64 Drone Bases Located On American Soil

American Weapons Found in United States by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 00:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

News at 11.

Re:American Weapons Found in United States by FriendlyLurker · 2012-06-14 00:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

Drones, Keeping America Safe.... NOT!
Re:American Weapons Found in United States by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 00:59 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Pool's closed.
Re:American Weapons Found in United States by MachineShedFred · 2012-06-14 02:24 · Score: 2

Next we'll hear that there are nuclear weapons in North Dakota, like that's some kind of privileged informat...
+++ NO CARRIER

--
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Re:American Weapons Found in United States by busyqth · 2012-06-14 03:10 · Score: 1

Next we'll hear that there are nuclear weapons in North Dakota, like that's some kind of privileged informat...
+++ NO CARRIER
Good thing Slashdot is full of old fogies, otherwise no one would understand your joke.
Re:American Weapons Found in United States by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 04:55 · Score: 1

GET OFF MY LAWN
Re:American Weapons Found in United States by lightknight · 2012-06-14 04:56 · Score: 1

Looks like someone has had a little too much to think!

--
I am John Hurt.
Re:American Weapons Found in United States by kurt_harlan · 2012-06-14 09:03 · Score: 1

Be careful, some of us old fogies might be offended!
Re:American Weapons Found in United States by Swave+An+deBwoner · 2012-06-14 11:36 · Score: 1

Well for those young'uns who weren't there when just about everyone knew what it meant, there was this modem thing where when you typed this special 3-character escape sequence, +++

NO CARRIER

Woah! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 00:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

Wait, you mean the American military has bases on American soil?! Well stop the fucking presses!

Re:Woah! by MightyYar · 2012-06-14 00:24 · Score: 5, Funny

The drones are staying in people's houses?

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re:Woah! by DrgnDancer · 2012-06-14 00:24 · Score: 4, Informative

The Third Amendment prohibits quartering soldiers in private homes during peacetime. WTF are you on about? This is military equipment being stored on military bases, and being used for training and readiness operations like every other piece of military hardware on every other military base spread all throughout the United States. There are *thousands* of bases in the US for all five branches of the military (if you count the Coast Guard and separate out the Marines) in the US. I've personally served on half a dozen of them. These bases have existed from the founding of the country. Where else are you going to quarter soldiers other than bases, since we've obviously (and correctly) prevented them from being quartered in private homes?

--
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
Re:Woah! by __aaeihw9960 · 2012-06-14 00:36 · Score: 3, Funny

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
So, one has to assume that a drone is being quartered in your home without your consent, AC? Want a tip on how to defeat it? Watch the Terminator movies. They are probably the most informative, and action-filled set of documentary movies (I assume documentary, time-travel and all) that you will ever see.
Re:Woah! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 00:47 · Score: 1

The drones are staying in people's houses?
No but they can peep in people's houses.
Re:Woah! by Robert+Zenz · 2012-06-14 00:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

Yeah! Totally right! We need to end that freaking military occupation of land which rightfully belongs to the Native Americans!
Re:Woah! by sycodon · 2012-06-14 00:58 · Score: 2

I'm no Obama fan, but it's just the Twilight Zone here at Slashdot today.

--
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Re:Woah! by j4w7 · 2012-06-14 01:05 · Score: 1

I know. Next we'll completely misinterpret governmental use of them because we all enjoy pig and cow "sewage" in our drinking water.
I wonder if using the drones is actually cheaper, or if it might be an exercise for (future) combat drone pilots.
Re:Woah! by j4w7 · 2012-06-14 01:06 · Score: 1

Drones? No. But sleepy kids can be confused with drones.
Re:Woah! by MightyYar · 2012-06-14 01:08 · Score: 2, Informative

Well, that's the wrong amendment. Calling someone a dumbass and then citing the wrong amendment is entertaining, though.

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re:Woah! by azalin · 2012-06-14 01:20 · Score: 1

Wow. I am truly impressed by your lack of knowledge, ignorance, your false claims (did you actually read that amendment?) and ranting. Do you have even a close idea what any of the words you used (liberal, military dictatorship, fascism, true citizen, socialist, "elect") actually mean? I was tempted to include one or more derogatory comments on your person, but I shall refrain from doing so at this time.
Re:Woah! by fredrated · 2012-06-14 01:29 · Score: 2

You wouldn't know a socialist if they kicked you in the ass with a steel-toed boot, fool.
Re:Woah! by countach74 · 2012-06-14 01:33 · Score: 2

Except that the US didn't have a standing army at the "founding of the country."
Re:Woah! by AHuxley · 2012-06-14 01:43 · Score: 1

They might drop a little box on your property :)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2012/01/27/darpa-funded-hackers-tiny-50-spy-computer-hides-in-offices-drops-from-drones/
Saves the sneaking of trying to get into your carbon monoxide detector, wall socket or office kitchen.

--
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Re:Woah! by Sulphur · 2012-06-14 01:44 · Score: 1

The drones are staying in people's houses?
I am a drone you insensitive clod.
Re:Woah! by NatasRevol · 2012-06-14 01:47 · Score: 1

What the hell was this then?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_Army

--
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Re:Woah! by AioKits · 2012-06-14 01:52 · Score: 1

Only briefly, then the recovery crew comes by to recover the wreckage!

--
"Quote me as saying I was mis-quoted." -Groucho Marx
Re:Woah! by DrgnDancer · 2012-06-14 02:02 · Score: 1

As sibling states, there has been a standing Army of whatever counts as the "government" of the "United States" since 1775. I use the quotes because of course the Continental Congress was only nominally a government until after the end of the Revolution, and they didn't call themselves the United States until later, but where ever you count the "founding" of the country (unless you consider the "founding" to be the battles of Lexington and Concorde) there has pretty much always been a standing Army. The Army even predates the signing of the Declaration of Independence, let alone the Articles of Confederation or the Constitution. It hasn't always been a great Army, and at times it's been essentially a core of officers and NCOs intended only to form the backbone of a larger force in the event of need, but it's always been there.

--
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
Re:Woah! by tnk1 · 2012-06-14 02:10 · Score: 5, Informative

Strictly speaking, the Continental Army was ordered to disband in 1783 by Congress and never was actually a US force under the Constitution.
That said, the example you are probably looking for is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_American_Regiment
The First American Regiment, later called the the 1st Infantry Regiment, now called the 3rd Infantry Regiment (The Old Guard), was founded in 1784 and obviously lasted through the Confederation and then the United States under the Constitution.
Still it must be pointed out that even though we always had at least some standing Federal force, it is historical that there was great distrust of standing armies at the time of the founding of the US, and that same distrust has had an effect on all sorts of decisions, from heavy use of the National Guard, to the fact that we refused to use naval ranks like Admiral or army ranks above Major General. (Even today, Major General is the highest permanent rank in the US Army, three and four star ranks are only granted while in positions requiring them. Unless you retire in such a position, you revert to your two star rank for retirement purposes.)
Re:Woah! by SixGunMojo · 2012-06-14 02:12 · Score: 2

ppffffffft! Everyone knows it is fascists who wear steel toed boots.
Re:Woah! by tnk1 · 2012-06-14 02:14 · Score: 1

I think what is happening is that people are conflating their fear of being observed by drones with the fact that they have a larger than expected presence on US soil and believe that this large presence actually means that it will be used for observing citizens. This is a logical leap with hilarity inducing results when they fail to express themselves clearly and make the needed connections evident.
Re:Woah! by Dunbal · 2012-06-14 02:19 · Score: 1

Without the consent of the owner. Expect a law soon that says all property owners must give consent... problem solved.

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Re:Woah! by MachineShedFred · 2012-06-14 02:21 · Score: 1

Yeah, I hate it when they land those drones on my couch, and don't let me move them. Makes my dog angry too since she can't nap there anymore, and she doesn't even have inalienable human rights. Where's the canine rights?!
No wait, the 3rd amendment doesn't apply, and you're a fucking idiot who enforces the conservative stereotype.
Oh, and "this is the kind of fascism you get when you elect a socialist" is an awesome statement, since fascism and socialism are polar opposites...

--
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Re:Woah! by countach74 · 2012-06-14 02:23 · Score: 2

It was *not* a standing army. It was essential in reserve. The Constitution explicitly limits the power of the government to maintain a standing army--and it appears that they tried to follow that all the way up until the late 19th century/early 20th century. Now we are at a constant "state of war." I guess that's one way around the limits imposed by the Constitution.
Notice how I never said the US didn't have an army at the founding of the country.
Re:Woah! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 02:25 · Score: 0

Excepting Pershing, of course.
Re:Woah! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 02:27 · Score: 0

Except that the US didn't have a standing army at the "founding of the country."
Actually there was an Army, it was the continental army. G. W. was Commander General.
Regardless, The Third Amendment was to prevent any further situations like the British Red coats living in our homes, eating our food, some times the raping of our wives and daughters. This was a guarantee to the 13 colonies that new forming country would never house it's soldiers in our homes, Otherwise the country may not have formed.
In general all the amendments in the bill of rights are good ideas. It's a shame that our current government officials have (4th) and are trying to abolish more of our rights. It's also a shame that the federal government has forgotten that the state governments are supposed to have more power than the federal, and that the U.S. constitutions role is to limit government. Where as the federal laws can not be overturned by the states, however the U.S. constitution and amendments were supposed to be the law of the land. Federal laws were supposed to be agreed upon by the states representatives, and changes to federal law were supposed to be future amendments. The problem is that State level issues have become Federal issues, and a snowball effect getting us to a government nothing like what it originally was intended to be.
Congress and senate used to meet only a few times a year. Their job was to run the country and keep the president in line. House and senate representatives had real lives with real jobs. Imagine your congressmen was also a shop owner/lawyer/school teacher/police officer and 90% of their time was working back at home. A lot less crap laws and debit would be going on.
Also imagine that the Presidents sole job was to worry about the Army, and making sure that no laws are passed that really don't need to be (keeping the congress and senate in line). That how it was.
The Judicial branch was there to make sure that the States were not violating the Federal laws (ie the constitution and it's ammendments) and keep the states in check.
Also the Vice President used to be the person who got the second most votes for president. Imagine if John McCain was vice president right now.
Re:Woah! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 02:43 · Score: 1, Insightful

Wake up.
Slashdot is NOT the Twilight Zone. It is merely the reflection of that Twilight Zone which is now the USA. The USA today is a full-fledged national security surveillance police state on the very cusp of martial law & military dictatorship. The Republic is dead, no confirmation needed or wanted from NetCraft. The Constitution has been shredded. The Bill of Rights has been destroyed. Congress has relinquished all their powers to the Unitary Executive. The dictatorship of which George W. Bush (The Lessor) spoke so admiringly is in place.
An African, born in Kenya, with British colonial citizenship, is now 'our' President. He is (nominally) a Muslim, although he has a long association with Communist 5th columnists. Even more confusing (to small minds), Obama is a bought-and-paid-for tool of the international banksters. How else to explain how a purportedly Constitutional Law Scholar be the head of 'our' government during the final destruction of the Constitution & Bill of Rights?
Re:Woah! by Chris+Burke · 2012-06-14 02:54 · Score: 1

Makes my dog angry too since she can't nap there anymore, and she doesn't even have inalienable human rights. Where's the canine rights?!
On the other hand, the drones are usually pretty warm so the cat loves them. The drones act like they don't like it and complain that the cat is making them late for their patrol, but when I suggest they could make the cat move they always say "But she's sleeping! D'aawww."
Maybe I shouldn't be saying this on a public forum, but the drones' weakness for Teh Kittehs seems like a major weakness to me. I don't know why they programmed them that way.

--

The enemies of Democracy are
Re:Woah! by chrb · 2012-06-14 02:58 · Score: 3, Informative

That said, the example you are probably looking for is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_American_Regiment

U.S. Congress 1784: "standing armies in time of peace are inconsistent with the principles of republican government, dangerous to the liberties of a free people, and generally converted into destructive engines for establishing despotism."
U.S. Congress 2012: authorizes indefinite military detention, authorizes war with Iran (a nation that poses no threat to the U.S. and hasn't attacked another in over 200 years), and legalizes domestic use of military propaganda.
How times change.
Re:Woah! by flyingsquid · 2012-06-14 03:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

Still it must be pointed out that even though we always had at least some standing Federal force, it is historical that there was great distrust of standing armies at the time of the founding of the US
Arguing about the intent of the Founding Fathers is a bullshit argument. Maybe it was the intent of the Founding Fathers not to have a large standing army. So what? It was also the intent of the Founding Fathers that women not be allowed to vote, that black people could be bought and sold as property and counted as 3/5 of a human being, and Indians should be evicted from their lands.
There are certain core principles that are timeless- life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, government with the consent of the governed, freedom of speech and religion. But precisely how we promote those things has to change with the times and the technology. We can't all run around in tricorns with muskets, trading negroes and telling our wives to stay home, just because that's how the Founding Fathers would have done it.
Re:Woah! by drinkypoo · 2012-06-14 03:07 · Score: 1

It's not just today. It's apparently intentional, though. Either someone is trying to finish the job of ruining slashdot or someone is trying to take over the position of running slashdot.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Woah! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 03:12 · Score: 0

Well, not for long. The Obama administration is being dismantled and a new executive team of Romney/Mitch Daniels is being prepped and put into place. This has been decided and will be seen this November. Likely Mitch Daniels but possibly someone else. They like him. The only other person I can think might be Rand Paul as VP. He has served his masters well and may turn out to be just who they need in the new fascist regime.
Re:Woah! by Hatta · 2012-06-14 03:12 · Score: 1

the fact that we refused to use naval ranks like Admiral or army ranks above Major General. (Even today, Major General is the highest permanent rank in the US Army
What does that matter? This is like the Spinal Tap joke about having an amp that goes up to 11 in reverse. You didn't change the actual power, you changed the name.
BTW, when was it that the distrust of standing armies turned into wholesale military fetishism? That's fairly recent I think.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:Woah! by ganjadude · 2012-06-14 03:12 · Score: 1

im no fan of obama, but that tin foil hat of yours needs changing, i think its on too tight

--
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Re:Woah! by busyqth · 2012-06-14 03:13 · Score: 1

We can't all run around in tricorns with muskets, trading negroes and telling our wives to stay home, just because that's how the Founding Fathers would have done it.
Why not? Sounds good to me!
(well, except for the tricorn part, I look better in a bicorn)
Re:Woah! by busyqth · 2012-06-14 03:15 · Score: 1

Slashdot is NOT the Twilight Zone. It is merely the reflection of that Twilight Zone which is now the USA. The USA today is a full-fledged national security surveillance police state on the very cusp of martial law & military dictatorship. The Republic is dead, no confirmation needed or wanted from NetCraft. The Constitution has been shredded. The Bill of Rights has been destroyed. Congress has relinquished all their powers to the Unitary Executive.
You're saying that as if it's a bad thing.
Re:Woah! by tlhIngan · 2012-06-14 04:05 · Score: 1

Wait, you mean the American military has bases on American soil?! Well stop the fucking presses!
I think the conspiracy theorists are going "they're spying on us!!!" when in reality, a lot of those bases are used just ot launch and recover UAVs.
What people don't realize is these UAVs have extremely long range (especially with in-flight refuelling) so unless they are needed at a moment's notice, stationing them inside the US is a good idea - all your parts are nearby, no supply chain issues, etc.
It's just like the B2 and F-117 stealth planes - they all were stationed inside the US, and went on long 24+ hour missions involving flight to the target location, doing the work, then flying back to the US.
If the plane has the endurance and it isn't completely necessary to be able to launch within minutes, stationing them stateside isn't a big deal. And even if you do need a moment's notice, as UAVs are remotely piloted, well, they just need to station it there with backup being a few hours away.
Re:Woah! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 04:25 · Score: 0

Yeah! Totally right! We need to end that freaking military occupation of land which rightfully belongs to the Native Americans!
Nope. We should return the land to the descendants of the solutreans.
Re:Woah! by DrgnDancer · 2012-06-14 04:25 · Score: 2

It was not a "large" standing army, but it was a small full time force, intended to be the backbone of a larger Army as needed; and it was "standing". The idea was to avoid a large standing force to prevent it from being used tyrannically, but keep a small standing force so someone knew WTF they were doing if we needed to fight. Otherwise you get a bunch of amateurs with guns trying to beat off the British. It worked once, but not very well and mostly only after we'd had years to actually train the Continental Army into something worth the name.
The Size of the standing Army grew for a number of reasons, most of which seemed good at the time, and some of which are still pretty good. Part of it was certainly US imperial ambitions, but lots of other things had even greater impact. The embarrassingly long times it took for us to train effective forces after joining either World War was one. The fact that being a soldier is a much more technical task than it was in the colonial period is another. It's simply no longer possible to have a small back bone of officers and NCOs that are well trained and expect them to turn recruits into soldiers in anything like a reasonable period. Even in the well established bosom of a professional organization it takes most of a year to get a recruit fully trained for many jobs. Two years before they're competent. More technical jobs can require two years just for training. Even simple "infantry" jobs require a solider to be familiar with tactics, operation of numerous vehicles and weapon systems, and ideally air drop procedures from both high and low altitudes (planes and helicopters).
Even National Guard troops that relieve full training and periodic practice take a couple months of retraining to get fully up to standard before deployment. We're a bit beyond the days of "Hay foot, straw foot" being enough to get going.

--
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
Re:Woah! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 04:34 · Score: 0

Arguing about the intent of the Founding Fathers is a bullshit argument. Maybe it was the intent of the Founding Fathers not to have a large standing army. So what? It was also the intent of the Founding Fathers that women not be allowed to vote, that black people could be bought and sold as property and counted as 3/5 of a human being, and Indians should be evicted from their lands.
Yeah--I totally forgot we had to amend the constitution to say that "all *men* are created equal" instead of "all *white men* are created equal".

Slavery has ALWAYS been inconsistent with our founding documents. But getting businesses to follow the laws was a problem. Hell--even 'the great emancipator' Lincoln had slaves. Was it right? no. Was it constitutional no. But it happened anyways. And it was enough of an issue that we had to add an explicit amendment to the constitution to clarify it. (So even dumb southern democrats running tobacco and cotton plantations could understand it)
Re:Woah! by davester666 · 2012-06-14 04:46 · Score: 1

It's only insensitive if you aren't homeless.

--
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Re:Woah! by NatasRevol · 2012-06-14 04:55 · Score: 1

When? 9/11/2001
For better or worse. Mostly worse.

--
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Re:Woah! by NatasRevol · 2012-06-14 04:57 · Score: 1

Pretty sure that was 'students'. Not the country.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis

--
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Re:Woah! by lightknight · 2012-06-14 04:58 · Score: 2

So, what you're saying is that we need another George Washington and his band of merry men.

--
I am John Hurt.
Re:Woah! by s.petry · 2012-06-14 05:06 · Score: 1

Sorry, have to go back further than that. By some accounts, WW I and by most others WW II. Still, relatively recent.

--
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Re:Woah! by NatasRevol · 2012-06-14 05:09 · Score: 1

Disagree. It wasn't wholesale until 9/11 was used as a war cry.

--
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Re:Woah! by blackest_k · 2012-06-14 05:28 · Score: 1

The Daily show had something about this the other night. Seems the EPA uses drones to monitor what the cattle ranchers do and try to stop cattle crapping into the water supply. I would imagine there would be a lot of drones used on that job.

--
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
Re:Woah! by yurtinus · 2012-06-14 05:32 · Score: 2

The "wholesale fetishism" bit makes this all a matter of personal opinion, but the large standing army and enduring military-industrial complex followed WWII as a result of the Cold War. Each prior war saw a buildup during the war and a rapid dropoff in military spending immediately following. WWII broke this trend and we have yet to return to comparable military spending as in the interwar period.

--
+1 Disagree
Re:Woah! by s.petry · 2012-06-14 05:39 · Score: 1

I have spent a lot of time on your statement lately. It is a bad thing, and it's easy to show that it's not "good".
1. The powers that are dismantling the US constitution are doing so while hiding. If there was a "good" plot, we would all be aware of this plot and be allowed to participate. You may say "it has to be hidden" but we all know that is a crock of shit. The founding of the US, while planned by very few was very vocal with the people that became subject. This has been the case with every "Good" government, and never the case with evil regimes.
2. The people pulling the strings are elitists, and most likely worse than that. You do realize that the same people pulling the strings have run eugenics science labs since shortly after WW I, many of the scientists worked directly in Nazi extermination camps. You could argue that this is all in the past, lessons learned, and all that. Again, you have people in hiding pulling strings. There has never been apology for those acts, and quite frankly DNA research has been used recently to argue genetics are required in order to hold offices. Or did you miss the article this week regarding Hungary, DNA and Jewish/Roma blood? No, I'm not going to Google that for you.
JFK had it correct when he stated that in a Republic, a government ruled by the people for the people, secret groups are repugnant. There is no "Good" there, and quite frankly the nature of the group makes it obvious that they are not working for the betterment of society but rather the benefit of their group.
These same people manipulate the reality of most of us every day, distorting truth and flat out lying. They obstruct justice and believe themselves to be above justice. Rules only apply to you and I, not to their group.
There is so much more to back the point that it's an evil thing, but if I got in to more you would just say "Oh noez, conspiracy theory". Most people have been brainwashed in to thinking that the word conspiracy equates to insanity, and will never bother to look in to any facts for themselves. What the media told them has to be true, and our politicians would never lie.

--
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Re:Woah! by Jawnn · 2012-06-14 06:06 · Score: 1

I'm no Obama fan, but it's just the Twilight Zone here at Slashdot today.
You just noticed that today?
Re:Woah! by Darinbob · 2012-06-14 06:10 · Score: 1

Note that because drones are small and light weight that you can have a "drone base" just about anywhere. You don't need an air field. Just because a drone base in the US does not mean they're being used against US citizens, the same way that having a submarine base in the US does not mean that US ships are being sunk by the navy.
Generally it makes more sense to have military bases in the country of origin. It is expensive and politically sensitive to have foreign military bases.
Re:Woah! by Darinbob · 2012-06-14 06:14 · Score: 1

We should return the land to the engrams!
Re:Woah! by Darinbob · 2012-06-14 06:15 · Score: 1

People will be so busy keeping an eye out for drones that they'll fail to notice the black helicopters hovering over their houses!
Re:Woah! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 06:24 · Score: 1

Actually we didn't really keep much in the way of a standing army until after WWII. Prior to that we would largely disband the whole thing after each conflict. Standing armies in the US are a new phenomenon.
Re:Woah! by busyqth · 2012-06-14 06:33 · Score: 1

Rules only apply to you and I, not to their group.
Speak for yourself. I am an elitist.
Re:Woah! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 07:06 · Score: 0

If you wanted the congress not to change opinion, you shouldn't have had a republic.
Re:Woah! by flyingsquid · 2012-06-14 07:32 · Score: 1

The other issue is, making the whole "we have to follow the Founding Fathers" argument is actually a betrayal of what those men stood for. Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Hamilton and the others were revolutionaries. They didn't blindly follow what had gone before. They didn't say, "what would the writers of the Magna Carta have wanted"? They created something entirely new, based on the principles they believed in, not on the policies of the past. They looked at governments and philosophies that had been around for centuries before them, and they saw elements they liked, but nothing that captured the kind of country they wanted to create, so they wrote a Declaration of Independence, and a Constitution that would help them create it. And they didn't get it right the first time, so they had to go back and add a Declaration of Independence.
That's what America is about- reinvention and revolution. The only way to keep true to the spirit of the Founding Fathers is to be willing to depart from what's come before. And I don't think that we necessarily betray the spirit of the Founding Fathers by having a strong presidency and a highly capable military. Where we betray them is when we abuse that power. With Bush's invasion of Iraq, we saw America acting like an imperial power, which is what we fought to be free of. And when Obama has a 'kill list' and people are consigned to death by drone strike without any sort of legal process or check on this power, he starts to sound less like the president of a republic and more like the king of an empire, which again is what we fought to be free of. That's where we're going astray- the issue isn't having a standing army, the issue is the principles that guide us in using that army.
Re:Woah! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 08:13 · Score: 0

Remember the Alamo?
Re:Woah! by baKanale · 2012-06-14 09:01 · Score: 1

...he has a long association with Communist 5th columnists. Even more confusing (to small minds), Obama is a bought-and-paid-for tool of the international banksters.
Could you please explain to my "small mind" why such a devoted communist would be working for presumably hard-core capitalist bankers? It makes zero sense to me that a person in favor of public ownership of production and a sharing of wealth would be in a "bought-and-paid-for" relationship with a group of men favoring private ownership and a consolidation of wealth under their ownership? But I guess I'm just too "stupid" to see the "truth".
Re:Woah! by tnk1 · 2012-06-14 09:50 · Score: 1

Yes. And even during WWII, there was the Regular Army, made up of the professionals who would have formed the peacetime standing force, and what was called the Army of the United States, which was made up of conscripted forces and other non-Regular Army components. Interestingly enough, officers in the Regular Army would hold two ranks in WWII, their Regular Army rank and the AUS rank, which was usually higher. The whole division of the forces, instead of simply adding them to the Regular Army, was based in equal parts on both organizational convenience and the idea that the huge army needed for the war was supposed to be temporary.
I'm not trying to make any sort of point here, but there has always been a bias against a large standing military force in the US. Whether the change is one for the better, I will leave to the experts and pundits. I will say, though, that the lack of conscription has created a much more elite military force for the US, but it also means that it is an elite force that does not need as much approval from Congress and the people to be deployed. It's much easier to get a vague resolution authorizing use of existing forces than it is to activate the draft again, and then have to budget and organize for the resultant hassles. In that way, conscription did tend to cause the balance of conflicts to be more on the side of defensive or at least, highly popular wars, via the greater difficulty of getting a large conscripted force together against public opinion.
Re:Woah! by lennier · 2012-06-14 09:51 · Score: 1

Want a tip on how to defeat it? Watch the Terminator movies.

So, start by teaching the drone Spanish catch-phrases.

--
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
Re:Woah! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 10:49 · Score: 0

It was also the intent of the Founding Fathers that women not be allowed to vote
Not actually true
The founders tied voting to property ownership in an attempt to keep the nation from failing the way previous attempts at democracy failed (by allowing masses of poorer, less-productive people to use their numbers to vote to take the assets of the fewer but more-productive and thus destroying the incentives to be productive). Women tended to be married rather than single and therefore (for cultural/historical etc reasons) there was not a large number of single women property voters... most property was owned by men and the men as property owners were the voters. If you take the time to look at actual historical records, however, you will find that in some of the colonies (remember that the colonies were all much more independent before the US Civil War and had very different laws) when a man died, his widow as the property owner was then allowed to vote
for the record, it was the Democrats who fought very hard against giving women the right to vote. (Susan B Anthony was a Republican and declared that she would never vote for a Democrat)
Re:Woah! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 11:33 · Score: 0

...he has a long association with Communist 5th columnists. Even more confusing (to small minds), Obama is a bought-and-paid-for tool of the international banksters.
Could you please explain to my "small mind" why such a devoted communist would be working for presumably hard-core capitalist bankers? .... relationship with a group of men favoring private ownership and a consolidation of wealth under their ownership? But I guess I'm just too "stupid" to see the "truth".
I'm not the poster, but let me try a different approach. What you are seeing is a pebble in a river. You don't see the river, but you want to look for a pebble.
Step way way back, and find the river first.
Now, you probably think that's jibberjab flim flam, but I mean what is stated. If you don't believe that something has been happening for a while trying to undermine our society then looking at a single instance of something so singular is foolish.
Honestly, I believe about .01% of the various conspiracy theories out there, maybe less than that. But there is no denying that there is a metric assload of very fishy things to track down. With a government that makes everything secret, and hides facts from law enforcement, and is tight lipped with people, we simply lack answers. You could try to pretend everything is secret, but it only works for so long. Let me give an example.
9/11 happened, and like most good Americans I was pissed. At the same time, I noticed some very odd things that maybe others didn't. Such as, no plane debris at the Pentagon, and no plane debris in Penn. No luggage, no bodies, it was just a smoking crater and a few pieces of scrap metal in Penn and a hole in the wall of the Pentagon. Now, I noticed because I'm formerly military, I have been hunting for bodies after 2 F16's had a mid air collision so I know something about what crash debris looks like. I have also seen numerous pictures of crashed air planes (hijackings gone bad, the recent crash with the Polish leaders, etc... etc.. . There has never been a case where planes simply vanish on impact. Go look at Google images, and show me a wreck with no debris or bodies.
Now, it's quite possible that at the Pentagon we have a super lazor beam system that just made everything disappear right at impact time. Lets say the thing fired late. In Penn, maybe the Air Force did have to shoot down that one. In either case, the Government could have said something other than "well, it vanished". Wholly fuck, really? Do we have Nasa looking for the hole in space time for where shit went?
Now, you have WTC. Okay, never have steel framed buildings like that fell from a fire, even when the fire was immensely worse than what we hat at WTC 1 and 2. WTC 7 fell for no obvious reason. It was not hit, and there was only a small fire on the top 2 floors. Engineers and Architect's want to know what caused it, so that if it was something in the design they could fix it. Why was military grade explosive compounds found at the sites? Why were steel girders cut as if they were blown up? We don't know, investigations were all closed and the government blamed Osama. Simulation after Simulation shows that the theories proposed by the government don't cause buildings to collapse.
Again, these things are worth pondering. You won't necessarily come to the conclusion that there is a larger conspiracy happening, until you start linking all of this type of thing over years and years of time.
Does it mean that everything is sinister? Well, we don't know do we? I believe it's logical to come to that conclusion based on the way everything is hushed up, including people. The longer the chain of items you have to ask "good or bad" with, the more apt you are to say "wow, this is really fucked up!".
Start searching more and see if you think there is a bigger plot playing out in the background. There is a tremendous amount of info
Re:Woah! by Joey+Vegetables · 2012-06-15 03:45 · Score: 1

You mean to tell me you're critical of Bush *and* Obama? You sound like one of those eeeevil libertarians. Please report to the nearest FEMA camp for your "voluntary" re-education!!

--

Nonaggression works!

An analysis could be interesting by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 00:10 · Score: 5, Funny

If someone overlaid a map of UFO sightings over the top of this...

Re:An analysis could be interesting by chill · 2012-06-14 01:21 · Score: 4, Informative

Make all the jokes you want, but a drone was confused as a UFO just yesterday in D.C. I expect the number of UFO "sightings" to skyrocket.
http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/18785637/beltway-ufo-said-to-be-military-drone-aircraft?clienttype=printable

--
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Re:An analysis could be interesting by darkstar949 · 2012-06-14 01:26 · Score: 1

Not sure why this was moderated as Funny, such a mapping would be quite interesting and depending upon how far off something is when it is spotted, a drone flying overhead could easily be spotted but someone might not know what it is.
Re:An analysis could be interesting by Entropius · 2012-06-14 02:01 · Score: 2

This is DC. Next to Baltimore it has the highest density of morons and crazies of anywhere I've seen.
Re:An analysis could be interesting by Groghunter · 2012-06-14 03:06 · Score: 1

either A: you've never been to San Fran or some of the weird little towns in the west like Joshua Tree, Sedona, Albequrque, etc. or B: this is subjective crazy: to you, all the places i just referenced seem normal.
Re:An analysis could be interesting by Entropius · 2012-06-14 03:30 · Score: 1

SF definitely has some weirdos, but they're far saner than DC overall. Sedona I will give you -- that place is utterly apeshit, having been taken over by new-agers looking for ley lines and selling aura photography and assorted bullshit like that. (Aura photography cracks me up -- I guess there is a use for shitty lenses after all.)
Never been to Joshua Tree to comment.
Re:An analysis could be interesting by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 03:44 · Score: 0

If it couldn't be identified it WAS a UFO. Maybe you're thinking of alien spacecraft?
Re:An analysis could be interesting by ColdWetDog · 2012-06-14 04:01 · Score: 2

Oh My Fucking God
Just when you think it's safe to go back in the water.....

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re:An analysis could be interesting by mrxak · 2012-06-14 05:21 · Score: 1

Unidentified, maybe, but not a Flying Object.

--
-mrxak
Onions Will Kill You

5 Point Streak by protonics · 2012-06-14 00:11 · Score: 5, Funny

Thankfully, the weapons are inaccessible until someone obtains at least a 5 point streak.

Re:5 Point Streak by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 00:16 · Score: 0

But they start invading your privacy with just a 3 point streak.

Just say it already by longk · 2012-06-14 00:11 · Score: 1

Come on, we all know you want someone to yell "OMG, they're going after US citizens!". Don't be shy now.

Re:Just say it already by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 00:28 · Score: 0

In a world were we trust our government, people might point out that they are generally clustered around the current bases, or in places where they could be deployed for Defensive purposes, like a airstrike on the Capital or something.
But we dont live in that world, so: "OMG, they're going after US citizens! They will bomb us all!!"
Re:Just say it already by AHuxley · 2012-06-14 01:50 · Score: 1

Sure they are http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/325402#ixzz1vooIlTFd
The Vanguard Shadowhawk will give the Montgomery County Sherriff's Department
"unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) is equipped .... and capable of firing rubber bullets, ejecting tear gas canisters and launching taser projectiles."
If you want you can get some nice grenade lunchers and 12-gauge shotguns upgrades too....
http://www.salon.com/2012/04/24/drones_for_urban_warfare/
Don't worry its just for intelligence, search, reconnaissance ... just like all the new kit was only to be used in Iraq too...
Welcome to the domestic (U.S.) battlefront.

--
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Re:Just say it already by Hatta · 2012-06-14 03:24 · Score: 0

They are going to go after US citizens. Not to kill them, but to observe them where traditionally we've had an expectation of privacy that would require them to get a warrant. Remember that the US still officially refuses to admit that it even has a drone program. This shit is not going through due process.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:Just say it already by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 04:04 · Score: 0

Remember that the US still officially refuses to admit that it even has a drone program.
...citation, please?
Re:Just say it already by Hatta · 2012-06-14 04:15 · Score: 1

Citation.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!

You're kidding!?! by DrgnDancer · 2012-06-14 00:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

... Really?

There are also more US Army, Air Force, and Navy bases in the US than in the rest of the world combined. Many of them have tanks, warplanes, aircraft carriers, howitzers, and many other weapons that can be loaded and armed with live ammunition and dangerous explosives. I mean, who knew right? Oh wait... Everybody knew. Of course we have drone bases in the US. They have to train people, provide headquarters and on going operational training for units not deployed, stored undeployed hardware... this is the stupidest thing I've ever read.

What did these guys think? They send untested multimillion dollar drones over to Yemen where they hand them to an untrained unit and expect them to just figure out how they work in the field? It's just like any other military operation: for every deployed unit there are probably five waiting in reserve, getting readiness training, refitting, etc. Most of that happens in the US.

--
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.

Re:You're kidding!?! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 00:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

They send untested multimillion dollar drones over to Yemen where they hand them to an untrained unit and expect them to just figure out how they work in the field?
Well, considering the targets dont shoot back they might just as well do the training in the field.
Re:You're kidding!?! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 00:29 · Score: 0

Indeed, but it's probably also for self-deffense. It's not like there aren't threats targeting the system on US soil.
I hate labeling a part of the earth as a country, but that's another discussion.
Anyone who follows the news already knew they used them for training at home. This is not a public secret. In fact, they filmed it from the control centres themselves and military personal even explained this on camera.
And ofcourse the US government is going to use them on their own territory when they need them. Who couldn't do the same thing?
Re:You're kidding!?! by CrimsonAvenger · 2012-06-14 00:36 · Score: 0, Redundant

Anyone who follows the news already knew they used them for training at home. This is not a public secret. In fact, they filmed it from the control centres themselves and military personal even explained this on camera.
And ofcourse the US government is going to use them on their own territory when they need them. Who couldn't do the same thing?
Actually, it's against the law for the US military to perform military operations in the USA (with exceptions for insurrection and war, of course - both of which require an Act of Congress)....

--

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Re:You're kidding!?! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 00:47 · Score: 0

Training isn't a military operation. And using them when needed is already a result of war and war is already a result of an act of congress... "WAR on terrorism" ring any bells? ;-)
Re:You're kidding!?! by RCourtney · 2012-06-14 00:51 · Score: 1, Insightful

I think the difference that might make people rightly question how UAVs on American soil are used even for just training purposes is that they are primarily for spying purposes. My biggest questions are:

While on training missions within the United States what surveillance is done with them for the purposes of training?

What information is stored from those training missions?

How is that information used or is it shared with the CIA, FBI or local police?

I think all of those are valid and necessary questions given what we know from our country's past actions and the skirting of domestic safeguards since 9/11 in the name of national security.
Re:You're kidding!?! by Curunir_wolf · 2012-06-14 01:04 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Actually, it's against the law for the US military to perform military operations in the USA (with exceptions for insurrection and war, of course - both of which require an Act of Congress)....
Which is why they do it with NATO troops instead.

--
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Re:You're kidding!?! by DrgnDancer · 2012-06-14 01:06 · Score: 3, Insightful

I don't disagree. Your questions are valid, and had the article been written in a reasonable fashion, asking those questions and wondering how we might find out the answers it would have been a much more useful piece. As it is the piece is a written in tones intended to make the reader panicked over the hardly surprising fact that the US military is storing and using US military hardware inside the US. As if anyone should be even slightly surprised over this fact. Of course we're doing this, the bulk of all US military personnel and equipment are in the US; and except for a few periods of heavy action (the World Wars, mainly), the bulk of US military personnel and hardware are *always* located in the US. Home territory is simply the most convenient place to do most of what nondeployed need to do.

--
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
Re:You're kidding!?! by sohmc · 2012-06-14 01:12 · Score: 2

There is a difference between military operations, where the mission is directly against a citizen of the state and within the confines of its borders, and military training. I believe the parent author is referring to the latter.
Interestingly, the Posse Comitatus Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act) only covers the Army and Air Force. So the Marine UAV bases could still be used against state citizens.

--
We don't live in Shouldland.
Re:You're kidding!?! by ThreeDeeNut · 2012-06-14 01:14 · Score: 1

I think you are painting a naive picture. No one doubts that we make war machines here in America. That is a no-brainer. The real problem is the legislation that effectively turns US war machines against it's people and that with conventional war machines, the pilots had the ability to object to an order. Now, in a closed room with high level officials having direct and immediate access to the pilots, the reasonable thought that pilots may object is removed. Whats more, because there is not a specific pilot to blame for an occurrence, one could assume that these pilots would be protected by anonymity. Lastly, these machines are considered secret weapons, so, if one crashed in a suburb, what exactly will be done? Team of military personnel, maybe self destruct, who knows. In my opinion it is a shadow weapon and a the biggest threat to individual sovereignty that we have ever faced. Imagine a day when drones are the size of a small bird and there are thousands of them... you will never be alone again, you will never not be watched, you will never have any semblance of privacy. I love the wonderful things drones could do for humanity, but am certainly very skeptical and fearful of what may actually come of their deployment. Great article on the topic. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/06/07/where-is-outrage/
Re:You're kidding!?! by UnknowingFool · 2012-06-14 01:31 · Score: 0

[sarcasm]Because every bomb, missile, cruise missile ever deployed before this moment in time was against an enemy actively trying to shoot it down in that moment. Yes I remember when the US bombed Iraq's command centers in the first gulf war. The US had to wait till someone was on the roof shooting at the laser guided bomb before it armed itself.[/sarcasm]

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Re:You're kidding!?! by Sparticus789 · 2012-06-14 01:34 · Score: 5, Informative

1. Keep in mind that the UAV operators are lower ranking people, usually E-2 to E-5, that really just want to go home and drink or play WoW. We usually pick some random car, read the license plate, then test the auto-follow feature for a few minutes, then test it again. It is really anti-climactic. Training flights are the worst, 16 hours of nothing happening gets old really quick.
2. The information is basically stored until the drives are full. Nobody really pays attention to it until the maintainers (former me) come along and format the drive. Yes, I will admit that UAV's have caught the occasional nude sunbather in the backyard and such. Since I was in Georgia, it was not nearly as common as some other areas. So I cannot speak to the efficacy of peeping-tom drones in the San Diego area.
3. I'm sure the CIA, FBI, or local police could get the information, but first they would have to know the drone was even up there. Flight schedules for military aircraft are considered secret and are not published on a bulletin board or anything. UAV flight schedules are kept decently secure, because of their sensitive equipment. If they call the military asking if there were any drones in the air, they are really grasping at straws. Second, with a camera range of 30+ miles, there's a lot of area to cover. Third, during my 3 years at one of these "drone" bases, we never heard anything from any law enforcement or spy agency.

--
sudo make me a sandwich
Re:You're kidding!?! by YrWrstNtmr · 2012-06-14 01:49 · Score: 1

Which is why they do it with NATO troops [wordpress.com] instead.

Training exercise.
Re:You're kidding!?! by MachineShedFred · 2012-06-14 02:30 · Score: 2

Actually, that only effects certain branches of the military. Read the Posse Comitatus Act. It directly affects the Army and Air Force, but doesn't restrict Navy (Marines), Coast Guard (who have a law enforcement directive to begin with) or National Guard. The Navy is self-regulated by a DOD directive, which could be retracted at any time.
Oh, and it doesn't deny the ability to use federal troops for law enforcement, it only requires Congressional approval; which if you look at how the authorization of force in Iraq went, doesn't mean much.

--
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Re:You're kidding!?! by MachineShedFred · 2012-06-14 02:32 · Score: 1

The US Navy (and the Marines along with them) are covered by a DOD directive which aligns with Posse Comitatus. However, it's self-regulation and could be rescinded at any time, with massive political backlash.

--
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Re:You're kidding!?! by ebuck · 2012-06-14 03:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

They send untested multimillion dollar drones over to Yemen where they hand them to an untrained unit and expect them to just figure out how they work in the field?
Well, considering the targets dont shoot back they might just as well do the training in the field.
The idea that our military attacks peaceful targets that don't even bother to defend themselves is beyond ridiculous. You should be ashamed for insuinuating such. You are demeaning the job of the military, and belittling the risk they are taking on your behalf.
Whether you desire the military to be active in a particular location or not, give them the respect due to a person who is willing to follow out the wishes of our government, despite their personal feelings, in the hope that we do make the world a better place.
Re:You're kidding!?! by sociocapitalist · 2012-06-14 03:53 · Score: 1

Third, during my 3 years at one of these "drone" bases, I personally never heard anything from any law enforcement or spy agency.
FTFY

--
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
Re:You're kidding!?! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 04:33 · Score: 0

1. Keep in mind that you, as a low-level worker bee, don't know everything. I'm not arguing with what you say you know, I'm saying you probably don't know everything.
2. The information you saw was stored that way and accessed that way. Just because you saw some information doesn't mean you saw all of the information.
3. Don't worry. Drones have been around since the Viet Nam Police Action. I'm sure the CIA and FBI have versions that run super-silent and are super-small. After all, if you never need to launch a missile and you just need a big flying gas tank with a camera, almost any modified off the shelf model airplane will work.
Re:You're kidding!?! by Sparticus789 · 2012-06-14 04:38 · Score: 2

First, you obviously know nothing about the military. A unit doesn't keep secrets amongst itself. If it happened, everyone would have known about it.
Second, only the maintainers would have access. The world is not like "Hackers," where a few cd and ls commands will magically crack a password. What's DOD standard now, 15 characters, 2 upper case, 2 lower case, 2 numbers, 2 symbols? Let's also throw in the 5 or so layers of physical security, multiple alarms, internal surveillance footage, server logs, independent server logs, network analyzers. On top of that, most Army systems are old SPARC-20 computers with Solaris 5, a.k.a. slow as shit.
So yeah, put on your tin foil hat and keep thinking they are watching you. It's a waste of your time.

--
sudo make me a sandwich
Re:You're kidding!?! by ColdWetDog · 2012-06-14 06:01 · Score: 1

Yes, I will admit that UAV's have caught the occasional nude sunbather in the backyard and such.
Given the average body mass index of a given America and the relative paucity of 'good looking' people in general I should think that scouring the ground for nude sunbathers might be more of a psychologicall hazard to the UAV operators than the putative 'victims' on the ground.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re:You're kidding!?! by Sparticus789 · 2012-06-14 06:26 · Score: 1

Do you need some more aluminum foil for a larger hat?

--
sudo make me a sandwich
Re:You're kidding!?! by sociocapitalist · 2012-06-14 06:45 · Score: 1

No I seriously doubt anyone would bother to watch me and I don't have to know anything about the military to know that you can only give witness for what you yourself have or have not experienced directly.
In telecoms we have 'legal intercept' though it's often called by some bullshit name to keep people ignorant of it. Once it's installed no one in the support infrastructure has to do anything and most people working with the network have no idea that it's there...and yet it's there, and it can be used to tap traffic / conversations.
Not saying this is the case in your situation - I don't know shit about your situation - only that not everyone has the level of visibility, be it technical or otherwise, to know exactly what's going on with their own equipment / systems.

--
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
Re:You're kidding!?! by DrgnDancer · 2012-06-14 07:31 · Score: 1

I don't know anything about his specific situation, but I know enough about the Military systems situation in general to know that it's more likely he's right than that you are. Classified military system are typically either standalone or on special classified networks. Further, stuff like these drones are probably run run from a Unix system (Linux or Solaris is most likely) with local passwd and shadow files as the account infrastructure. Access to the machines is likely controller by the admin (maintainer, whatever) personally making you an account on the box after he gets a request from security. He can probably easily count the number of people with accounts and verify their authorization by simply doing a 'tail /etc/passwd' and making sure nothing got added while he wasn't looking. It's entirely possible that he and his backup have the only accounts.
On top of that, unless the systems are on a large scale classified network, just getting the info off of a classified machine is a huge rigamarole involving a CD, multiple people verifying the classification of the data, labels and stickers from document control, blah, blah, blah. *If* the systems are on a big network, *and* someone outside the immediate organization has credentials (both big ifs), someone might have gotten some information off the systems with out him knowing, but they would have to have appropriate clearance (which means three letter organizations, not police), and know to look for the info they want at a particular time. Seems unlikely.
I know it's romantic (or at least convenient for conspiracies) to think our government as some kind of big, seamless organization where every Army private knows what the FBI is looking for, and every police officer can request military support. Maybe at the highest echelons of the intelligence community it does work like that, I don't know. Mostly though, it doesn't.

--
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
Re:You're kidding!?! by s.petry · 2012-06-14 14:03 · Score: 1

I don't think training is the question, it's how they are training. You did read the Air Force report where they were training in areas that picked up civilian activity, and they held that data for several months right?
As a former Military person, I can tell you we trained very often. At the same time, we never trained in civilian areas where there was a risk to civilians in any way. We don't sight bombers in civilian areas very intentionally. Doing so would be conditioning for bombing those areas, as well as other more obvious dangers.

--
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Re:You're kidding!?! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 22:22 · Score: 0

In spite of your rightous indignation I will reserve my respect for people that do not shoot and bomb people in countries that never attacked us nor intended to attack us.

A bit sensationalist? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 00:17 · Score: 3, Insightful

"But we now know it's closer than we thought" It has been common knowledge that drones are stationed on and piloted from US soil. Just wait until the author finds out how many soldiers, tanks, and even nuclear bombs are also located on US soil.

Re:A bit sensationalist? by saider · 2012-06-14 00:50 · Score: 4, Funny

[kent brockman]
Just miles from your doorstep, hundreds of men are given weapons and trained to kill. The government calls it the Army, but a more alarmist name would be ... The Killbot Factory.
[/kent brockman]

--

Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
Re:A bit sensationalist? by geekoid · 2012-06-14 02:39 · Score: 1

HA!

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Exact purposes? by nurb432 · 2012-06-14 00:17 · Score: 2

Well, now they are targets.

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----

Airplanes and Ships have bases too by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 00:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

We keep fighter jets, ships and even nuclear missiles on American soil (and waters) should we be worried about those too? It's barely newsworthy! I'd actually be surprised if there weren't drone bases here.

Re:Airplanes and Ships have bases too by Curunir_wolf · 2012-06-14 01:07 · Score: 0, Redundant

We keep fighter jets, ships and even nuclear missiles on American soil (and waters) should we be worried about those too? It's barely newsworthy! I'd actually be surprised if there weren't drone bases here.
Right. I mean, they are planning to deploy 30,000 drones over US skies, so obviously they bases for all those drones.

--
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Re:Airplanes and Ships have bases too by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 02:14 · Score: 0

Not really going to rely on a 9/11 truther.
Re:Airplanes and Ships have bases too by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 02:23 · Score: 0

The bill says nothing about surveillance or any specific numbers. In fact, it appears to be about incorporating UAVs for atmospheric/wildlife research, as well as doing the regulatory due-diligence to enable unmanned commercial flights, should airlines begin to move that direction.
Re:Airplanes and Ships have bases too by misexistentialist · 2012-06-14 02:24 · Score: 1

Difference is these are active "anti-insurgency" devices that operate above any law. They cross borders a will, track anyone they please, and kill them when they feel like it.
Re:Airplanes and Ships have bases too by Curunir_wolf · 2012-06-14 03:39 · Score: 1

The bill says nothing about surveillance or any specific numbers. In fact, it appears to be about incorporating UAVs for atmospheric/wildlife research, as well as doing the regulatory due-diligence to enable unmanned commercial flights, should airlines begin to move that direction.
The "specific numbers" includes funding of $63.4 Billion, all for building drones, which comes to about 30,000 of them. Read the funding request.
All the language about next-gen air traffic control includes a push for unmanned commercial flights, but it's also intended to unify the manned and unmanned systems, which currently do not talk to each other, increasing the risk of drone / non-drone collisions (there have already been a couple of incidents.

--
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Re:Airplanes and Ships have bases too by Curunir_wolf · 2012-06-14 03:43 · Score: 1

Not really going to rely on a 9/11 truther.
I don't know WTF you're talking about, but if you prefer do deal with all the crazy ads that the MSM puts on their sites, you could check the Washington Times, or just Google it yourself.

--
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia

How is the more interesting by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 00:20 · Score: 0

than a map of all the military bases that deal with helicopter operations (ZOMG! which could be possibly armed and used against civilains!), or all the military bases with tanks, or all the military bases with access to satellite feeds?

Is it news to anybody that "remotely piloted vehicles" are piloted remotely, or command centers access data from field operations?

OH NO, DEFENSES! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 00:25 · Score: 0

What next? Going to complain about walls? Oh wait, that is already happening.

Drones are a fantastic defensive system if done right.
To not have them up would be retarded.

If you don't like it, start complaining about the military budget being too big.
You'll be the one crying when the System Lords attack.

Many are for science by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 00:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

I know quite well that many of these are for things like weather and hurricane monitoring. They're certainly not all deployed to kill people and watch for terrorists.

Re:Many are for science by Uberbah · 2012-06-14 05:56 · Score: 1

And you know quite well how the police state likes to wedge it's foot in the door. The FBI needs to be able to tap any phone and get into any computer - to crack down on child porn, donchaknow.
And now you're defending the use of military drones because other drones are used for weather monitoring. But that's how the rationalization, foot-in-the-door process works. Get more power where no one will complain (busting kiddie porn, tracking weather), then ad those tools to your regular arsenal to be used against anyone you want to.
Like how home file sharers are hit with laws meant for those engaging in the sale of forged goods. Or how laws against terrorism are used for anything a DA thinks will stick. Etc.

Not news by MadKeithV · 2012-06-14 00:31 · Score: 1

This isn't news. Michael Moore has informed us years ago that the USA is already full of mindless drones! ( ;-) )

Re:Not news by azalin · 2012-06-14 01:35 · Score: 2

And not just the US. I guess anybody ever participating in a public discussion of a decent size knew that for a few thousand years.

What about latency? by commodore73 · 2012-06-14 00:32 · Score: 1

If they control drones overseas, what about the lag time between signal from the pilot and action by the drone? Does a delay here just not matter with drones?

Re:What about latency? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 00:37 · Score: 0

It depends. If you can get a secure wired link to within a few hundred miles of the front, it shouldn't be much more than a normal internet connection, say 300ms after going through a few wireless repeaters at altitude. If it's via satellite, all bets are off.
Re:What about latency? by keot · 2012-06-14 00:42 · Score: 1

The latency between the pilot moving a control stick and the control surfaces moving on the UAV can be as high as 750 ms via satellite.
According a talk I attended by the US Airforce, a latency of 250 ms in a simulator is enough to lose control of the aircraft. I guess they use an autopilot.
Re:What about latency? by SuricouRaven · 2012-06-14 00:54 · Score: 2

Or a hybrid. Onboard computer does the rapid-response compensation for changing atmospheric conditions, while the operator tells it where to and where to point the cameras. Should be able to do everything at 750ms you'd want from a drone - they aren't used for dogfighting.
Re:What about latency? by camperdave · 2012-06-14 01:20 · Score: 1

If they control drones overseas, what about the lag time between signal from the pilot and action by the drone? Does a delay here just not matter with drones?
Of course not. It's only a drone, after all!

Seriously though, I suspect that most remotely piloted drones have a significant level of self flight capability. The pilot isn't doing the moment by moment compensation for turbulence and drift, but is acting more as a guide. The closest car analogies I can think of are systems like automatic transmissions and anti-lock brakes. The on-board systems deal with all the fiddly bits, and the operator does the higher level control. Some craft, such as the predator and the reaper, can operate completely autonomously, going from takeoff to landing completely without human control.

Keep in mind that the military has some pretty high bandwidth, low latency comm channels it can use, and if it really becomes an issue, they can move the pilot closer to the action.

--
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Re:What about latency? by JBMcB · 2012-06-14 02:51 · Score: 1

Especially when using Hellfire missiles as the armament. You need to tell the flight computer on board the drone, in general, where to go - download a target to the Hellfire (just pointing at something on the screen is good enough) and send it on it's way. You only need a few dozen feet of accuracy, the Hellfire will obliterate anything in the general vicinity of where it lands.
I don't see anything wrong with using drones in active combat per se. Their current use as a tool to assassinate people, however, is abominable. Collateral damage is almost guaranteed.

--
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.

Come on, Slashdot ... seriously. by tgd · 2012-06-14 00:33 · Score: 3, Insightful

You don't have to try this hard to jump the shark. The shark was jumped a decade ago.

These stories are just making a mockery of the mockery that Slashdot has become.

Just to keep the ball rollin', there's probably GPL violations, Microsoft software and patented things at those bases, too!

Re:Come on, Slashdot ... seriously. by azalin · 2012-06-14 01:37 · Score: 1

Just to keep the ball rollin', there's probably GPL violations, Microsoft software and patented things at those bases, too!
but does it run Linux? (sorry, couldn't resist)
Re:Come on, Slashdot ... seriously. by Sparticus789 · 2012-06-14 06:27 · Score: 1

Solaris 5, to be specific. Lots of Red Hat too.

--
sudo make me a sandwich

An airbase is an airbase. by John+Hasler · 2012-06-14 00:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

And the USAF has many of them in the USA. Why do they suddenly become especially evil because some of the aircraft are unmanned?

--
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.

Re:An airbase is an airbase. by virg_mattes · 2012-06-14 01:41 · Score: 3, Insightful

It's the nature of the device in question. There are many reasons to have an airbase in the continental U.S., like training and defense in the case of attack. Drones, on the other hand, currently serve one and only one purpose, and that's aerial surveillance. Having drones based in the continental U.S. is only useful if the drones are being used over U.S. territory (failing border patrol) and having the U.S. military running surveillance essentially on civilian populations raises the hackles of many people. We've heard the whole "we'll only use it against the bad guys!" line too many times to believe it any more.

Virg
Re:An airbase is an airbase. by AHuxley · 2012-06-14 01:55 · Score: 1

Domestic use, the new terms in the NDAA, less posse comitatus, the US been seen as a battlefront, loitering ability of a drone ...
Add in the http://articles.cnn.com/2012-06-11/us/us_maryland-drone-crash_1_drone-crash-site-routine-training?_s=PM:US
at $176 million apiece and the vision FAA of 30000 US drones.
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-02-08/news/31036604_1_drones-unmanned-aircraft-new-bill

--
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Re:An airbase is an airbase. by geekoid · 2012-06-14 02:38 · Score: 1

What about training?
"nd that's aerial surveillance"
and? The EPA uses them to monitor waster dumping in remote agencies, they are use to patrol military bases, remote missle silos, and probabl a 1000 other uses.
Using a drone to monitor anyone not actually involved in illegal activities would be the stupidest way to do it. Please, you leave a hug foot print of data anywhere you go. Far easier to use electronics to monitor you.
Now, if you are doing business with a known group of criminals, and you are encrypting all your data, and you may be transporting something of interest, Then it's time to consider using a drone.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:An airbase is an airbase. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 03:00 · Score: 0

That, plus the simple force multiplier problem. If you order military pilots to do illegal or improper things, a decent number of them will refuse. Of the ones who don't, some of them will find a way to let what was done be known, and if THEY don't do that, then there are support staff, etc. who can, will, and have.
That is because sociopaths and those who will follow any order no matter what are thankfully rare. However, as the military is staffed with people, some of them will be of that type too. That is EXACTLY the kind of person you want if you're using the military against our population. However, there's that issue of them not being too numerous, which is why this kind of device is so dangerous. It allows for anonymity, unaccountability, and even lack of detection of misbehavior. Maintenance crews don't even have to be on the same side of the country as "pilots", and it's not so hard to put a group together comprised of order-following fanatics.
If this has not already been done, I guarantee it's been thought of.
Re:An airbase is an airbase. by LWATCDR · 2012-06-14 03:42 · Score: 1

http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/design-architecture/are-non-military-drones-flying-into-regulatory-quagmire/4759
Training, evaluating new systems, and storage. The US has attack helos in the US also but I do not think they are all that worried about tanks on US soil. Some drones are tasked with missions from US bases just as U2s are launched from US bases.
And some are used for other functions like this one.
http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/design-architecture/are-non-military-drones-flying-into-regulatory-quagmire/4759
This is what they are doing at one of the sites in the article. They are monitoring a lake. Trust me I have been out there and there is nothing in that area but wild pigs, Bass, fishermen, dear, cows, and an anual mud bog.
All the other bases in Florida are well known bases that don't shock me at all. They are used a lot for training.

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Re:An airbase is an airbase. by Uberbah · 2012-06-14 05:49 · Score: 1

Yes, what about the obvious rationalizations for a police state? Drones are going to be for the US what CCTV cameras were for England. Except the cameras weren't able to be mounted with missiles.....
Re:An airbase is an airbase. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 07:54 · Score: 0

Simple : their nature being what it is , people can easily think that they are used
to spy on the American people and are a menace to ther privacy.
The potential menace to what's left of the Americans freedoms is overshadowed
by fears , both real and justified and irrational. This one is rational imho.

Russia and China will be pissed. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 00:45 · Score: 0

They where told the one in antarctica is the only one left on earth!

Mt. Washington, NH a drone base? Really? by c0d3g33k · 2012-06-14 00:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

Mount Washington in New Hampshire's White Mountains shows up on the map, which surprised me a bit. It is in a fairly remote area (relative to major population centers) and happens to be one of the major tourist attractions in the area (Don't forget your "This car climbed Mt. Washington" bumper sticker if you make it up and down the Mt. Washington Auto Road). There's not a whole lot there - a cafe and weather station at the peak, hiking trails, forest land and ski resorts nearby. It's located within a State Park. This suggests the disclaiming statements at the end of the summary probably apply to a lot of the 64 "drone bases" referred to by the dramatic headline. As the highest peak in the Northeast (6,288 ft or 1,917 m), it seems like a good spot for communications or sensing equipment. Or, since the weather is quite wild and variable at the summit (held the record for the highest recorded wind gust for 76 years), it could be a good spot to stress-test a drone under severe conditions. Hardly a "Drone Base".

Conversion error by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 00:48 · Score: 0

Actually there are 1,000,000 bases on American soil. The non-profit group thought they were looking at a binary number.

Next Headline by rossdee · 2012-06-14 00:48 · Score: 1

Nuclear missiles based in America

obviously by smash · 2012-06-14 00:49 · Score: 2

they're for suppressing any american uprising, stupid. like OWS, or whatever comes next.

--
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.

Relax... by sfhock · 2012-06-14 00:50 · Score: 1

Obviously they're readying themselves for the impending Zombie Apocalypse.. would you rather go toe to toe with those brainless bastards?

--
"Let's go find some Turian and beat the shit out of him ... That always cheers you up!!"

Re:Relax... by azalin · 2012-06-14 01:42 · Score: 1

I'm a little confused - are you talking about zombies, or politicians here? One group is always looking for brains, while the other would prefer their prey to be brainless, but apart from that...
Re:Relax... by sfhock · 2012-06-14 02:52 · Score: 1

Good Point! I should have clarified that with dead, soulless, brainless bastards! Oh, wait...

--
"Let's go find some Turian and beat the shit out of him ... That always cheers you up!!"

Re:Mt. Washington, NH a drone base? Really? by the+eric+conspiracy · 2012-06-14 00:56 · Score: 1

Mt. Washington seems to me to be a good place for testing/training under difficult conditions.

One thing the article didn't consider is some of these sites may be for development.

Other way around! by sycodon · 2012-06-14 00:59 · Score: 1

It's the drones that should look out

--
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.

Incorrect info by YrWrstNtmr · 2012-06-14 01:04 · Score: 3, Insightful

At least one marker is totally incorrect. Syracuse NY, Hancock Field, 174th Fighter Wing (ANG) shows its status as "Future". As of March 2010, they sent the last of their F-16's out and fully transitioned to MQ-9 Reapers.

Wonder what else here is incorrect.

Re:Incorrect info by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 02:14 · Score: 0

Lots.
For example, Evans Army Airfield is not in Evans, GA. It's co-located with Wright Army Airfield, which on their map is listed as a seperate location. You could walk from one to the other in less than ten minutes.

"We" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 01:10 · Score: 0

Of course we have drone bases in the US

1. Do NOT try to imply that I (and everyone else in this country) support the military policies of government. I had no say in the decision-making process. My opinions count for nothing to them, and that is exactly why the US government spends orders of magnitude more on war (and preparing for war) than any other country in the world.

2. If you think that the US government had your interests in mind ("we") while building the largest and most profitable military-industrial complex this world has ever seen, you're dreaming.

Re:"We" by Darkness404 · 2012-06-14 02:32 · Score: 2

"We" is the most destructive 2 letter word in the English language.

--
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Re:"We" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 03:16 · Score: 1

Technically I'd call it the most dishonest. The word "we" is deliberately used to imply that decisions and policies are unanimous, or at least "accepted", when the truth is anything but. Destruction, on the other hand, is purely a result of political power and occurs regardless of whether the population believes in the fake "we" god.
Re:"We" by lightknight · 2012-06-14 05:01 · Score: 1

And "I" is the most constructive word in the English language.

--
I am John Hurt.

Candid question by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 01:11 · Score: 0

Just where did the OP think these drones were coming from?

Re:Candid question by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 03:40 · Score: 0

There's a theory that there is a large drone nest hidden in Mount Rushmore, full of drone eggs. The young drones are fed on our civil liberties until they are old enough to fly, and then they leave the nest for one of the 64 (2^6, they don't get the full 8 bits until they're fully grown) bases. But that's just a theory.

Why All the Hysteria About Drones? by MikeyC01 · 2012-06-14 01:18 · Score: 2

How are unmanned flying vehicles any different than manned helicopters and airplanes used by various agencies during the course of duty? Manned aircraft are used daily for any number of law enforcement (surveillance, speed traps, border protection, etc), fire protection, crop dusting, and even news and traffic gathering?

Why is not having a pilot in the actual aircraft a reason to pull out the tinfoil and white noise makers?

"But they can arm them" isn't a valid excuse because there's no reason they can't arm a piloted aircraft.

Begun, the drone wars have by wintercolby · 2012-06-14 01:20 · Score: 4, Funny

Our republic has lost almost all pretense of democracy, and now there's a massive build up of drones?

What's next, buying an army of clones from North Korea?

And people questioned just how visionary George Lucas is.

--
Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don't know because we don't want to know. --Aldous Huxley

Re:Begun, the drone wars have by tibman · 2012-06-14 02:22 · Score: 1

Most of those drone "bases" aren't bases for drones. Also, most of those drones are ity-bity guys that are hand launched or portable. Think of it like this.. every Army base that conducts training on a drone, is marked up there. The only controversial drones are the big guys like P/GH.

--
http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
Re:Begun, the drone wars have by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 02:45 · Score: 1

Dude..These are not the drones you are looking for....
Re:Begun, the drone wars have by wintercolby · 2012-06-14 03:24 · Score: 1

It really was only an attempt at humor.

--
Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don't know because we don't want to know. --Aldous Huxley
Re:Begun, the drone wars have by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 04:20 · Score: 1
Also, most of those drones are ity-bity guys that are hand launched or portable.
- Shadow wingspan 14'
- Hunter wingspan 30'
- Predator wingspan 50'
- Warrior/Grey Eagle wingspan 56'
The only "small" ones I found were a handful of Ravens with 4.5' wingspan and Pumas, usually co-located with some Shadows.
Re:Begun, the drone wars have by tibman · 2012-06-14 13:00 · Score: 1

Warrior is the Predator. But I was pointing out that the majority of sites are w, s, or r, which are all portables.

--
http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
Re:Begun, the drone wars have by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 16:55 · Score: 0

This is why Master Ron Paul is actively working to educate the public about executive order 66. The Occupy Coruscant movement is well intentioned but misguided in placing all the blame on the Trade Federation. They're ultimately pawns in Senator Romney's game. His rise to Chancellor will not bode well for the republic.

Hmm one per state by the+eric+conspiracy · 2012-06-14 01:25 · Score: 1

Plus a few others, many presumably for National Guard training prior to deployment overseas.

I'll be fine as long as I'm wearing my tinfoil hat by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 01:29 · Score: 0

I'll be fine as long as I'm wearing my tinfoil hat.

And??? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 01:29 · Score: 0

How is this news?

Where else are we going to store our military equipment when its not being used overseas?

Re:Mt. Washington, NH a drone base? Really? by darkstar949 · 2012-06-14 01:31 · Score: 2

It's also a good location to do special ops training which you can tease out from the presentation that was listed. Furthermore, the presentation also indicates that RQ-11 Raven and Wasp III drones are what are operated. These are small "backpack" drones that are used for scouting which would make sense if they are being used for special ops training exercises.

And UFO means???? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 01:36 · Score: 2, Funny

If someone overlaid a map of UFO sightings over the top of this...

Anyone who hasn't seen a drone in flight - most people in the continental US for example - wouldn't be able to identify it, I mean consider a Predator drone. Its a weird-looking fucker at the best of times, now imagine seeing it lit up by a setting sun, flitting through low cloud... The Martians are coming, the Martians are coming!!!!!!! Definitely an "Unidentified Flying Object".

And for gods same, don't try to take a photo of it with a long lens, while wearing arab dress.

KABOOIEEEE!!!!!!

Interesting times, I tell ya.....

How is this legal to reveal? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 01:37 · Score: 0

This is department of defense information... It's a matter of national security... And now all the people at those facilities would be a risk because--those facilities won't be popular with anyone else on the planet. Wreckless. I hope those involved with the site end up with loved ones that work at those locations and can appreciate how they've been put at risk for telling the public something they do not have the right or need to know.

Re:How is this legal to reveal? by tibman · 2012-06-14 02:39 · Score: 1

If you think that is cool, look up a map of national guard armories in your state. Then look up the army reserves and air guard and so on. There is no point hiding these things because it is simply impossible to eliminate a key component.

--
http://soylentnews.org/~tibman

Treason by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 01:38 · Score: 0

While the politicians are upset over Wiki Leaks and the 99% here we have a situation that could be of real aid to an enemy during a sudden attack. This really is military information that needs to be restricted. Julian Assange was for liberty and justice whereas there can be no good motives for publishing locations of weapons of war.

Re:Treason by ColdWetDog · 2012-06-14 06:07 · Score: 1

While the politicians are upset over Wiki Leaks and the 99% here we have a situation that could be of real aid to an enemy during a sudden attack. This really is military information that needs to be restricted. Julian Assange was for liberty and justice whereas there can be no good motives for publishing locations of weapons of war.
Comrade General!
Not to be worried! This is America! Peoples have maps for everything. Not like old country.
Have vodka.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!

Keep yer knickers on by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 01:39 · Score: 0

The military's job is to protect the nation.

The real question is: Can the Presidents control the military? Fuck, they can't even control the DHS, let alone the NSA and the CIA.

Re:Keep yer knickers on by tibman · 2012-06-14 02:44 · Score: 1

The president will always have control. He is the Commander-in-Chief and every soldier is sworn to obey his orders. Each person in the military knows the chain of command that starts at the President and down to themselves, it is not ambiguous. However, i have no idea if the DHS swears any kind of oath or is directly connected to the Commander-in-Chief.

--
http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
Re:Keep yer knickers on by busyqth · 2012-06-14 03:20 · Score: 1

The president will always have control. He is the Commander-in-Chief and every soldier is sworn to obey his orders. Each person in the military knows the chain of command that starts at the President and down to themselves, it is not ambiguous.
So when the president orders the military to break all resistance to his autocratic rule by decree, they'll gladly comply...
Re:Keep yer knickers on by tibman · 2012-06-14 13:02 · Score: 1

Unfortunately there is one thing above the president and the oath covers that too. To support and defend the Constitution.

--
http://soylentnews.org/~tibman

Activities != Bases by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 01:44 · Score: 2, Informative

As stated in the presentation, these are "activities" and not necessarily permanent locations. Though many probably are permanent, it's a bad assumption to think they are not just sites for demos, storage, or training. Don't forget UAVs can be as small as the remote control toy airplanes you can buy for your kids at the store. Also, this "little known" presentation was marked for public distribution and was given at an AFCEA function which is hardly some conspiratorial organization.

OMG al Queda HACKERZ!!1! by Thud457 · 2012-06-14 01:50 · Score: 1, Troll

I just saw a investigative report about this just last night on the Colbert Report. What's to stop Al Kaida from hacking in, taking over our drones and dispensing some Hellfire lovin' to the red-white-and-blue?!!!! Norton?! We need to base these fuckers in theater so there's not threat to the homeland from Anonymous.

--

the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Let me be the first to say it by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 02:13 · Score: 1

AAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!

Not so fun when it's your house the drone is hovering over, huh?

But then again I have little hope that this is enough to get the couch potatoes off their asses and into the streets. There was basically zero reaction to NDAA. You guys need to take this stuff seriously before it's too late.

Viable Targets by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 02:24 · Score: 0

Most people thinks of combat pilots as legitimate targets in war. But is a combat drone pilot a legitimate target? What if that drone pilot is standing next to you in line at the store?

Re:Viable Targets by eriqk · 2012-06-17 08:48 · Score: 1

But is a combat drone pilot a legitimate target?
Yes.

What if that drone pilot is standing next to you in line at the store?
Welcome to the concept of collateral damage. There's folks in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan who can tell you all about that.

OMG by geekoid · 2012-06-14 02:28 · Score: 0

the military is flying aircraft in the US!!!!!11!!

Ahhh, we are all going to rounded up!!!!1

I hear the military has aircraft with people actualli in them flying! What are these people up to?

Idiots.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Re:OMG by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 03:55 · Score: 0

It's amazing these days just how fast the deterioration of those clinging to the dream has become. You literally come across now as brain damaged, which in essence, you are.
So, not for your benefit, but for everybody else's:
Drones are built very specifically for surveillance and the killing of ground targets. All of these drone bases are military in designation. They are not weather-bots and they are not being used by the ministry of agriculture to monitor drought or something. They are Army, Navy, Air Force and "Special Command" (whatever that is).
This is a new development, very different from maintaining a jet fighter fleet to control airspace. This force is by its nature designed to control our population. Given the nature of our world and its leadership, people have every reason to want to pay attention and consider the possible ramifications of these developments.

Re:Capt'n Obvious and the Oxymoron Kid to the resc by geekoid · 2012-06-14 02:31 · Score: 1

Fox news has been drumming up dear about drones as an attack against Obama.
Of course they are doing this because agency like the EPA use them to find polluters and corporation dropping crap into our drinking water.
As a by product of that, Drones are higher up on peoples radar. heh.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

And most of them are used for innocuous reasons by gelfling · 2012-06-14 02:31 · Score: 0

Such as the Coast Guard, the Weather Service, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of the Interior.

So yeah please freak the fuck out and get your OCCUPY anarchist t-shirt in the gift shop as you exit.

Re:And most of them are used for innocuous reasons by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 03:39 · Score: 0

Such as the Coast Guard, the Weather Service, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of the Interior.
Do you know this through reliable fact apprehension, or are you assuming things in an attempt to pad a wishful belief system?
The list provided on the map lists the controlling body for each base as being military.

Re:Mt. Washington, NH a drone base? Really? by geekoid · 2012-06-14 02:32 · Score: 1

Almost as if the US military does something in isolated mountainous areas...

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Fark the 3rd ammendment by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 02:41 · Score: 0

If they want to park the drone in my back yard, they are welcome to it.

That'll make the neighbors think twice about dropping branches on the property ;)

Are we not in a state of continuous war? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 03:05 · Score: 0

Kinda breaks down at that point.

Re:Woah! Yep Slashdot == Fox news. by LWATCDR · 2012-06-14 03:30 · Score: 2, Informative

One of the sites on the map is not far from where I live. The thing is that there is no "military" base in Okeechobee Florida so I did a little research...
http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/design-architecture/are-non-military-drones-flying-into-regulatory-quagmire/4759

ewww I am terrified. The Army corp of engineers are using small hand launched "drones" to monitor lake Okeechobee which is frankly a way cool use of tech folks. Yea this guy in a polo shirt throwing a model airplane from a bass boat terrifies me to no ends...
The other bases in Florida are all training sites. At at least one of them they also have F22s! ewww.
Really people when did Slashdot become so freaking political? They are not good at it and frankly I would rather see more stories about people buiding mechs in the backyards than fear mongering crap like this.

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.

Farms by pubwvj · 2012-06-14 03:34 · Score: 1

"may also serve as imagery analysis depots."

Cool! Drones would be a wonderful way of doing orthophoto mapping. I have been using orthophotos in our forestry and farm work for planning. The problem is resolution and infrequent flights due to the high expense of manned photo mapping flights. With unarmed computer controlled drones we could have much higher resolution, more frequent orthophotos made which would be very useful. This greatly cut the cost producing these useful photo tools. I want a drone!

They are allied... by Quiet_Desperation · 2012-06-14 03:37 · Score: 1

...with the black helicopters.

Slashdot is turning into AM Coast To Coast.

Re:Mt. Washington, NH a drone base? Really? by LWATCDR · 2012-06-14 03:49 · Score: 1

Or for environmental monitoring like this one from the list. http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/design-architecture/are-non-military-drones-flying-into-regulatory-quagmire/4759
Here is my guess of what they are doing http://www.nasaepscor.unh.edu/projs.shtml
Snow melt run off surveys. Those little drones would be a lot cheaper than manned aircraft and safer.
Seems as if the Army Corp of Engineers are using them for none evil tasks.

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.

Re:Woah! Yep Slashdot == Fox news. by ColdWetDog · 2012-06-14 03:59 · Score: 2

Personally, I'm looking forward to our ubiquitous drone overlords.

I can see this as a total win -

1. Target practice - better than trap or skeet. I'll bet .22 bird shot would take down the little ones. For the bigger guys, it's always goose season around here....
2. Spare parts - the local Radio Shack doesn't carry UAV stuff yet. I'd love to pick up a couple of those little guys when the batteries run down or they hit a tree.
3. Cat practice for the ones in your backyard. Better than having the stupid animals chew up the bird population.

And you folks think the Federal Government doesn't want to help the average guy.....

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!

Lame. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 04:08 · Score: 0

Most military bases are on the map.

And get rid of that arm band. People will think you have no mind of your own.

Shit. Ten years ago I never would have believed people could be so lame as to buy into all this loser paranoia. I had respect for the intelligence of the American public.

Psh.

The only people out to get you are the corps and their dogs in government. That's it. Chumps in the sand a thousand miles away simply don't matter, and are only allowed to be a 'threat' when it is convenient for the CIA/MOSSAD.

You're making excuses in the age of paranoia? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 04:25 · Score: 0

Trust me I have been out there and there is nothing in that area but wild pigs, Bass, fishermen, dear, cows, and an anual mud bog.

Sounds suspicious.

What were you doing out there? Why do you feel the need to be away from your fellow citizens? Do you hate people? Were you meeting others with similar motivations?

How can we be 100% you aren't regularly attending a para-military training facility? And I mean, 100% certain?

Sounds to me like you've been up to some pretty creepy things. Bomb-building and planning to kill our women and children, no doubt.

Thank heavens we have those predators overhead to keep tabs on you! I, for one, wish they'd just cut this pansy liberal 'justifiable cause' bullshit and just haul you away before you kill anybody.

Re:You're making excuses in the age of paranoia? by LWATCDR · 2012-06-14 06:52 · Score: 1

A they are not flying predators they are flying Ravens which are too small to be armed.
B where you have cows and Rednecks you have good BBQ. That is why I go out there.
C please get your paranoid delusions straight. Okeechobee supplies the water for South Florida which is the more liberal area of Florida. The Army is using the drones to spread Chemtrails that will then change the rain into a mind controlling drug to cause the voters in south florida to not vote for Obama, Romney, or Ron Paul depending if you wear your tin foil hat on the right, left or just have a full tin foil bodysuit.

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Re:You're making excuses in the age of paranoia? by virg_mattes · 2012-06-20 01:22 · Score: 1

The problem is that your points aren't relevant to the problem I have with drones based in the U.S. being used for surveillance of U.S. territory. When the USA PATRIOT act was passed, people got up in arms. THe federal government assured the public that the powers granted by it would only be used against terrorists. It took less than two years before the FBI used said powers in a domestic case against a drug dealer who was a U.S. citizen with no ties to any terrorist organization.

I grow weary of being accused of wearing a tinfoil hat just because I don't trust the government not to lie to make their jobs easier at the expense of the citizenry. It's not like it takes a conspiracy theory to drum up proof that it happens at every level of government, because it's human nature.

Virg

hysteria by mwfischer · 2012-06-14 04:30 · Score: 1

What if they realize.... there are actually US CITIZENS IN THE US MILITARY?

Oh wouldn't that be the day!

Re:hysteria by Swave+An+deBwoner · 2012-06-14 14:22 · Score: 1

Birth certificates or it didn't happen!

Re:Mt. Washington, NH a drone base? Really? by c0d3g33k · 2012-06-14 04:36 · Score: 1

You missed the part about it being a popular tourist destination. It's isolated in the sense that it's up on top of a mountain in a National Park rather than somewhere in the middle of the I-95 East Coast Megalopolis, but doesn't mean there aren't people around nearly all of the time. It's still visited by thousands of tourists/day during the temperate parts of the year, and is within a few miles (and plain view) of a major ski resort that recieves lots of visitors in the winter months. It's on top of a mountain that you can drive to in your car and brag about it and is promoted as a major tourist attraction for the region. Not exactly the place to house a military base to conduct classified testing of drones. Whatever got this place on the list, it wasn't because it was a major Drone Base.

Re:Woah! Yep Slashdot == Fox news. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 04:39 · Score: 0

1. Target practice - better than trap or skeet. I'll bet .22 bird shot would take down the little ones. For the bigger guys, it's always goose season around here....

It's all fun and games until your drone target is armed with missiles. Then it's just global thermonuclear war.

Boo hoo by Sav1or · 2012-06-14 04:42 · Score: 1

"The guy who gets shot at doesn't like our gun, so we better just throw it away" We all know that's the real issue here, the bleeding heart liberals who want to be liked by our enemies. Also pro choice and ron pual 2013

The 3/5ths thing was an *anti*-slavery clause by Chris+Burke · 2012-06-14 05:04 · Score: 5, Interesting

that black people could be bought and sold as property and counted as 3/5 of a human being

Just for the sake of accuracy -- Slaves were whole "persons" according to the Constitution, but it was only 3/5ths of their number that counted for determining a state's representation in the House.

The slave states wanted the full number of their slaves to count, because it would increase their influence in the federal government. It was non-slave states and abolitionists who argued against this, and reducing it to 3/5ths was the compromise.

So you see, it's not counting slaves as less than a full human being (which wasn't what they were doing) that is the problem with the 3/5ths clause. It's that people who were slaves and thus not represented by their government were being counted towards representation at all. It's not that it's less than 1, it's that it's greater than 0!

Just wanted to put that into perspective. It's kinda messed up that we had to make compromises like that just to form our nation. But you know, the Founder's reasoning about freedom and liberty were quite good. The only problem was that they didn't extend the concepts to everyone, which is a problem easily fixed -- logically, anyway.

--

The enemies of Democracy are

Any Founding Father caught sniffing the saddle... by Dogtanian · 2012-06-14 05:55 · Score: 1

Read the 3rd fucking amendment you dumbass liberal. NObama is using these drones to enforce his military dictatorship against the true citizens of this nation. This is the kind of fascism you get when you "elect" a socialist.

The drones are staying in people's houses?

No but they can peep in people's houses.

Well, that's the wrong amendment. Calling someone a dumbass and then citing the wrong amendment is entertaining, though.

What does this remind me of? Ah, yes...

RIMMER: Go to blue alert.
LISTER: What for? There's no-one to alert - we're all here.
RIMMER: I would just feel more comfortable if I know that we're all on our toes 'cos everyone's aware it's a blue-alert situation.
LISTER: We all are on our toes.
RIMMER: May I remind you all of Space Core Directive 34124?
KRYTEN: 3-4-1-2-4. "No officer with false teeth should attempt oral sex in zero gravity".
RIMMER: Damn you both, all the way to Hades! I want to go to Blue Alert!

--
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).

A bit willfully obtuse? by Uberbah · 2012-06-14 06:11 · Score: 0

F-16's and ICBM's aren't used for mass surveillance. Drones are.

Did you think that mass wiretapping from the NSA was cool because the FBI has done wiretaps in the past?

Re:Woah! Yep Slashdot == Fox news. by Darinbob · 2012-06-14 06:16 · Score: 1

This is not a politial discussion we're having, this is a tin foil hat discussion.

You're kidding about kidding, right? by Uberbah · 2012-06-14 06:20 · Score: 1

There are also more US Army, Air Force, and Navy bases in the US than in the rest of the world combined.

How many are engaged in domestic surveillance.

Many of them have tanks, warplanes, aircraft carriers, howitzers, and many other weapons

How many of those tanks, warplanes, aircraft carriers, howitzers, and many other weapons are used to spy on people?

this is the stupidest thing I've ever read.

This is the stupidest apologism for police state tactics yet. And before you or another Authoribot whines about how this wouldn't be used on Americans, the NSA started mass warrantless wiretapping Americans a good ten years ago, and a Democratic President just signed a law allowing military detention of American citizens on American soil.

We're so far down Orwell's rabbit hole it's not even funny.

Re:Woah! Yep Slashdot == Fox news. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 06:38 · Score: 0

Personally, I'm looking forward to our ubiquitous drone overlords.

I can see this as a total win -

1. Target practice - better than trap or skeet. I'll bet .22 bird shot would take down the little ones. For the bigger guys, it's always goose season around here....

Don't mean to ruin your fun, but unless you've got heavy enough firepower to reach their cruising altitudes (15-35k feet, maybe higher), as well as a strong enough scope and superb marksmanship, you'll not be doing much target practice on these. Come to think of it, unless you have your own radar installation, you won't even know they're up there. Have fun, average guy.

So, in conclusion by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 06:52 · Score: 0

For those keeping score of the prevailing slashdot groupthink:

Self-flying airplanes = BAD

Self-driving automobiles = GOOD

Self-piloting spacecraft = GOOD

Did Anyone Bother to Read the Full Article? by Koreantoast · 2012-06-14 07:46 · Score: 1

From the article:

"Domestic proliferation isn’t the same as domestic spying, however. Most — if not all — of these military bases would make poor surveillance centers. Many of the locations are isolated, far from civilian populations. Almost half of the bases on the map work only with the relatively small Raven and Shadow drones; their limited range and endurance make them imperfect spying tools, at best. It’s safe to assume that most of the bases are just used for military training."

In summary, these bases are for storing and training with drones and are poorly situated for domestic surveillance. That is, unless the military is worried about a moose uprising.

US Military Aircraft in the US?! by thepacketmaster · 2012-06-14 07:51 · Score: 1

So what's the difference between this and all the US air force bases that fly manned fighter aircraft? What? Did they think these drones just naturally fly without any training or practice? Not exactly a good idea to put an expensive drone into a war zone when it's being controlled by an unskilled/untrained operator. Must be a slow day in the news room.

--

Luck is just skill you didn't know you had.

OMG! They're everywhere! by YrWrstNtmr · 2012-06-14 08:47 · Score: 1

Did you know that the military has finally completed the takeover of the Civil Air Patrol? They are equipping Cessnas with the exact same sensors as are on the airborne robots! They may be operating from YOUR local airport! See for yourself!

There can be only one reason for this. What are they trying to "hide"?!?

[Scary quotes and hyperbole to increase page views]

64 should be..... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 10:55 · Score: 0

...enough for anyone. Nice, round, binary number.

There are more than 64... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 12:17 · Score: 0

Don't forget that Customs and Border Patrol also has drone bases in Grand Forks ND, Washington DC, Oklahoma City OK, Riverside CA, Bellingham WA and Plattsburgh NY. Those mostly aren't listed in TFA.
Source: http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/border_security/am/about_oam/oam_history.xml

It could have been published in ``The Onion'' by Swave+An+deBwoner · 2012-06-14 13:35 · Score: 1

You and Ahmadinejad ought to team up because Al Queda has been reported in a The Onion-like article as scoffing at this type of bullshit:

Al Qaeda Calls On Mahmoud Ahmadinejad To End 'Ridiculous' 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Re:It could have been published in ``The Onion'' by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 13:47 · Score: 0

Oh I guess you have all the answers, but over 2,000 US Engineers and Architects asking questions are just idiots with conspiracy theories right? Fucking moron. You never looked for a single fact did you? You believe hear on Fox News and CNN right? Even after studio shots from Gulf 1 were leaked, you believe it all.
Oh, and I never said the whole thing was nefarious, neither do the roughly few hundred thousand people asking questions. They want answers, so that we can do things better. Blame is secondary.
Stay brainwashed, hell I don't care and I doubt anyone else cares. Ostriches have their place in the food chain. But don't ask people that know things to bury their heads in the sand next to you.

Slashdot Mirror

64 Drone Bases Located On American Soil

234 comments