Yesterday morning, a team of Washington Post journalists unveiled a major new resource called Top Secret America: A Hidden World, Growing Beyond Control. A series of connected web pages identify and connected various government agencies and private companies that are engaged in erecting a new classified surveillance structure in the United States.

The amount of information contained in these pages is initially overwhelming, and it may be hard at first to figure out how useful the information might be. For instance, below is a static copy of Top Secret America’s “interactive” map — to zoom in and use other features, click on the map to be taken to the original website:

Unfortunately, the “zoom” and search by city features are of limited utility because zoomed-in maps (with the notable exception of the Washington, DC area) don’t provide any more detail. It’s perhaps understandable, but there aren’t any names and addresses of facilities or involved corporations or government agencies on the map, no matter how closely one zooms in. But even in the national aggregate, the map tells us a lot. For instance, while these classified organizations are clustered around Washington DC, they’re also distributed in every state, no matter how small that state is in size or population, making these classified industries part of the constituency for members of Congress from every state. The bar below the map with the distribution of classified installations for various government agencies tells us that the parts of government that are least accountable to democratic processes are most in charge of classified activity.

The aspect of the Top Secret America website I think will be of most use is the search function which allows one to find companies or government agencies by type of work or location. Using this function, I can quickly generate a list of 32 government agencies and 36 companies involved in classified activity related to the “War on Drugs”. For each of those agencies and companies, I’m informed of headquarters location and other contextual information. This kind of data would prove useful in determining, say, whether a correlation exists between campaign contributions from companies involved with the “War on Drugs” and a congresscritter’s policy actions regarding the same.

The Washington Post has written a series of news articles connecting the dots in this data in various fashions as well:

… In June, a stone carver from Manassas chiseled another perfect star into a marble wall at CIA headquarters, one of 22 for agency workers killed in the global war initiated by the 2001 terrorist attacks.

The intent of the memorial is to publicly honor the courage of those who died in the line of duty, but it also conceals a deeper story about government in the post-9/11 era: Eight of the 22 were not CIA officers at all. They were private contractors.

To ensure that the country’s most sensitive duties are carried out only by people loyal above all to the nation’s interest, federal rules say contractors may not perform what are called “inherently government functions.” But they do, all the time and in every intelligence and counterterrorism agency, according to a two-year investigation by The Washington Post.

What started as a temporary fix in response to the terrorist attacks has turned into a dependency that calls into question whether the federal workforce includes too many people obligated to shareholders rather than the public interest — and whether the government is still in control…

If you’re interested at all in the expansion of the Homeland Security state, this resource is worth more than a casual look.

The City of London appears to have offered a new motto that defines the way of life there for residents and visitors alike: CCTV Surveillance in Operation.

It’s unnerving how pervasive these CCTV cameras are. On every street in the center of town there are multiple cameras aimed in multiple directions, making it impossible to have a moment of privacy. Along with the cameras come signs announcing the surveillance.

On the particular sign you see here, the viewer is warned, “CCTV Images are being recorded for the Prevention and Detection of Crime and for the Promotion of Public Safety”. I note how the phrases “Prevention and Detection of Crime” and “Promotion of Public Safety” are capitalized – as if they’re the names of some sort of unique institutions, instead of actual ordinary prevention, detection and safety.

It seems that the people installing CCTV systems throughout London are aware that they’re creating an institution in the name of crime prevention and safety that isn’t actually synonymous with crime prevention and safety.

It’s now been 535 days since Barack Obama was inaugurated as the 44th president of the United States. Since a time before Obama’s inauguration, federal law has required President Obama to appoint a Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. This board is charged with the responsibility of tracking the compliance of the executive branch of government with the provisions of the Constitution. The board is granted the ability to subpoena members of the government to testify and supply documentation, and it is granted access to classified information in order to carry out its work. Finally, the board is tasked with making regular reports to the U.S. Congress and the American public on the constitutionality of activities by a presidential administration.

This board and these powers do not fill a hypothetical need. Just yesterday, the National Security Agency acknowledged the existence of a program called Perfect Citizen in which the United States Military is putting surveillance devices in computer networks across the domestic USA to snoop on Internet traffic. Of course, the National Security Agency denies that the Perfect Citizen program is planning to spy on Americans using these devices — which is odd, considering that they are being deployed domestically — and proclaims that its efforts are purely for purposes of “research and development.” The military-industrial corporation assigned the $100 million Perfect Citizen contract, Raytheon, tells the media that “We have no info on this” — which again is odd, considering that the Wall Street Journal obtained a Raytheon e-mail in which the corporation declares that “Perfect Citizen is Big Brother.”

What does the operation called Perfect Citizen have to do with the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board? A lot. First of all, the NSA didn’t even acknowledge the existence of Perfect Citizen until Wall Street Journal investigators uncovered details about the program. If the Wall Street Journal hadn’t stumbled across the information, we might never have known about this domestic military surveillance program. But since the NSA is under the authority of the executive branch and the President of the United States, then the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board would have had the power to uncover this program and report on its activities to the Congress and the public. It doesn’t stop there. In 2010, after the disclosure of the program’s existence, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board would have had the power to assess the claims of the NSA that Perfect Citizen is just a hypothetical program.

The board would have been able to do these things if it had been constituted as it should have been in 2009. But for 535 days now, Barack Obama has ignored federal law and failed to nominate even one member to sit on the Privacy and Civil Liberties Board. The Board remains nonexistent. The Board’s oversight functions are going undone. Because the board has not been filled and does not exist, it cannot carry out these investigative and reporting functions on programs like Perfect Citizen. We’re lucky we even know that the program exists. We have no idea what other Obama administration programs are out there that may be violating our constitutional rights. And when programs like Perfect Citizen do come to light, there’s no way to assess the accuracy of the NSA’s protestations that this is all just “research” and we don’t have to worry our purty little heads none.

The ongoing lack of a Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board is not only a violation of federal law, but is also a violation of the trust placed in a candidate who told us on the campaign trail that unlike his predecessor, he would restore the rule of law and obey the Constitution. This is not the Change we were promised.

When the Patriot Act was passed in 2001, the bar above which financial institutions are required to send the U.S. Government “suspicious activity reports” regarding Americans’ financial transactions was dramatically lowered. The Patriot Act also placed new emphasis on the use of financial surveillance to keep track of PEPs. That acronym stands for “politically exposed persons” and refers to surveillance of political leaders. Adam Davidson explained the process two years ago:

Banks monitor every transaction. Every one, no matter how small…. The software is checking to see if maybe that $4 is part of a pattern…. The report goes to a bank’s compliance officer, listing all recent suspicious transactions. Every transaction is given a numerical score…. The computer makes the score based on who is making the transaction, where does he come from, who is he associated with, what else is he up to. Every bank customer has, somewhere, in some computer database, a risk assessment score….

It also checks a bunch of lists. Are you on a terror watch list? A list of criminals?… A PEP — banks really do use that term — is anybody with political power. That means a Nigerian General, a U.S. Senator, or, say, the Governor of New York. And any PEP — any Politically Exposed Person — is monitored more carefully.

Davidson’s quip about “the Governor of New York” refers to Eliot Spitzer, whose political career was ended in part due to his own hubris but also in part due to the exposure of his hubris by government surveillance of his spending.

Last week, the U.S. government’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network released its latest “SAR Activity Review — By The Numbers,” a series of reports on the volume of suspicious activity reports beginning in 1996 and now complete through the end of 2009. Since 1996, the trend toward increasing numbers of suspicious activity reports from year to year went unabated — until now. In 2009, the number of suspicious activity reports actually went down slightly from the number of reports in 2008. This reflects a downturn in the last six months of 2009 — suspicious activity report collection in the first half of 2009 was at a pace to set a new record high.

What is the reason for the downturn in the volume of suspicious activity reports in 2009? Is it possible that the surveillance apparatus is ramping down its efforts in this regard? That’s possible. Another possibility is that this surveillance downturn reflects the effect of the economic downturn we’ve all been experiencing. People with less money may simply have fewer transactions, generating fewer suspicious activity reports to the federal government.

If a policy shift explains the surveillance downturn, we should continue to see a decline in suspicious activity reports in the next few years as surveillance heads back down toward pre-9/11 levels. If an economic downturn explains the surveillance slump, then as the economy revs back up we should see suspicious activity report levels rise again. Watch and see.

If the trend continues for the second six months of last year, 2009 will be yet another year seeing record high collection of Americans’ financial information without warrants. This new record rate for the government in collecting Suspicious Activity Reports has been met utterly without mention by the U.S. government’s press offices or by the professional media.

(Tip of the pen to qs)

The Defense Department calls its new unit FICOR — the Foreign Intelligence and Counterintelligence Operation Records. But the military group describes the data it will collect through intelligence and data mining operations:

“Social Security Number (SSN), address, citizenship documentation, biometric data, passport number, vehicle identification number and vehicle/vessel license data… [from] Federal, state, local, and tribal entities, foreign intelligence agencies, educational and research institutions, foreign governments and open source literature.”

Data collected from “federal, state, local, and tribal entities” including a person’s “Social Security Number (SSN)”? How foreign does that sound to you?

Military spying on Americans? No, that’s not Change I Can Believe In. It’s more of the same. Read up on the Bush-era TALON program, a military program that spied on law-abiding American citizens without their knowledge and without a warrant, solely on the basis of their political activity (For the younger among you who may not have heard of this thing called a “warrant,” see the increasingly quaint document known as the U.S. Constitution, Amendment 4. See also “freedom of assembly and petition,” Amendment 1). Read especially the part of the 2007 Defense Department brief in which the military explicitly indicates it will keep the data and restart the program in the future:

DoD to Implement Interim Threat Reporting Procedures

DoD’s Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA) will close the TALON Reporting System effective Sept. 17, 2007, and maintain a record copy of the collected data in accordance with intelligence oversight requirements.

To ensure there is a mechanism in place to document and assess potential threats to DoD resources, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas’ Security Affairs will propose a system to streamline such threat reporting and better meet the Defense department’s needs.

In the interim, until this new reporting program is adopted, DoD components will send information concerning force protection threats to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Guardian reporting system.

It was hiding there in plain sight: no, the military never planned on keeping TALON shut down at all. But the military has a new Commander in Chief. Barack Obama could have stopped this domestic military surveillance. But he went right along with it. That’s not Change. It’s more of the same.

Somebody drove an SUV up slightly onto a curb in New York City over the weekend, tried to light it on fire, and failed.

Maybe the person doing this was trying to scare people (“terrorism” is our modern word for “trying to scare people”). Maybe he was deranged. Maybe he was a prankster. We don’t know.

Nobody was killed. Nobody was hurt. Experts are saying that even if the SUV had successfully been lit on fire, it would only have caused damage in its immediate vicinity.

People have been causing damage to others in their immediate vicinity since people came into existence in axe fights and knife fights and gun fights and bar brawls. More people die from knife fights and gun fights and the like every year in the United States, year in and year out, than have ever died in a year from a terrorist bombing. If we’re going to be worried about any aspect of the SUV event, it should be the part where the SUV drove up onto the curb: 45,316 people died at the hands of a motor vehicle in the United States in 2006 (the last year for which complete data is available — 2007 data comes out later this month).

But no, we’re not going to see massive congressional hearings about bar brawls. We’re not going to get big 2-inch-tall headlines about the investigation of motor vehicle deaths. Instead, I can guarantee you we’re going to get wall-to-wall news coverage for the next month about this guy who tried to burn his SUV in Times Square, and we’re going to get multiple House and Senate hearings in which members of Congress pose for the cameras with incredulous questions about how a guy in Manhattan could possibly drive a car to Times Square with things in it, and how such cars and things could be prevented from entering New York City in the future. Safety! Fear! Protection! The Homeland! Using words like these, watch as politicians jostle for position in the push to turn New York City into our next airport security screening station.

The truth is, it’s already happening. Remember the New York City Surveillance Camera Project’s map showing how impossible it is to cross Manhattan without being photographed? People objected that many of the cameras were private. But in Midtown and Lower Manhattan, thanks to a grant from the Department of Homeland Security, those private and public cameras are being connected into a centralized network to keep the millions of people who live there under constant surveillance. Software to analyze patterns in movement will be able to automatically pick out nervous behavior such as a car circling a block.

It’s “a whole new area for us. It has a lot of promise; in that regard we are very enthusiastic about it,” says Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly. “There really isn’t a downside to it,” says another NYC official.

No downsides at all if you’re one of the watchers. Worthy of enthusiasm, unless you value your personal privacy and enjoy not living inside a Panopticon.

But it’s worth it, isn’t it? While more than 5,000 Americans die of workplace injuries each year, the quest to ensure that a guy doesn’t drive his SUV up onto the curb and try to light it on fire makes all these little sacrifices of privacy and autonomy and individuality all worthwhile.

Although the Tea Party Express organization speaks of its fierce love for the Constitution, its congressional “Heroes” for the 2010 elections have a much worse record regarding freedom of speech than the congressional “Targets” it is working to defeat this November. But that 1st Amendment right isn’t the only one guaranteed by the Constitution. Consider the 4th Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Now consider the The FISA Amendments Act, a bill passed in 2008. The FISA Amendments Act undercut the 4th Amendment by legalizing an already-existing illegal government operation to conduct physical searches and communications surveillance against people without probable cause, without specification of the persons and places to be searched, without warrants, and without even the smallest substantive judicial review of surveillance programs. It is a law that ignores the 4th Amendment and weakens legal respect for the Constitution.

The following are the Tea Party Express’ “Tea Party Heroes” who were in Congress in 2008 to cast roll-call votes on the FISA Amendments Act:

1. Jim DeMint (R-SC) voted FOR the FISA Amendments Act.

2. Todd Tiahrt (R-KS) failed to vote either way on the FISA Amendments Act.

3. Tom Price (R-GA) voted FOR the FISA Amendments Act.

4. Mike Pence (R-IN) voted FOR the FISA Amendments Act.

5. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) voted FOR the FISA Amendments Act.

6. Joe Wilson (R-SC) voted FOR the FISA Amendments Act.

7. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) voted FOR the FISA Amendments Act.

The above (coincidentally all Republicans) are specifically identified for support by the purportedly “pro-Constitution” Tea Party Express, despite the fact that in 2008 these politicians voted against civil liberty provisions of the Constitution — with one exception, Todd Tiahrt, who just plain didn’t show up to vote on the bill at all.

The following (coincidentally all Democrats) are the Tea Party Express’ “Tea Party Targets”, members of Congress who were in office back in 2008 and who the Tea Party Express has declared it must kick out of office supposedly for the sake of the Constitution:

1. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) voted AGAINST the FISA Amendments Act.

2. Barney Frank (D-MA) voted AGAINST the FISA Amendments Act.

3. Baron Hill (D-IN) voted AGAINST the FISA Amendments Act.

4. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) voted FOR the FISA Amendments Act.

5. Alan Mollohan (D-WV) voted AGAINST the FISA Amendments Act.

6. Harry Reid (D-NV) voted AGAINST the FISA Amendments Act.

7. Arlen Specter (D-PA) voted FOR the FISA Amendments Act.

Not one of the “Tea Party Heroes” in Congress in 2008 stood up to oppose the anti-constitution FISA Amendments Act. 5 out of the 7 “Tea Party Targets” in Congress in 2008 voted in defense of the Constitution and against the FISA Amendments Act. It’s hard to escape the conclusion that on this point the supposedly “pro-Constitution” Tea Party Express actually has a problem with the Constitution.

76 days ago, on February 2 2010, five government intelligence leaders unanimously declared before Congress that an attempted terrorist attack on what they called the “U.S. Homeland” was “certain” within the following six months.

There’s been no terrorist attack on the “U.S. Homeland,” what used to simply be called the United States. Nor has there been any attempted terrorist attack on the same. There are 105 days left for this prediction of a “certain” attempted terrorist attack in the U.S. to come true.

Declarations of certain impending terrorist attacks like these matter because they’re used to justify all sorts of draconian policies that prioritize government power over individual people. In 2007, they were used to panic the Congress into passing the Protect America Act, one of many laws promoting warrantless surveillance. The warrantless surveillance promoted by the Protect America Act and the Patriot Act and the FISA Amendments Act are always described as being used to target terrorists, but somehow end up being used against law-abiding Americans for reasons having nothing to do with terrorism. The predicted attack, of course, never came to pass in 2007.

That’s why you should pay attention and see whether this “certain” — not 50% likely, not 90% likely, not 99% likely, but “certain” — attack actually comes to pass. It’ll be a useful indication of how strongly you can trust the word of your government.

In testimony to Congress last week, FBI General Counsel Valerie Caproni’s made this excuse for the FBI practice over four years of declaring terrorist threats that didn’t exist in order to grab Americans’ phone records without a warrant:

For reasons lost in the fog of history – but no doubt partially the result of the intense pace of activity in the months following the 9/11 attacks – the FBI did not adequately educate our workforce that Congress had provided a clear mechanism to obtain records in emergency situations.

When and how often did the law-breaking happen? A letter by House Judiciary Chair John Conyers to FBI Director Robert Mueller clarifies:

As you are aware, the IG report documents numerous improper actions by FBI personnel to obtain personal telephone record information on individuals between 2003 and 2006, including actions that “violated the requirements” of federal law. More than 700 times, such information was obtained about more than 2,000 phone numbers by so-called “exigent letters,” some of which were signed by FBI agents even though they believed that factual information in the letters was false. For more than 3,500 phone numbers, the call information was extracted without even a letter, but instead by email, requests on a post-it note, or “sneak peeks” of telephone company records. In several cases, FBI personnel violated additional rules by seeking telephone records of news reporters, including one case where actual phone records were improperly obtained concerning Washington Post and New York Times reporters.

Let’s get this straight: according to Caproni, the FBI — the nation’s top law enforcement organization — broke the law to spy on more than 5,500 phone numbers from 2003 to 2006 because nobody “adequately educated” FBI agents about the law. Nobody “adequately educated” FBI agents about the law from 2003 to 2006 because the FBI was so gol-darned busy “in the months following the 9/11 attacks” … of 2001.

Well, that makes perfect sense, doesn’t it? Now why won’t everyone just take the word of the FBI and stop all this fussing?

::::::::::
P.S. Who would be the person ultimately responsible for communicating the state of law to the FBI? That would be the FBI General Counsel. Who was appointed FBI General Counsel in 2003? That would be Valerie Caproni.

If you get your news from — oh, call me crazy — the news, you’d have no idea that last Wednesday the House Judiciary Committee held contentious hearings on illegal FBI surveillance of thousands of people, from everyday schmoes to American news bureaus. This hearing has had no coverage from professional journalists, despite all kinds of fireworks:

* John Conyers suggesting that FBI General Counsel Valerie Caproni be fired for her complacent reaction to and in some cases approval of lawbreaking by FBI agents.

* The declaration by a Republican on the Judiciary Committee that, by gum, Conyers is right.

* References by Caproni to a classified legal memo written by the Obama Justice Department at the beginning of this year. This memo, which I can’t link to because the government won’t let you see it, apparently declares that the FBI doesn’t need to follow current law to gather Americans’ phone records.

* Intimations that Congress may have known about illegal FBI surveillance against Americans as far back as 2007, the year when the Protect America Act was passed and long before the FISA Amendments Act was passed into law, granting the U.S. Government even more power to pry into private lives without warrants.

There’s much more, including letters and demands and probing questions and some rather embarrassing absences. We’ll share these with you over the next few days: for now, head here to watch the hearing for yourself. Thanks are due to John Conyers and Jerrold Nadler for finally bringing oversight powers to bear on this violation of the law and Americans’ dignity.

This January, the FBI finally acknowledged that for years, it spied on Americans’ telephone calls without judicial warrants. The bureau gained access to the phone calls of everyday Americans, journalists and entire American news bureaus by claiming the existence of emergencies, telling stories about impending terrorist attacks that were completely false. These aren’t just violations of the law; they’re violations of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States, namely the first amendment freedom of the press and the fourth amendments freedom from warrantless search and seizure.

This scandal, to quote Joe Biden, is a big fucking deal. And when the news broke in January, Senate Judiciary Chair Patrick Leahy declared that “no one is above the law: no Senator, and no member of the FBI. There has to be accountability for what happened here.” At a news conference House Judiciary Chair John Conyers reacted with disgust that “it is clear that there is much more to be done to ensure that the overreaching and outright misconduct described in this report never occurs again.” Jerrold Nadler, chair of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, promised to hold hearings on the matter.

January passed without any hearings and no further word on the matter.
February passed without any hearings or further word on the matter.
And now March has passed without any hearings or further word on the matter.

Do you remember when Democrats claimed to care about such matters?
Do you have any guesses about April?

When the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI) testified to a congressional committee this week, it was the first I’d heard of the organization, although I’m not likely to forget it now. After all, AUVSI is the group that spoke in favor of the domestic deployment and deregulated international sales of military robot drones for use as weapons and in various forms of surveillance. That’s a memorable stance, to put it mildly.

Although I’d been ignorant of the group’s existence before now, it turns out that the multinational group is well known on Capitol Hill. A military industry association of some 1500 corporations from 55 countries, AUVSI is a sponsor or supporter of no less than three congressional caucuses: the Unmanned Vehicle Systems Caucus (UAV Caucus), the Robotics Caucus, and the Aerospace Caucus.

April 15, 2010 has been declared AUVSI Day on Capitol Hill. The AUVSI Day is an annual lobbying event embraced by Congress each year. For the day, AUVSI has been granted space in the foyer of the Rayburn House Office Building to erect an exhibition; it will literally be lobbying members of Congress in the lobby. But AUVSI won’t stick to the lobby:

Join AUVSI for a day on Capitol Hill to promote robotics technology and innovation. AUVSI will host exhibits in the Rayburn House Office Building Foyer and will arrange meetings with Congressional Representatives and Staff to build awareness and discuss issues related to advancing robotics technology in the U.S. This event is being hosted in conjunction with National Robotics Week (10-18 April).

Meetings with Members of Congress** – Take your message to lawmakers and raise awareness about the benefits that robotics can and do offer to society. AUVSI will coordinate meetings with Members of Congress and/or staffers and assist you with your talking points.

Exhibits – AUVSI has reserved the Rayburn Foyer to host a small exhibition of robotics technologies. Introduce and educate lawmakers about your technology by participating in this exhibit. Space is limited and available to AUVSI Corporate Members only….

**We urge you to register before 5 April to increase your chances of getting appointments with Members of Congress and Staff. We cannot guarantee meetings at any point, but they are very likely if have your request on or before 5 April. We will accept meeting requests until 9 April and will do our best to accommodate you.

AUVSI is active enough in the legislative influence game to maintain a dedicated Advocacy Committee, headed by the likes of Michael S. Fagan, COO of intelligence and military surveillance corporation Logos Technologies, and Ralph Anderson of ManTech technologies, the military contractor involved in a corruption scandal that brought down Arizona Congressman Rick Renzi.

An active organization like AUVSI, funded by so many thousands of profit-interested corporations, keeps a stable of hired lobbyists as well. AUVSI’s lobbyists come from the well-heeled, extensively connected staff of Arnold and Porter LLP.

In addition to all this, AUVSI Deputy Executive Director Gretchen West maintains a congressional tour program to bring members of Congress to the robotic drone production facilities in their district for more local lobbying. The lobbying and tours may be local, but the AUVSI’s tour program manages the proceeding from its international headquarters, providing fact sheets, talking points, and background reports on members of Congress to make sure that policy talk remains effective and on-point. When West isn’t keeping the tour program together, she’s managing product placements, like putting the Olympic torch in the hands of an autonomous robot. Wrapping up the deals between the most powerful members of the military industry and the most powerful members of Congress is exhilarating work, to be sure:

What I’ve named are just the dedicated resources of the central AUVSI headquarters. AUVSI maintains other chapters in countries like Israel to keep up pressure on other governments and to pressure the U.S. government from outside. To boot, there are the lobbying, campaign contribution and other less visible efforts of the member corporations that are producing the next generation of military surveillance and attack robots.

The two stated goals of AUVSI and its member corporations:

1. Deploy military surveillance and attack robots domestically,
2. Deregulate the sale of military robots to buyers around the world.

With these efforts underway, what sort of chance do you think AUVSI has of bringing its vision to pass?

While America obsessed over just which “F-word” Vice President Joe Biden might have uttered, an mild-mannered representative of a multinational military conglomerate lobbied Congress for permission to deploy military robot drones domestically and sell them across across the world. His audacious plan was made openly but utterly without notice by any American newspaper or television news network.

On March 23, 2010, Michael S. Fagan of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI) was invited to testify to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to advise the Congress on a proper course of action regarding military robots designed to spy on and attack people and other objects designated as the “enemy” by whomever sits behind the controls. See here for Fagan’s prepared remarks and see here for Fagan’s video testimony, beginning at 1:23:00. Fagan characterized the AUVSI as a “non-profit organization.” Fagan failed to mention that AUVSI is financed by 1,500 corporations headquartered in 55 different countries across the globe (see below for access to the portion of the AUVSI list that is made available to the public).

In a calm and matter-of-fact manner, Michael Fagan asked Congress to allow the domestic deployment of military robots to autonomously collect and analyze in the USA:

…detection, surveillance, measurement, and targeting are more effective when done as close to the observable as possible. This axiom applies to military systems as much as it does to everyday life….

As reduced SWAP [Size, Weight And Power] allows more data processing to move onboard the UAS, available data link bandwidth can transmit to the ground more products that are more relevant to more analysts over larger areas – compared to raw data now sent to the ground. Additionally, processing onboard the unmanned aircraft automates intelligence-analysis tasks and increasingly permits the same number of analysts to be effective over a greater area….

AUVSI is in favor of FAA rulemaking that will enable increased airspace access for UAS manufacturers…. AUVSI is in favor of FAA rulemaking that permits educational institutions the airspace access they require to effectively educate the next generation in autonomous system technologies….

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have certainly driven demand for these systems, but many Americans are unaware that a ScanEagle UAS also aided in the successful recovery of Captain Phillips of the Maersk Alabama off the coast of Somalia last year. There are many other useful applications of unmanned technology — air, ground and maritime systems — that can protect our nation. Border patrol, emergency response, wildfire monitoring, civil unrest, search and rescue, law enforcement, port security…. Unmanned systems have been and will continue to be proven in war, and it is time to prove their heretofore under-recognized capabilities for increasing the effectiveness of civil law enforcement and public safety…. The United States has an opportunity to be at the forefront of the research and development of these advanced systems if it can address regulatory obstacles.

Fagan also requested point-blank that international arms sales of military robots be expedited and deregulated:

Our industry growth is adversely affected by International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) for export of certain UAS technologies, and by a lengthy license approval process by Political Military Defense Trade Controls (PM-DTC). AUVSI is an advocate for simplified export-control regulations and expedited license approvals for unmanned systems technologies.

Michael S. Fagan is not making this request personally. He is a paid representative of the 1,500 member corporations of AUVSI that are eager to deploy military surveillance and attack robots domestically, and to sell them internationally for profit.

The 1,500 international corporations who are official members of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI) and who financially support the AUVSI agenda are too numerous to list in this article, and only 181 of the group’s 1,500 corporate members are publicly identified by AUVSI. All publicly identified corporate members of AUVSI are listed here.

The following are countries whose corporations are openly represented by AUVSI and its lobbyists:

Australia
Austria
Brazil
Canada
Germany
India
Israel
Italy
Japan
The Netherlands
Pakistan
South Korea
Spain
Sweden
United Kingdom
United States

And the following are some notable names among corporations supporting AUVSI’s work to advocate for domestic deployment and deregulated international sales of military surveillance and attack robots:

Aerospace Wales
Air Force Research Laboratory
American Dynamics
Applied Signal Technology, Inc.
BAE Systems
Boeing
Booz Allen Hamilton
Canadian Center for Unmanned Vehicle Systems
Corsair Engineering
Crane Aerospace and Electronics
Cybernet Systems Corporation
Defense Research Associates, Inc.
General Atomics
General Dynamics
Goodrich
Honeywell
iRobot
Israel Aerospace Industries
Korean Air
L-3 Communications
Lockheed Martin
Micro Systems
Mitsui
NEC
Northrup Grumman
Oshkosh Defense
Raytheon
Saab
Sogo Electronics
Swedish National Defence College
Teledyne Brown Engineering
Tyco Electronics

On the afternoon of March 23, Rep. John Tierney gaveled open a hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs. The subject of the hearing: “Rise of the Drones: Unmanned Systems and the Future of War.”

The following is a complete transcript of Tierney’s opening remarks at today’s hearing, remarks that closely parrot the recent Newsweek article written by Peter W. Singer of the 21st Century Defense Initiative: a nominally non-governmental entity that brings on members of the military to write its briefs. Stills taken from video played during Tierney’s remarks are inserted for illustration.

John Tierney: Good afternoon. It’s nice to see all of you. I apologize; I was a bit late and we didn’t get to spend time before the hearing began. We’ll be fully acquainted with you through your testimony and comments on that in the question and answer period, I certainly hope that’s the case.

Our hearing today introduces a new topic to the subcommittee: the risk, or the rise, rather, of unmanned systems and the implications for United States national security.

Over the last decade, the number of unmanned systems and their applications has grown rapidly. So, too, has the number of operational, political and legal questions associated with the technology. To introduce the wide variety of unmanned systems and some of their applications, we want to share some short video clips. The videos show unmanned systems ranging from the harmless to the lethal. The first is clearly on the harmless side of the spectrum.

[laughter: video off screen]

I know from first-hand experience that that’s made in my district, the iRobot of course. Not the cat, ha ha, the robot is over there.

Video 2 shows that other systems provide support to our war fighters. This particular slide is the Ripsaw MS-1, a remote gun tank that can travel at speeds of up to 60 miles per hour and can carry a payload of up to 2,000 pounds. As you’ll see, it can also be used to pull vehicles and other items that are potential security risks.

Video 3 is known as the Big Dog, a 4 legged robot that can walk through sand, snow and ice while carrying up to 340 pounds on its back. It is in service as a robot pack mule. As you’ll see, it can retain its balance on uneven surfaces. It can handle rough terrain.

Looks like a dance class gone bad. Video 4 is the Raven UAV. It is used primarily for surveillance, and as you’ll see it’s hand launched and remote controled from the field. The editor of Wired magazine recently built a home version of the Raven for around $1,000.

Of course what you’re seeing is from the Raven’s equipment. It wasn’t the Raven making that buzzing noise either. It basically means we’re going to have a vote in a short while, and what we’re going to do is finish our opening statements and then come back in a brief while.

The last clip shows the most lethal side of unmanned systems. Some of you may be familiar with footage similar to this. This is unclassified footage from an Army unmanned vehicle engaging combatants in Iraq.

The growing demand for and reliance on unmannned systems has serious implications both on and off the battlefield. As the United States is engaged in two wars abroad, unmanned systems — particularly unmanned aerial vehicles — have become a centerpiece of that war effort. In recent years, the Department of Defense’s UAV inventory has rapidly grown in size from 167 in 2002 to over 7000 today. Last year, for the first time, the United States Air Force trained more unmanned pilots than traditional fighter pilots.

Some express no doubt that unmanned systems have been a boost to U.S. war efforts in the Middle East and South Asia. CIA Director Leon Panetta said last May, “Drone strikes are the only game in town in terms of confronting or trying to disrupt the al Qaeda leadership.” Media reports over the last year indicating that the top two leaders of the Pakistani Talibann were killed by drone strikes also are used to support that argument.

But some critics argue that drone strikes are inethical at best and counterproductive at worst. They point to the reportedly high rate of civilian casualties, which has been calculated by the New American Foundation to be around 32%, and argue that the strikes to more to stoke anti-Americanism than they do to weaken our enemies. A quick skim of any Pakistani newspaper provides some evidence to support this theory. This is particularly relevant in the area of counterinsurgency doctrine, the first tenet of which is “First Do No Harm.”

It also may be the case that we are fighting wars with modern technology under an antiquated set of laws. For example, when the United States uses unmanned systems, does that require an official declaration of war or an authorization for the use of force? Do the Geneva Conventions written in 1949 govern the prosecution of an unmannned war? Who is considered a lawful combatant in an unmanned war? The Air Force pilot flying from thousands of miles away in Nevada, or the civilian contractor servicing it on the airstrip in Afghanistan?

If unmanned systems are changing the way that we train our military personnel, so too should they change the way that we respond to the stress of combat. We already know that unmanned pilots are showing signs of equal or greater stress from combat compared to traditional pilots. The stress of fighting a war thousands of miles away, and minutes later joining your family at the dinner table, presents mental health challenges that must be addressed.

On the domestic front, manufacturers have already developed a number of unmanned commercial products, and are likely to find more applications for this technology in the future. From vaccum cleaners to crop dusters, traditional items that require manual operation are rapidly being rendered obsolete by unmanned technology. UAVs are now being used for environmental monitoring, particularly in hard to reach places like the North Pole. Last fall, the University of North Dakota chartered a four-year degree program in UAV piloting.

These trends are already forcing us to ask new questions about domestic airspace regulation. Who is allowed to own unmanned systems and where are they allowed to operate? Additionally, as more law enforcement and border security services come to use unmanned vehicles questions continue to emerge about the protection of privacy.

As this technology develops and becomes more commercially available, we must implement measures to prevent them from falling into the wrong hands. At least 40 other countries are currently developing unmanned systems technology, including Iran, Russia and China. We already know that during the Israeli-Lebanon war of 2006, Hezbollah deployed 3 surveillance UAVs that it acquired from Iran. A recent Air Force study concluded that a UAV is an ideal platform for chemical or biological terrorist attack. Mr. Peter Singer, one of our witnesses today, wrote recently in Newsweek, “For less than $50,000 a few amateurs could shut down Manhattan.” We have to ensure that the appropriate government agencies are coordinating their efforts to prevent this technology from proliferating and falling into the wrong hands, and also ensure that we have adequate Homeland Security measures to respond to those threats.

Finally, as the new technology continues to develop, we must ensure that there are adequate measures in place to prevent waste, fraud and abuse in the acquisition process. A 2009 study by the United States Government Accountability Office, the author of which we’ll hear from today, reported significant cost growth, schedule delays, and performance shortfalls in DOD’s UAV acquisition process. This analysis raises serious concerns and I look forward to learning more on this from both the GAO and the Department of Defense witnesses appearing before us.

These are some of the questions that we’ll begin to answer through this hearing. Surely we’re not going to have a conclusion to all of these questions during this afternoon’s single day of conversation, but I hope that this hearing serves as a thorough introduction to the topic for the purpose of educating and informing our members as well as the American public.