(Armed?) Predators To Patrol TX Coast

[Nbadan]

HOUSTON, Texas -- A dozen U.S. Predator aircraft will be based at Houston's Ellington Field for use in homeland security and border patrols.

Predators are unmanned aircraft that can carry missiles and can stay airborne for 24 hours. They can be operated by ground control or satellite. They can be used to locate targets and either fire their own Hellfire missiles or be followed up by other aircraft.

Perry said the 12 Predators at Ellington will be used to patrol such assets as the Southeast Texas ports and petrochemical complex and NASA's Johnson Space Center. Perry said they'll also be used to patrol the border with Mexico.

DeLay -- who's a Sugar Land Republican -- says the aircraft would used to monitor illegal immigration. Perry says they'd also be used as a bargaining chip with the independent federal base-closing commission to keep the 147th Fighter Wing at Ellington.

Give us your sick, your poor, NO --------QUICK, DUCK!

http://www.radome.net/jpg/predator5a.jpg

[Cant_Be_Faded]

this is stupid...12 airplanes are supposed to help protect an entire border?????

do these planes have the ability to completely scan ridiculously large areas of land for any traces of human movement or what?

when you actually go into the wilderness of west texas, you realize that its far easier to cross over the border than you originally think....all you need is a bunch of water and the will to succeed/survive

[Dos]

MQ-1 PREDATOR UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE





Download

Fact Sheet Tools
Printable Fact Sheet

Mission
The MQ-1 Predator is a medium-altitude, long-endurance, remotely piloted aircraft. The MQ-1's primary mission is interdiction and conducting armed reconnaissance against critical, perishable targets. When the MQ-1 is not actively pursuing its primary mission, it acts as the Joint Forces Air Component Commander-owned theater asset for reconnaissance, surveillance and target acquisition in support of the Joint Forces commander.

Features
The MQ-1 Predator is a system, not just an aircraft. A fully operational system consists of four aircraft (with sensors), a ground control station, a Predator Primary Satellite Link, and approximately 55 personnel for deployed 24-hour operations.

The basic crew for the Predator is one pilot and two sensor operators. They fly the aircraft from inside the ground control station via a C-Band line-of-sight data link or a Ku-Band satellite data link for beyond line-of-sight flight. The aircraft is equipped with a color nose camera (generally used by the pilot for flight control), a day variable-aperture TV camera, a variable-aperture infrared camera (for low light/night), and a synthetic aperture radar for looking through smoke, clouds or haze. The cameras produce full motion video while the SAR produces still frame radar images.

The MQ-1 Predator carries the Multi-spectral Targeting System with inherent AGM-114 Hellfire missile targeting capability and integrates electro-optical, infrared, laser designator and laser illuminator into a single sensor package. The aircraft can employ two laser-guided Hellfire anti-tank missiles with the MTS ball.

The system is composed of four major components which can be deployed for worldwide operations. The Predator aircraft can be disassembled and loaded into a "coffin." The ground control system is transportable in a C-130 (or larger) transport aircraft. The Predator can operate on a 5,000 by 75 feet (1,524 meters by 23 meters), hard surface runway with clear line-of-sight. The ground data terminal antenna provides line-of-sight communications for takeoff and landing. The PPSL provides over-the-horizon communications for the aircraft.

An alternate method of employment, Remote Split Operations, employs a smaller version of the GCS called the Launch and Recovery GCS. The LRGCS conducts takeoff and landing operations at the forward deployed location while the CONUS based GCS conducts the mission via extended communications links.

The aircraft includes an ARC-210 radio, an APX-100 IFF/SIF with Mode 4, an upgraded turbo-charged engine and glycol-weeping “wet wings” for ice mitigation. The latest upgrade includes fuel injection, longer wings, dual alternators and other improvements.

Background
The "M" is the Department of Defense designation for multi-role and "Q" means unmanned aircraft system. The "1" refers to the aircraft being the first of a series of purpose-built remotely piloted aircraft systems.

The Predator system was designed in response to a Department of Defense requirement to provide persistent intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance information to the warfighter.

In April 1996, the secretary of defense selected the U.S. Air Force as the operating service for the RQ-1 Predator system. A change in designation from "RQ-1" to "MQ-1" occurred in 2002 with the addition of the armed reconnaissance role.

Operational squadrons are the 11th, 15th and 17th Reconnaissance Squadrons, Indian Springs Air Force Auxiliary Field, Nev.

General Characteristics
Primary Function: Armed reconnaissance, airborne surveillance and target acquisition
Contractor: General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Incorporated
Power Plant: Rotax 914 four cylinder engine producing 101 horsepower
Length: 27 feet (8.22 meters)
Height: 6.9 feet (2.1 meters)
Weight: 1,130 pounds ( 512 kilograms) empty, maximum takeoff weight 2,250 pounds (1,020 kilograms)
Wingspan: 48.7 feet (14.8 meters)
Speed: Cruise speed around 84 mph (70 knots), up to 135 mph
Range: up to 400 nautical miles (454 miles)
Ceiling: up to 25,000 feet (7,620 meters)
Fuel Capacity: 665 pounds (100 gallons)
Payload: 450 pounds (204 kilograms)
System Cost: $40 million (1997 dollars)
Initial operational capability: March 2005
Inventory: Active force, 57; ANG, 0; Reserve, 0

[Dos]

I think they work

Predators armed with missiles have also proved their worth in the war on terrorist groups. In Yemen, the Central Intelligence Agency used a missile-armed Predator in November 2002 to strike a car carrying six suspected Al-Qaeda operatives, including one suspected of masterminding the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole. More recently, they have been used in attacks on insurgents planting roadside bombs in Iraq.

The Predator's ability to conduct dangerous surveillance and attack missions over hostile territory without risking the lives -- or the potentially embarrassing capture -- of US pilots, has encouraged US defense officials to push for its expanded use.

[Useruser666]

So what's the problem with using these planes? Sounds like a good idea to me. Unmanned aircraft are cheaper to fly than manned ones, they can stay out longer to complete their mission and don't put pilots or other crew at risk. Everyone wants a fix to our open borders, but then when something perfectly logical is tested to help solve this, people have off base reservations about it?

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

They sure as hell can cover a lot more ground than the US Border Patrol.

Just make sure the operators have the Border Patrol peeps on speed dial, and it should work fine.

[Hook Dem]

Notice how Dan in the thread title says...(armed?) . He knows no limits to encite people. Where did he get this? Pull it out of his ass?

[boutons]

He doesn't "say", he "asks". You're evidence that precise use of language is not what Texans are known for.

Has he INCITED you to think about an answer to his question? Putting a defensive weapon in the air without munitions is like putting a pistol on a cop's hip without bullets. Or is the drone just a robotic, air-borne TV camera?

And for Perry, it's not even about security, it's about playing pork poker with DOD.

[Hook Dem]

He doesn't "say", he "asks". You're evidence that precise use of language is not what Texans are known for.

Has he INCITED you to think about an answer to his question? Putting a defensive weapon in the air without munitions is like putting a pistol on a cop's hip without bullets. Or is the drone just a robotic, air-borne TV camera?

And for Perry, it's not even about security, it's about playing pork poker with DOD.
And you are evidence that you will attack anything republican. Your language of "shrub" is really enlightening for all to see . You have your agenda and I have mine. We agree to disagree!

[Dos]

yeah I guess people get pissed if more cops patrol their nieghborhoods, I guess some liberals still think any increased security measure is a threat against their constitional rights... but soon after a tradegy like the london bombings their were squealing asking for more funds for subways... what gives really...

[Useruser666]

He doesn't "say", he "asks". You're evidence that precise use of language is not what Texans are known for.

Has he INCITED you to think about an answer to his question? Putting a defensive weapon in the air without munitions is like putting a pistol on a cop's hip without bullets. Or is the drone just a robotic, air-borne TV camera?

And for Perry, it's not even about security, it's about playing pork poker with DOD.

What are you "talking" about? You make no "sense"!

Anyways........

The planes can be used for surveillance purposes along the border. I doubt they will be armed with hellfire missles. So what is bad about that?

[cecil collins]

Human instinct. Also, there is a lot of propaganda, putting fear into the hearts of millions. A very small percent of people in this country have been adversely affected(directly) by a terrorist attack. I don't care either way, as long as I don't see anyone "supposed terrorists" blown up with it.

[Clandestino]

these planes have mainly been used for surveillance... even in iraq...

[Vashner]

I doubt they will use armed variant. There are only a few and they are needed at the war front.

[Jelly]

[QUOTE=cecil collins]Human instinct. Also, there is a lot of propaganda, putting fear into the hearts of millions. QUOTE]


I agree wholeheartedly. Too many people like NBADan trying to spread fear with their tired "America is going to hell in a right-wing handbasket" rhetoric.
OMG...planes protecting our border...it's a police state!! It's 1984!!!! Let's all freak out!!!

[Hook Dem]

[QUOTE=cecil collins]Human instinct. Also, there is a lot of propaganda, putting fear into the hearts of millions. QUOTE]


I agree wholeheartedly. Too many people like NBADan trying to spread fear with their tired "America is going to hell in a right-wing handbasket" rhetoric.
OMG...planes protecting our border...it's a police state!! It's 1984!!!! Let's all freak out!!!
:lol :lol :lol

[MannyIsGod]

This is a great idea. The Predator and Dark Star drones are pretty freaking awesome and do an incredible job of watching over a large area.

[Nbadan]

[QUOTE=cecil collins]Human instinct. Also, there is a lot of propaganda, putting fear into the hearts of millions. QUOTE]


I agree wholeheartedly. Too many people like NBADan trying to spread fear with their tired "America is going to hell in a right-wing handbasket" rhetoric.
OMG...planes protecting our border...it's a police state!! It's 1984!!!! Let's all freak out!!!

Yeah, the high-gas prices, the deteriorating situation in Iraq, Plame-gate, and now the militarization of the border and American cities are my entire fault.

:hat

[SWC Bonfire]

Yeah, the high-gas prices, the deteriorating situation in Iraq, Plame-gate, and now the militarization of the border and American cities are my entire fault.

:hat

It's big of you to admit that, Dan.

[Trainwreck2100]

If they aren't armed the name predator seems kinda weak

[Useruser666]

Yeah, the high-gas prices, the deteriorating situation in Iraq, Plame-gate, and now the militarization of the border and American cities are my entire fault.

:hat

So then what was the point of you bringing this up? What is the problem with it?

[smeagol]

Why are people so concerned with the situation at the Mexican border?

Is it because they are afraid terrorists will enter the US or is it because they want to keep the Mexican, Salvadorians, Nicaraguans, Guatemalans, Cubans (sorry, those come in lifeboats), Dominicans, etc, etc, etc out?

[Nbadan]

If they aren't armed the name predator seems kinda weak

It's not just the predator though, Insannity has been doing a week-long tour promoting the issue of illegal immigration and gently framing it as a priority National Security issue, even though no terrorists has ever tried to cross the Southern border, but they tried to cross the Northern border and the 911 conspirators were all here legally on student visas. Also, W isn't going to get though on immigration from Mexico because it has been a boon for the home construction business which has been driving the economy.

The whole guest-worker program proposal seems more like a bureaucratic head-ache in the making than any real solution to illegal immigration.

So it’s all a big farce. The Republicans plan to use immigration as a wedge-issue in 06 and 08 the way they used gay marriage in 04, this time to help target Hispanics and its far right constituency to get out the vote in Southern states. Just watch, they will propose a guest-worker program for Mexico and a amnesty program to all those illegally already in the U.S. and Hispanics will fall for it, but it will never happen because it is not fiscally or politically expedient to do so until we are attacked from Mexico.

[Useruser666]

So then what was the point of you bringing this up? What is the problem with it?

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Why are people so concerned with the situation at the Mexican border?

because its far easier for anyone to get into the country than people are led to think

people who are not citizens

[Useruser666]

So again, DAN, why did you evern bring this up? What is wrong with it?

[Cant_Be_Faded]

i think he believes this is militarizing our borders

which can be a bad thing
but also a good thing

[Useruser666]

i think he believes this is militarizing our borders

which can be a bad thing
but also a good thing

So which is better?

A.Having a bunch of untrained civillians patrolling our border taking justice into their own hands.

B.Spending tons of money on more Border Patrol agents to cover the area better.

C. Spend a small amount of money to better direct and control current agents using a system that has already been tested and can easily be implemented.

???

[Nbadan]

What are these drones protecting us against? We already know that there are tons of immigrants sneaking across the boarder and where they are coming through. So is catching them on expensive cameras really going to make a big difference? Also, I'm not keen on the idea of these possibly armed drones patrolling areas around Gulf Coast refineries. The last thing we need now is a 'accident' at a TX refinery that is made to look like a terrorist act.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

that is true

useruser666 we don't know if these planes are an automatically cheaper option

plus, what are they going to do? Shoot missles at the aliens or pick them up and take them back to mexico? We're going to need manpower to properly guard the border in either case

[MannyIsGod]

They definetly are a cheaper option. They are the best means of survilence this country has. They require interaction with group personel, but much less ground personel than would be required to do the job alone.

[Useruser666]

What are these drones protecting us against? We already know that there are tons of immigrants sneaking across the boarder and where they are coming through. So is catching them on expensive cameras really going to make a big difference? Also, I'm not keen on the idea of these possibly armed drones patrolling areas around Gulf Coast refineries. The last thing we need now is a 'accident' at a TX refinery that is made to look like a terrorist act.

What the hell are you smoking? You complain about the minute men patroling the border. You complain about how we should not spend money in Iraq and instead focus it on security here. Then you say there is a possiblity that the US government or military will use the Predator to fire missles on US refineries and blame terrorists? OMFG!!! You are so full of shit. The planes would be there to PROTECT the area and monitor suspicious activity along the border or other patrol zones. What would be more likely: a highly publicized aircraft firing a HIGHLY visablie missle at a refinery, or someone on the inside planting explosives in a key location? You're so full of shit you must have to do a hand stand when you go to the restroom.

And the Predator drones would be MUCH cheaper than current methods of patrol and reconnoissance. They also cover a MUCH larger area. They also can cover an area for MUCH longer than a traditional aircraft. Then there is the FACT that you do not put as many agents lives on the line out in the field. The drones can also cover remote areas and ones where there is limited to no access.

Don't worry Dan, they haven't fully developed remote brain wave scans just yet. Come back here when you can come up with some real reasoning.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

protecting the border should be a priority

it will be more expensive, but if we employ a greater force to patrol this helps people get jobs...

but my feelings towards machines are very 20th centuryesqe...so i lean towards NBAdan on this one. if Skynet ever becomes self aware and we have shitloads of un-manned missle carrying planes just a couple hundred miles away it will suck

[smeagol]

because its far easier for anyone to get into the country than people are led to think

people who are not citizens
Why not patrol the Canadian border?

[MannyIsGod]

:lol

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Why not patrol the Canadian border?


exactly. we should patrol that as well. thats what i am saying. I dont think things are properly set up for globalization or at least country-by-country unifcation in terms of the people. i think the us should keep its borders intact, for a while longer. they dont have to be isolated but for the love of god keep those borders intact. i guess these machines are a good idea but i like the idea of manned machines better.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

The only way this program will be a failure is if some misguided missile doesn't take out Dan's house along the way ;)

Right now the BP essentially runs around like a chicken with its head cut off trying to catch illegals.

There's only so many BP agents. This will allow them to be more effectively deployed.

As for the Canada border issue, it's simple...

Canada is actively screening those coming into its country (air an sea). Mexico is distributing pamphlets telling people how to cross the border and stay.

[Useruser666]

protecting the border should be a priority

it will be more expensive, but if we employ a greater force to patrol this helps people get jobs...

but my feelings towards machines are very 20th centuryesqe...so i lean towards NBAdan on this one. if Skynet ever becomes self aware and we have shitloads of un-manned missle carrying planes just a couple hundred miles away it will suck

I hope skynet sends a terminator for Dan.

[Clandestino]

I hope skynet sends a terminator for Dan.

:lmao

[Vashner]

That movie called "Stealth" ... is in part based on Technology that Brooks AFB has played a part in.. well the part where the good guys shoot the fucking thing down hehhe. At Brooks I was in meetings in the 90's talking about unmanned fighters and at least my opinion was that it was a bad idea. I guess since you have a human controller on predator so it's still not really unmanned.

[clubalien]

these should old be used to spy on the mexican,and candian borders, I don't think these should be used in the "they live" and "1984" ways to monitor anything other then looking at the opposite country before entering our country.

[Nbadan]

I hope skynet sends a terminator for Dan.

Haven't you heard? Skynet is God (shheee! she's listening!).

:hat

[MannyIsGod]

Unmanned vehicles are the future for the airforce. Whether they are controlled by a human operator at a ground station via datalink or wheather they are smart cruise missles that fly with a computer based system or a combination of the 2, it will be the future.

Regardless of any unfounded fears started by movies like the Terminator and Stealth, the opportunity to remove the risk of human injury is something very worth pursuing.

People have a difficult time realizing that a pilot does nothing but make decisions based on observation and training, and that is something that is able to be done by a computer program.

[Nbadan]

People have a difficult time realizing that a pilot does nothing but make decisions based on observation and training, and that is something that is able to be done by a computer program.

Removing the humanity from war? Is that what we really want? Faceless, uncaring killing machines. Wasn't there another movie about that?

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Let's be fair about this, especially the dorky panic shit from Dan...

While the vehicles are unmanned, they still have a pilot flying it back at base. They've just removed the pilot element from the vehicle.

[clubalien]

over border YES over civilans NO that is my policy and it stays until people are stoped from leaving the us then no to even on border

[JohnnyMarzetti]

Some doofus is going to get killed.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

it stays until people are stoped from leaving the us then no to even on border

English, please.

[clubalien]

IF or when the United States of America decided to forceable STOP the citzens of this great nation from leaving the USA. Then I will Be againts the USA using drones to spy and fire on citzens that wish to leave the US for any reason.

Examples:
EAST/WEST German berlin wall
N.Korea
Cuba

I belive that the drones shoudl only be used on borders and to spy and do missions AWAY from the USA. NOT to spy on AMERICAns in the USA.

IF at a point the USA trys to use these "tools" againt the Americans EVEN on the BORDER then I am againts them even in used on the border.

sorry you don't know how to read.

[Vashner]

Unmanned vehicles are the future for the airforce. Whether they are controlled by a human operator at a ground station via datalink or wheather they are smart cruise missles that fly with a computer based system or a combination of the 2, it will be the future.

Regardless of any unfounded fears started by movies like the Terminator and Stealth, the opportunity to remove the risk of human injury is something very worth pursuing.

People have a difficult time realizing that a pilot does nothing but make decisions based on observation and training, and that is something that is able to be done by a computer program.

Yea Manny and when the Chinese take over the control and use our own fighters back on us then what?

No it's 100% better to have a human pilot ... with some use of unmanned for certain missions. Not only that there is a shortage of airline pilots today. A lot of them come from the military. Now with modern glass cockpits you only need 1 person for strike / recon / Air Cap so that reduces costs.

But we need good fighter pilots.. not some robots that can be turned against us.

[MannyIsGod]

Yea Manny and when the Chinese take over the control and use our own fighters back on us then what?

No it's 100% better to have a human pilot ... with some use of unmanned for certain missions. Not only that there is a shortage of airline pilots today. A lot of them come from the military. Now with modern glass cockpits you only need 1 person for strike / recon / Air Cap so that reduces costs.

But we need good fighter pilots.. not some robots that can be turned against us.
:lmao

You're biggest worry is the Chinese taking one of them over? Holy shit, there really are a large group of you who hang out with Ned and look for the black helicopters, aren't there?

Or there are at least a lot of stupid people in here.

Just to humor you, I'll answer you how we'd prevent that with one of the many methods avaible. Encryption.

[clubalien]

yeah because encryption can never be broken

[clubalien]

maybe they have used their intelgance agaencies to find out the code

anyways an army can only have a certian percentage of their millitary automated, you need un automated as back up and to keep in check any thing that can be controlled by others.

[MannyIsGod]

I said one of the methods, but I'm not going to argue with a bunch of area51 geeks. Thats pretty pointless.

[Jelly]

maybe they have used their intelgance agaencies to find out the code

anyways an army can only have a certian percentage of their millitary automated, you need un automated as back up and to keep in check any thing that can be controlled by others.

last I looked, only a certain percentage of our military is automated.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

IF or when the United States of America decided to forceable STOP the citzens of this great nation from leaving the USA. Then I will Be againts the USA using drones to spy and fire on citzens that wish to leave the US for any reason.

Examples:
EAST/WEST German berlin wall
N.Korea
Cuba

I belive that the drones shoudl only be used on borders and to spy and do missions AWAY from the USA. NOT to spy on AMERICAns in the USA.

IF at a point the USA trys to use these "tools" againt the Americans EVEN on the BORDER then I am againts them even in used on the border.

sorry you don't know how to read.


I know how to read just fine, which seems to be more than you're capable of.

Show me where in that news report it says anything about us using the Predator to keep our own citizens in check.

Best I can tell they want to use it to monitor those trying to enter the country illegally and assist the Border Patrol in preventing said persons from doing so.

Nothing wrong with that, other than your reading comprehension sucking ass.

[clubalien]

I didn't say the news did.
I said that I would be in favor of used for border patrol. If they used say to watch over schertz for people speeding I woudl be againts it.

I am expressing what I would be in favor of and where my personal limits would be.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Well that's fine. Call me when they start flying them over Schertz.

[clubalien]

if you drive around the UC area you can see cameras on the traffic lights. In london they have cams too. 1984 here just took a little longer

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao

Cameras or traffic sensors?

[Cant_Be_Faded]

in victoria they are "sensors" but a close relative works with the city and he says they do have plans to turn them into sensors that are also cameras

im not bullshitting..

[clubalien]

Britain now has over 4 million CCTV cameras in operation
Posted: 08/06
From: Guardian

Knowing me, knowing you

George Orwell would be shocked at the popular support for the spread of surveillance technology, writes Victor Keegan

Thursday August 4, 2005

There is not much doubt now that the world has entered the age of surveillance - with the UK at the leading edge. Britain now has over 4 million CCTV cameras in operation, the guardian angels of a secular society. If a referendum were to be held in the wake of the terrorists' attacks recommending cameras on every street it would probably be carried overwhelmingly. This is slightly surprising, not just because of the long-term implications for civil liberties, but because video cameras do not seem to have acted as a deterrent to terrorists, even though they have made it easier to identify them afterwards, whether dead or alive.

The main means of tracking terrorist suspects down has been the monitoring of mobile phone conversations. Not only can operators pinpoint users to within yards of their location by "triangulating" the signals from three base stations, but - according to a report in the Financial Times - the operators (under instructions from the authorities) can remotely install software onto a handset to activate the microphone even when the user is not making a call. Who needs an ID card when they can do that already?

On top of all this official scrutiny, there is a growing fashion for mutual personal surveillance from the millions of "smart" phones with built-in cameras and video functions that are getting more powerful by the week. It won't be long, doubtless, before miniaturised cameras will be embedded in spectacles enabling footage to be sent on the hoof to a remote website for archival purposes.

Technology has undoubtedly helped terrorists get organised. The internet is a source for fundamentalist proselytising, information about activities such as bomb making and links to like-minded people, while mobile phones provide constant communication and, in some instances, detonators.

Technology also offers unprecedented ways to track criminals down. But each advance in technological detection produces a counter-reaction from terrorists. Just as there has been a move away from laundering money through the international banking system (towards cash transactions) because of improved governmental monitoring, so the events of the past month could persuade terrorists to abandon mobile phones in favour of more primitive forms of communication such as one-to-one conversations.

As technology continues to advance at a breathtaking pace, the future scope for finding out who we are is quite awesome. The current issue of Business Week lists the ways in which we can be uniquely identified from DNA and radio frequency identification tabs (RFID) to body odour, breath or saliva. There are even scientists working on "gait recognition" so future video cameras can pick us out from the way we walk in a crowd.

The danger from all this is that few people will object as long as there is a serious threat of terrorism. But once (if?) the threat subsides, the infrastructure of surveillance will remain. Then it might not be the police reconstructing a fuzzy image from a crowd to catch a terrorist but an employee of the imaging company extorting money from someone found in a compromising position. As one Business Week contributor observed: "We get most of our security from liberty." If George Orwell were alive now (21 years after the London he depicted in 1984) he would be astonished by the fact that the sort of surveillance he feared is supported not by a government imposing it from above on an unwilling population but by a groundswell of popular support. That's not a problem at the moment. But it will be in future, either if we sign away civil liberties permanently in response to a temporary emergency or if the cost of installing the infrastructure becomes so huge that it erodes our personal prosperity. Either way, Bin Laden would have won.

[Nbadan]

Some people need to wake-up. There are parts of San Antonio where you can't go and not be caught on camera. Yes, they call them traffic and security monitors, but if it will help prove an allegation against you, don't think for a second that they won't hesitate to use it.

Anyway, back to the Predators. Won't these planes be more useful under the guidance of, or with a coordinated effort involving the Border Patrol? Instead of these Predators doing their own thing under the military, and hoping that there are enough agents in the area on land to stop all the illegals coming over? Does this seem more like a PR move by Republicans rather than any serious effort to stem illegal immigration to anyone else?

[boutons]

"PR move by Republicans"

Perry said it was tarted-up bargaining chip to keep military pork in TX.

[MannyIsGod]

I just find it really funny when all the black helicopter chasers complain about cameras when there are real threats to civil liberties they don't care about.

[cecil collins]

I don't so much care that they are to be used on the border, but I wouldn't want them to be used otherwise. If the USA is able to fight a war with similar machines, I am afraid that there would be little to stop the government. They could attack basically any country, and only a small percentage of the country would care because no Americans would be dying. Don't know if any of it is possible or likely, I just think Dan is right, taking the humanity out of war would be a bad thing.

[Useruser666]

Holy crap! I find myself back against the wall with Manny and Aggie! :lol Who would of thought. I'm sorry, I'm not one to insult anyone here, but those that think that these drones are some part of a government conspiracy are FUCKING IDIOTS!!!

In different parts of the country planes are already used to aid in border patrol and interdiction missions. In California planes are used to catch speeders over long highways. This is more efficient than having hundreds of crusiers patrolling the same area. The plane has proved that it, along with ground units is a more efficient means of patrolling an area.

Now just take that senario and apply it to the border region. It's the same principle just with a little more technology added in. Having no pilot eliminates the need to include all the equipment traditionally needed to keep the pilot alive and comfortable.
The benefits of this are multi-fold. Less weight, more room for other equipment, ability to carry additional fuel, longer operational range are all possidle benefits. This and the fact that not risking a pilots life in each aircraft are very great benefits.

Now something that everyone that's Chickenlittling here seems to forget is that nowhere has anyone said that these planes would be armed. Oh, of course, I know you'll say that the Men In Black will arm them anyways, so we're all doomed. But take this for what it is, a good idea for a great application. If you can't see that then it's tie to add another layer of tinfoil to your head.

[Nbadan]

Holy crap! I find myself back against the wall with Manny and Aggie! Who would of thought. I'm sorry, I'm not one to insult anyone here, but those that think that these drones are some part of a government conspiracy are FUCKING IDIOTS!!!

In different parts of the country planes are already used to aid in border patrol and interdiction missions. In California planes are used to catch speeders over long highways. This is more efficient than having hundreds of crusiers patrolling the same area. The plane has proved that it, along with ground units is a more efficient means of patrolling an area.


What part of Global war on terror don't you understand? Under the guise of national security these planes can go anywhere at any time, and to think that they could be possibly armed is alarming. Too may of you are caught up in the benefits that these unmanned planes can provide, after all, according to the Neocon pundits, immigration is a hot topic right now, that your not looking at how they can be abused without the appropriate over-sight, which doesn't seem to be in place here.

[Useruser666]

What part of Global war on terror don't you understand? Under the guise of national security these planes can go anywhere at any time, and to think that they could be possibly armed is alarming. Too may of you are caught up in the benefits that these unmanned planes can provide, after all, according to the Neocon pundits, immigration is a hot topic right now, that your not looking at how they can be abused without the appropriate over-sight, which doesn't seem to be in place here.

What are you talking about Dan? How could any missuse be any different from any other plane, ship, or troop in the US military? How is their over-sight any different than those examples? I don't think these planes are soley meant to fight illegal immigration. They have equal duties towards smuggling drugs and possible weapons across the border. I have no idea why you bring politics into discussing these aircraft when politics has nothing to do with. It's like arguing over the politics of using certain brands of toilet paper.

[cecil collins]

There's politics involved in most everything.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Won't these planes be more useful under the guidance of, or with a coordinated effort involving the Border Patrol? Instead of these Predators doing their own thing under the military, and hoping that there are enough agents in the area on land to stop all the illegals coming over? Does this seem more like a PR move by Republicans rather than any serious effort to stem illegal immigration to anyone else?

who says they won't?


Under the guise of national security these planes can go anywhere at any time, and to think that they could be possibly armed is alarming.

That's right, we're doomed. I mean it's not like we haven't had armed National Guard AF fighters up patrolling our skies since 9/11. It's not like we didn't scramble jets on 9/11 with the possibility of having to shoot down a commercial airliner. We're obviously doomed with a couple of piddly little unarmed Predators flying around.



Too may of you are caught up in the benefits that these unmanned planes can provide, after all, according to the Neocon pundits, immigration is a hot topic right now, that your not looking at how they can be abused without the appropriate over-sight, which doesn't seem to be in place here.

Immigration isn't a hot topic. Most people don't have a problem with legal immigration. Now, if you want to talk about the people invading south Texas, invading homes and stealing property that are here illegally, you got me.

And damn the Necon revolution it sounds like you have unconvered the latest Republican plot against Mexicans coming across illegally - Operation Chupacabra, where the Predators will be armed with special missiles with special biological weapons that only target those with hispanic genes. Guess Bush is going to have to shut it down for now, you're on to him.

[Hook Dem]

"Some people need to wake-up. There are parts of San Antonio where you can't go and not be caught on camera. Yes, they call them traffic and security monitors, but if it will help prove an allegation against you, don't think for a second that they won't hesitate to use it.".................................Are you out there doing something wrong Dan? :lol

[SWC Bonfire]

Some people need to wake-up. There are parts of San Antonio where you can't go and not be caught on camera. Yes, they call them traffic and security monitors, but if it will help prove an allegation against you, don't think for a second that they won't hesitate to use it.


If he doesn't want to be caught on camera 24/7, I'd suggest that Nbadan stay away from all those socialist European countries he thinks we should more closely resemble. The UK has more cameras in different places than Paris Hilton's beach house.

[Nbadan]

Are you out there doing something wrong Dan?

I reserve the right to do something wrong, but why should I surrender my rights just because I step onto a public place, or even worse, even if I'm on my own property but outside? I mean, sure using cameras to provide security is fine if your on private property, like at a Mall, but if I'm driving down a street, or sunbathing on a public beach or at home, I think everyone should reserve some right to privacy.

[Useruser666]

I reserve the right to do something wrong, but why should I surrender my rights just because I step onto a public place, or even worse, even if I'm on my own property but outside? I mean, sure using cameras to provide security is fine if your on private property, like at a Mall, but if I'm driving down a street, or sunbathing on a public beach or at home, I think everyone should reserve some right to privacy.

:lol

I wonder why they call it public property?

If I do something illegal, and no one sees it, is it really illegal?

I reserve the right to commit illegal acts on my property where anyone can see me do it, but just not video tape it! ( :lol x million )

I believe cops should be blindfolded, because they have no right to see anything I do that's illegal and then arrest me.



You might be living next to NbaDan if there's a big ball of foil in your neighbor's back yard, and your neighbor's in it. :lol

[Clandestino]

:lol

I wonder why they call it public property?

If I do something illegal, and no one sees it, is it really illegal?

I reserve the right to commit illegal acts on my property where anyone can see me do it, but just not video tape it! ( :lol x million )

I believe cops should be blindfolded, because they have no right to see anything I do that's illegal and then arrest me.



You might be living next to NbaDan if there's a big ball of foil in your neighbor's back yard, and your neighbor's in it. :lol

:lmao

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

I think everyone should reserve some right to privacy.

Yeah, when you're on public property you should definitely be able to drive drunk and jerk off. I see where you're coming from Dan :lol

If you aren't breaking the law, you have nothing to worry about. Tell me you're not this paranoid...

[cecil collins]

If you aren't breaking the law, you have nothing to worry about.

I hate this phrase, it's such bullshit. It's just another instrument of repression. Tell me you don't break the law.

[Useruser666]

I hate this phrase, it's such bullshit. It's just another instrument of repression. Tell me you don't break the law.

Come on now, that sentence was refering to the comments of Dan. Do you believe you have the right to break the law if no one sees? I expect a certain amount of privacy too, but not ABSOLUTE privacy where I can do whatever I want no matter the laws I may be breaking.

[valluco]

Predators have been flying over the Rio Grande Valley for over two years now. I don't believe that they are armed but they have been seen by many people at night, including myself. The Border Patrol in Rio Grande City have a VERY large unmarked truck with equipment sticking out of the top of a big white box on the back and the two agents that are in the front wear some sort of ear piece and head gear. Trying to stop the drug mules from importing their product. There are also sensors and cameras all along the Rio Grande - I know this because we would accidently tripped them while working at some of the wildlife refuges along the river. Within 10 minutes we had the border patrol on our asses. Believe it or not, the government has some tight fucking security on the US - Mexican border. Tighter than what most people think. I'm willing to bet that it's not even half as secure on the Canadian border. Where did most of the 911 highjackers come into the US from? I know it wasn't Mexico.

[Nbadan]

Come on now, that sentence was refering to the comments of Dan. Do you believe you have the right to break the law if no one sees? I expect a certain amount of privacy too, but not ABSOLUTE privacy where I can do whatever I want no matter the laws I may be breaking.

See, User666 always takes everything I post here to dangerous extremes. I never said that people have the right to break the law on public property. What I did say is that people deserve, at least, some privacy even on public property, but especially when they are on their own private property.

[SWC Bonfire]

Yes, and you still haven't seen the parallel of socialist european countries using cameras everywhere and their oppressive style of nanny-state government.

[boutons]

"parallel of socialist european countries using cameras everywhere"

oops, "socialist european" NYC just did the same. Expect other camera systems in other big cities, based on "socialist european" experience, and just not in the subways.

"Amerika, I hardly know ya"

=====================

New York Times, August 24, 2005

New Cameras to Watch Over Subway System

By SEWELL CHAN

Officials unveiled the high-tech future of transit security in New York City yesterday: an ambitious plan to saturate the subways with 1,000 video cameras and 3,000 motion sensors and to enable cellphone service in 277 underground stations - but not in moving trains - for the first time.

Moving quickly after the subway and bus bombings in London last month, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority awarded a three-year, $212 million contract to a group of contractors led by the Lockheed Martin Corporation, which is best known for making military hardware like fighter planes, missiles and antitank systems.

The authority abandoned its earlier reservations about cellphone service, agreeing that the benefits of allowing 911 and other calls during emergencies outweighed the costs and the risk of a phone-detonated bomb. It invited carriers to submit proposals by Oct. 12. The winning bidder, which would receive a 10-year license, would have to pay for the installation of the wireless network and would be required to disable all calls at the authority's request. It is not clear how long installation, which will cover 277 of the 468 stations, will take.

The surveillance and cellphone strategies, together with a police campaign begun last month to check riders' bags and packages, are a step toward what some critics have long said cannot be done - putting the nation's largest transit system under constant watch, and fortifying it with enough obstacles to deter potential terrorists.

"We will try everything, and deploy all technologies possible, to prevent an attack from happening," said Katherine N. Lapp, the authority's executive director.

The new security measures will be in place in the subway, along with the authority's two commuter railroads and nine bridges and tunnels and busy transit hubs at Grand Central Terminal, Pennsylvania Station and Times Square. While transit agencies in Boston and Houston have experimented with so-called "intelligent video" software, and London has far more cameras, the New York plan is the first to try to marry several advanced security technologies at once, experts said.

At the center of the effort will be a dense network of cameras that can zoom, pivot and rotate, all while transmitting and recording images of vulnerable areas, from dark tunnels under the East River to bustling subway platforms in Midtown. Each camera will capture distances up to 300 feet and will cost about $1,200. A selected location could have 2 to 30 cameras. For now, there will be no cameras on trains and buses.

Mark D. Bonatucci, a Lockheed Martin program director, who will oversee the effort and who plans to move to the New York area with about a dozen colleagues, showed off a bank of video screens yesterday that will be part of a new computer-aided dispatch system. He demonstrated how security officials, to be based at eight control centers, might respond to two situations.

In the first, a person tries to enter a secure facility using an expired electronic access card; a computer detects and signals the security breach on an aerial photograph of the area. Officials would pinpoint the site, watch the attempted entry on a video monitor and send a security officer to investigate.

In the second, a briefcase is left on a busy Midtown subway platform. As a camera beams live images, software can distinguish the moving people from the motionless package, sending off an alert about an unattended, suspicious object. Police officers with bomb-sniffing dogs would be sent to the platform.

The system has limits. The cameras cannot determine whether a suspicious object has been left behind in a garbage can, for example.

The cameras will be installed in the next few "weeks and months," Ms. Lapp said, while the underlying software and computer systems are designed. The contractors will also devise a new radio communications system for the authority's 700-member police force, which patrols the Long Island Rail Road and the Metro-North Railroad. (The New York Police Department monitors the subways.)

A handful of subway riders interviewed at Times Square yesterday expressed strong support for electronic surveillance.

Rashida Padilla, 26, a business student at Monroe College in the Bronx, said the London bombings convinced her that the authority and the police should take strong measures to tighten security. "It's just scary," Ms. Padilla said, referring to her daily ride. "I'm for anything that they want to do. It makes me feel more safe to have the searches and the cameras."

Jerry Monchik, 53, an electrician who lives on Staten Island and takes the No. 1 train in Manhattan, said that while terrorists "will do what they want to do, no matter what," it was comforting to know that more activity will be recorded in the subways. "It will help with robberies and muggings, and if there is an attack, they can catch people more easily," he said.

While most experts doubt that technology could stop a determined suicide bomber, Ms. Lapp said the emphasis on surveillance was the best approach now available. "Obviously, this system, we hope, will detect a terrorist before an incident happens - not just be able, for forensic purposes after an incident happens, to identify who the terrorist is," she said.

The Lockheed Martin contract, which includes optional extensions for maintenance work through September 2013, will focus on physical security. A second big contract, the details of which will be completed by the end of this year, will focus on equipment that can detect biological, chemical and radiological agents in the transit network.

Lockheed Martin, based in Bethesda, Md., prevailed over two competitors: the Science Applications International Corporation, an employee-owned research and engineering firm in San Diego, and Siemens, the German electrical engineering and electronics conglomerate. The three companies submitted proposals on July 22.

Lockheed Martin, along with other defense giants like the Northrop Grumman Corporation, had participated in talks between the authority and a specialized Army unit in 2002 and 2003. Those talks ended because, the authority says, the military asked for too much control.

"We understand the need for immediate action to protect the M.T.A. operations," said Judy F. Marks, executive vice president of Lockheed Martin Transportation and Security Solutions, the business unit that will oversee the contract. "We also understand the need to expedite the movement of people and goods in the metropolitan New York area."

Hiring a military contractor to create a security system is a fateful step in the authority's counterterrorism efforts, which have proceeded haltingly since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. In 2002, the authority set aside $591 million for counterterrorism, but as of last month had spent only a fraction of that amount. It has come under pressure to move faster.

For the past 18 months, the authority has surveyed its universe of existing security devices, which include some 5,700 closed-circuit television cameras. Many of them are antiquated, unable to record images or are in relatively unimportant areas.

In a statement last night, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg commended the M.T.A. "for taking this important step to increase the security of our mass transit system." He said completing the system should be the authority's highest priority. "They need to move forward immediately with installing more cameras in subway stations, as they are an important deterrent and will be an invaluable investigative tool for the N.Y.P.D."

The New York Civil Liberties Union, which has filed a legal challenge to the bag-search policy, said it was worried about abuses. "There are questions about both the value and the privacy implications of massive video surveillance in the subways," said Donna Lieberman, its executive director.

Roger Toussaint, president of Local 100 of the Transport Workers Union of America, called for better training on emergency preparedness. "Done correctly, new technology has its place," he said. "However, the human element is indispensable, and in the event of an emergency, it is personnel, not computers and cameras, who will respond."

Lockheed Martin will work with six partners, including Systra Engineering, a transportation engineering firm in Bloomfield, N.J.; the Intergraph Corporation, a software and data management company in Madison, Ala., and the Cubic Corporation of San Diego, a transportation and military business that helped establish the MetroCard system in the subways in the 1990's.

The other partners are Lenel Systems International, a security technology company in Rochester; Arinc, a transportation communications firm in Annapolis, Md.; and Slattery Skanska, part of the large Swedish construction firm Skanska.

Shadi Rahimi contributed reporting for this article.

[Nbadan]

Yes, and you still haven't seen the parallel of socialist european countries using cameras everywhere and their oppressive style of nanny-state government.

Believe me, I am well aware of Europe's 'oppressive style of ...'. Just days ago the England equivalent to Homeland Security put out new proposed guidelines that would make anyone who runs a web-site or post negative comments about the Blair government eligible for deportation.

I'm still waiting for a TX Senator to propose that here.

[Useruser666]

See, User666 always takes everything I post here to dangerous extremes. I never said that people have the right to break the law on public property. What I did say is that people deserve, at least, some privacy even on public property, but especially when they are on their own private property.

And see, everything Dan's says is a dangerous extreme. Sorry, but I don't expect absolute privacy when I leave my home. Thinking that you should have privacy at a busy intersection is lunacy.

[MannyIsGod]

Predators have been flying over the Rio Grande Valley for over two years now. I don't believe that they are armed but they have been seen by many people at night, including myself. The Border Patrol in Rio Grande City have a VERY large unmarked truck with equipment sticking out of the top of a big white box on the back and the two agents that are in the front wear some sort of ear piece and head gear. Trying to stop the drug mules from importing their product. There are also sensors and cameras all along the Rio Grande - I know this because we would accidently tripped them while working at some of the wildlife refuges along the river. Within 10 minutes we had the border patrol on our asses. Believe it or not, the government has some tight fucking security on the US - Mexican border. Tighter than what most people think. I'm willing to bet that it's not even half as secure on the Canadian border. Where did most of the 911 highjackers come into the US from? I know it wasn't Mexico.
I believe you're wrong about seeing Predators. I believe becuase of the size and the height they fly at, they are invisible to the naked eye. I'm looking it up now just to verify, however.

[Clandestino]

I believe you're wrong about seeing Predators. I believe becuase of the size and the height they fly at, they are invisible to the naked eye. I'm looking it up now just to verify, however.

no, they are visible.

[Useruser666]

They are visable. They do not fly that high at all. There are still areas along the border where there is very little security. I also don't believe predators would be able to be spotted from the ground at night. I doubt they would have much in the way of illumination on them.

[SWC Bonfire]

I'm still waiting for a TX Senator to propose that here.

Only so that they can tape cheerleaders dancing suggestively.

[MannyIsGod]

They are visable. They do not fly that high at all. There are still areas along the border where there is very little security. I also don't believe predators would be able to be spotted from the ground at night. I doubt they would have much in the way of illumination on them.
They have a ceiling of 50,000 feet. Not high at all? :lol

I don't know what their operantional altitude is, though. And I don't see much info on it, but I'm still looking.

Clandestino, are you sure they are visible when operating?

[SWC Bonfire]

I have seen them out in a remote airfield while driving through Nevada. They are bigger than you think, they probably have a wingspan of like 16' or more.

If you can see a buzzard or eagle at 1500 ft you should be able to spot one of these bad boys at cruising altitude.

[MannyIsGod]

It says they operate at 25,000 feet and have about a 50ft wingspan. I guess you could see them at that height, but you'd have to have some good fucking eyes.

[MannyIsGod]

I have seen them out in a remote airfield while driving through Nevada. They are bigger than you think, they probably have a wingspan of like 16' or more.

If you can see a buzzard or eagle at 1500 ft you should be able to spot one of these bad boys at cruising altitude.
Well, an buzzard would be MUCH lower as well as being darker.

But, I really have no idea either way. I think I was thinking of the GlobalHawk UAV which flies at over 60k feet.

[SWC Bonfire]

That would be like spotting something around .024" wide a foot in front of your eyes. 1/32" = .03125 and is very noticable.

[MannyIsGod]

I'll take your word for it, you lost me on how you figured out those ratios.

[MannyIsGod]

There were problems, too. At least two Predators crashed in Kosovo, and three crashed in Iraq. Those incidents reveal several vulnerabilities. The Predator can fly as high as 25,000 feet, beyond the range of many surface-to-air weapons. But the resolution of video and still images from that altitude can by spotty, forcing the airplane to fly much lower, perhaps as low as 10,000 feet.

At low altitude, the unstealthy, relatively slow-moving Predator presents an easy target for air-defense weapons. The Pentagon hasn't released exact details of all Predator crashes, but it does acknowledge that it has lost about 20 of the aircraft since the program began. "The bulk of those," says an Air Force official, "were lost over enemy territory."

As testing continued, the Pentagon highlighted other deficiencies. In a 2001 report, the Pentagon's operational test and evaluation office argued that "the Predator UAV system is not operationally effective or suitable."

[SWC Bonfire]

50 foot wingspan/25,000ft away = "x" length/1 foot away

That gives you .002 ft, or .024 inches. Similar triangles.

[MannyIsGod]

A lot of conflicting info, but if the Serbs were shooting them down I'm going to say they probably are very fucking visible. :lol

[MannyIsGod]

Gotcha!

[Useruser666]

I don't think many illegals will be operating SAM sites along the border or be carry stingers with them. They can be seen from the ground as has been stated. But I'm going to rest on this topic because Dan is painted deep into a corner and there is no further point of discussing this.

[Nbadan]

I don't think many illegals will be operating SAM sites along the border or be carry stingers with them. They can be seen from the ground as has been stated. But I'm going to rest on this topic because Dan is painted deep into a corner and there is no further point of discussing this.

What deep corner? You have yet to prove that these Predators will have any effect on illegal immigration or curtailing drug mules. So far the only thing you've debated for is that these planes have the right to trample all over individual's property rights. Congratulations, that's something to be very proud of.

[SWC Bonfire]

As opposed to the individual's property rights under a socialist system?

Nbadan, you are only opposed to whatever Bush or the Republicans do. If a Democrat did the EXACT SAME THING you would praise him for focusing on the homefront and not in the illegal war in Iraq.

[smeagol]

Nbadan, you are only opposed to whatever Bush or the Republicans do. If a Democrat did the EXACT SAME THING you would praise him for focusing on the homefront and not in the illegal war in Iraq.
This is exactly what I meant when i started that other thread "Partisan".

[Nbadan]

As opposed to the individual's property rights under a socialist system?

Nbadan, you are only opposed to whatever Bush or the Republicans do. If a Democrat did the EXACT SAME THING you would praise him for focusing on the homefront and not in the illegal war in Iraq.

No, I would be against this if it was a Clinton Administration idea.

I just don't see any safeguards here. What will these Predators be used for? What kind of oversight will they have? Who will have access to the images coming from the cameras? Can and will these Predators be armed? How are these Predators more effective than the thousands of sensors already laid out along the border? Will they be working in conjunction with the border patrol and the US Coast Guard and under their operational guidelines or will they be operating independently under a separate set of standards?

It doesn't seem that any of these questions have been contemplated much less asked by our elected representatives.

[Clandestino]

what harm would they do nbadan? if you doing illegal along the border hopefully they will catch it...

some states have planes that already monitor traffic and shit like that.

[Clandestino]

and manny, these uavs are not only seen from the ground, but they can be heard too.

[MannyIsGod]

and manny, these uavs are not only seen from the ground, but they can be heard too.
Didn't even think about that but it makes sense. A turboprop is noisy as hell.

[Useruser666]

Dan thinks his property rights mean planes can't fly over his house. No wonder he will never understand jack shit in this forum.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Just days ago the England equivalent to Homeland Security put out new proposed guidelines that would make anyone who runs a web-site or post negative comments about the Blair government eligible for deportation.

If by negative comments you mean posting comments that all British non-Muslims should be summarily executed in order to establish a Muslim state, well I guess you have Blair busted :lol


So far the only thing you've debated for is that these planes have the right to trample all over individual's property rights. Congratulations, that's something to be very proud of.

Property rights? What about the right of all the property owners along the border not to have illegal immigrants and drug dealers trashing their properties, breaking into their homes, stealing their possessions, etc?

Oh wait, they deserve it because they're white and racist, right?

[Clandestino]

i'd love to see what dan does when a plane flies over his house...errr bunker...

[SWC Bonfire]

No, I would be against this if it was a Clinton Administration idea.

I just don't see any safeguards here. What will these Predators be used for? What kind of oversight will they have? Who will have access to the images coming from the cameras? Can and will these Predators be armed? How are these Predators more effective than the thousands of sensors already laid out along the border? Will they be working in conjunction with the border patrol and the US Coast Guard and under their operational guidelines or will they be operating independently under a separate set of standards?

It doesn't seem that any of these questions have been contemplated much less asked by our elected representatives.

Well, Nbadan, I hope that you would ask for the same amount of oversight on funds derived by a restributive socialist system. But you know the track record of elected officials and money in the coffers. Would you trust these same people to distribute the funds fairly?