Slashdot Mirror
CIA To Hand Over Drone Program To Pentagon?
An anonymous reader writes "According to a report at The Daily Beast, the Obama administration has decided to give the drone program to the Pentagon, taking it away from the CIA. This could lead to increased transparency for the program and stricter requirements for drone strikes. From the article: 'Officials anticipate a phased-in transition in which the CIA’s drone operations would be gradually shifted over to the military, a process that could take as little as a year. Others say it might take longer but would occur during President Obama’s second term. “You can’t just flip a switch, but it’s on a reasonably fast track,” says one U.S. official. During that time, CIA and DOD operators would begin to work more closely together to ensure a smooth hand-off. The CIA would remain involved in lethal targeting, at least on the intelligence side, but would not actually control the unmanned aerial vehicles. Officials told The Daily Beast that a potential downside of the agency’s relinquishing control of the program was the loss of a decade of expertise that the CIA has developed since it has been prosecuting its war in Pakistan and beyond. At least for a period of transition, CIA operators would likely work alongside their military counterparts to target suspected terrorists.'"
Sorry you lost control of your toy, CIA.
You are permitted to read, but not to erase.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
It could be more transparency, or it could be the administration trying to confuse things (as they have done with other hot issues) by changing the owner and trying to either divest responsibility or knowledge. "I don't knwo what's going on in that program - we don't do that here" or "We transferred all records when we transferred the program. What do you mean they were lost?"
This could lead to increased transparency for the program and stricter requirements for drone strikes.
HAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaa ha. Funny. This is the same administration that was mercilessly mocked by Jon Stewart for it's total and abject lack of transparency, to the point of trying to use a "jedi mind meld trick" on the assembled reporters regarding the mere existance of the requirements... which were basically "We'll do whatever we want, whenever we want, however we want, to whomever we want."
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Does this mean the President can still murder his own citizens whenever he feels like it? I still can't work out how this is acceptable to anyone in the western world?
It may just be switching a program from one hand to another, from my viewpoint in the regular military I think it's a step in the right direction. A huge chunk of my coworkers are the "freedom loving gun nut" types-- and regardless of your opinion of the "God Bless 'murrica" crowd, if the order ever comes down to kill Americans, they'll be the first ones to refuse that order. Same goes for forcibly taking guns away, or any other egregious violations of basic human rights.
Have gnu, will travel.
This could lead to increased transparency for the program and stricter requirements for drone strikes.
> "You can’t just flip a switch"
Sure you can. See that power switch on the console? Flip it to "off". Good. Now, don't flip it to "on" until transition is complete. If we're talking about live assets, especially deployed, I could agree, in many cases you can't just flip a switch. But they're machines. They can be switched off.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
If you're going to prosecute the "war on terror" as an actual war, from an organization standpoint this makes sense. However, the whole reason the CIA was given the program to start with was they were supposed to have human intelligence on the ground to identify targets. I'm curious to know if the CIA wasn't very effective in that area, the CIA will still be providing HUMINT, or the military will be expected to do so.
Boy, I must have fallen behind the times. When did Pakistan become part of the arena for this war? I remember Iraq, I remember Afghanistan, there was a strike in Pakistan when they found Bin Laden living there. Did that end up including Pakistan as part of the arena and how far beyond Iraq, Afghanistan and, now, Pakistan does this military action go?
During the transition period, the Pentagon will murder whoever the CIA asks them to, and vice versa, and it will be impossible to pin blame on either of them.
After the transition, the CIA will probably keep using drones the same way as before, just keeping it slightly more secret, and pulling out different legal nonsense when they get caught.
I think that this handover is designed to allow for the operation of these drones in American skies in a "more legal" manner. It is well known that the CIA is not SUPPOSED to operate domestically. But since 9/11 the US military has increasingly ignored Posse Comitatus. With this handover the federal government will have a quasi legal means of commiting drone strikes domestically. It will happen. I promise you that it's coming. But before that thee drones will be used for more illegal domestic surveillance.
Not clear where the drones from HR will go...I kid, I kid.
During the transition period, the Pentagon will murder whoever the CIA asks them to, and vice versa, and it will be impossible to pin blame on either of them.
After the transition, the CIA will probably keep using drones the same way as before, just keeping it slightly more secret, and pulling out different legal nonsense when they get caught.
It's not like the director of the CIA is ever going to end up in a federal prison for the rest of his life for murder, getting pounded in the asshole by Bubba his cell-mate. Not even if he personally authorizes their hits and admits it.
Until that changes, expect more unaccountable bullshit from unaccountable agencies. Far as I can tell, we could eliminate the CIA and DHS entirely and no regular citizen would even notice anything except the slightly lower federal taxes.
Is that instead of one there will now be two agencies doing drone missions. The Pentagon will take over, but the CIA will still do it in secret.
CAPTCHA: Truthful
expertise that the CIA has developed since it has been prosecuting its war in Pakistan and beyond.
So nobody should be concerned if Pakistan flies a drone over the USA shooting up Americans that are on their 'naughty list'??
CIA operators would likely work alongside their military counterparts to target suspected terrorists
"target suspected terrorists"?
I don't like the look of that guy. Must be a terrorist. Open fire.
Obama should get another Nobel Peace Prize for this...he's clipping the wings of the military-industrial complex.
Absolutely any notion that this **adds** secrecy is insane. This is what Kennedy tried to do and it cost him his life.
This is taking our country back and adding accountability to something that previously had none (especially under Bush, who started using Hellfire missiles on drones, btw).
And WTF about is this above ^^ about Nixon? Obama *stopped* two wars...Nixon intervened at the end of LBJ's term to keep a peace agreement (that would've ended Vientnam) from happening before the election: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21768668
Read up chumps...
Thank you Dave Raggett
Either your are a pacifist or not. If you are a true pacifist, then you should stipulate that b/c it changes your argument.
If you are **not** a full pacifist, then it is simply a question of **when to use** lethal force.
Any discussion of drone weapons must be in the context of using a manned plane for the same "kill mission"....otherwise it is a completely pointless argument over a distinction (Drone kills!) without a difference (still killing no matter what device).
Can you address this?
Thank you Dave Raggett
It's more than a "step"...
Obama is quietly doing to the CIA what Kennedy tried to do (and cost him his life)...
Obama is clipping the military/industrial complex's wings. All the 'black helicopter' set is completely missing this...
Thank you Dave Raggett
What does it matter if it's a drone? What's the difference between a drone and a regular fighter jet? Or missiles launched from ships? You're all acting like there's some new element in all this, but there isn't, it's still the American armed forces taking out targets. This has been going on for a very very long time...
Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!
Officials told The Daily Beast that a potential downside of the agency’s relinquishing control of the program was the loss of a decade of expertise that the CIA has developed since it has been prosecuting its war in Pakistan and beyond.
Yeah, they've been doing a real bang-up job so far.
The Cia cannot operate domestically If they want to use Drones domesticity they have to be in control of a different agency i.e the Pentagon
And now it is also known where the drones will be controlled from, although I am not convinced that there is only a single command centre. That would be rather stupid... Anyway, so, one of the control centres will be located in Horsham, PA near Philadelphia on part of the grounds of the format naval air base, according to the following article: http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20130320_Horsham_command_center_for_drones_stirs_controversy.html
Seriously, for a president who ran on the idea of being the most transparent president in history.... well lets just say that it was opposite day when he made that statement.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
You know that stopping a war is not stopping a car, right?
If Obama had not taken action then we would not be leaving now, that's for sure. Are you really saying Romney and the GOP would have done the same???
You didn't disprove my contention at all. Obama, as commander and chief, ordered the ending of our operations in Iraq/Afghanistan.
No one but him could do it.
Thank you Dave Raggett
Are you saying that Obama, as commander and chief, did *not* set the war plans and timelines that ends these wars?
Stopping a war is not like stopping a car. It takes months if not years...especially when you've been fighting for a Decade.
You didn't offer any counterpoints....if you want to have direct clash on a topic, make a point.
Thank you Dave Raggett
Open Letter to US Citizens
Please stop killing innocent people with drones. That only creates misery and terrorists.
CIA operators would likely work alongside their military counterparts to target suspected terrorists.
Right at the end, the words "suspected terrorists". If you can't see what's wrong with that you should get your ass hauled to federal prison for being suspected guilty of stupidity. I don't actually hope death for anyone, but because US keeps slaugtering people all over the world I won't be crying too much when the next widows plane meets the next american highrise. You will get what you are ordering.
Ok 'Rockoon' I'm going to have to see links for these:
I want links to support these claims because they are prima facia false.
So, Iraq...Afghanistan (the 'other' war that you were baiting me to bring up so you can say "derp we're still in Afghanistan! my cousin was just there...)..."war"...."our troops"...
If you are worth talking to, you understand the context of my comment and what I meant by "ending" a war. If you are trolling, well you'll keep fsking with me on definitions of terms until comments for this thread are disabled.
Obama gets credit for ending Iraq and Afghanistan (as planned). As commander in chief that's his call...I don't care how many "plans" his predecessors had...when he took over it was all up for grabs, and you know this. The endings of these wars are absolutely not on 'Bush's timeline'...I really can't believe you said 'same day as Bush's plan' for the end of the Iraq war...
So let me see those links!
Thank you Dave Raggett
Look...you want to say something like this:
you need to present a serious number of links and some logic.
On the face of it you're making flamebait claims. Start making sense or don't expect a response. Please include links in your response.
I'm a 'shill' for a non-biased, honest look at what Obama has done and what this 'drone' thing means in that context....can you participate in such a discussion?
Thank you Dave Raggett
Absolutely impossible. Please explain how he could have done it faster than what was done under Obama.
In your response, explain how those who opposed Obama's efforts would have supported Ron Paul's **earlier** (your words "immediately after taking office") removal timeline. See, they opposed Obama, so they'd logically oppose your Ron Paul earlier plan.
Just start with this, and if you make a logical, contestable, coherent argument then I'll give you a bigger list of things for you to explain like the one above.
You're way off, and you're trolling....and "Ron Paul" is just a sigil for people who agree with Democrat policies but won't vote or express their agreement for whatever reason (racism, subborness, trolling with their vote)
Thank you Dave Raggett
As long as their continues to be an Imperial Presidency with self-granted extra-judicial murder powers, it doesn't matter in which Palace stable these thouroughbreds are kept.
During the transition period, the Pentagon will murder whoever the CIA asks them to, and vice versa, and it will be impossible to pin blame on either of them.
After the transition, the CIA will probably keep using drones the same way as before, just keeping it slightly more secret, and pulling out different legal nonsense when they get caught.
Exactly.
Go and look up how they organised the Osama Bin Laden kill / capture mission for an excellent example. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Osama_bin_Laden) They had to assign the troops going in to be under the control of the CIA as the US is not currently "at war" with Pakistan. They will just do something similar with the drone pilot any time the CIA need a drone to kill someone.
Pentagon assets are assigned to the CIA or other agencies all the time so they can take skilled operators with experience of similar situations but use them as a one off somewhere (or against someone) the US military is not allowed to.
I dont read
You are a terrorist if you do not have a plane to drop your bombs.
Having bomb/rockets on planes without pilots like the drones is pushing the line back to terrorist level, ie flying reusable bomb.
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
During the transition period, the Pentagon will murder whoever the CIA asks them to, and vice versa, and it will be impossible to pin blame on either of them.
There have been explanations for a while (including from various professional comedians ;-) that the real issue in this story is that the DoD is rather upset that for the past few years the CIA has had a higher kill count than the military. Since the military considers killing people with impunity to be their job classification, it's understandable that they might be a bit upset by this young upstart outperforming them.
Of course, if the result is that they both claim credit for all kills, it won't fix the problem at all.
Isn't bureaucratic competitiveness wonderful?
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
This.
The Nobel Peace Prize medal must have faded out of existence due to all this transparency by now.
The biggest war on the US soil was south versus north, american against american. I do not see the US military less likely to shoot other american, you would just have to give them the correct "justification" and select carefully which units you involve.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
That's probably the truth. And it probably has to do with scale.
The use of drones and number of strikes is increasing so rapidly that the CIA probably doesn't have the infrastructure to scale up with it appropriately.
A large org like the Pentagon is needed to scale up drone use.
But of course the CIA will continue to use drones in a small way for their programs.
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
It's not transparency or dodging but rather a realization that many operations are now run by joint task forces drawn from many varied units across the military. Furthermore, the world has already recognized that we are operating armed drones in other countries, so running it as a dark operation under CIA auspices did not make sense anymore.
The failure of Operation Eagle Claw was found to be a result of military branches not training, working, or coordinating with each other adequately. As a result, each branch of the armed forces "detached" their tier one units (Delta Force, SEAL, Ranger, etc.) into a central commandâ"SOCOMâ"in 1987.
However, in theory, the military operatives of SOCOM were not deniable assets and had to report to civilian oversight. To take care of intelligence functions that require deniability or transparency, the CIA has its own operations group called the Special Activities Division and in particular, the Special Operation Groups within SAD. These guys were at the tip of the spear in the Afghan War, but there is always the case of Raymond Allen Davis, a "diplomat" who shot two guys in Pakistan through his windshield, then walked over to take pictures, and was then arrested.
CIA dominance of the armed drones program was a historical artifact. CIA ran the first armed Predator, call sign Wildfire, in Afghanistan because it couldn't get the Air Force or Army to strike fast enough when unarmed CIA drones provided actionable intelligence. The Air Force declined to co-fund the program, so CIA took the lead. It helped that CIA was also able to operate in denied areas to obtain targeting information for drones in countries such as Somalia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen. The fact that CIA drones were "off the books" provided a fig leaf for operations in Pakistan, which was a nominal American ally.
However, the world now knows that the US is running around blowing shit up all around the world. The difference between CIA paramilitaries and U.S. military men is not that important in the eyes of the world. Thus, keeping drones a dark program under CIA really stops making sense from an intelligence standpoint.
This culminated in the Bin Laden raid, which drew upon an alphabet soup of military and intelligence personnel. Originally, the shooters were going to be CIA SOG operators who could be denied if the operation went side ways. However, that was quickly revised to take a dream team of shooters from DEVGRU with instructions to shoot their way out of Pakistan if necessary. A second Chinook of shooters was added to the mission to provide the firepower necessary to smash Pakistani military and police forces who may have tried to stop the operators from leaving. In contrast, CIA operatives in the past were disavowed and left to rot. The best example I could think of were the three CIA operatives who were arrested in Cuba in the sixties. They spent three years in a Cuban jail without admitting their CIA affiliation under interrogation (duh, we're just tourists with sensitive spy equipment bugging a newly-built embassy, stop hitting me) until they were exchanged for Cuban spies arrested in New York.
The shooters on the Bin Laden raid were operators from the Navy SEAL Team 6, directed by targeters at the CIA, with an Air Force RQ-170 Sentinel overhead providing real-time video to leaders, Army CENTRA SPIKE/GRAY FOX operatives providing signals intelligence, NSA providing intel, and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency providing detailed three-dimensional measurements of the Bin Laden compound and ground penetrating imaging to show that there were no escape tunnels under the compound. CIA also put eyes on the ground in advance of the raid, trying to get a glimpse of Bin Laden, and also sent a doctor to try to draw blood from the residents of the compound to try and match it with the DNA of Bin Laden's sister. Oh, yeah, and when the stealth choppers flew in that night, the power to the area immediately around the compound went down as a result of CIA operatio
A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
It is easier for the military to operate domestically, right? If Obama wants to take out a domestic target, this seems like the way to go...
I wish there was a '6' level for certain comments on heavily trolled threads like this one...
The is so much bad information going around, there are definitely professionals using tradecraft in comments, there's the whole 'black helicopter' set commenting from parent's basement, lots of troll comments.
If anyone wants to get a handle on what this news actually means, here is a good place to start.
Thank you Dave Raggett
During the transition period, the Pentagon will murder whoever the CIA asks them to, and vice versa, and it will be impossible to pin blame on either of them.
After the transition, the CIA will probably keep using drones the same way as before, just keeping it slightly more secret, and pulling out different legal nonsense when they get caught.
The CIA doesn't need drones to murder Americans. They've been doing it since founding. Favorite example: no one has ever been made to answer for MK-ULTRA and pay for their crimes.
More Twoson than Cupertino
"According to a report at The Daily Beast, the Obama administration has decided to give the drone program to the Pentagon, taking it away from the CIA. This could lead to increased transparency for the program and stricter requirements for drone strikes. From the article: 'Officials anticipate a phased-in transition in which the CIA’s drone operations would be gradually shifted over to the military, a process that could take as little as a year. Others say it might take longer but would occur during President Obama’s second term. “You can’t just flip a switch, but it’s on a reasonably fast track,” says one U.S. official. During that time, CIA and DOD operators would begin to work more closely together to ensure a smooth hand-off. The CIA would remain involved in lethal targeting, at least on the intelligence side, but would not actually control the unmanned aerial vehicles. Officials told The Daily Beast that a potential downside of the agency’s relinquishing control of the program was the loss of a decade of expertise that the CIA has developed since it has been prosecuting its war in Pakistan and beyond. At least for a period of transition, CIA operators would likely work alongside their military counterparts to target suspected terrorists.'"
sorry AC, you typed alot but you didn't engage in any discussion...you just spouted random contextualess counterpoints into the ether...you lose
start with this handy infographic: http://i731.photobucket.com/albums/ww312/fr0d0_bucket/disagreement-hierarchy.jpg
then, re-read my comments on this thread. if you still feel like any of your points are valid, start by using the 'blockquote' tag to quote my arguments you are refuting, then submit your counter-argument...
note: your text below does not count as a 'counter-argument'...
you simple stated the opposite of my contention and then acted as if you had made a counter argument...i can write a program that argues as well as you...
Thank you Dave Raggett
the whole point, to you hsmith and the one below who missed it as well, is that it is obvious that we are "still at war" in Afghanistan...
what is more obvious is that you and several other probably former/active military do not understand how human language works...
see, words have 'definitions' which are agreed upon by consensus...the word "war" has several different meanings...you morons will argue until you die over definitions
one of my points in the post was that we need to move beyond stupid definition 'wars' and have real discussions with clash of ideas
Thank you Dave Raggett
see my response above to user 'hsmith'
if you want to do this, then fine, you start by defining "war" and we'll do this thing
**prepares for definition war with internet troll**
Thank you Dave Raggett
Oh, so now we're all cool bro's who use our log-in instead of posting AC...yeah man...jeez why don't I chill...
Thanks for posting links. They do not disprove my point. First, the existence of a 'rapid deployment force' or whatever has nothing to do with our military operations in the middle east and how 'easy' or 'hard' it is to end them.
No. My argument is that our military "pulling out" or "ending a war" is a nebulous concept and can be bent to suit any contention. It was used on this thread to troll my defense of moving drones to DoD. I gave thoughts on SOFA's and used Germany and Japan as examples in response to a troll above on this further.
My greater argument is that you who dispute my contention that Obama's order for the CIA to hand drone operations to the DoD is a good thing are disputing it with flamebait and half-arguments which I continue to shoot down.
Obama is clipping the CIA's wings and bringing much needed accountability. It is a big step forward...one that cost Kennedy his life when he tried it!
This move to the DoD was a good decision. You can't disprove that contention.
Thank you Dave Raggett
I wanted to address this, as you seem informed on current events and willing to use your analytical thinking skills...
Thank you. Your logical mistake here is the *core* of why the whole 'Ron Paul = !!!" thing and 'libertarianism' is a big huge troll from the GOP.
See, what matters in the 'gay marriage' issue is **policy** What does the law say? It's the laws like DOMA and state laws that prevent gay couples from having full rights as married.
Policy. What the law books say and how it is enforced.
Your 3-way breakdown is illogical. You did not differential **policy** in your 3 groups (GOP, Dems, and "libertarians").
Instead of policy positions, you describe "what they would say"...which is all bullshit! It's what the **policy** is that they **vote** or implement that matters!
This is a nothing statement. What does it mean on the laws up for vote right now? No way to know! Would a 'libertarian' repeal DOMA? Any answer you give is your opinion..."libertarianism" is just a troll-concept.
Understand it and evolve
Thank you Dave Raggett
except when it doesn't matter...he didn't cast a vote on the last FISA. He votes against the Patriot Act to keep you trolls feed and happy but it doesn't do anything. When it matters he's a Good Republican.
Here's his most recent opposition to abortion: http://votesmart.org/bill/12747/33604/296/prohibiting-use-of-federal-funds-for-planned-parenthood#.UU4egVvErss
Oh, here's him continuing to support DOMA: http://votesmart.org/bill/15600/41178/296/prohibits-use-of-funds-in-contravention-of-the-defense-of-marriage-act#.UU4eklvErss
So that totally disproves your point here:
Ron Paul is a Republican who does bullshit publicity stunts
Thank you Dave Raggett
That is logically impossible. If it were true he would be in favor of not having any government. It's half a policy, one that allows them to oppose **anything** Democrats might do! It's fool-proof, as long as people don't think analytically.
It is litterally impossible for a elected official to be 'for less government' and consistent. You **must** define what government can do...Ron Paul never does that.
"Opposing government" is a moronic half-idea that keeps people enslaved to the military/industrial complex.
You can counter this point by showing me where Ron Paul or others have defined where their "Less government is always better!" philosophy stops. Where does he ever identify this? Show me.
Answer this or stop trolling. And, btw, I still expect you to use blockquotes on my points you are addressing.
Thank you Dave Raggett
if he's so gosh-darm logical and believable, you should be able to provide me with at least some evidence of your claim
instead...well...you're still trolling and probably will until comments are disabled
Thank you Dave Raggett
you typed at least 200 characters up there...
if this is true:
then you should have taken those 200 words to offer a rebuttal to my definite attack on your 'Ron Paul!!!1!' fantasy.
I requested you to provide basic info that should be as easy to provide as typing "you suck globaljustin"...
So put up or shut up...I outlined what I wanted you to do in the GP to this comment.
I expect links.
Thank you Dave Raggett
just b/c I'm kind of OCD on this stuff...
here is what you need to answer, the short version. re-read my previous comments before you prepare your full answer:
So type out a logical argument, post a **brief** link, or stop posting to this thread troll.
Thank you Dave Raggett