Header Picture

Header Picture

Friday, February 22, 2013

A Citizen's Guide to Avoiding Being Taken Out By An Obamadrone

According to the US Army newspaper Stars and Stripes, on June 24, 2012, Sheriff Kelly Janke of the Nelson County (North Dakota) Police Department "entered the 3,000 acre Brossart family farm looking for six cows that were reported missing when three men brandishing rifles chased him off the property. Upon retreating to safety, he immediately called for backup, which included a SWAT team, a bomb squad and a Predator B drone.

"The next morning the drone scoped out activity from overhead and found that the three men had left the farm in an all-terrain vehicle and were unarmed, enabling police officers to swarm the suspects without the risk of a deadly confrontation."

Luckily for the three men, Sheriff Janke was after, Janke didn't decide to load up his Predator B drone with a fragmentation missile and take the varmint cattle rustlers out without having any of his deputies do anything dangerous, like actually confront them.

This is the first recorded instance of a U.S. police department using a drone to arrest a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil.

The Obamadrone program has so far killed 4,700 people world-wide, including U.S. citizens who were self-proclaimed enemy combatants against the United States.

The ACLU has recent;y filed suit against the Federal government to compel them to release documents about the CIA Obamadrone program. The DOJ is pushing back claiming that the very existence of the documents in question, or lack thereof, is classified, and is therefore protected by statute from disclosure.

I for one am not a big fan of drone strikes against our enemies because of the incredible trouble it stirs up in terms of our foreign policy and how we are perceived in areas of the world that could turn violently against us at a moment's notice. We are perceived throughout the Middle East and into Asia as a country that diabolically uses drone technology to kill whenever and wherever we please. The removal of the human element while killing people we don't like is troubling to me.


During his confirmation hearings last week, CIA chief nominee John Brennan refused to say whether the Federal government has the power to target American citizens for execution without charges even on U.S. soil.

If you are not chilled by this you are a danger to yourself.
 
Remember when anyone in the mainstream media in this country said the following?
Such flagrant abuse of secrecy power is at once Orwellian and tyrannical. It has the effect of blocking even the most minimal transparency on the most consequential question: the government's claimed authority to execute anyone it wants without charges, far from a battlefield, in total secrecy. It yet again demonstrates that excessive government secrecy is an infinitely greater threat than unauthorized disclosures. This is why we need radical transparency projects and aggressive whistle-blowers. And it's why nobody should respect the secrecy claims of the Obama administration or believe the assertions they make about national security. What else do they need to do to prove how untrustworthy those claims are? - The UK Guardian, February 14, 2013
The answer is: Of course you don't, you're too busy being told that the Oscar Pistorius murder-by-gun violence-case is somehow important because he was an Olympian and the Olympics are on NBC, and poor Oscar he has prosthetic legs and he is worried about his future, instead of paying attention to the rat-hole the Democrat Establishment in this country is sending us down. 

You're also too busy being told that Rand Paul, the only Congressperson with the nerve to talk negatively in public about the Obamadrone program is a freak because of his haircut and the fact that he is Ron's son.

Here's what Democrat hack and Defense Secretary Leon Pannetta had to say about the drone program in 2010 when he was in charge of the CIA:
"I think it does suffice to say that these operations have been very effective because they have been very precise." The CIA drone program in Pakistan is "the most aggressive operation that CIA has been involved in in our history."

Here's what the Department of Justice had to say about the alleged Obamadrone program in a letter from DOJ attorney Sharon Swingle dated February 13, 2013:
"...plaintiffs [the ACLU] identify no statement in which Mr. Brennan [in his confirmation hearings] allegedly confirms purported CIA involvement in the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for “targeted killing.” Rather, plaintiffs cite instances in which members of Congress mentioned “targeted killing,” and general discussions of “targeted killing” that do not address the involvement of any particular agency."

The DOJ is using this strategy to avoid disclosing documents about CIA involvement in the Obamadrone program, for reasons that are not yet clear. The Obama Administration and members of Congress of both parties hail the Obamadrone program, but when pressed to be transparent, the DOJ plays the game that there is no proof it even exists, and even if it did, there's no proof the CIA is involved.

I'm not one to generally buy into conspiracy theories but the fact that the Obama Administration is playing so coy with the existence of a program it lauds as wildly successful gives me pause.


In the event I see one of these flying over my head, I'm want to be able to defend myself. That being said, I went to the experts on defending themselves against unmanned attacks by Obamadrones, al Q'aida, and boned up on their handy guide to surviving an attack from something the government doesn't admit exists but  has done a great job of killing people (according to the government) without that good old fashioned human interaction that makes war so difficult to continue to perpetrate:
  1. A Russian-made “sky grabber” device ($2,595 USD) will infiltrate the drone’s waves and the frequencies. The "one who operates it should be a computer know-how."
  2. Use a Russian-made RACAL to "disconnect the contacts and confuse the frequencies used to control the drone.”
  3. "Spreading the reflective pieces of glass on a car or on the roof of the building."
  4. "Placing a group of skilled snipers to hunt the drone, especially the reconnaissance ones because they fly low, about six kilometres or less."
  5. "Jamming of and confusing of electronic communication using the ordinary water-lifting dynamo fitted with a 30-metre copper pole."
  6. "Jamming of and confusing of electronic communication using old equipment and keeping them 24-hour running because of their strong frequencies and it is possible using simple ideas of deception of equipment to attract the electronic waves devices similar to that used by the Yugoslav army when they used the microwave (oven) in attracting and confusing the Nato missiles fitted with electromagnetic searching devices."
  7. "Using general confusion methods and not to use permanent headquarters."
  8. "Discovering the presence of a drone through well-placed reconnaissance networks and to warn all the formations to halt any movement in the area."
  9. "To hide from being directly or indirectly spotted, especially at night."
  10. "To hide under thick trees because they are the best cover against the planes."
  11. "To stay in places unlit by the sun such as the shadows of the buildings or the trees."
  12. "Maintain complete silence of all wireless contacts."  
  13. "Disembark of vehicles and keep away from them especially when being chased or during combat."
  14. "To deceive the drone by entering places of multiple entrances and exits."
  15. "Using underground shelters because the missiles fired by these planes are usually of the fragmented anti-personnel and not anti-buildings type."
  16. "To avoid gathering in open areas and in urgent cases, use building of multiple doors or exits."
  17. "Forming anti-spies groups to look for spies and agents."
  18. "Formation of fake gatherings such as using dolls and statutes to be placed outside false ditches to mislead the enemy."
  19. "When discovering that a drone is after a car, leave the car immediately and everyone should go in different direction because the planes are unable to get after everyone."
  20. "Using natural barricades like forests and caves when there is an urgent need for training or gathering."
  21. "In frequently targeted areas, use smoke as cover by burning tires."
  22. "As for the leaders or those sought after, they should not use communications equipment because the enemy usually keeps a voice tag through which they can identify the speaking person and then locate him."
The American Sheeple, in particular the low-information Obama voter, have been tricked into believing that Barack Obama has won the war on terror and that al Q'aida is on the run and operations are winding down. It's too bad the people who came up with al Q'aida's "Twenty-Two Ways to Survive an Obamadrone Attack" aren't in the loop.

Why is the Obama Administration insisting on secrecy, and why is the Democrat Establishment in this country such willing partners to Obama's obfuscations?

What would the Democrat Establishment's outcry be like if a Republican president were acting so fast and loose with the truth and the security of American citizens?

Why is CIA nominee John Brennan unable to say without reserve that American citizens on American soil will not be targeted by the American government's Obamadrone program?

I don't think the Obama Administration is plotting to wipe out people like me who criticize them, and I'm not buying into the garbage from the extreme Right that the government is plotting martial law and a restriction of our rights, but a government that refuses to be transparent over how it kills our enemies is not to be trusted.

That the Democrats as whole and a great deal of Republicans in general don't have a problem with this is troubling in the extreme.

No comments: