations to Uphold the Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Assembly and Association” by Kapok Tree Diplomacy

© Kapok Tree Diplomacy. May 2011. All rights reserved. Jeff Dwiggins.

FREE PREVIEW

Section One – The Right to Freedom of Expression

ICCPR Principles and Obligations. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), though not legally binding, declares that “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression … and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers” (Art. 19).The ICCPR, which Kazakhstan ratified in 2006 (UN Treaty Collection), expands upon this definition and binds state parties “in accordance with its terms and with international law” (Steiner, Alston and Goodman (SAG) 152). Treaty obligations are to be governed by the Vienna Convention’s Article 26 fundamental principle of pacta sunt servanda which states, “[e]very treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith” (Dunoff, Ratner & Wippman (DRW) 58). Article 19 of the ICCPR declares:        Read more

Why the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) Doctrine Is Incompatible with the Principles of National Sovereignty and Domestic Jurisdiction Found in International Law

February 19, 2013 Christian Perspective, Human Rights & Conflict, International Relations, Paid Content No comments

“Why the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) Doctrine is Incompatible with the Legal Principles of National Sovereignty and Domestic Jurisdiction” by Kapok Tree Diplomacy

(C) Kapok Tree Diplomacy. April 2011. All rights reserved.  PREVIEW

Section One – Origins and Core Principles of R2P

Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) (2001)

State sovereignty has been defined as, “the rightful entitlement to exclusive, unqualified, and supreme rule within a delimited territory” (Smith, Baylis & Owens 25). But when, where and how may that legitimate and authoritative ‘rightful entitlement’ be challenged? UNSG Annan noted in a 1999 Press Release (SG/SM/7136, GA 9596), “State sovereignty, in its most basic sense, is being redefined by the forces of globalization and international cooperation” (qtd. in Dunoff, Ratner & Wippman 954). It is against this backdrop of rapidly changing international legal perspectives on state sovereignty that the ICISS makes its case. Read more

« Older Entries Recent Entries »