Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government The Military United States Politics Technology Your Rights Online

CIA To Hand Over Drone Program To Pentagon? 142

Posted by samzenpus
from the you-take-it dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

CIA To Hand Over Drone Program To Pentagon?

Comments Filter:
  • by Nefarious Wheel (628136) on Wednesday March 20, 2013 @07:29PM (#43230115) Journal

    Sorry you lost control of your toy, CIA.
    You are permitted to read, but not to erase.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      It could be worse, if the Pentagon were to give it to the TSA...

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Fluffeh (1273756)

        It could be worse, if the Pentagon were to give it to the TSA...

        Given all the pre-flight checks that the TSA would no doubt do, that might be a good thing. The things would never get off the ground...

    • by Anonymous Coward

      They'll have to go back to using their fleet of black helicopters.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 20, 2013 @07:35PM (#43230161)

    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?"

    • by Livius (318358) on Wednesday March 20, 2013 @08:24PM (#43230529)

      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.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        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.

      • by Ash Vince (602485) *

        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 experi

      • by jc42 (318812)

        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 t

      • by Applekid (993327)

        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.

    • by ganjadude (952775)
      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.
    • 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 br

      • 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.

  • Transparency (Score:5, Insightful)

    by girlintraining (1395911) on Wednesday March 20, 2013 @07:38PM (#43230187)

    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 [thedailyshow.com] 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."

    • Re:Transparency (Score:5, Informative)

      by anagama (611277) <obamaisaneocon@nothingchanged.org> on Wednesday March 20, 2013 @08:04PM (#43230395) Homepage

      Worse than Nixon according to the attorney who worked for the NY Times during the Nixon administration and was involved in the decision to publish the Pentagon Papers.

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/19/goodale-obama-press-freedoms-secrecy-nixon [guardian.co.uk]

      • 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 t

        • by anagama (611277) <obamaisaneocon@nothingchanged.org> on Wednesday March 20, 2013 @10:30PM (#43231097) Homepage

          OMFG. "Obama Stopped Two Wars"

          You have to be fucking joking or retarded.

          Iraq: Iraq ended because the Iraqi government refused to extend the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) which was set to expire in December 2011 (date ring a bell?). Obama tried in the time period before SOFA expired to get the Iraqis to extend it. That was politically impossible for the Iraqi government partly as a result of war crimes confirmed by the information Bradley Manning released through Wikileaks. That's who you should thank for ending Iraq because if Obama had had his way, we'd still be there. But when Democrats get a hold of the FACT that what Obama did was fail to extend the war, they say "Iraq over: Check!" As if Obama is some peacenik. By that same logic, you should be lauding as a hero any person who intends to shoot a bunch of people on campus, but gets arrested before he can go on a rampage. Obviously, the guy is a humanitarian -- look at how many people he saved by failing to do what he wanted to. THAT is exactly the logic used to commend Obama on the end of the Iraq war.

          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/26/obama-iraq_n_1032507.html [huffingtonpost.com]
          http://www.salon.com/2011/10/23/wikileaks_cables_and_the_iraq_war/singleton/ [salon.com]

          As for the second war -- which was that? Afghanistan is still going (and remember, Obama tripled the troops there, GWB's max was about 35k, we're still at around 65K troops, so still almost double) and Libya is spilling over into Mali. Of course Libya is a thing in itself -- even GWB had congressional approval for the Iraq debacle, but Libya was prosecuted without that token congressional acknowledgment required by the War Powers Act (a law designed in the post Viet Nam error to prevent future Viet Nams) because our constitution says that wars are not declared by the president, but by congress. So next time we have a Dick Cheney type in the office and he decides he's going to war with anyone and everyone, Congress be damned, remember to send Obama a "thank you" note.

          And how is that even after Iraq ended, Obama can't figure out how to spend less on the offense budget than GWB did in his worst (i.e., highest spending) year?

          offense spending (Trillions)
          2007: 0.7T
          2008: 0.7T
          2009: 0.8T
          2010: 0.8T
          2011: 0.9T
          2012: 0.9T
          http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/breakdown_2012USrt_13rs5n [usgovernmentspending.com]

          Obama is up 200 billion over GWB in military spending and he cries big sad tears about the sequester which is what, 80B? Even if the entire sequester came out of the military budget, we'd still be paying 120B more than we were when the Iraq war that Obama failed to extend, was hot.

          Wise up and quit being an apologist for the worst president ever -- which is an amazing feat considering the depths GWB plumbed.

          • 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.

            • by crutchy (1949900)

              Ron Paul would have pulled the troops out immediately after taking office

              • 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 abo

                • by moeinvt (851793)

                  The President is Commander in Chief of the armed forces. Congress never passed a declaration of war for either the Iraq or Afghanistan invasions. These were done by presidential order. Therefore, both wars could have been ended by presidential order, and Ron Paul promised to issue such orders. It doesn't matter who "opposed" this. It's the decision of the president. If the military commanders had refused to obey, they could have been dismissed.

                  ""Ron Paul" is just a sigil for people who agree with Demo

            • by s.petry (762400)

              me: Knock knock!

              you: Who is there?

              me: Reality!

              you: No thanks, I only want propaganda.

              It's one thing to be delusional and not see something that is real. It's another thing all together to argue against reality when it gets displayed to you.

              You can get better you know, but you have to want to learn. Cognitive dissonance is painful, but heals in time. If you are content to sit in the cave and watch the puppet show, fine and dandy. With that said, don't argue that the puppet show is reality. You harm the

          • by khallow (566160)

            Iraq ended because the Iraqi government refused to extend the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) which was set to expire in December 2011 (date ring a bell?). Obama tried in the time period before SOFA expired to get the Iraqis to extend it.

            He obviously didn't try very hard since it didn't get extended. I doubt Bradley Manning was a factor here. They could have reduced and modified the US military presence in a variety of ways. They could have offered a bunch of foreign aid and other incentives. I think it more likely that Obama wanted to get out and bribed the Iraqis to provide him political cover.

            And how is that even after Iraq ended, Obama can't figure out how to spend less on the offense budget than GWB did in his worst (i.e., highest spending) year?

            Well, his administration is claiming the spending [defense.gov] is going down. I don't know how to reconcile your numbers with those numbers since I don't know

          • I won't get into exactly how wrong you are on Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, Mali and pretty much every military operation of the last 10 years, as that will take too long. I'll just point out a few very basic issue with your budget numbers: it's called the national defense spending, not the war budget. This means that the cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are actually not accounted for in there. Instead, those wars were funded with supplemental and emergency budgets that are not on the main budget sheet.

        • Obama *stopped* two wars

          But they are still going on!? Oh wait, did he stop them the same way Bush stopped the war in Iraq in 2003 with his Mission Accomplished speech?

          under Bush, who started using Hellfire missiles on drones

          If you think the technology of launching missiles from drones was Bush's invention, you are probably giving him too much credit. Btw, drone operations have been a decent success, scoring over 50 high level terrorist leaders so far and over 2500 militants overall

          • 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.

            • by Rockoon (1252108)

              Are you saying that Obama, as commander and chief, did *not* set the war plans and timelines that ends these wars?

              Since we pulled out of Iraq the day that Bush's plan had us leave Iraq.... no, Obama did not set to war plans and timelines to end this war.

              Was there another war that you were thinking of that ended? You seem to think that we've left two (or more) wars... but we have only left one war...

              I've got to agree with the other people that responded to you. You're an ignorant tribal idiot sucking on (apparently) Democrat cock.

      • by dbIII (701233)
        Probably almost every US President since has been worse than Nixon in some way. Ford most definitely was and sold out to Indonesia in exchange for a donation. Reagan pardoned the guy that sold US made weapons to Hezbolla only a year after they had killed over a hundred US Marines. What the CIA etc got up to while Clinton was in charge makes you wonder why people that wanted to being him down couldn't do any better than point out an odd place a Cuban cigar ended up. As for the Bushes, they'd better hope
  • by Celeritas 5k (1587217) on Wednesday March 20, 2013 @07:45PM (#43230269)
    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.
    • We can only hope that military are, in fact, less flexible on the matter than cops have proven to be...

    • by Anonymous Coward

      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.

      Ah, your "freedom loving gun nut" types would be the first to be eliminated, thus would be a non-issue to contend with.

      And it really kills me to think that people assume anything other than that. Put yourself in their position and tell me how or why you would use any other tactic to mitigate the largest threats so you can best control the masses.

    • Your comment sounds nice but it flies in the face of every human behaviour experiment ever done. If an unaccountable govt wants to kill people, it will do it regardless of what you and I think about it. We know how it works now, you simply label anyone who disagrees unpatriotic and let the mob take care of any resistance. It's how it worked in WW2, it's how it worked in Iraq, and it's how it will work next time around.
    • 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...

      • by rtb61 (674572)

        All that is happening is the CIA's out of control for profit private contractor behaviour with billions disappearing is slowly clamped down and operations handed over to the Pentagon so the US government can pretend what happened under the CIA never happened. The Pentagon will now generate tons upon tons of evidence, approvals, validations, forms at al to bury anything that might leak out. Private contractors under the CIA proved to be a horrendous debacle basically the establishment of an intelligence oper

        • All that is happening is...

          What's your point? Are you saying "meh, no big deal, I agree, but all Obama is really doing is just this minor stuff"?

          Because that's not true. You are correct that Obama has cleaned up the private contractor debacle, but that is not the only thing he has done.

          You agree with me that yes, Obama is dealing a significant blow to the military/industrial complex by ending their CIA sponsored 'drone wars'....then you minimize it and then tell me *another* thing Obama is doing to make ref

    • The idiotic concept of gun ownership being a human right is fortunately confined to violence crazed americans. I am so grateful I live in a country where guns are never seen in public or needed. Your freedom loving gun nuts are just overcompensating for their ahem "inadequacies" .

      • by ganjadude (952775)
        enjoy your higher crime rate!
        • by dbIII (701233)
          Yes, we enjoy the fact that the crime rate is a lot lower than in Washington DC.
          • by ganjadude (952775)
            funny you pick DC, where there is a HANDGUN BAN. Why not pick a location with open carry and compare it to that location???
            • by dbIII (701233)
              Oh yes, why not shift the goalposts when something is inconvenient?
              But yes, our crime rate is much higher than lot 43 middleofnowhere road between Someplace Kansas and Thatplace Kansas, but comparing it against all of the USA or any major city it's pretty low most years.
              Australia now has just as many guns as before the buyback but they are different sorts of guns. You don't need full auto for hunting or target shooting.
              I'm aware it's impossible to have a rational discussion about guns with a nation where m
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Sorry to break it to you, but "the order [...] to kill Americans" has already come down. What do you think the controversy about Awlaki (both of them) was anyway?

      • One cool Tuesday morning, Col. Marc Sasseville and Lt. Heather âoeLuckyâ Penney of the National Guard were ordered to launch a suicide attack against dozens of innocent American civilians in an airliner over Pennsylvania. They took their orders seriously and without question. Their fighter planes were unarmed. âoeIâ(TM)m going to go for the cockpit,â Sasseville said. Penney entertained thoughts of ejecting right before the collision, but thought that this might let her targets escap

    • 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.
    • 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.

      Would they? I remember quite distinctly the violence that was threatened when people in 2001-2005 dared to question the various invasions that were plotted. I also remember how it was done: they were simply declared "Unamerican". So yes, I'm sure they wouldn't kill Americans. The people they would kill would have been carefully stripped of their American-ness.

      Americans have never learned the real lesson of Hitler, or even of pastor Niemoller's poem: genocides happen because one group dehumanizes another, an

  • ... the CIA pouts and threatens to hold its breath until the administration buys it an even bigger, shinier drone program.

  • by Un pobre guey (593801) on Wednesday March 20, 2013 @07:50PM (#43230311) Homepage

    This could lead to increased transparency for the program and stricter requirements for drone strikes.

    1. We're supposed to believe that the agency chartered for secret activities will give up its secret drone program and not continue subsequent drone attacks in secret.
    2. DoD, home of DIA, will for some reason not keep the formerly secret CIA drone program secret within the DIA. They will be transparent about it.
    3. It came out in The Daily Beast, so it must be true. These highly secretive organizations are now being open, honest, and accoutable to the general public.
  • really? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by roc97007 (608802)

    > "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.

  • by tsotha (720379) on Wednesday March 20, 2013 @08:10PM (#43230431)

    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.

    • by dbIII (701233)

      I'm curious to know if the CIA wasn't very effective in that area

      There has certainly been a lot of rumours about utter fuckups with CIA people playing at being toy soldiers, and more publicly visible fuckups like the day they let Bin Laden get away by hiring locals that leaked the plan. There's autobiographies of ex-CIA agents with things like nineteen year old rookies with a week or two of military style training on top of college getting air dropped alone to organise military operations instead of sendin

      • by tsotha (720379)

        The problem when we talk about the CIA is we only hear about it when something goes wrong, which might lead to a false impression. How many operations have they successfully concluded without anyone being the wiser?

        They've killed a lot of people with drone strikes over the last few years. I want to believe in every case they were careful to make sure the target individual was in fact part of an organization taking up arms against the US and also that they were shooting at the person they intended to shoo

  • 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.
  • What they mean. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by gallondr00nk (868673) on Wednesday March 20, 2013 @08:51PM (#43230637)

    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

    • by Anonymous Coward

      The CIA, do things in secret? What kind of agency do you think they are?!

      • by Dareth (47614)

        Really it isn't like they are the NS.. um I mean No Such Agency... nope don't exist..... please point that in another direction.

    • 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.

  • drone schmone (Score:4, Insightful)

    by alienzed (732782) on Wednesday March 20, 2013 @10:02PM (#43230991) Homepage
    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...
    • by Ly4 (2353328)

      It used to be that cost and resources would severely constrain the number of 'targeted killings'.

      Those constraints made for a type of check and balance; only targets that reached a very high threshold were attacked. Now that it's much cheaper and easier to launch an attack, that threshold is much lower.

      In short, as is true of many systems, a change *is* quantity is a change in quality.

    • by TheCarp (96830)

      You are absolutely correct, its not different. Except, that it IS treated as if its different by the administration.

      Nobody is really complaining about the use of drones in the battlefield. Thats not the issue at all. The CIA drone strikes are happening in places like Yemen and Pakistan. Since when do US missles launched from ships, or fighter jets get aimed at yemen or pakistan? Why should drones suddenly be treated differently?

      Differently in that they are in the CIA hands, differently in that they have bee

    • 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.

    • by khallow (566160)

      What does it matter if it's a drone?

      Well, for one thing, what's the control over who does something with the drone? At least with a manned plane, in order to control the operation of the plane you need to get a pilot on the plane, and that is going to be hard since the air field is a controlled area. But with a drone all you have to do is subvert either the communication or the software and then you control the drone. No need to hop into the plane physically.

    • It's the American armed non-forces taking out targets. That's the diff. That's the beauty of using drones.

  • 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 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 [philly.com]

  • 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.

Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig. -- Lazarus Long, "Time Enough for Love"

Working...