La curiosa historia del F-117 lockheed: El avión “invisible”.
Las investigaciones sobre aviones invisibles al radar comenzaron muy pronto, casi con la aparición del propio radar allá durante la segunda guerra mundial, pero no fue hasta 1974 cuando la Agencia de Proyectos Avanzados de Investigación sobre Defensa, DARPA por sus siglas en inglés (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), realizó una petición expresa para desarrollar una aeronave militar que fuera indetectable.
La cualidad que compromete todo su diseño, y por lo que parece una nave espacial es su forma geométrica concebida para dispersar al máximo la señal radar, así como el uso de materiales absorbentes de la señal radar, llamados RAM (Radar Absorbent Materials), todo con el fin de dificultar su detección radar, o como se dice en términos más técnicos, disminuir su sección radar (cantidad de señal que refleja un objeto).
What we see in Stanley Nelson’s urgent and necessary documentary “The Black Panthers: Vanguard of the Revolution” is the story of an organization that meant many different things to many different people, and that changed so dramatically during five years or so in the national spotlight that it could almost be described as reshaping itself month by month and putting forward a distinctive face at almost every moment. The Panthers were an urban self-defense militia organized to stop police brutality in the black community and they were eager defenders of the Second Amendment. (Yes, really.) They were an unofficial social service agency that fed schoolchildren in poor neighborhoods and provided free medical care. They were a social-justice movement and a political party, and in both of those modes they began to reach beyond their base in inner-city African-American neighborhoods.
Those cops in riot armor beating and tear-gassing protesters in Ferguson didn’t drop out of thin air. As American police continue to receive billions in military-grade equipment free or subsidized by the Pentagon and Homeland Security, they’ve predictably started to act more like a military force in hostile territory than the public’s protectors.
‘Not on our soil’: US border patrol agent won’t be charged over killing of 17-year-old Mexican youth August 11, 2013
US authorities will not bring charges against a US Border Patrol agent who shot dead a Mexican youth suspected of drug trafficking right through the fence insulating the US from Mexico as the Justice Department “lacks jurisdiction” to do it.
US federal authorities announced on Friday that the decision was based on “the facts developed during an independent and comprehensive investigation.” The US Justice Department officials in Washington insist investigators revealed no facts to support federal prosecution for any federal criminal charge.
The incident took place on January 5, 2011, when 17-year-old Ramses Barron-Torres was fatally wounded with a single shot in an early morning incident at the US-Mexico border fence in Arizona’s largest international border town of Nogales.
Border Patrol received a report about drugs being moved across the border. On arrival they pinpointed a man carrying a bundle with alleged drugs who made an escape attempt while his withdrawal was covered by four people who pelted agents with stones from Mexican territory, forcing the agents to take cover.
According to the agents’ report they ordered the stone throwers to stop in Spanish, but one of them, Ramses Barron-Torres, continued with the barrage, so law enforcement simply shot him through the border fence once.
On Friday the US Justice Department officials announced no sufficient evidence has been found to prove this was not self-defense, as claimed by Border Patrol agent.
Besides that, the US authorities also claim lack of jurisdiction to prosecute the agent because the young man was killed on Mexican side of the border.
The US federal criminal civil-rights statute “requires that the victim be in the United States when he was injured” to prosecute the agent, US authorities said Friday.
At the same time the US authorities addressed another fatal incident that took place in 2011 and also involved stone throwing.
Carlos LaMadrid, 19, was shot with four bullets in Arizona’s border town of Douglas on March 21, 2011, and died several hours later in hospital undergoing surgery.
According to Douglas police, LaMadrid was observed loading bundles of drugs into a vehicle and was pursued to the border fence by officers refusing to stop. Having arrived at the border, LaMadrid allegedly jumped out of the car and attempted to escape using a ladder propped against the border fence, while another man was stoning Border Patrol agents with ‘brick-size’ stones, eventually shattering the windshield of the patrol vehicle.
Though no agent was hurt, they returned fire with lethal force ‘regrettably’ killing a suspect.
The agents claim they made five shots at the unidentified man throwing stones, but because LaMadrid happened to be on the firing line, he was wounded with four bullets and died. US federal authorities ruled the agents were acting in self-defense.
The names of the agents involved in both deadly shootings have never been revealed for security reasons.
The Investigative Fund at The Nation Institute reports of at least 10 incidents in the past five years when the US border agents fired into Mexican territory, eventually killing six Mexicans.
Last year there were 171 deaths along the US/Mexico border. Now with the new immigration “reform” bill, allocates $47 billion (yes, billion) to “secure” the border with high-tech surveillance, drones & more border patrol agents for what Sen. John McCain calls “the most militarized border since the fall of the Berlin Wall."
There is already absolutely no accountability for the US role in these deaths of immigrants every year. Now with an even more militarized border, immigrants must cross through even more dangerous death zones to cross into the US.
Listen, when I tell yall that the corruption in Ferguson runs deep, it runs DEEEEEP!
When Ferguson 1st hired a PR, it was all white. After backlash from the community and those standing in solidarity with Ferguson protesters, they fired the PR and hired Devin James.
The Mayor states the he and Ferguson officials all knew of James’ past conviction of reckless homicide (he shot and killed an unarmed man) BEFORE signing the contract to hire him.
However, Kathryn Jamboretz of the St. Louis Economic Development (the agency that is paying James’ bills), says no one in the organization knew about James’ past and admits they didn’t do a background check.
The city of Ferguson has now fired Devin James as PR for his past murder conviction.
Meanwhile, Ferguson fires Devin James for his criminal past but wont fire nor arrest Darren Wilson … … … .
*Quick note: I googled Devin James and instantly pulled up his murder conviction*
This thing is not for The Enemies of the United States (although obviously anyone can use it.) It’s for all of us. In their own words:
Our ancestors could spot natural predators from far by their silhouettes. Are we equally aware of the predators in the present-day? Drones are remote-controlled planes that can be used for anything from surveillance and deadly force, to rescue operations and scientific research. Most drones are used today by military powers for remote-controlled surveillance and attack, and their numbers are growing. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) predicted in 2012 that within 20 years there could be as many as 30.000 drones flying over U.S. Soil alone. As robotic birds will become commonplace in the near future, we should be prepared to identify them. This survival guide is an attempt to familiarze ourselves and future generations, with a changing technological environment.
Discovered by Sobchak security, the guide also has extensive information on the other side, including “tactics for hiding from drones and interfering with the drones’ sensors, collected from various online sources” and how to hack them.
The 9-foot-tall armored truck was intended for an overseas battlefield. But as President Obama ushers in the end of what he called America’s “long season of war,” the former tools of combat — M-16 rifles, grenade launchers, silencers and more — are ending up in local police departments, often with little public notice.
During the Obama administration, according to Pentagon data, police departments have received tens of thousands of machine guns; nearly 200,000 ammunition magazines; thousands of pieces of camouflage and night-vision equipment; and hundreds of silencers, armored cars and aircraft.
The equipment has been added to the armories of police departments that already look and act like military units. Police SWAT teams are now deployed tens of thousands of times each year, increasingly for routine jobs. Masked, heavily armed police officers in Louisiana raided a nightclub in 2006 as part of a liquor inspection. In Florida in 2010, officers in SWAT gear and with guns drawn carried out raids on barbershops that mostly led only to charges of “barbering without a license.”
Watch this video, taken from a police raid in Des Moines, Iowa. Send it to some people. When critics (like me) warn about the dangers of police militarization, this is what we’re talking about. You’ll see the raid team, dressed in battle-dress uniforms, helmets and face-covering balaclava hoods take down the family’s door with a battering ram. You’ll see them storm the home with ballistics shields, guns at the ready. More troubling still, you’ll see not one but two officers attempt to prevent the family from having an independent record of the raid, one by destroying a surveillance camera, another by blocking another camera’s lens.
From the images in the video, you’d think they were looking for an escaped murderer or a house full of hit men. No, none of that. They were looking for a few people suspected of credit card fraud. None of the people they were looking for were inside of the house, nor was any of the stolen property they were looking for. They did arrest two houseguests of the family on what the news report says were unrelated charges, one for a probation violation and one for possession of illegal drugs.
Note that police department officials say they “do not have a written policy governing how search warrants are executed.” That’s inexcusable. Most police departments do. But whether or not they’re governed by a formal policy, the use of these kinds of tactics for nonviolent crimes like credit card fraud is hardly unusual, and it’s happening more often, not less. I’ve reported on jurisdictions where all felony search warrants are now served with a SWAT team. At least one federal appeals court has now ruled that under the Fourth Amendment, there’s nothing unreasonable about using a SWAT team to perform regulatory inspections. To be fair, two others have ruled that such tactics are not reasonable. But it’s concerning that this would even be up for debate. We have plenty of discussion and analysis about when searches are appropriate. We also need to start talking about how.
Police militarization comes under nationwide investigation March 6, 2013
The American Civil Liberties Union has launched a campaign to investigate the growing trend of placing militarized police units in cities and towns across the country.
Doors busted down and windows smashed in. It’s becoming more of a regular occurrence each day in America as heavily-armed SWAT teams are being sent to the homes of suspects, often nonviolent ones, with enough firepower to take down a small army. In November, a botched raid ended with an 18-year-old girl in the hospital. Other incidents haven’t been exactly isolated either: guns get drawn on both grannies and grandkids alike, and equipping law enforcement officers with the means to make these nightmares become reality is easier by the day.
Police units across the US are becoming more like militaries than the serve-and-protect do-gooders that every young schoolboy once aspired to be. Not only are officers being trained to act with intensity as the number of these home invasions increase, but more and more police departments are being awarded arsenals of heavy-duty weaponry that are then being turned not onto members of al-Qaeda, but innocent children and unsuspecting house guests.
ACLU affiliates across the United States filed Freedom of Information Act requests with law enforcement agencies on Wednesday in hope of obtaining as much material as possible relevant to the ongoing expansion of small town police squads to heavily armed squadrons of soldiers.
“Federal funding in the billions of dollars has allowed state and local police departments to gain access to weapons and tactics created for overseas combat theaters – and yet very little is known about exactly how many police departments have military weapons and training, how militarized the police have become, and how extensively federal money is incentivizing this trend,” reads a statement released by the ACLU.“It’s time to understand the true scope of the militarization of policing in America and the impact it is having in our neighborhoods.”
On Wednesday, the ACLU issued a statement saying branches and affiliates in 23 states around the country filed over 255 public records requests only hours after the investigation was formally launched. The agencies hope that, by analyzing documents, can learn more about the extent that “federal funding and support has fueled the militarization of state and local police departments.”
“Equipping state and local law enforcement with military weapons and vehicles, military tactical training, and actual military assistance to conduct traditional law enforcement erodes civil liberties and encourages increasingly aggressive policing, particularly in poor neighborhoods and communities of color,” explains Kara Dansky, senior counsel for the ACLU’s Center for Justice. “We’ve seen examples of this in several localities, but we don’t know the dimensions of the problem.”
The ACLU says they want to know as much as possible about the type of training given to local SWAT officers, as well as information about the types of technology used by agencies around the country. Through the FOIA requests, the ACLU hopes to learn what types of weapons have been used, who they’ve been used on and what the end result has been. They also want documentation pertaining to the growing use of GPS technology, surveillance drones and any agreements between local police departments and the National Guard. The ACLU is also interested in any relationships between small law enforcement units and the US Departs of Defense and Homeland Security.
“The American people deserve to know how much our local police are using military weapons and tactics for everyday policing,” adds Allie Bohm, an advocacy and policy strategist for ACLU. “The militarization of local police is a threat to Americans’ right to live without fear of military-style intervention in their daily lives, and we need to make sure these resources and tactics are deployed only with rigorous oversight and strong legal protections.”
In 2011, the Department of Defense gave half-a-billion dollars’ worth of military machinery that would have been left otherwise unused to law enforcement agencies coast-to-coast. Among the items offered up to officers at no cost at all that year were grenade launchers, helicopters, military robots, M-16 assault rifles and armored vehicles. Before 2012 came to a close, figures for that year was expected to end with more than a 400 percent increase.
Peter Kraska, a criminologist at Eastern Kentucky University, tells journalist Radley Balko that while the militarization of police squads is indeed accelerating, it isn’t likely the ACLU will get all the answers they want.
“My experience is that they’ll have a very difficult time getting comprehensive, forthright information,“ Kraska says. "If the goal here is to impose some transparency, you have to understand, that’s not what the SWAT industry wants.”
The day began with questions about why a young man was killed. It ended as a referendum on the militarization of American police forces.
“What transpired in the streets appeared to be a kind a municipal version of shock and awe; the first wave of flash grenades and tear gas had played as a prelude to the appearance of an unusually large armored vehicle, carrying a military-style rifle mounted on a tripod.”
For blacks, the “war on terror” hasn’t “come ‘home.’” It’s always been here. How then might we consider the emphasis on the militarization of policing as the problem as another example of “the precariousness of empathy”? The problem with casting militarization as the problem is that the formulation suggests it is the excess against which we must rally. We must accept that the ordinary is fair, for an extreme to be the problem. The policing of black people — carried out through a variety of mechanisms and processes — is purportedly warranted, as long as it doesn’t get too militarized and excessive.