From: David Swanson
COMMENT - The anti-drone action is spreading. This is from the Swanson coalition, of which Drone Free Zone is a part. Get ready to Occupy Drone Contractors!
By David Swanson
What Localities and States Can Do About Drones
Charlottesville, Va., passed a resolution that urged
the state of Virginia to adopt a two-year moratorium on drones (which
it did), urged both Virginia and the U.S. Congress to prohibit
information obtained from the domestic use of drones from being
introduced into court, and to preclude the domestic use of drones
equipped with "anti-personnel devices, meaning any projectile, chemical,
electrical, directed-energy (visible or invisible), or other device
designed to harm, incapacitate, or otherwise negatively impact a human
being," and pledged that Charlottesville would "abstain from similar
uses with city-owned, leased, or borrowed drones."
St. Bonifacius, Minn., passed a resolution with the
same language as Charlottesville plus a ban on anyone operating a drone
"within the airspace of the city," making a first offense a misdemeanor
and a repeat offense a felony.
Evanston, Ill., passed a resolution establishing a
two-year moratorium on the use of drones in the city with exceptions for
hobby and model aircraft and for non-military research, and making the
same recommendations to the state and Congress as Charlottesville and
St. Bonifacius.
Northampton, Mass., passed a resolution urging the
U.S. government to end its practice of extrajudicial killing with
drones, affirming that within the city limits "the navigable airspace
for drone aircraft shall not be expanded below the long-established
airspace for manned aircraft" and that "landowners subject to state laws
and local ordinances have exclusive control of the immediate reaches of
the airspace and that no drone aircraft shall have the 'public right of
transit' through this private property," and urging the state and
Congress and the FAA "to respect legal precedent and constitutional
guarantees of privacy, property rights, and local sovereignty in all
matters pertaining to drone aircraft and navigable airspace."
See full text of all resolutions at warisacrime.org/resolutions
Other cities, towns, and counties should be able to pass similar
resolutions. Of course, stronger and more comprehensive resolutions are
best. But most people who learned about the four resolutions above just
leaned that these four cities had "banned drones" or "passed an
anti-drone resolution." The details are less important in terms of
building national momentum against objectionable uses of drones. By
including both surveillance and weaponized drones, as all four cities
have done, a resolution campaign can find broader support. By including
just one issue, a resolution might meet fewer objections. Asking a
city just to make recommendations to a state and the nation might also
meet less resistance than asking the city to take actions itself. Less
can be more.
Localities have a role in national policy. City
councilors and members of boards of supervisors take an oath to support
the Constitution of the United States. Cities and towns routinely send
petitions to Congress for all kinds of requests. This is allowed under
Clause 3, Rule XII, Section 819, of the Rules of the House of
Representatives. This clause is routinely used to accept petitions from
cities, and memorials from states. The same is established in the
Jefferson Manual, the rulebook for the House originally written by
Thomas Jefferson for the Senate. In 1967, a court in California ruled
(Farley v. Healey, 67 Cal.2d 325) that "one of the purposes of local
government is to represent its citizens before the Congress, the
Legislature, and administrative agencies in matters over which the local
government has no power. Even in matters of foreign policy it is not
uncommon for local legislative bodies to make their positions known."
Abolitionists passed local resolutions against U.S. policies on slavery.
The anti-apartheid movement did the same, as did the nuclear freeze
movement, the movement against the PATRIOT Act, the movement in favor of
the Kyoto Protocol, etc. No locality is an island. If we become
environmentally sustainable, others will ruin our climate. If we ban
assault weapons, they'll arrive at our borders. And if the skies of the
United States are filled with drones, it will become ever more difficult
for any city or state to keep them out.
How to pass a local resolution: Every city or county
is different, but some rules of thumb are applicable. To the extent
possible, build understanding of the issues. Invite speakers, screen
films, hold conferences. To the extent possible, educate and win over
elected officials. Make the case that localities have a responsibility
to speak on national issues to represent the interests of local people.
Make the case that the time to act is before the problem expands out of
control. Most states are considering drone legislation, so refer to
that activity in your state. Make clear that you are aware of countless
benevolent and harmless uses of drones but that you are prioritizing
Constitutional rights and want exceptions made for uses that do not
endanger self-governance rather than drones being made the norm and
restrictions the exception. The Congressional Research Service says
drones are incompatible with the Fourth Amendment. The U.N. Special
Rapporteur says drones are making war the norm. If possible, propose
the weakest resolution you can, and ask the local government to put it
on the agenda for consideration; then propose the strongest possible
resolution you dare. You may end up with a compromise, as happened in
Charlottesville. Work the local media and public. Pack the meeting(s).
Take advantage of every opportunity for the public to speak. Unlike at
the state or national levels, you are unlikely to face any organized
opposition. Make your most persuasive case, and make a great show of
public support. Equate a "No" vote with support for cameras in
everyone's windows and armed drones over picnics. Equate a "Yes" vote
with prevention of racial profiling, activist profiling, and the
targeting of all sorts of groups that can be recruited into your
campaign.
STATES: See full text of all resolutions at warisacrime.org/resolutions
Oregon has passed a law banning weaponized drones in
all cases and banning drone use by law enforcement unless they have a
warrant, they have probable cause without a warrant, or for search and
rescue, or for an emergency, or for studying a crime scene, or for
training (and the Fourth Amendment be damned).
Virginia has passed a law banning local and state
(but not federal or National Guard) government drone use for two years
unless various color-coded alerts are activated or there is a search or
rescue operation or for training exercises or for drone-training
schools, and strictly banning (for two years) any state or local
weaponized drones.
Florida has passed a law banning law enforcement
agencies from using drones to gather information unless they think they
have some sort of reason to do so (and the Fourth Amendment be damned).
Idaho has passed a law banning drone surveillance
"absent reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal conduct" except in
pursuit of marijuana in which case no such suspicion is needed (and the
Fourth Amendment be damned).
Illinois has passed a law banning drones except for
law enforcement agencies that have a warrant or when the Secretary of
Homeland Security shouts "terrorism!" or they are reasonably suspicious
it's needed or are searching for a missing person or are photographing a
crime scene or traffic crash scene (and the Fourth Amendment be
damned).
Tennessee has passed a law banning law enforcement
drones unless the Sec. of Homeland Security shouts "terrorism!" or
there's a warrant or there's suspicion without a warrant (and the Fourth
Amendment be damned).
Texas has passed a law banning the capturing of images with drones except for ... too many exceptions to list.
Congressman Grayson passed an amendment to a DHS
funding bill banning DHS from using weaponized drones, a step that must
be repeated each year for this and other agencies unless a full national
or international ban is put in place.
