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
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.
It's acceptable because it's not Bush who's doing it.
This could lead to increased transparency for the program and stricter requirements for drone strikes.
Yup - the President is still commander in chief of the armed forces. This changes nothing but makes a great PR story for slashdot to pass on...
See? He's no longer in control of the drone strikes because it's under the control of the Pentagon now...
The first question anyone should ask is... if the CIA has been running its own defacto military force with its own strikes that means the CIA has been running its own war... WTF have they been doing that we don't know about?!
Does this mean the President can still murder his own citizens whenever he feels like it?
No.
I still can't work out how this is acceptable to anyone in the western world?
I don't know that it is.
> "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.
Well, then, we need to get all those drone strikes completed before 2016.
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.
Does this mean the President can still murder his own citizens whenever he feels like it?
Well, not legally, obviously, but if he can do it secretly, the law will count for as much as a politician's promise.
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.
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.
Yup - the President is still commander in chief of the armed forces. This changes nothing but makes a great PR story for slashdot to pass on...
Heh if you really believe that what we do with the military is a decision that actually ORIGINATES with the President and only happens with the President's personal agreement and approval ... well, in that case you have a lot to learn about how American power actually works. We've been Fascist for quite a while now. Even when Eisenhower warned us about the military-industrial complex, even then it was a bit too late. Too much inertia is behind it.
It's like what Douglas Adams said. The President exists not to wield power, but to distract attention away from it. The illusion of choice is very important to the power elites and their idea of maintaining order. The truth is, a two-party system is the perfect way to control things while making it look like you could actually vote for change. The trick is, "change" is code for "becoming more so". Truth is, no candidate who sincerely wanted to change things would ever get the sponsorship and political support it takes (from the real power behind the throne) to win an election.
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
It is acceptable because the average citizen is ignorant to the ... Well, so much that it is frightening. There is no media coverage, at least in main stream media( aka propaganda on TV) for any important issues. It is a small percentage of the populace that looks for real news and information.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
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.
And if he is ever called to task for it, congress will just retroactively immunize him, or the president will pull a Ford and pardon him.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
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
it's all the queen of england.... that raggedy wrinkly shit stinking pussy of hers is still controlling the world after all these years
And if martians give him a super shrink ray then he can just zap anyone he wants and feed them to goldfish.
And if he is ever called to task for it, congress will just retroactively immunize him, or the president will pull a Ford and pardon him.
So... FUD.
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.
Jesus, have you ever used google before? Have you ever read the news?
LET ME GOOGLE THAT FOR YOU
Christ, it isn't even that difficult to find he wanted to extend the Iraq war http://www.salon.com/2011/10/21/about_that_iraq_withdrawal/
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.
What makes you think that US citizens are in control of this government?
The federal government has declared that even US citizens can be labeled "suspected terrorists" by government bureaucrats and arbitrarily murdered or imprisoned. They are blatantly ignoring The Constitution. Furthermore, they are claiming that for "national security" reasons, their un-Constitutional policies are immune from the judicial review which was formerly an integral part of our system of checks and balances.
Please direct the blame where it belongs and don't equate the US people with the US government.
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
"we pulled out of Iraq the day that Bush's plan had us leave Iraq"
http://world.time.com/2011/10/21/iraq-not-obama-called-time-on-the-u-s-troop-presence/
"but we have only left one war..."
Seriously? You need a link to prove that the U.S. military is still in a war in Afghanistan?
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/08/17239340-defense-chief-chuck-hagel-in-afghanistan-were-still-at-war?lite
Notice that they talk about a time-table for pulling out U.S. troops in 2014. This is 2013, which should clue you in that the troops are still there.
"Well, not legally, obviously, but if he can do it secretly..."
It's not "secret" at all. They are doing it right out in the open with the assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki and the later assassination of his son. Both of whom were U.S. citizens, and neither of whom was ever so much as charged with a crime.
They are also claiming quite openly that their actions are legal. The ACLU has been working to force them to actually release a document which provides the legal justification for the policy, but so far, The White House has refused.
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
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