1.  Situations in which there is an “imminent threat” to our national security and safety.  Our response to kill the people posing the threat is based on the laws of self defense.

I agree with Mr. Krauthammer.  The idea of self defense is so ingrained in all people that this situation provides an obvious use for drones.  Still, there should be some criteria established—before the drones are used—defining what actions constitute an “imminent threat.”

2.  He also justifies the use of drones in situations of a “mutual state of war.”  We are in such a state of war now with Al-Qaeda, since they vowed years ago to kill Americans.  We can use drones to kill these terrorists who are at war with out country.

I have some questions about this:

a.  What is defined as a “mutual state of war?”  Just because some representatives of Al Qaeda make statements about “destroying the west,” can we still call this a “state of war?”  How do we know they speak for anyone but themselves?  Exactly which members of Al Qaeda are “at war” with us?  All of them?

b.  How can we identify the enemy?  Mr. Krauthammer references WWII enemies and our unrestricted bombing of military and civilian targets.  But in WWII, the enemy and it’s real estate were clearly identifiable—today individual Al Qaeda members aren’t always clealy identified and they often live in a variety of places.  No longer do we find them massed in one country, like Germany in WWII.  This leads to the problem of collateral damage . . .

c.  Collateral Damage.  The Dept. of Defense has never released data about the collateral damage inflicted on, perhaps, innocent people who have been in the vicinity of drone explosions.  Although this has become an acceptable by-product of all-out war, (Such as WWII) in the past, those civilians were members of the enemy.  Today, individual terrorists often live in civilian areas of countries—whose citizens are often allies of ours.  Although drones are some of the most accurate bombers ever used, they still make mistakes in targeting and the explosions can kill many innocent people.

d.  How would we react?  Just like the U.S. use of torture during the Iraq war—which violates the Geneva Convention on War to which we subscribe—I often wonder how we would react in the U.S. if other countries started bombing Minneapolis or Cleveland, claiming that they had a right to do so because they were targeting their enemies who were hiding in our country.  What do you think we’d do?

If we practice activities like torture or drone killings, aren’t we inviting the same kind of behavior against ourselves?  And if our cities are bombed, what moral ground do we have to stand on in opposition to such bombing?

The post Droning on about Drones appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.

By the way, what is a drone?

Technically, called unmanned aerial vehicles, drones are small, ultra-light, slow-flying airplanes without human pilots.  Think of your next door neighbor’s hobby of flying remote controlled model planes in his back yard.  A drone is similar.

Their development goes back several decades, but their military use really took-off during the war in Afghanistan when they were successfully used not only for surveillance missions but also to target and kill Al Qaeda terrorists.

Local law enforcement recognized the surveillance benefits of drones right away and have been using them to get information on a variety of activities.  For instance, the Department of Natural Resources can watch for poachers from the sky and catch them in the act of killing animals—all recorded in great images.  Drones are equipped with high resolution, digital cameras that can take remarkably clear and detailed photos/video of all of us.

It’s one thing for police to launch these aircraft to find and follow criminals and terrorists—it’s another thing for police to use them for spying into your back yard.

Does this happen?   Yes!!

It happens enough that ten states, including my own of Minnesota, have introduced legislation prohibiting law enforcement from using drones for routine surveillance or to gather evidence against U.S. citizens.

Is there a precedent for this?

Certainly—the 4th Amendment to the Constitution prohibits any “unreasonable searches and seizures” of citizens by law enforcement. Exceptions to this law are when police obtain a search warrant signed by a judge or have a reasonable suspicion that they need to act quickly (don’t have time to get a search warrant) to prevent imminent danger.  Otherwise, they are prohibited from searching or even looking over the fence into your back yard in order to spy on us.

The proposed legislation would act in the same way but includes the use of drones to search for or seize evidence (in the form of photos).  One other exception is the use of drones to counter the high risk of a terrorist attack.

The intent of the legislation is to keep police from conducting routine surveillance on innocent citizens or groups—let’s say they’re meeting privately to demonstrate or protest something.  Proponents argue that the tool (drones) is able to get a “bird’s eye view”—something that humans can’t do—to reveal incriminating activities on the part of dangerous people and that drones also have the huge benefit of not putting the lives of police officers at risk.

Where should we draw the line?

The post Drones in Your Backyard appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.

With the increased vigilance across the land borders of our country, more smuggling has gone to sea.  Of  course, drugs constitute the largest product for traffickers but shipments of humans are right behind in numbers.  Since 2008, there’s been a fourfold increase in episodes involving smugglers off the coast.  They are traveling further out to sea to avoid law enforcement surveillance, going longer distances up the coast, and are using larger, more powerful boats.  Many of the Coast Guard boats are inadequate to meet the challenge.

So far, only drugs and human cargo have been seized, but the smugglers have so much money they’ve become more sophisticated.  For instance, last year the Coast Guard discovered a cache of fuel drums for refueling attached to buoys fifty miles off the coast.  Some of the boats are so large they can carry up to ten tons of narcotics.

Should we have expected these new routes?

Absolutely.  In research for my new book, Fallout, I discovered that many trafficking operations are set-up specifically to probe our borders, looking for soft spots.  these groups contract with all kinds of people including spies who watch the border crossing spots daily, financial people to bribe border security, lawyers to exploit legal loopholes, and even legitimate business that may be tempted to include an amount of illegal goods in with their legal shipments.  Like mercury, these groups flow around the borders, constantly changing their operations to take advantage of opportunities.  When one hole into the country closes, they move on to a new, vulnerable point.  As a result, many of the trafficking networks are tough to stop.

Should we worry they will become a more serious threat?

Most law enforcement organizations are the traditional, pyramid-style structures.  Because of that and various constitutional and legal restrictions, law enforcement moves slower than the criminals.  And then, there’s funding.  As the profits rise for traffickers and they can invest in bigger and better boats, governments are cutting-back on funding for law enforcement.

Today, the traffickers are able to bring-in drugs and humans.  Tomorrow, the cargo could easily change to terrorists who will wash-up on the beaches of California.

The post Washed-up on the Beach in California appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.

Scientists in the Netherlands created a virus so toxic that if it ever escaped or was stolen by terrorists, the potential harm would be catastrophic.  The scientists from the Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam are set to publish their findings in two scientific journals–making it easy for terrorists to copy and create the virus.  As a result, the American Federal Advisory Board has asked the scientists to leave out critical details.

Which is more important: scientific freedom or protection of the public against a potential doomsday?

To understand the problem, it’s important to know what the scientists are doing.  Many public health officials have been worried that viruses that are common in poultry and birds  (Like the AH5N1) might “jump” to humans and spread easily by coughing or sneezing–that could have devastating effects.  Much worse than small pox–one of the biggest killers in the history of humans.

Usually, the virus doesn’t “jump.”  But what if it somehow mutated to the point that it could jump?  That’s what the scientists in the Netherlands and the University of Wisconsin were studying.  To accomplish this they bombarded the AH5N1 virus with a variety of genetic changes or mutations.  During this process, they made only five genetic mutations that enabled the virus to spread through the air.  What if terrorist scientists read the proposed publications and created their own lethal virus?

What makes this research troubling to me is that no one,  not even the funding source The National Institutes of Health, ever conducted a rigorous analysis of the potential dangers before giving the money.  And since the mutated virus did not exist prior to the research, why was it done in the first place?

The scientists say their research may lead to the development of the correct antiviral drugs to be used in the event of a breakout.  But if the mutated virus didn’t exist, why would we need an antiviral drug?  Isn’t this backwards?  Dangerously backwards?  Also, there’s no guarantee that any mutations which might occur in Nature will match the mutations developed in the lab–meaning the antiviral drugs wouldn’t work.

What should we do?

The post Bird Virus May Cause Doomsday appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.

For a new author like me, unknown and unlisted on the NY Times Book Review, to get into a major chain is very exciting. Why is it there?

I think the cover of the book is compelling. My good friend, Jeff Holmes designed it. The story is about terrorists who plot to use stolen samples of small pox virus to infect American children and then send them back into the schools as weapons of mass destruction to start a plague. The cover mirrors the fear and danger of bio-terrorism. The truly scary aspect for me is that small pox was eradicated from the planet in 1979. No other vaccines were developed and everyone on the planet is vulnerable to the disease–no one has a defense to it. The face of someone plotting to release a deadly virus looks menacing and evil.

People who have read the book tell me it’s a page-turner. I’m happy about that since that was the purpose–to entertain people with a good story.

Also, the main character is an American woman, born here who happens to be Muslim. She’s forced to defend a terrorist who is also Muslim but is totally opposite from her version of Islam. The struggle to be a moderate Muslim in America forms the theme of the book–religious tolerance.

If you’re interested, check it out at the Borders stores around the Cities.

And thanks to all the wonderful readers who have not only purchased the book but have given me many nice words of support!! Thanks to you all.

The post "Reprisal" is now in Borders Bookstores!! appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.