America is not ready for drone warfare at home – so far

Earlier this month, the White House announced that it was considered drone strikes against Mexican drug gangs. Although it is important to keep the options open when dealing with viable threats, we must also remember that in military planning, the enemy gets a vote.

She mentioned frankly: We must think about how the enemy responds to our actions. In the event of potential drones against the cartals, the predictable response is that the cartridge explodes with its own version of the drone war warfare.

Cartlatat already uses drones daily to track American law enforcement agents on the border and transport the smuggler to our country. We also know that the cartridges showed preparation for the drone weapon and used it to attack law enforcement, the Mexican National Guard and the criminal competitors inside Mexico.

Looking at this, it seems likely that the cartridges of their drone strikes, which calls for the question: Are we ready for such a scenario?

A similar question was recently raised in a march letter between the agencies formulated by actors John McGuer (R-VA) and Juan Ciscumani (R-RIZ) to the Federal Aviation Administration, the Ministry of Justice, the Federal Communications Committee and the Ministry of Defense. The authors indicated that in a recent Congress delegation on the southern border, employees on the ground shared their concerns regarding their ability to defend themselves if the cartridge tried a drone.

Unfortunately, the ability to defend against drone attacks from any enemy, foreigner or local, strongly hinders a legal framework that causes this emerging threat. It turns out that there is a complex network of federal laws criminalizing efforts to damage, even discover or track drones.

While Congress has carved some ability to conduct and alleviate drones detection activities, this limited power has only been extended to a few federal government departments. Government and local governments, not to mention private companies and individuals, almost completely suffocated in their ability to protect against drone threats.

Federal criminal laws that apply to the protection of traditional aircraft to their application are also explained to the protection of drones. Therefore, a person who hurts or disrupts a drone will theory to violate the law of sabotage of aircraft, just as if 737 has been attacked. Overlapping with a drone also has also violated the aircraft piracy law, a pen trap law, a listening law, a computer fraud law and ill -treatment, and a prohibition of overlap on GPS.

Currently, the only entities permitted legally to conduct anti -Beron activities, despite other possible laws that can be applied (such as the above mentioned) are the departments of justice, internal security, defense and energy. However, even these agencies are often allowed to engage in limited relief activities to confront drones that provide a reliable threat to specific facilities or assets.

Leadership, local, tribal and regional leadership, and law enforcement have not been granted the authority to conduct these combat operations.

Even if federal administrations have a broader authority to conduct anti -Baroni activities on American soil, these agencies will not have resources to protect the vast region in the 55 states in the country and the inhabited territories.

The first good step to reform this problem will be a legislative update to clarify that laws such as the Acts of Equipment do not apply to unmanned aircraft. It is also necessary to enable non -federal entities to partnership with law enforcement and federal agencies in a supportive effort for both parties to treat drones.

Until such legislation is enacted, it will be useful to have an executive order guiding guidance agencies on how to explain the laws in force and estimate the application of exercises. The aim of this guidance is that law enforcement, at the federal level and the following, may feel safe in their ability to involve drones in providing a reliable threat without fear of a trial.

In the end, thorny drones may be possibly likely to occur by the cartridges or other bad actors, a strong framework.

In addition to the legislative and political changes that allow both federal and non -federal entities to contribute to anti -towers efforts, it is necessary to educate potential stakeholders in conducting control under Guard in cooperation with appropriate government entities. This education should cover legal considerations, operational procedures, technology use, communication protocols, anti -activities and activities that are likely to have harmful secondary effects.

These steps may have a long way to treat the threat of drones in a responsible way, thus enhancing local security and response capabilities.

Carter Lee Lawyer Virginia. He is also a colonel in the National Guard Virginia, where he held the position of the judge’s lawyer in the state.