The More Americans Know About Drones, the Less They Like Them


The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza gave his most recent "Worst Week in Washington Award" to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., whose assault weapons ban got stripped from a Democratic gun control package last Tuesday for lack of support. Fair enough, but if nonhumanoids can be eligible for the award (and why discriminate?), I'd say that drones had the "worst week in Washington" last week.

Defense Images Flickr

On Wednesday at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, members from both sides of the aisle seemed genuinely disturbed by the idea of "government drones buzzing overhead monitoring the activities of law-abiding citizens," as Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, put it. When one of the witnesses, an industry lobbyist, complained that the very term "drone" had unfairly "hostile connotations," he ran into a buzzsaw courtesy of Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who snapped, "We'll decide what we'll call them."

On Friday, it was more bad news for friends of our robot friends. In ACLU v. CIA, the federal Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit forcefully rebuked the Obama administration for stonewalling on an ACLU request, under the Freedom of Information Act, for records related to targeted killing with unmanned aerial vehicles. Given administration officials' repeated public comments on the CIA's drone program, the agency's refusal even to confirm or deny the existence of responsive documents was "neither logical nor plausible," the court said.

In the wake of the 13-hour filibuster of March 6 by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.—in which he used the word "drone" some 245 times—we're starting to see pushback from the courts and Congress on the use of flying, spying robot weapons at home and abroad.

In an influential 2011 article, "The Drone as Privacy Catalyst," law professor Ryan Calo predicted that the dystopian images that drones evoke could spur much-needed reforms to American privacy law. Their association with military spying and targeted killing, the way they "represent the cold, technological embodiment of observation," would provide the "visceral jolt" that reformers need to make their case.

That's certainly happening on the home front. CNET's Declan McCullagh reports that a bipartisan "anti-drone revolt" has prompted the introduction of new federal and state legislation restricting "law enforcement plans to fly more drones equipped with high-tech gear that can be used to conduct surveillance of Americans." Professor Calo, who testified at Wednesday's hearing, warned that "American privacy law places few limits on aerial surveillance" and urged Congress to "instruct the FAA to take privacy into account as part of its mandate to integrate drones into domestic airspace."

The "visceral jolt" that Sen. Paul's filibuster provided seems to be shifting the debate on the drone wars abroad, as well.

As Slate's Dave Weigel observed yesterday, public opinion polls show "A 50-Point Swing Against Targeted Drone Killings of U.S. Citizens" abroad since Sen. Paul's anti-drone marathon. Even erstwhile Obama allies are speaking out: Gen. James E. Cartwright, former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently warned about "blowback" from perpetual remote-controlled war. And on March 13, John Podesta, the former head of the Center for American Progress, took to the pages of the Washington Post to praise Sen. Paul's filibuster and warn that with his secretive approach to drone warfare, "President Obama is ignoring the system of checks and balances that has governed our country from its earliest days."

Some say the filibuster is an obstructive anachronism. Sen. Paul's marathon session earlier this month argues otherwise. With it, he started a national conversation about the use of drones at home and abroad that promises to go on much longer than 13 hours.

NEXT: Italian Foreign Minister Quits

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I want to know how many of these ******* obot government officials are in prison – where the heck is our count ?

    Oh yeah, I guess it’s zero, they charged the whistle blowers only.

    Now there’s a tyranny on steroids.

  2. Am I the only one eagerly anticipating the thousands of tech savy geeks that will discover a myriad of ways the average schmuck will then fuck with these expensive intruders?

    1. Destruction of Government Property?18 U.S.C. ? 1361
      Section 1361 protects “any property” of the United States or an agency or department thereof, or any property being manufactured or constructed for the United States or an agency or department thereof, from willful depredation or attempted depredation. “Depredation” has been characterized as the act of plundering, robbing, pillaging or laying waste. […] The penalties for violations of this section are tied to the extent of the property damage. As amended on September 13, 1994, if the damage exceeds $100, the defendant is subject to a fine of up to $250,000, ten years imprisonment, or both.

      1. I’m sure that everyone will comply with that, especially North Korea and Iran. It would be ironic if they would be retargetted at, for example, CIA or FBI headquarters, the Capitol, the White House, or even the guy at the joystick.

      2. [Destruction of Government Property?18 U.S.C. ? 1361]

        Kinda like your mattress tag removal warning dont’cha think?

  3. If anyone is interested, I have been keeping a blog of reviews of the ops that I try and actually bring in some sort of cash flow. I try to add new reviews weekly and I’ve found that multiple streams of income can add up nicely. Let me know if anyone has any questions and please stop by and introduce yourself! My links are listed below! http://zapit.nu/localvideo

  4. til I saw the bank draft which had said $4179, I didn’t believe that…my… mother in law was like truley earning money in their spare time on their laptop.. there neighbour has done this 4 only 12 months and resently paid the morgage on their apartment and purchased a great new Lotus Carlton. I went here,

  5. my buddy’s sister-in-law makes $62/hr on the computer. She has been unemployed for 10 months but last month her paycheck was $20013 just working on the computer for a few hours. Go to this web site and read more http://www.fly38.com

  6. up to I saw the receipt of $4293, I didnt believe …that…my friend was like trully taking home money in there spare time online.. there dads buddy has been doing this 4 only 1 year and just now paid the mortgage on their place and bought themselves a Porsche 911. we looked here,

  7. like John replied I’m amazed that someone able to earn $7507 in one month on the internet. did you read this web link jump15.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.