zlacker

>>pera+(OP)
This was very predictable. Tools invented for military operations abroad eventually, predictably find their way back domestically.

Despite that, its a dangerous thing to happen. I am aware of how unlikely it is for the current US Government to use the drone offensively, but once you have a massive fleet of drones flying over the US, patrolling "troubling" neighborhoods constantly, the temptation to use those abilities rises significantly.

I hope that Congress takes action to outlaw this practice, but I have little faith it will happen. It seems like everyday the country is falling further into the pit of becoming an authoritarian police state.

>>pm90+Qf
> It seems like everyday the country is falling further into the pit of becoming an authoritarian police state.

Let's be honest, the country is voting to become an authoritarian police state. US voters have historically had a flirtatious relationship with strong authoritarian style presidents. Trump just more openly so than others. When you look at voting patterns over the last 40 years, it's pretty clear we've been trending in this direction for quite awhile.

>>jorblu+Pj
Let's be absolutely honest. Who the President may be at any moment in time is totally irrelevant in US being (not becoming, it's already there) an authoritarian police state.

>>armitr+ml
> Who the President may be at any moment in time is totally irrelevant in US being

This is not the case and has never been the case. Presidents have different interpretations of executive powers. Trump clearly has an extremely authoritarian take on where the President sits in our government.

This is plainly obvious for everyone to see and a very non-controversial observation.

>>jorblu+yl
Again, the President's "take" is totally irrelevant in US being an authoritarian police state. The issue is systemic and can not be attributed to an individual or office.

I'm not an American but have lived there in the past for many years. It has always baffled me how Americans are willing to blame the left or the right instead of the system as a whole. Maybe because if they did so, they would be undermining the very foundations that their country was built on.

>>armitr+qn
The DOJ is part of the executive branch and is instrumental in setting national standards and investigating police departments. FBI as well. The executive branch has a fair amount of sway in how policing is done in the US and largely can help set direction, set policies, investigate departments and "clean house".

for example: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-...

Who is President is very much matters. You clearly see this in the Reagan/Bush/Clinton years, where mass incarceration was in vogue, at the direction of the Attorney General (William Barr), who is part of the executive branch, leading the charge.

>>jorblu+Yn
Really? It is my understanding that in Minnesota the governor did not even have control over the local policing, that was left to local leadership (mayor + police chief). He only took over control today, which was a very rare move. So I am not following how the president has much authority over local police activities. That is why Trump is referencing the National Guard and not an actual police force.

>>nights+Qp
I don't think I'm implying the president has direct control over local authorities. I'm simply saying that policing in the US is complex and saying "it doesn't matter who you elect" clearly isn't true. The executive branch has huge soft power over how policing is done in the US. For example, the rise of militarized police is largely due to donated spare Iraq war equipment. The executive branch chose to donate this.

>>jorblu+Iy
> For example, the rise of militarized police is largely due to donated spare Iraq war equipment.

I think there's a lot more to it than that. There's also the matter of a lot of war vets becoming police officers, the approach to policing they learned in the military, and their lasting effect on police department culture.