O 'Drone' como arma de terrorismo ?

  • 9 Respostas
  • 6220 Visualizações


  • Perito
  • **
  • 394
  • Recebeu: 1 vez(es)
  • +0/-0
O 'Drone' como arma de terrorismo ?
« em: Junho 18, 2006, 04:21:55 pm »
"Cada vez são publicados mais estudos sobre a possível utilização de 'drones' (aviões telecomandados) em ataques terroristas.de facto o drone não fica muito caro, é simples de utilizar e tem uma 'fraca assinatura' de radar e IR - o que lhe confere um certo grau de furtividade - e pode ser utilizado massiçamente, eventualmente na hipótese de um ataque biológico.
Alguns cenários apontam assim sobre lançamento de 'drones' em 'enxame', a partir de cargueiros ou petroleiros que cruzam as águas internacionais,  largando armas biológicas ou clássicas.
A hipótese não é tão disparatada como poderia parecer.A Hezbolah pôs a voar um Mirsad-1 (deteria 2 ou 3, comprados ao Irão) por cima do território israelita, e as FARC colombianas também já os utilizaram.Igualmente alguns movimentos de guerrilha procurariam modificar modelos teleguiados reduzidos com vista a transformá-los em sistemas de reconhecimento.
Vários analistas salientam além disso o facto que os radares actualmente utilizados não estarem em condições de detectar tais sistemas.Os AWACS, por exemplo, eliminam automáticamente certos ecos que são considerados 'ruído' excedentário.Dois drones iraquianos teriam assim sobrevoado posições da 3 Div Infantaria americana, durante a operação Iraqui Freedom.Pensando que os drones eram americanos os soldados US não tinham replicado.

Trad. de uma notícia publicada no número de Junho/2006 da revista francesa DSI (Déf. & Sécurité Internationale)
Os seguintes utilizadores agradeceram esta mensagem: Jorge Pereira



  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 1274
  • Recebeu: 20 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 74 vez(es)
  • +0/-0
Re: O 'Drone' como arma de terrorismo ?
« Responder #1 em: Julho 16, 2013, 10:00:08 pm »
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/ju ... ion-matrix

Obama's secret kill list – the disposition matrix

The disposition matrix is a complex grid of suspected terrorists to be traced then targeted in drone strikes or captured and interrogated. And the British government appears to be colluding in it

 Ian Cobain   The Guardian, Sunday 14 July 2013 19.00 BST   

Barack Obama, chairing the 'Terror Tuesday' meetings, agrees the final schedule of names on the disposition matrix. Photograph: Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images

When Bilal Berjawi spoke to his wife for the last time, he had no way of being certain that he was about to die. But he should have had his suspicions.

A short, dumpy Londoner who was not, in the words of some who knew him, one of the world's greatest thinkers, Berjawi had been fighting for months in Somalia with al-Shabaab, the Islamist militant group. His wife was 4,400 miles away, at home in west London. In June 2011, Berjawi had almost been killed in a US drone strike on an al-Shabaab camp on the coast. After that he became wary of telephones. But in January last year, when his wife went into labour and was admitted to St Mary's hospital in Paddington, he decided to risk a quick phone conversation.

A few hours after the call ended Berjawi was targeted in a fresh drone strike. Perhaps the telephone contact triggered alerts all the way from Camp Lemmonier, the US military's enormous home-from-home at Djibouti, to the National Security Agency's headquarters in Maryland. Perhaps a few screens also lit up at GCHQ in Cheltenham? This time the drone attack was successful, from the US perspective, and al-Shabaab issued a terse statement: "The martyr received what he wished for and what he went out for."

The following month, Berjawi's former next-door neighbour, who was also in Somalia, was similarly "martyred". Like Berjawi, Mohamed Sakr had just turned 27 when he was killed in an air strike.

Four months later, the FBI in Manhattan announced that a third man from London, a Vietnamese-born convert to Islam, had been charged with a series of terrorism offences, and that if convicted he would face a mandatory 40-year sentence. This man was promptly arrested by Scotland Yard and is now fighting extradition to the US. And a few weeks after that, another of Berjawi's mates from London was detained after travelling from Somalia to Djibouti, where he was interrogated for months by US intelligence officers before being hooded and put aboard an aircraft. When 23-year-old Mahdi Hashi next saw daylight, he was being led into a courtroom in Brooklyn.

That these four men had something in common is clear enough: they were all Muslims, all accused of terrorism offences, and all British (or they were British: curiously, all of them unexpectedly lost their British citizenship just as they were about to become unstuck). There is, however, a common theme that is less obvious: it appears that all of them had found their way on to the "disposition matrix".
The euphemisms of counter-terrorism

When contemplating the euphemisms that have slipped into the lexicon since 9/11, the adjective Orwellian is difficult to avoid. But while such terms as extraordinary rendition, targeted killing and enhanced interrogation are universally known, and their true meanings – kidnap, assassination, torture – widely understood, the disposition matrix has not yet gained such traction.

Since the Obama administration largely shut down the CIA's rendition programme, choosing instead to dispose of its enemies in drone attacks, those individuals who are being nominated for killing have been discussed at a weekly counter-terrorism meeting at the White House situation room that has become known as Terror Tuesday. Barack Obama, in the chair and wishing to be seen as a restraining influence, agrees the final schedule of names. Once details of these meetings began to emerge it was not long before the media began talking of "kill lists". More double-speak was required, it seemed, and before long the term disposition matrix was born.

In truth, the matrix is more than a mere euphemism for a kill list, or even a capture-or-kill list. It is a sophisticated grid, mounted upon a database that is said to have been more than two years in the development, containing biographies of individuals believed to pose a threat to US interests, and their known or suspected locations, as well as a range of options for their disposal.

It is a grid, however, that both blurs and expands the boundaries that human rights law and the law of war place upon acts of abduction or targeted killing. There have been claims that people's names have been entered into it with little or no evidence. And it appears that it will be with us for many years to come.

The background to its creation was the growing realisation in Washington that the drone programme could be creating more enemies than it was destroying. In Pakistan, for example, where the government estimates that more than 400 people have been killed in around 330 drone strikes since 9/11, the US has arguably outstripped even India as the most reviled foreign country. At one point, Admiral Mike Mullen, when chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, was repo rted to be having furious rows over the issue with his opposite number in Pakistan, General Ashfaq Kayani.

Admiral Mike Mullen (left), when chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, was reported to have furious rows over the drone programme with his opposite number in Pakistan, General Ashfaq Kayani (right). Photograph: Javier Diaz/Reuters

The term entered the public domain following a briefing given to the Washington Post before last year's presidential election. "We had a disposition problem," one former counter-terrorism official involved in the development of the Matrix told the Post. Expanding on the nature of that problem, a second administration official added that while "we're not going to end up in 10 years in a world of everybody holding hands and saying 'we love America'", there needed to be a recognition that "we can't possibly kill everyone who wants to harm us".

Drawing upon legal advice that has remained largely secret, senior officials at the US Counter-Terrorism Center designed a grid that incorporated the existing kill lists of the CIA and the US military's special forces, but which also offered some new rules and restraints.

Some individuals whose names were entered into the matrix, and who were roaming around Somalia or Yemen, would continue to face drone attack when their whereabouts become known. Others could be targeted and killed by special forces. In a speech in May, Obama suggested that a special court could be given oversight of these targeted killings.

An unknown number would end up in the so-called black sites that the US still quietly operates in east Africa, or in prisons run by US allies in the Middle East or Central Asia. But for others, who for political reasons could not be summarily dispatched or secretly imprisoned, there would be a secret grand jury investigation, followed in some cases by formal arrest and extradition, and in others by "rendition to justice": they would be grabbed, interrogated without being read their rights, then flown to the US and put on trial with a publicly funded defence lawyer.

Orwell once wrote about political language being "designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable". As far as the White House is concerned, however, the term disposition matrix describes a continually evolving blueprint not for murder, but for a defence against a threat that continues to change shape and seek out new havens.

As the Obama administration's tactics became more variegated, the British authorities co-operated, of course, but also ensured that the new rules of the game helped to serve their own counter-terrorism objectives.

Paul Pillar, who served in the CIA for 28 years, including a period as the agency's senior counter-terrorism analyst, says the British, when grappling with what he describes as a sticky case – "someone who is a violence-prone anti-western jihadi", for example – would welcome a chance to pass on that case to the US. It would be a matter, as he puts it, of allowing someone else to have their headache.

"They might think, if it's going to be a headache for someone, let the Americans have the headache," says Pillar. "That's what the United States has done. The US would drop cases if they were going to be sticky, and let someone else take over. We would let the Egyptians or the Jordanians or whoever take over a very sticky one. From the United Kingdom point of view, if it is going to be a headache for anyone: let the Americans have the headache."

The four young Londoners – Berjawi, Sakr, Hashi and the Vietnamese-born convert – were certainly considered by MI5 and MI6 to be something of a headache. But could they have been seen so problematic – so sticky – that the US would be encouraged to enter their names into the Matrix?

The home secretary's special power

Berjawi and Sakr were members of a looseknit group of young Muslims who were on nodding terms with each other, having attended the same mosques and schools and having played in the same five-a-side football matches in west London.

A few members of this group came to be closely scrutinised by MI5 when it emerged that they had links with the men who attempted to carry out a wave of bombings on London's underground train network on 21 July 2005. Others came to the attention of the authorities as a result of their own conduct. Mohammed Ezzouek, for example, who attended North Westminster community school with Berjawi, was abducted in Kenya and interrogated by British intelligence officers after a trip to Somalia in 2006; another schoolmate, Tariq al-Daour, has recently been released from jail after serving a sentence for inciting terrorism.

As well as sharing their faith and, according to the UK authorities, jihadist intent, these young men had something else in common: they were all dual nationals. Berjawi was born in Lebanon and moved to London with his parents as an infant. Sakr was born in London, but was deemed to be a British-Egyptian dual national because his parents were born in Egypt. Ezzouek is British-Moroccan, while al-Daour is British-Palestinian.

This left them vulnerable to a little-known weapon in the government's counter-terrorism armoury, one that Theresa May has been deploying with increasing frequency since she became home secretary three years ago. Under the terms of a piece of the 2006 Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act, and a previous piece of legislation dating to 1981, May has the power to deprive dual nationals of their British citizenship if she is "satisfied that deprivation is conducive to the public good".

The Home Office is extraordinarily sensitive about its use of the power, but it is known that Theresa May has deprived at least 17 people of their British citizenship. Photograph: Chris Ison/PA

This power can be applied only to dual nationals, and those who lose their citizenship can appeal. The government appears usually to wait until the individual has left the country before moving to deprive them of their citizenship, however, and appeals are heard at the highly secretive special immigration appeals commission (SIAC), where the government can submit evidence that cannot be seen or challenged by the appellant.

The Home Office is extraordinarily sensitive about the manner in which this power is being used. It has responded to Freedom of Information Act requests about May's increased use of this power with delays and appeals; some information requested by the Guardian in June 2011 has still not been handed over. What is known is that at least 17 people have been deprived of their British citizenship at a stroke of May's pen. In most cases, if not all, the home secretary has taken action on the recommendation of MI5. In each case, a warning notice was sent to the British home of the target, and the deprivation order signed a day or two later.

One person who lost their British citizenship in this way was Anna Chapman, a Russian spy, but the remainder are thought to all be Muslims. Several of them – including a British-Pakistani father and his three sons – were born in the UK, while most of the others arrived as children. And some have been deprived of their citizenship not because they were assessed to be involved in terrorism or any other criminal activity, but because of their alleged involvement in Islamist extremism.

Berjawi and Sakr both travelled to Somalia after claiming that they were being harassed by police in the UK, and were then stripped of their British citizenship. Several months later they were killed. The exact nature of any intelligence that the British government may have shared with Washington before their names were apparently entered into the disposition matrix is deeply secret: the UK has consistently refused to either confirm or deny that it shares intelligence in support of drone strikes, arguing that to do so would damage both national security and relations with the US government.

More than 12 months after Sakr's death, his father, Gamal, a businessman who settled in London 37 years ago, still cannot talk about his loss without breaking down and weeping. He alleges that one of his two surviving sons has since been harassed by police, and suspects that this boy would also have been stripped of his citizenship had he left the country. "It's madness," he cries. "They're driving these boys to Afghanistan. They're making everything worse."

Last year Gamal and his wife flew to Cairo, formally renounced their Egyptian citizenship, and on their return asked their lawyer to let it be known that their sons were no longer dual nationals. But while he wants his family to remain in Britain, the manner in which his son met his death has shattered his trust in the British government. "It was clearly directed from the UK," he says. "He wasn't just killed: he was assassinated."

The case of Mahdi Hashi

Mahdi Hashi was five years old when his family moved to London from Somalia. He returned to the country in 2009, and took up arms for al-Shabaab in its civil war with government forces. A few months earlier he had complained to the Independent that he been under pressure to assist MI5, which he was refusing to do. Hashi was one of a few dozen young British men who have followed the same path: in one internet video clip, an al-Shabaab fighter with a cockney accent can be heard urging fellow Muslims "living in the lands of disbelief" to come and join him. It is thought that the identities of all these men are known to MI5.

After the deaths of Berjawi and Sakr, Hashi was detained by al-Shabaab, who suspected that he was a British spy, and that he was responsible for bringing the drones down on the heads of his brothers-in-arms. According to his US lawyer, Harry Batchelder, he was released in early June last year. The militants had identified three other men whom they believed were the culprits, executing them shortly afterwards.

Within a few days of Hashi's release, May signed an order depriving him of his British citizenship. The warning notice that was sent to his family's home read: "The reason for this decision is that the Security Service assess that you have been involved in Islamist extremism and present a risk to the national security of the United Kingdom due to your extremist activities."

Hashi decided to leave Somalia, and travelled to Djibouti with two other fighters, both Somali-Swedish dual nationals. All three were arrested in a raid on a building, where they had been sleeping on the roof, and were taken to the local intelligence agency headquarters. Hashi says he was interrogated for several weeks by US intelligence officers who refused to identify themselves. These men then handed him over to a team of FBI interrogators, who took a lengthy statement. Hashi was then hooded, put aboard an aircraft, and flown to New York. On arrival he was charged with conspiracy to support a terrorist organisation.

Mahdi Hashi ... arrested and taken to court in the US after having his British citizenship revoked. Photograph: Teri Pengilley

Hashi has since been quoted in a news report as saying he was tortured while in custody in Djibouti. There is reason to doubt that this happened, however: a number of sources familiar with his defence case say that the journalist who wrote the report may have been misled. And the line of defence that he relied upon while being interrogated – that Somalia's civil war is no concern of the US or the UK – evaporated overnight when al-Shabaab threatened to launch attacks in Britain.

When Hashi was led into court in Brooklyn in January, handcuffed and dressed in a grey and orange prison uniform, he was relaxed and smiling. The 23-year-old had been warned that if he failed to co-operate with the US government, he would be likely to spend the rest of his life behind bars. But he appeared unconcerned.

At no point did the UK government intervene. Indeed, it cannot: he is no longer British.

When the Home Office was asked whether it knew Hashi was facing detention and forcible removal to the US at the point at which May revoked his citizenship, a spokesperson replied: "We do not routinely comment on individual deprivation cases, nor do we comment on intelligence issues."

The Home Office is also refusing to say whether it is aware of other individuals being killed after losing their British citizenship. On one point it is unambiguous, however. "Citizenship," it said in a statement, "is a privilege, not a right."

The case of 'B2'

A glimpse of even closer UK-US counter-terrorism co-operation can be seen in the case of the Vietnamese-born convert, who cannot be named for legal reasons. Born in 1983 in the far north of Vietnam, he was a month old when his family travelled by sea to Hong Kong, six when they moved to the UK and settled in London, and 12 when he became a British citizen.

While studying web design at a college in Greenwich, he converted to Islam. He later came into contact with the banned Islamist group al-Muhajiroun, and was an associate of Richard Dart, a fellow convert who was the subject of a TV documentary entitled My Brother the Islamist, and who was jailed for six years in April after travelling to Pakistan to seek terrorism training. In December 2010, this man told his eight-months-pregnant wife that he was going to Ireland for a few weeks. Instead, he travelled to Yemen and stayed for seven months. MI5 believes he received terrorism training from al-Qaida in the Arabian peninsula and worked on the group's online magazine, Inspire.

He denies this. Much of the evidence against him comes from a man called Ahmed Abdulkadir Warsame, a Somali who once lived in the English midlands, and who was "rendered to justice" in much the same way as Hashi after being captured in the Gulf of Aden two years ago. Warsame is now co-operating with the US Justice Department.

On arrival back at Heathrow airport, the Vietnamese-born man was searched by police and arrested when a live bullet was found in his rucksack. A few months later, while he was free on bail, May signed an order revoking his British citizenship. Detained by immigration officials and facing deportation to Vietnam, he appealed to SIAC, where he was given the cipher B2. He won his case after the Vietnamese ambassador to London gave evidence in which he denied that he was one of their citizens. Depriving him of British citizenship at that point would have rendered him stateless, which would have been unlawful.

Within minutes of SIAC announcing its decision and granting B2 unconditional bail, he was rearrested while sitting in the cells at the SIAC building. The warrant had been issued by magistrates five weeks earlier, at the request of the US Justice Department. Moments after that, the FBI announced that B2 had been charged with five terrorism offences and faced up to 40 years in jail. He was driven straight from SIAC to Westminster magistrates' court, where he faced extradition proceedings.

B2 continues to resist his removal to the US, with his lawyers arguing that he could have been charged in the UK. Indeed, the allegations made by the US authorities, if true, would appear to represent multiple breaches of several UK laws: the Terrorism Act 2000, the Terrorism Act 2006 and the Firearms Act 1968. Asked why B2 was not being prosecuted in the English courts – why, in other words, the Americans were having this particular headache, and not the British – a Crown Prosecution Service spokesperson said: "As this is a live case and the issue of forum may be raised by the defence in court, it would be inappropriate for us to discuss this in advance of the extradition hearing."
The rule of 'imminent threat'

In the coffee shops of west London, old friends of Berjawi, Sakr, Hashi and B2 are equally reluctant to talk, especially when questioned about the calamities that have befallen the four men. When they do, it is in a slightly furtive way, almost in whispers.

Ezzouek explains that he never leaves the country any more, fearing he too will be stripped of his British citizenship. Al-Daour is watched closely and says he faces recall to prison whenever he places a foot wrong. Failing even to tell his probation officer that he has bought a car, for example, is enough to see him back behind bars. A number of their associates claim to have learned of the deaths of Berjawi and Sakr from MI5 officers who approached them with the news, and suggested they forget about travelling to Somalia.

Last February, a 16-page US justice department memo, leaked to NBC News, disclosed something of the legal basis for the drone programme. Its authors asserted that the killing of US citizens is lawful if they pose an "imminent threat" of violent attack against the US, and capture is impossible. The document adopts a broad definition of imminence, saying no evidence of a specific plot is needed, and remains silent on the fate that faces enemies who are – or were – citizens of an allied nation, such as the UK.

Londoner Bilal Berjawi died in a drone strike. Photograph: Sipa Press/Rex Features

But if the Obama administration is satisfied that the targeted killing of US citizens is lawful, there is little reason to doubt that young men who have been stripped of their British citizenship, and who take up arms in Somalia or Yemen or elsewhere, will continue to find their way on to the disposition matrix, and continue to be killed by missiles fired from drones hovering high overhead, or rendered to courts in the US.

And while Obama says he wants to curtail the drone programme, his officials have been briefing journalists that they believe the operations are likely to continue for another decade, at least. Given al-Qaida's resilience and ability to spread, they say, no clear end is in sight.
« Última modificação: Julho 31, 2013, 01:05:17 am por mafarrico »
"All the world's a stage" William Shakespeare




  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 1274
  • Recebeu: 20 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 74 vez(es)
  • +0/-0
Re: O 'Drone' como arma de terrorismo ?
« Responder #2 em: Julho 31, 2013, 01:02:53 am »
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeas ... 66801.html

US drone kills al-Qaeda suspects in Yemen

Three alleged members of al-Qaeda killed in latest attack in Shabwah province, according to tribal and military sources.
Last Modified: 30 Jul 2013 10:56

A US drone strike has killed three suspected al-Qaeda members in Yemen in the second such attack in three days, a Yemeni military official and tribal sources said.

The official said the attack took place early on Tuesday in the town of Saeed in Shabwah province and targeted a car carrying the suspected fighters.

"The car in which the three were travelling - two Yemenis and a Saudi - was blown to pieces and all of them were killed outright," a tribal source told the AFP news agency, speaking on condition of anonymity.

One of the fighters was a known Saudi member of al-Qaeda's branch in Yemen, some other tribal sources told the Associated Press.

Another raid in the southern province on Saturday killed six suspected al-Qaeda members.

Raids intensified

The US, the only country to operate drones in the region, has increased its use of them against al-Qaeda targets in Yemen over the past two years.

Washington regards Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), a merger of fighters in Yemen and neighbouring Saudi Arabia, as the worldwide network's most active and dangerous branch.

Several AQAP leaders have been killed in US drone strikes, most recently the network's deputy leader Saeed al-Shehri whose death was confirmed by the fighters on July 17.

AQAP took advantage of the weakness of Yemen's central government during an uprising against now-ousted president Ali Abdullah Saleh in 2011 to seize large swathes of territory across the south and east.

Washington has given strong support to the efforts of Saleh's successor, President Abdrabuh Mansur Hadi, to reassert central government control.

President Barack Obama is to host Hadi for White House talks on Thursday.
"All the world's a stage" William Shakespeare




  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 1274
  • Recebeu: 20 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 74 vez(es)
  • +0/-0
Re: O 'Drone' como arma de terrorismo ?
« Responder #3 em: Agosto 10, 2013, 07:59:32 pm »
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2013/08 ... ?ref=world

Militants Killed in Egypt by Israeli Drone Mourned

Published: August 10, 2013 at 2:39 PM ET

CAIRO — Dozens of suspected militants openly joined a mass funeral procession Saturday for four slain Egyptian insurgents killed in an Israeli drone strike in the Sinai Peninsula, as Egyptian security forces watched them pass by.

A little known militant group, Ansar Jerusalem, said its men were the target of the drone strike in Egyptian territory that killed the four militants preparing to fire rockets into Israel. Meanwhile, Egypt's military claimed that one of its helicopters carried out the strike, seeking to limit public criticism about allowing Israel to carry out strikes on its soil.

The attack was a rare operation that could indicate increased cooperation between Egypt and Israel against militants in northern Sinai after a coup ousted Islamist President Mohammed Morsi last month. It also is likely to increase tensions in a border region that has seen other rocket attacks in the past.

Hundreds of people, including armed jihadis, tribesmen carrying weapons and family members of the dead took part in the funeral. The bodies of the dead were displayed in the back of pickup trucks draped by black flags inscribed with Islamic verses. The flags are often used by al-Qaida militants, but also by Islamists. Some in the procession chanted slogans against Israel and Egypt's army.

The procession passed through checkpoints peacefully, even though many who were present likely are the same fighters carrying out near-daily attacks on security forces in Sinai. Security officials said the nature of the attack made it difficult to stop the procession out for fear of inflaming an already volatile situation. They also said checkpoints in the area were manned by just a handful of personnel ill-equipped to take on such a large group, which also included a number of locals.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity as they weren't authorized to speak to journalists.

In its statement, Ansar Jerusalem denounced the Egyptian military for having allowed the Israeli attack.

"What is greater treason than the Egyptian army allowing the Zionist drones to violate Egyptian airspace now and then?" it said.

The statement's authenticity could not be confirmed, but it was posted on a website commonly used by militant groups.

Egyptian security officials, speaking anonymously on Friday to The Associated Press, said that a drone firing from the Israeli side of the border had killed five suspected militants. The site of the strike was about five kilometers (three miles) inside Egypt. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity as they were not authorized to brief journalists.

Israel has maintained official silence about the strike, perhaps out of concerns about exposing Egypt's military to domestic public backlash. Egypt's government celebrates its battles fought against Israel over Sinai.

On Saturday, Egypt's state media quoted an anonymous senior security official saying the strike against the militants had been carried out by Egyptian helicopters. The reports also claimed the militants had been preparing to fire on Egyptian targets rather than Israel, possibly so as to not be seen defending Israeli interests. The military spokesman also released statements denying that Israel carried out any attacks.

Insurgents, who have close ties to Palestinian militants in the neighboring Gaza Strip, have stepped up attacks on police and military targets in the northern part of Sinai since the July 3 coup that toppled Morsi. Some residents of Sinai have alleged that Morsi did not clamp down hard enough on militants during his year in office out of concerns it would anger some of his supporters.

Egypt's military and security forces have long been engaged in a battle against militants in the northern half of the peninsula. Militants and tribesmen have been engaged in smuggling and other criminal activity in the area for years. Militants have fired rockets into Israel and staged other cross-border attacks there on previous occasions.

Ansar Jerusalem has claimed Israel attacked them in Egypt in the past. Late last year, the group released a video about a militant who was killed in August in a strike that Egyptian officials said may have been carried out by Israel. In the video, a Bedouin confesses to working as a spy for Israel for $3,000 a month and to placing an electronic chip on the man's motorcycle. He also said that Israeli intelligence officers crossed into Sinai several times and planted a bomb on the road leading to the man's home.

The video then showed images of the Bedouin's severed head.

Associated Press writers Ashraf Sweilam in el-Arish, Egypt, and Aya Batrawy contributed to this report.
"All the world's a stage" William Shakespeare




  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 1274
  • Recebeu: 20 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 74 vez(es)
  • +0/-0
"All the world's a stage" William Shakespeare




  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 1274
  • Recebeu: 20 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 74 vez(es)
  • +0/-0
Re: O 'Drone' como arma de terrorismo ?
« Responder #5 em: Setembro 24, 2013, 11:42:35 pm »

Iran says it has finished decoding downed CIA drone

Published time: September 23, 2013 18:34
Edited time: September 24, 2013 00:59

Iranian officials say they have completed decoding the surveillance data and software extracted from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) drone that the United States lost possession of nearly two years ago near the city of Kashmar.

Hossein Salami, the lieutenant commander general of Iran’s Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution, told the country’s Fars news agency that analysts have finally cracked the systems used within the RQ-170 Sentinel drone obtained in December 2011.

Iranians claimed previously that they brought the drone down after it entered Iranian airspace without permission. Roughly one week later, CIA officials admitted the drone was conducting a reconnaissance mission over Afghanistan when it went missing.

When the US asked Iran to return the unmanned aerial vehicle, Salami told Fars news agency, "No nation welcomes other countries' spy drones in its territory, and no one sends back the spying equipment and its information back to the country of origin.”

Nearly two years later, Salami is now celebrating Iran’s latest accomplishment with regards to the UAV.

"All the memories and computer systems of this plane have been decoded and some good news will be announced in the near future not just about the RQ-170 and the optimizations that our forces have done on the reversed engineered model of this drone, but also in area of other important defense achievements," Fars quoted him.

When the Iranian military gained control over the drone, the unmanned aerial vehicle’s (UAV) erase sequence allegedly failed to delete sensitive data from it. Since then, Iranian experts have been decoding the captured data, occasionally reporting their progress.

Although the CIA has not admitted the extent of the drone’s capabilities, experts have said previously that reverse engineering the Sentinel could be a significant event for any nation-state looking to learn more about the technologies utilized by American spy planes.

"It carries a variety of systems that wouldn't be much of a benefit to Iran, but to its allies such as China and Russia, it's a potential gold mine," robotics author Peter Singer told the Los Angeles Times in 2011.

"It's bad — they'll have everything" an unnamed US official added to the Times then. "And the Chinese or the Russians will have it too."

Meanwhile, a report in the New York Times this weekend suggested that Chinese researchers have been busy on their own attempting to emulate American drones. Edward Wong wrote in the Times on Friday that Chinese hackers working for the state-linked Comment Crew cybergroup have targeted no fewer than 20 foreign defense contractors during the last two years in hopes of pilfering secrets that would be useful in programming their own UAVs.

“I believe this is the largest campaign we’ve seen that has been focused on drone technology,” Darien Kindlund, manager of threat intelligence at California-based FireEye, told Wong. “It seems to align pretty well with the focus of the Chinese government to build up their own drone technology capabilities.”

Vice’s Motherboard website reported this week that at least 123 cyberattacks waged at American drone companies have been spotted by security researchers since 2011, and quoted Kindlund as saying the attacks have been “largely successful.”

estes videos já tem alguns meses

"All the world's a stage" William Shakespeare




  • 76
  • Recebeu: 3 vez(es)
  • +0/-0
    • http://www.emfa.pt/
Re: O 'Drone' como arma de terrorismo ?
« Responder #6 em: Setembro 26, 2013, 08:39:46 am »
Vi uma video de uma operação feita pelos israelitas da IAI-Malata (cá em Portugal, no Centro de Altos Estudos Militares).

Basicamente era a gravação da câmara de um UAV pequeno, e a propulsão eléctrica (os palestinianos já detectavam os pequenos motores de combustão ao longe) a seguir um camião sabe-se lá aonde.
Ao largo de várias horas vêm o camião andar em vários sítios, uma vez a ser carregado com armas (diziam eles). O UAV ficava em loitering à espera que arrancassem.
Depois o alvo foi comunicado a um força ofensiva (imagino FA) e dizem que ia ser neutralizado.
Só se vê o dito camião parado junto a uma estrada. E depois um clarão. E depois já não havia camião.

A minha opinião (civil) sobre o uso de UAV é a seguinte:
- O UAV é barato de operar, muito bom para monitorização ao longe, não se cansa, e recolhendo imagens de qualidade sem ser visto.
- Para apoio a alguma açção ofensiva também há grandes vantagens.
Melhor que tudo é que se for abatido, nenhuma informação será obtida sobre o que andou a fazer e o que viu, nem donde veio. O mesmo acontece do lado do operador. Pouca gente envolvida, menos linguas para dar nos dentes. Very nice quando há collateral damage  chato, despedimentos, ou álcool a mais.

Peca, isto para quem quer substituir tudo o que operação anti-terrorista com uso de UAVs, pelas limitações de intelligence que pode obter.
Gente no terreno há de sempre saber mais coisas sobre o que vai acontecer, quem é quem, e possibilitar uma abordagem estratégica. Em suma, um complemento.
Além disso para espalhar contra-informação o UAV é virtualmente inútil.

Os filmes Hollywood agora "vendem" UAVs como o Top Gun "vendia"  caças e porta aviões.
No último da série Bourne via-se um UAV bem grande a voar a baixa altitude (rapadas!) e a mandar rockets!!



  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 1274
  • Recebeu: 20 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 74 vez(es)
  • +0/-0
Re: O 'Drone' como arma de terrorismo ?
« Responder #7 em: Setembro 29, 2013, 02:06:16 am »


http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/09/28 ... sir-drone/

Iran Army unveils latest indigenous drone, Yasir

The Iranian Army’s Ground Forces has unveiled a new indigenous combat drone, dubbed Yasir, in a ceremony attended by senior military officials.

Yasir drone was unveiled during a ceremony on Saturday in the presence of Commander of the Iranian Army's Ground Forces Brigadier General Ahmad-Reza Pourdastan.

The drone can fly at an altitude of 15000 feet, has a flight endurance of eight hours and effective operational radius of 200 kilometers.

Yasir, a portable drone, is equipped with state-of-art and light cameras for reconnaissance.

On May 9, Iran unveiled an indigenous reconnaissance and combat drone, dubbed Hamaseh (Epic).

Iran unveiled its first domestically manufactured long-range combat drone, the Karrar (Striker), on August 23, 2010. It reportedly has a range of 1,000 kilometers (620 miles) and can carry two 115-kilogram bombs or precision-guided munitions weighing 227 kilograms.

The first Iranian medium-altitude long-endurance UAV, the Shahed-129 (Witness-129), was unveiled in September 2012, which is capable of carrying out combat and reconnaissance missions for 24 hours.

In recent years, Iran has made great achievements in its defense sector and has attained self-sufficiency in producing essential military equipment and systems.

Tehran has repeatedly assured other nations that its military might poses no threat to other countries since the Islamic Republic’s defense doctrine is based entirely on deterrence.

"All the world's a stage" William Shakespeare




  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 1274
  • Recebeu: 20 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 74 vez(es)
  • +0/-0
Re: O 'Drone' como arma de terrorismo ?
« Responder #8 em: Setembro 29, 2013, 11:45:46 pm »

Multi-million dollar domestic drone program lacks sufficient privacy safeguards, report finds

Published time: September 27, 2013 16:51

The Federal Bureau of Investigation and other Department of Justice agencies have spent almost $5 million during the last few years on an underreported domestic drone program that a government auditor says lacks sufficient privacy safeguards.

A report http://www.scribd.com/doc/171461343/a1337 released on Thursday by the Justice Department's internal office of the inspector general revealed that the DoJ has invested roughly $4.9 million since 2004 on unmanned aerial systems (UAS) that allow for law enforcement agencies to conduct surveillance from the sky during certain missions.

Robert Mueller, then the head of the FBI, acknowledged only this past June that surveillance drones have been deployed within the United States.

“It’s very seldom used and generally used in a particular incident where you need the capability,” he said at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.

But with this week's report, the department's inspector general determined that the FBI is in need of an updated set of guidelines to govern the way unmanned systems are deployed with respect to the constitutionally-guaranteed protection from unreasonable searches.

The report revealed that while the FBI has deployed drones during the last several years, the agency failed to develop new guidelines and has instead relied on the same standards in place for traditional, manned aircraft.

The auditor found that although several Justice Department entities have either used drones or plan to do so soon, they've refused to adopt updated privacy standards.

Although the FBI is the only federal agency found to have used drones domestically, the auditor said that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) plans to deploy unmanned aircraft, and that the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the United States Marshals Service (USMS) have acquired unmanned aerial vehicles.

“While both the FBI and ATF have developed procedures guiding how to receive approval to operate UAS, officials with both components told us they did not believe that there was a need to develop specialized UAS privacy protocols,” the auditor wrote. “During our review, FBI and ATF officials stated that they did not believe there was any practical difference between how UAS collect evidence through aerial surveillance as compared to manned aircraft. Consequently, we found that the FBI has been applying its existing aerial surveillance policies to guide how agents should use UAS.”

Citing the vast technological advances that drones have over manned aircraft, the auditor said new privacy policies should be issued to protect the privacy of Americans.

“Unlike manned aircraft, UAS can be used in close proximity to a home and, with longer-lasting power systems, may be capable of flying for several hours or even days at a time, raising unique concerns about privacy and the collection of evidence with UAS,” the report reads.

“Considering that multiple DOJ components are using or have the potential to use UAS, we believe the Office of the Deputy Attorney General (ODAG), which has responsibility within DOJ for formulating cross-component law enforcement policies, should consider the need for a DOJ-wide policy regarding UAS uses that could have significant privacy or other legal implications.”

Jay Stanley, a senior policy analyst with the American Civil Liberties Union’s Speech, Privacy & Technology Project, issued a statement in response applauding the inspector general's findings while attacking the Justice Department for its failure to adopt new standards specific to unmanned vehicles.

“No agency, including the FBI, should deploy domestic surveillance drones without first having strong privacy guidelines in place. We’re encouraged by the inspector general’s recognition that drones have created a need for privacy policies covering aerial surveillance. We urge the Justice Department to make good on its plans to develop privacy rules that protect Americans from another mass surveillance technology. Congress, however, should pass legislation introduced by Reps. Ted Poe and Zoe Lofgren that requires law enforcement to get judicial approval before deploying drones, and explicitly forbids the arming of these machines,” Stanley said.

According to the auditor's findings, the FBI used roughly 80 percent of the $3.7 million the Justice Department has invested in drones since 2006. Additionally, the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) and the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) have handed out around $1.2 million in grants to seven law enforcement agencies and non-profit organizations across the US that used the money to purchase small drones. The unmanned vehicles used by all agencies are described as “small,” by the DoJ's definition, meaning they weigh less than 55 lbs.
"All the world's a stage" William Shakespeare




  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 1274
  • Recebeu: 20 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 74 vez(es)
  • +0/-0
Re: O 'Drone' como arma de terrorismo ?
« Responder #9 em: Agosto 26, 2014, 09:52:17 pm »
Iran displays Israeli drone downed near nuclear facility (VIDEO)

"All the world's a stage" William Shakespeare



Terrorismo islâmico internacional é financiado pelo Ocidente

Iniciado por BlackFerdyPT

Respostas: 0
Visualizações: 416
Última mensagem Junho 20, 2019, 07:30:30 pm
por BlackFerdyPT
Como limpar o computador com a ajuda das secretas americanas

Iniciado por Fernando Negro

Respostas: 4
Visualizações: 3953
Última mensagem Novembro 08, 2012, 09:01:22 am
por Fernando Negro
Não existe tal coisa como privacidade electrónica

Iniciado por Fernando Negro

Respostas: 21
Visualizações: 10158
Última mensagem Fevereiro 17, 2018, 06:21:34 pm
por Camuflage