No more drones for the CIA

No more drones for the CIA

www.thedailybeast.com

At a time when controversy over the Obama administration’s drone program seems to be cresting, the CIA is close to taking a major step toward getting out of the targeted killing business. Three senior U.S. officials tell The Daily Beast that the White House is poised to sign off on a plan to shift the CIA’s lethal targeting program to the Defense Department.

(visit the link for the full news article)

I thought ATS'ers would find this story interesting, to say the least.

Knowing how the government works, they don't EVER give up a capability. Shift it, maybe....but NEVER give it up. I'm curious to know what others might make of this "strategy" especially in light of drones being used domestically.

Think of this as a chess game. What is the move strategy? Inquiring minds want to know your thoughts.....

www.thedailybeast.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by CIAGypsy


So not to rid of them, but transfer them from one killing group to another?

What a joke......We need rid of these things at least in our OWN country....I am not for them at all, be a man and see your enemy eye to eye.....

Transfering them to the defense dept means military bases in the U.S. and abroad i would think.

reply to post by CIAGypsy


S&F

if true this is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. While it is encouraging to see that decision making process in hands other than those tainted by a foul history it is merely another arm of control.

My worry is down the road. When drones are authorized as means of surveillance and technology develops better / more capable hardware is there a possibility that nano-technology will take over the task? A cloud of giant mosquitoes maybe? A mosquito that could pack a punch with whatever it is loaded with? Individualized (smart) drones? Delivery systems that seem innocuous until bitten?

I haven't heard of this happening but isn't it only a matter of time?

Originally posted by Chrisfishenstein
reply to post by CIAGypsy

 

So not to rid of them, but transfer them from one killing group to another?

Well, they play by different sets of rules. That's the important thing....

Originally posted by Chrisfishenstein
What a joke......We need rid of these things at least in our OWN country....

Agree wholeheartedly!

Originally posted by Chrisfishenstein
I am not for them at all, be a man and see your enemy eye to eye.....

edit on 3/20/2013 by Chrisfishenstein because: (no reason given)

Honorable, but not practical (or likely) in this modern era....

Eh, forget it.

Originally posted by jimmiec
Transfering them to the defense dept means military bases in the U.S. and abroad i would think.

Bingo! You win the prize of the day!!

By transferring them to the DoD, they can transition domestic spying & targeting more covertly because it gives them a "reason" to justify having them more visible on US soil.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Chrisfishenstein

 

Except these aren't the ones being used in the US. The Border Patrol, and Customs are the only ones that use Predators. The ones that are being used in the US are microUAVs used by the police departments. They even come in kits that you can buy off the internet, just with better cameras.

Several police forces are in the process of removing them from their departments and stopping their use. And others didn't even know they had them, and are in the process of deciding if they want to use them or not.

Zaphod,

Have you ever witnessed the CIA or FBI work with local law enforcement? If I had a dime for every grass roots level cop who HATES dealing with the feds.....

It's easier to maneuver surveillance requests "in-house" than through local law enforcement.

I think it's a step in the right direction. Good things may not be what the intent was, but I'm all for taking any 'action' or 'operations' away from the CIA. They are supposed to be an intelligence gathering organization and that's it. The CIA history, however, has been to subvert blossoming governments, perform assassinations, coup-d'etats, and all sorts of things that are active rather than passive and most certainly they shouldn't be doing anything domestic. It's never a good idea to give a covert agency any power. NEVER, EVER.

reply to post by Chrisfishenstein


We are in 2013, to see a man in combat eye to eye is not of this century. We live in a world of constant technological advancement in which drones and machines of the kind are a necessity to keep our superior military advantage over the enemy.

Drones are also necessary at home, for the enemy is not always abroad but can lurk right here on our own soil.

The CIA is only transferring the program to the DoD so that it comes off clean in case of a domestic use of a drone gone bad.

The Defense department, which answers to no one, can now rely on National Security excuses in order to keep quiet about anything regarding drones on US soil.

reply to post by ParovStelar


Too true - 500 years ago it was crossbows that were the evil and unfair killing machines that were not allowed to be used against fellow christians. 100 years ago machineguns were "ungentlemanly", and shooting at other "gentlemen" in aeroplanes with pistols was sometimes condemned.

Drones - they aer jsut aeroplanes without pilots. People have been using aeroplanes without pilots to kill other people since WW2, and tried to develop them during WW1 without successdue to the technology of the day not being up to it.

In 1849 Austria attacked Venice with Balloons loaded with explosives

Get over it!

Interesting. I agree that it's probably just a shifting of them around to another area. One doesn't spend a ton of money and just throw them away. Did any of you see the February 11th issue of Time with the caption "Rise of the Drones" last month? I actually picked it up and ended up showing it to my kids as a lesson in possible propaganda, lol. I was curious to see how it was going to be spun based on the ominous cover but the internal article featured the "positive" civilian applications of drone use. My theory is that, with all the attention that drones are getting, the responses of some areas of government in regards to their use of them are to be expected include pr activities like the Time article. The CIA's move is probably pure PR.

Time cover: www.time.com...

I don't see this as good for America. I see this as a move to get them on to American soil for use. This is a scary move IMO.

You did very good to show your kids the magazine and explain to them how it is propaganda.

Let me show it to ATS also.

Here is a perfect example of propaganda:

reply to post by ParovStelar


The difference between the portrayal on the cover and the inside article was amazingly stark. You have a dark and ominous cover and the first photo on the actual article shows a real estate agent at a lovely luxury home with a drone. There's a few nods towards the military uses and ethics questions but the photos are all civilian applications--"see how a drone helps a real estate agent!" "look! a drone is helping these farmers combat wild pigs!" That sort of thing. I'd say the combination of the two were definitely to target those who were concerned about drones and the interior was to basically shift their opinions towards acceptance. Thanks. I figure the best thing that I can do as both a citizen and a parent is to make sure that my kids are able to discern bias.

Originally posted by WhiteAlice
reply to post by ParovStelar

 

I figure the best thing that I can do as both a citizen and a parent is to make sure that my kids are able to discern bias.

An amazingly rare quality these days.... We need more parents like you.

I remember reading somewhere that civilian operators will be behind the controls of these military machines.

An interesting dynamic exists between Americas various defense branches. Supposedly they're all playing for the same team, but they're actually in heated competition with one another. The CIA, Army, Air Force, Navy, etcetera all compete for the biggest slice of America's budget. Because of this you'll find that the various branches often try to hinder the other in an attempt to make themselves appear more worthy of a bigger budget.

Score one for the defense department in their war against the CIA.