The United States government is poised to begin flying unmanned surveillance aircraft along the Canadian border, using Grand Forks as the takeoff point for the robot-controlled flights.Here's a bit from the above story: "Predators, known by the military as unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs, have flown missions along the U.S.-Mexico border for several years." Why, that must be why we never hear about illegal immigrants crossing the US-Mexico border anymore! Another problem solved, thanks to military technology. Hurrah!
Before September, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, an arm of the federal Department of Homeland Security, will start sending propeller-driven drones called Predators into American airspace. At first one drone, with more to follow, will span much of the 8,900-kilometre frontier Canada and the U.S. share between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.
Never before has the U.S. kept such a close watch over its northern boundary. The move is a response to growing American fears that the entry of even one potential terrorist through Canada could have serious consequences, said Scott Baker. He took over last Friday as Chief Patrol Agent of Customs and Border Protection in Grand Forks, N.D., responsible for guarding the 1,400-kilometre stretch of border between Lake Superior and Montana.
"Just one of the wrong people getting through, driving through our border area, could spell catastrophe," Baker said. "So, it is a concern."
. . .
The fear terrorists will exploit that remoteness to penetrate the U.S. concerns American politicians, said Doug Marshall, director of Project Development at the University of North Dakota's Odegard School of Aerospace Sciences.
It also makes monitoring the border by drone more efficient than any effort involving humans.
"We don't have hordes of Canadians sneaking across the border to come shopping in Grand Forks," Marshall said.
This story from the Winnipeg Free Press has a sidebar about the drone aircraft. A similar remote-piloted aircraft ("the MQ-1 Predator is a system, not just an aircraft") cost $40 million back in 1997.
What a coup for the folks who make these toys, and the kids who get to fly them. TWOT has been very successful for some people.
Thanks to James for reminding me about this.
23 comments:
Sounds very Hamdmaid's Tale.
Is it to keep them out or to keep us in?
Good question.
How exactly is one of these supposed to determine who's in a car, anyway?
This reminds me of a debate I heard about SETI. The anti-SETI person argued that the money spent on SETI would be better applied elsewhere, and asked Seth Shostak, the head of SETI, how much had been spent on the project, total.
Seth: Our budget is about $5 million a year.
Other guy: o, I mean total, all, time.
Seth: Oh... Um... About $40 million, I guess. One helicopter.
Other guy: Oh really? I'd heard $150 million!
Seth: Ok, then. Three helicopters.
How exactly is one of these supposed to determine who's in a car, anyway?
It can't. It alerts people that someone is there. As I understand it, these things perform surveillance and alert only.
It would just be stupid if it weren't taxpayer money funding these toys.
"Last year, a Predator on a border surveillance mission in the southern U.S. crashed near a residential area. No one on the ground was killed. The accident was attributed to controller error."
Whoops! I wonder if they find the "controllers" on craigslist.
It can't. It alerts people that someone is there. As I understand it, these things perform surveillance and alert only.
I can do that with a $50 car-counter like they use for traffic surveys.
Another great example of the "we had to do something, even if that thing makes no sense" approach to security.
I can do that with a $50 car-counter like they use for traffic surveys.
I think the rationale is the inaccessibility of that area of the border.
Another great example of the "we had to do something, even if that thing makes no sense" approach to security.
Definitely. And an excuse to spend a lot of money on contracts, which translates into campaign donations (which translates into contracts...), and bring home jobs for a district somewhere, ensuring votes.
Just another day in the military-industrial complex.
Talk about ridiculous. I worked the border, at road crossings, on shore at reporting points, via boat in the St. Lawrence and at airports.
There are a million ways to pass between our countries unaccounted for. And not just between our countries... you can easily come in via sea or air from the oceans, or via land from Mexico.
There is no country, in this world, that can keep out a smart, well fundded person who wants to get in. They can keep out dumb ones some of the time.
It's all such a farce. A veneer of safety. How ridiculous to spend such amounts patrolling for people crossing in some of the most barren areas of the country, when you can easily cross in so many other ways.
I'm glad you weighed in, Scott, since you know about border security first-hand.
A veneer of safety. How ridiculous to spend such amounts patrolling for people crossing in some of the most barren areas of the country, when you can easily cross in so many other ways.
So true. That's one reason I see it as an enormous taxpayer-funded boondoggle.
People complain about spending on social programs? The military industrial state is the biggest welfare state on the planet.
I think the rationale is the inaccessibility of that area of the border.
If people are driving across it, it can't be that inaccessible. For $40 million, you could probably put a car-counter on every dirt road that runs between Podunk and Peaudunque there is... :)
First thing that comes to mind upon reading that is this Doonesbury sequence
I'm sorry for the earlier sentance fragments. I just get so annoyed when governments try to convince their people of safety using style, not substance.
One of the most ridiculous things I ever witnessed is when I flew into New York's LaGuardia airport just after Christmas 2001. Throughout the airport there were soldiers, in forest camoflauge (?), with machine guns at the ready. Really now... what does that accomplish? Other than intimidating and/or reassuring the public, could they actually do any *good*?
I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that they were under specific instructions to never, ever do *anything*. In fact, I would be surprised if they even had loaded weapons.
What are they protecting against? Someone running through security, getting to the gate, boarding the plane, and hijacking it while still connected to the airport via a jetway? Give me a break. When was the last time an airplane was hijacked while still at the gate?
Oh... maybe they're preventing a bomber from... from... what? If they are a suicide bomber and run through the security checkpoint, they're already in the terminal and can set themselves off. Really now. What possible help could they have given? Really?
It's insane.
And it's all done to convince the people that they are safe. Not to actually make them safe, but just to convince them they are.
So manipulative. So patronizing. So angering.
If people are driving across it, it can't be that inaccessible.
I agree. But I thought it was people on foot - not cars - that the drones are (supposedly) looking for.
Throughout the airport there were soldiers, in forest camoflauge (?), with machine guns at the ready. Really now... what does that accomplish?
We all felt the same way, believe me. They weren't just in the airport - there were all over NYC, in our every day lives. It was disgusting.
Other than intimidating and/or reassuring the public, could they actually do any *good*?
That was even admitted. Their fully-uniformed presence was supposed to reassure the public and intimidate the bad guys.
I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that they were under specific instructions to never, ever do *anything*.
Oh no, now that's not so. Remember, this is the US, not Canada. I'm sure they had live ammo and would have used it if they felt threatened - and gotten away with it.
It's insane.
And it's all done to convince the people that they are safe. Not to actually make them safe, but just to convince them they are.
Exactly. You're saying exactly what so many of us said at the time, as our city was invaded by this armed "security" force. Ugly concrete barriers went up in front of buildings, we had to open our backpacks for inspection every time we entered a building that we worked in every day, marines in the train stations... All for the appearance of safety.
I agree with you completely, Scott. It's ridiculous.
And honestly, this is the least of it. The so-called Patriot Act is supposed to be for security too.
Thanks for that, Imp Strump!!
"But first I gotta stabilize the... Ooops! ... Did you know this thing is armed?"
It reminds me of a Doonesbury, too, but from a different Iraq war. I think I still have it in a box somewhere. He was making fun of the whole smart bomb camera footage thing that was so prevalent at the time (remember "the luckiest guy in Iraq", who drove his truck across a bridge just seconds before a smart bomb hit it, nearly killing him har har?).
In the comic, a Colin Powell type is showing footage from a smart bomb that finds a roof access door propped open in an Iraqi munitions factory. The bomb threads its way down the stairwell, past a bunch of surprised munitions workers, through the R&D lab, into the manager's office, and -- oops -- through the window. It explodes harmlessly in the parking lot.
"Still. Impressive, eh?" says the general.
Just goes to show you, this Predator stuff is nothing new. Wherever you have munitions to sell to the industrialized western world, you just have to make it cool enough to appeal to every guy's inner 13-year-old.
(Might I add that Canada doesn't (or can't) buy into quite the same cool factor -- I trained for 3 years on artillery pieces that had been cast during the Korean war!)
To that end, any major military purchase is vetted through the defense committee and up to a TON of public scrutiny. In fact, I think the process is too transparent and labourious, resulting in things not being purchased until decades after they are needed.
Just goes to show you, this Predator stuff is nothing new.
It's definitely not new. It's more of the same. The only thing that's new here (as far as we know) is something like this being used at the US-Canada border.
Wherever you have munitions to sell to the industrialized western world, you just have to make it cool enough to appeal to every guy's inner 13-year-old.
Most, if not all, of TWOT is the creation of a market for these very expensive toys.
OK, M@, now you have to see "Why We Fight". Right now.
:) I'll put it on my ziplist... no, I'm kidding. Time to make my long-overdue trip to the library.
Hey, M@ -- I noticed that "Why We Fight" is showing on CBC Newsworld on Sunday, Jan 21 at 10pm ET.
*****
As for the Predators, I can't imagine them being effective at all. The border is SOOO L-O-N-G, even just in Manitoba/North Dakota. Really, how many people are gonna be sneaking across the border in some god-forsaken prairie field, in the middle of a frickin' cold winter? And what chance is there of a Predator actually spotting that person; and if they are spotted, what chance is there that the person is a terrorist, etc etc?
Shoot. I am tired of seeing huge amounts of money being funneled directly into huge corporate pockets under the guise of "public safety". The War on Terror ought to be dumped into the trash along with the War on Drugs. GRRR.
Awesome! Thanks, S.S!!! Consider my recorder set.
The War on Terror ought to be dumped into the trash along with the War on Drugs.
Word.
Then we could take all that money and funnel it into a War on Poverty. As opposed to a war on the poor.
**Update** on "Why We Fight" on CBC Newsworld. The webside writeup indicates this documentary will be repeated on Jan 21, but it is NOT scheduled for that day (at least it is not on the schedule in Manitoba).
Sorry M@ to have lead you astray. I've just put the dvd on hold at my local library.
Post a Comment