The aviation community pretty much acknowledges that unregulated, civilian-operated unmanned aerial systems (UAS) represent a serious threat to aviation safety.

It stands to reason, then, that enterprising businesspeople would try to capitalize on the counter-UAS market.

As this morning’s Idaho Statesman reports in an article headlined Revenge against drones:  Boise company thwarts drones, ne’er-do-wells, Boise company Black Sage Technologies has built a civilian system to locate and track unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) in flight. 

That’s nice.  But then what?  Detection and tracking of an incoming UAV is not a countermeasure; it is a warning measure.

The Statesman article says nothing about the company’s product being able to do more than possibly blind a camera if that is the UAV’s payload and to possibly follow the UAV when it goes back to its pilot.

But what if the UAV is on a one-way flight with a payload of something much more dangerous than an enterprising paparazzi’s camera?  Something explosive or toxic?

UASs are not new.  UAV is the snooty term for the advanced versions of model aircraft hobbyists have been using radio control to fly for years.

Anyone who thinks that civilians couldn’t conceive of putting a dangerous payload on a UAV might want to research the Red Army Faction (Andreas Baader,  Gudrun Ensslin, and Ulrike Meinhof — The Baader-Meinhof Gang) in Germany in the 1970s.

And of course today, Jeffy at Amazon-dot-Clueless wants to start delivering five-pound payloads via drones with Amazon Prime Air.

So we repeat:  Detection and tracking of an incoming UAV is not a countermeasure; it is a warning measure.

Effective countermeasures to UASs are necessarily going to be intelligence driven.  If you don’t know the command, control, and communication mechanisms of that thing coming at your facility, your ability to effectively counter it is seriously degraded.

There are companies working to develop effective countermeasures.  One is Blighter Surveillance Systems in the UK.

Readers interested in UASs might want to read some of the online articles in Signal, the magazine of the Armed Forces Communications and Electronics Association.  Similar articles such as this one appear in Aviation Week & Space Technology.

The process for nominating and selecting a new Justice of the US Supreme Court is explained in the 63-page February 19, 2010, Congressional Research Service Report entitled Supreme Court Appointment Process:  Roles of the President, Judiciary Committee, and Senate.

The President’s nomination role is explained in the Octobeer 19, 2015, CRS Report entitled Supreme Court Appointment Process:  President’s Selection of a Nominee.

The specific role and processes of the Senate Judiciary Committee are described in the October 19, 2015, CRS Report entitled Supreme Court Appointment Process:  Consideration by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The US Senate’s Advice and Consent role and processes are described in the October 19, 2015, CRS Report entitled Supreme Court Appointment Process:  Senate Debate and Confirmation Vote.

This morning’s Coeur d’Alene Press skews paper ran an article headlined Press series sparks special council meeting.

In its article, the Press congratulated itself for prompting the Pinehurst, Idaho, city council to “…go into executive session Tuesday night to discuss the town’s police department and public safety.”

But the article also quoted Pinehurst Mayor Bob Jutila saying, “We’ll definitely have input from everybody and have some discussion about it.”  That sounds like a public meeting.

OpenCdA wishes that Press writer Keith Cousins’ article had included a specific citation of the statutory authority cited in the agenda for the executive session.  A discussion of “the town’s police department and public safety” would not seem to clearly meet the authorization requirements prescribed in § 74-206 of the Idaho Open Meeting Act.

A press release issued on Friday, February 5, by the US Attorney for the District of Idaho announced the federal indictment of eight individuals and the arrest of seven of them for conspiracy to distribute controlled substances, distribution of controlled substances, and conspiracy to engage in money laundering.

Among those arrested was Coeur d’Alene resident Dr. Stanley Toelle, a gastroenterologist.  He was arrested in Coeur d’Alene.

The criminal enterprise was allegedly headed by Dr. Toelle’s wife, Loren ‘Mama’ Toelle (Hill).  She was arrested in Las Vegas.  The enterprise operated in Washington, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, and North Dakota including the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation.

Dr. Stanley Toelle was indicted for money laundering.   In very simple terms, money laundering is the practice of changing the cash directly associated with and traceable to illegal transactions into some negotiable instrument or something else of value that cannot be connected back to the original crimes.

Cash transactions, particularly if unusually large or numerous, can attract unwanted attention from law enforcement.   Money laundering charges frequently accompany charges of drug trafficking and public official corruption.     And as HSBC learned, involvement in the money laundering process can be very expensive.

To those in Kootenai County who say it couldn’t happen here …  Welcome to the real world.  It’s been happening here for years.

OpenCdA will continue to follow this case through the federal court system.