The Border Patrol Wants to Arm Drones.....

[MMC]

From the Atlantic Wire.....it appears we weren't exactly given all the truth about those drones for the Border. Used by DHS. Imagine that.....a non Right Leaning Source reporting on it. :shock:


Documents obtained by the Electronic Frontier Foundation from the Department of Homeland Security's Customs and Border Patrol indicate that the agency is close to finalizing payload standards for its drone aircraft. Among the things the CBP wants to use in its unmanned aircraft: "non-lethal weapons designed to immobilize" targets.

In 2009, the agency announced that it had acquired its sixth Predator drone, stationed at an Army Airfield in Arizona. The agency trumpeted its successes:

A fact sheet provided by the agency notes the current capabilities of the aircraft, including electro-optical/infrared sensors and "Surface Search Radar/Ground Moving Target Indicator." The specific drone rolled out in 2009 was loaded with "the Raytheon MTS-B Multi-Spectral Targeting System (with electro-optical, infrared, laser designation, and laser illumination capabilities) and Synthetic Aperture Radar." Raytheon describes the capabilities of the MTS-B: "provides long-range surveillance, high-altitude target acquisition, tracking, rangefinding, and laser designation for the HELLFIRE missile and for all tri-service and NATO laser-guided munitions." You can see the surveillance systems at work in this video, shot at the Mexican border; obviously, the CBP drones aren't HELLFIRE equipped.

But they may soon have weapons. The 2010 documents released to the EFF under the Freedom of Information Act suggest that the FAA is mandating standards affecting the devices' Communication, Navigation, Surveillance / Air Traffic Management (CNS/ATM) equipment, which could require upgrades. The document continues, with emphasis added.

Mission sensor upgrades could include improving SAR point target resolution to well below one foot, a simultaneous SAR-GMTIIMMTI mode and advanced ATR/ATC algorithms. Visual and IR band sensors will be updated with newer generation arrays. The addition of an Electronic Support Measures suite with specific emitter identification will increase mission effectiveness by enabling the UAS to independently perform the SDCIP Identification task. Additional payload upgrades could include expendables or non-lethal weapons designed to immobilize TOIs.

The Border Patrol Wants to Arm Drones

 

[tererun]

It seems to mention Non-lethal arms to them. I would have to imagine that to use the full capabilities of a drone would be the best way to deliver a non-lethal payload. A lot of what you highlighted seems to be drone capabilities that allow it to be an accurate delivery system for lethal munitions. Non-lethal munitions tend to need to be very accurate because it is hard to get the "kill" zone of a lethal device to match an effective zone for a nonlethal device. Plus the drone capabilities which let it spot hidden soldiers are probably fvery useful for helping them spot hidden border jumpers. Drones would be extremely valuable for the purposes of spotting border jumpers. If they are loaded with non-lethal munitions then the whole argument about them being used to kill border jumpers goes out the window.

The only argument I have with a non-lethal solution is you have to punish them or they will try again, and then we have to house them in our prison system and pay a lot of money for them. If we were going to try and secure the border it would be much better to use a lethal deterrent. If we are going to go spend all that money I would rather not give more to the prisoner for profit system and put the money into better defined systems of identification for employment and residence establishment and eliminate the ability of illegals to get services and establish a permanent residence while allowing them to remain and spend money.

 

[MMC]

It seems to mention Non-lethal arms to them. I would have to imagine that to use the full capabilities of a drone would be the best way to deliver a non-lethal payload. A lot of what you highlighted seems to be drone capabilities that allow it to be an accurate delivery system for lethal munitions. Non-lethal munitions tend to need to be very accurate because it is hard to get the "kill" zone of a lethal device to match an effective zone for a nonlethal device. Plus the drone capabilities which let it spot hidden soldiers are probably fvery useful for helping them spot hidden border jumpers. Drones would be extremely valuable for the purposes of spotting border jumpers. If they are loaded with non-lethal munitions then the whole argument about them being used to kill border jumpers goes out the window.

The only argument I have with a non-lethal solution is you have to punish them or they will try again, and then we have to house them in our prison system and pay a lot of money for them. If we were going to try and secure the border it would be much better to use a lethal deterrent. If we are going to go spend all that money I would rather not give more to the prisoner for profit system and put the money into better defined systems of identification for employment and residence establishment and eliminate the ability of illegals to get services and establish a permanent residence while allowing them to remain and spend money.

Heya TR. :2wave: Yes.....it is exactly just like what is used for any payloads. Which is why the Atlantic is reporting on it.

(We assessed the effectiveness of the CBP's recent expansion of its resources on the border last month. There hasn't been a correlation between increased resources and more apprehensions.).....snip~

I think it could be argued that DHS wouldn't come clean concerning any use with any type of payload, anyways. I would also have to agree with what you stated with what I bolded. Good Post TR!

Informative & Creative

 

[tererun]

Heya TR. :2wave: Yes.....it is exactly just like what is used for any payloads. Which is why the Atlantic is reporting on it.

(We assessed the effectiveness of the CBP's recent expansion of its resources on the border last month. There hasn't been a correlation between increased resources and more apprehensions.).....snip~

I think it could be argued that DHS wouldn't come clean concerning any use with any type of payload, anyways. I would also have to agree with what you stated with what I bolded. Good Post TR!

Informative & Creative

I really do not trust the DHS at all now. until they are reigned back in i would prefer it if they just were issued BB guns and a decoder ring. Under a transparent system with public oversight I would be far more trusting of these drones. The reality is right now i oppose them because i am sure they will be used to spy on US citizens and have nothing to do with border partrol.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Be OK with me if we had drones on the border armed with lethal weapons. We need to secure the border and it takes what it takes.

 

[humbolt]

Given all the hubub over the cost of securing the border, I'm starting to lean toward just mining the damn thing.

 

[Tigger]

I would not want to see DHS, INS/ICE, or Border Patrol using non-lethal armaments on these drones. To be truly effective they need LETHAL munitions and we should leave the dead bodies out in the desert as a warning to future illegals.

 

[Democrat152]

I would not want to see DHS, INS/ICE, or Border Patrol using non-lethal armaments on these drones. To be truly effective they need LETHAL munitions and we should leave the dead bodies out in the desert as a warning to future illegals.

Wow. :shock:

 

[nota bene]

I would not want to see DHS, INS/ICE, or Border Patrol using non-lethal armaments on these drones. To be truly effective they need LETHAL munitions and we should leave the dead bodies out in the desert as a warning to future illegals.

That might be effective. It is, however, medieval, and I'd like to think, as civilized people, that we're a little beyond leaving corpses to the buzzards. I mean, even Neanderthal buried his dead.

 

[Tigger]

That might be effective. It is, however, medieval, and I'd like to think, as civilized people, that we're a little beyond leaving corpses to the buzzards. I mean, even Neanderthal buried his dead.

I have no problem with "medieval", as you know. Why was the real Dracula so feared?.... He made it very clearly visible what happened to those who crossed him.

 

[MMC]

Given all the hubub over the cost of securing the border, I'm starting to lean toward just mining the damn thing.

What will that do for the Tunnels they are now running underneath? Also for miles and to even drive vehicles thru?

 

[humbolt]

What will that do for the Tunnels they are now running underneath? Also for miles and to even drive vehicles thru?

Well, MMC, I said that somewhat, somewhat tongue in cheek. Mining would be effective, but incredibly inhuman. I'm just frustrated that such a simple thing as border security to maintain sovereignty causes so much angst and inaction. This should be a non-partisan issue, and I think it is. I'm going to look for some polls on this. Must be a bunch of them.

 

[humbolt]

Here's a Politico report on a recent poll: Poll: Border security a top priority - Kevin Robillard - POLITICO.com

 

[MMC]

Here's a Politico report on a recent poll: Poll: Border security a top priority - Kevin Robillard - POLITICO.com

Heya Humbolt. :2wave: Yeah the House says their version will be about the Border. The Senate bill they say is DOA. Sunday I was listening to one of the Heads of the Committees in the House. He said Border Security before Amnesty. Then he talk about E verify and then Student Visas, Work Visas, and Obama's condition now for same sex couples to be added to the Bill. Which he says all of these have to be addressed before Any talk of Amnesty.

 

[humbolt]

Heya Humbolt. :2wave: Yeah the House says their version will be about the Border. The Senate bill they say is DOA. Sunday I was listening to one of the Heads of the Committees in the House. He said Border Security before Amnesty. Then he talk about E verify and then Student Visas, Work Visas, and Obama's condition now for same sex couples to be added to the Bill. Which he says all of these have to be addressed before Any talk of Amnesty.

It should be broken into two parts, with the border fixed before immigrant status is even discussed. Tying the two together is disingenuous - they are two separate problems as we learned in 1986.

 

[Democrat152]

It should be broken into two parts, with the border fixed before immigrant status is even discussed. Tying the two together is disingenuous - they are two separate problems as we learned in 1986.

Why separate them? The bill in its current state only allows green cards to go our to illegal Immigrants after the Border Security features have been implemented. It kills two birds with one stone. Breaking apart the bill just reduces the chance of anything getting done. That's not even to go into the fact that Net Illegal Immigration is 0, and according to some estimates in the negatives....

 

[humbolt]

Why separate them? The bill in its current state only allows green cards to go our to illegal Immigrants after the Border Security features have been implemented. It kills two birds with one stone. Breaking apart the bill just reduces the chance of anything getting done. That's not even to go into the fact that Net Illegal Immigration is 0, and according to some estimates in the negatives....

Why? Because such legislation always seems to end up with half not getting done. A law passed in Congress already exists which requires a border fence. The fence isn't built. It is possible to claim that because the border is not secure, we have an illegal immigration problem, and the two are therefore intimately entwined. They aren't. The border is not secure. Secure the border. Having done that, then we can talk about whatever just treatment can be determined for the illegals already here. I think the public would be more inclined to deal gently with such illegals with the assurance we won't have to address the issue again.

 

[Democrat152]

Why? Because such legislation always seems to end up with half not getting done. A law passed in Congress already exists which requires a border fence. The fence isn't built. It is possible to claim that because the border is not secure, we have an illegal immigration problem, and the two are therefore intimately entwined. They aren't. The border is not secure. Secure the border. Having done that, then we can talk about whatever just treatment can be determined for the illegals already here. I think the public would be more inclined to deal gently with such illegals with the assurance we won't have to address the issue again.

That's exactly why I don't want it broken up, only half would get done. Everyone would OK Border Security and when it came to "Amnesty" House Republicans would say "We're not going to discuss that, its not happening" . I hate it as much as you do, but you and I both know its true. Look, statistics show that we are deporting more people than ever, and net Illegal Immigration is 0, and according to some estimates the negatives, as many are getting deported or leaving on their own. So, where exactly is the security problem?

 

[Tigger]

Until net illegal immigration is -11,000,000 or so, and there are sufficient security measures in place to keep it that way, no new immigration should be allowed.... Legal or Illegal.

 

[Democrat152]

Until net illegal immigration is -11,000,000 or so, and there are sufficient security measures in place to keep it that way, no new immigration should be allowed.... Legal or Illegal.

America was built on Immigrants, and they are still a major drive in our economy. One of the parts of Immigration Reform is changing the system so that more high skilled Immigrants can get in, which would greatly benefit our economy. Why are so against Immigration?

 

[ttwtt78640]

America was built on Immigrants, and they are still a major drive in our economy. One of the parts of Immigration Reform is changing the system so that more high skilled Immigrants can get in, which would greatly benefit our economy. Why are so against Immigration?

Controlled (legal) immigration is one thing, open borders/amnesty is quite another. Parts of immigration reform are allowing many millions of uneducated and very low skilled "illegal" immigrants to be instantly transformed into legal "permanent residents" as well.

 

[ttwtt78640]

That's exactly why I don't want it broken up, only half would get done. Everyone would OK Border Security and when it came to "Amnesty" House Republicans would say "We're not going to discuss that, its not happening" . I hate it as much as you do, but you and I both know its true. Look, statistics show that we are deporting more people than ever, and net Illegal Immigration is 0, and according to some estimates the negatives, as many are getting deported or leaving on their own. So, where exactly is the security problem?

About 11 million illegal (undocumented?) aliens are now here - is that not indicative of a "security problem"? Immigration reform was broken up in 1986 with "promises" of better immigraton law enforcement that, of course, never happened. While border enforcement has indeed been improved (we now have about 20K border patrol agents) the enforcement related to those that make it into the interior is nearly non-existant (we now have about 5K ICE agents) and about 7% of new hires being subjected to E-verify checks. An estimated 40% of the current illegal aliens did not enter illegally, they simply overstayed their "temporary" visas.

 

[Tigger]

America was built on Immigrants, and they are still a major drive in our economy. One of the parts of Immigration Reform is changing the system so that more high skilled Immigrants can get in, which would greatly benefit our economy. Why are so against Immigration?

I am against any immigration without a requirement for integration into society. That means speaking English and becoming a responsible American Citizen.

 

[humbolt]

That's exactly why I don't want it broken up, only half would get done. Everyone would OK Border Security and when it came to "Amnesty" House Republicans would say "We're not going to discuss that, its not happening" . I hate it as much as you do, but you and I both know its true. Look, statistics show that we are deporting more people than ever, and net Illegal Immigration is 0, and according to some estimates the negatives, as many are getting deported or leaving on their own. So, where exactly is the security problem?

The opposite of '86? I doubt it. There is nothing that has been done on our southern border which can't be undone simply by reducing manpower at the border. Legislation has proven ineffective and is ignored, and this is not partisan in nature. Bush dawdled and let things stand as they were intentionally. The two parties are way too busy vying for votes to effect a realistic solution. Stop the leaks, and then address the repairs.

 

[nota bene]

Why? Because such legislation always seems to end up with half not getting done. A law passed in Congress already exists which requires a border fence. The fence isn't built. It is possible to claim that because the border is not secure, we have an illegal immigration problem, and the two are therefore intimately entwined. They aren't. The border is not secure. Secure the border. Having done that, then we can talk about whatever just treatment can be determined for the illegals already here. I think the public would be more inclined to deal gently with such illegals with the assurance we won't have to address the issue again.

I would be...so long as all that was on their criminal records was illegal entry into the US.