Nathan: An important part of US military doctrine (and that of most other nations) is called “intelligence preparation of the battlefield” (IPB) – those actions necessary to understand the battlefield and the options available to friendly and threat forces.  It is now obvious that at some time in the near future, the United States – or large portions of it – will be a battlefield.  Almost certainly, the contestants upon that battlefield will include ordinary Americans seeking to restore the lost liberties of the past decades.  The exact composition of the enemies of those Americans is still very much subject to change, but is likely to include elements of many federal (and state) agencies which will (sadly) consider loyalty to an elite leadership and that leadership’s goals of subjugation of the people to a transnational progressive (socialist) agenda.  Those elements have some powerful tools, and in recent weeks we’ve seen the fraying of the velvet gloves covering the iron fist.  IPB is the process of understanding and analyzing the threat, the threat’s likely courses of action, and the environment in which friendly forces must operate – and the impact of the environment on the friendly forces. If you don’t do this, you are unable to make wise decisions necessary to fight the threat.

Having said that, we have two useful pieces of information.

Laissez Faire Club: (The Feds have now officially acknowledged they believe they have the authority to kill an American with a drone on American soil… but that they have no plan to do so right now. The pronouncement was made public yesterday in the form of a response from Attorney General Eric Holder to a letter from Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.). “It is possible,” said Holder, “to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the president to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States.” But no worries, he adds: The question is “entirely hypothetical,” because “the U.S. government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so.” Holder’s reply is “more than frightening,” says a statement from Sen. Paul, “it is an affront on the constitutional due process rights of all Americans.”

Nathan: We all know how well we can trust promises like this.  (See recent comments regarding the GOP promise to allow people to review bills for 72 hours before acting on them. For that matter, review the promises of every successful presidential candidate for the last 20+ years.)  Indeed, Holder’s statement is a very clear indication that the list of “extraordinary circumstances” has already been defined and that they have come up with the weasel words necessary to “comply” with the Constitution and “applicable laws” so that some poor group of Americans can be tracked down and killed – not just by drones but by any sort of lethal force (such as the new light armored troops of the DHS (2700 MRAP = at least 100 companies or troops, which can be organized into 10-12 BRIGADES).  Thus, we have a good idea of both the threat’s capabilities AND the intent of the threat.  The next part of our IPB is found in the following.

Laissez Faire Club: “The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has customized its Predator drones,” reports CNET’s Declan McCullagh, “to carry out at-home surveillance tasks that have civil libertarians worried: identifying civilians carrying guns and tracking their cellphones.” McCullagh got his hands on a DHS document spelling out its specs for the drones’ capabilities — insisting the craft “shall be capable of identifying a standing human being at night as likely armed or not.” “They also specify,” McCullagh reports, “‘signals interception’ technology that can capture communications in the frequency ranges used by mobile phones, and ‘direction-finding’ technology that can identify the locations of mobile devices or two-way radios.”

Nathan: The threat wants (or already HAS) the capability to detect armed “civilians” and track cellphones AND OTHER DEVICES (laptops, GPS receivers, night vision devices and perhaps others?)  There are several fascinating questions and thoughts about this.  How do they detect “civilians” versus military or police?  Is there some sort of IFF (Identify Friend or Foe) device they intend to give those on the threat side?  Is something built into the uniforms (is this the reason for yet another $50 million uniform purchase by TSA)?  Or will it be based on how people on the ground are configured: only those in cop cars and the MRAPs and all the other armored vehicles that have shown up on America’s streets these days?  And how accurate will the identification, not just of the civilians, but of the “guns.”  Will the Predator drones be able to distinguish between a handgun and a cordless power drill?  Between a long arm and a large pipewrench?  Between an IED and a five-gallon can of kerosene or gasoline?  The bottom line is – once the FedGov (or some agencies there of) decide to start killing people without some kind of due process – will they kill a whole lot of people “by accident” as they do every day in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere?  And as important, if someone happens to get on a kill-list, what can they (and their friends and family) do to keep from getting capped by some idiot piloting a drone who got a barely passing 60% in “aerial observation interpretation” or some poorly programmed AI?

For those interested in IPB, as might apply to a conflict within the fifty States (click here – pdf file)

This article is provided in the interests of self-defense of private individuals, families, and communities.  Knowing and understanding threats and capabilities of threat forces is an essential part of self-defense which can and should be practiced by those who are in no way seeking or promoting aggressive actions against any enemy.