Skip

"Did I just kill a kid?"
December 17, 2012 10:04 AM   Subscribe


 
You guys see this game?
posted by steinsaltz at 10:05 AM on December 17, 2012


Yeah, I posted it.
posted by empath at 10:11 AM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]


Oh, OK, sorry! I think it gave me weird dreams last night.
posted by steinsaltz at 10:16 AM on December 17, 2012


Thanks for posting this.
posted by the young rope-rider at 10:17 AM on December 17, 2012


Thank you as well. I'm fascinated by the effects of drone operations on the operators themselves, which seems to get swept under the rug quite a bit. (In many ways, it sounds almost as personal and intimate as being a sniper.)

One unstated note is that Bryant sounds like he's a fan of Queensrychë, judging by his mentions of dreaming in infrared. If I were doing his job, then Rage for Order seems like something I'd be listening to a lot.
posted by McCoy Pauley at 10:37 AM on December 17, 2012


Suddenly a child walked around the corner, he says.

Bryant saw a flash on the screen: the explosion. Parts of the building collapsed. The child had disappeared. Bryant had a sick feeling in his stomach.

"Did we just kill a kid?" he asked the man sitting next to him.

"Yeah, I guess that was a kid," the pilot replied.

"Was that a kid?" they wrote into a chat window on the monitor.

Then, someone they didn't know answered, someone sitting in a military command center somewhere in the world who had observed their attack. "No. That was a dog," the person wrote.

They reviewed the scene on video. A dog on two legs?
The United States of America kills someone's child, and then we lie and we say we killed a dog.
posted by crayz at 10:58 AM on December 17, 2012 [11 favorites]


I marveled that Obama could shed tears over school shootings, while presiding over drone strikes that kill kids all the time.

Pakistani children have just as much worth as children that live in wealthy Connecticut suburbs.
posted by dunkadunc at 11:10 AM on December 17, 2012 [40 favorites]


The United States of America kills someone's child, and then we lie and we say we killed a dog.

Which is surprising because usually it makes the front page of the news and the US defends it as being necessary for national security.
posted by GuyZero at 11:11 AM on December 17, 2012


General hopes for a comfortable war -- one that could be completed without emotional wounds -- haven't been fulfilled.

What the hell is a "comfortable war?" That's the most horrible line in this horrible, horrible story. I suppose it would be comfortable for the people who push for the wars, who never have to see the people (our own or otherwise) who have to be shoveled into the maw to keep war going. Ugh.
posted by GenjiandProust at 11:11 AM on December 17, 2012 [4 favorites]


The United States of America kills someone's child, and then we lie and we say we killed a dog.

Speak for yourself.
posted by Splunge at 11:21 AM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]


> I marveled that Obama could shed tears over school shootings, while presiding over drone strikes that kill kids all the time. Pakistani children have just as much worth as children that live in wealthy Connecticut suburbs.

Who can I pay to fly a banner with these words printed on it around The National Mall?
posted by Burhanistan at 11:23 AM on December 17, 2012 [3 favorites]




How about we break this down a little bit:

Killing a healthy dog is always sad, and often wrong.

Killing someone else's dog is more wrong.

Using a robot to do it is yet more wrong.

Using a robot to kill a child is worse yet.

Using a robot to kill a child you've never met, then claiming it was a dog is all kinds of evil.

If your job makes you feel so guilty you double over at work spitting blood, you might be at the center of many levels of evil. Both you and your society should re-think these procedures and actions.

Who knew that the bad guy subplot of the movie Toys would be the part that comes true?

Ugh. Mr. Obama, you can have #my2k, but stop spending it on killer robots.
posted by poe at 12:23 PM on December 17, 2012 [5 favorites]


it´s over three years since I posted this.
I notice that it now takes a European publication to tell the story.
posted by adamvasco at 12:36 PM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]


I marveled that Obama could shed tears over school shootings, while presiding over drone strikes that kill kids all the time.

And one only has to compare the volume of posts in this thread in 30 days and the numbers of . posts and compare them to the other thread to see that on The Blue to know how your position is in the minority.
posted by rough ashlar at 12:44 PM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]


^What´s your point?
posted by adamvasco at 12:48 PM on December 17, 2012


> And one only has to compare the volume of posts in this thread in 30 days and the numbers of . posts and compare them to the other thread to see that on The Blue to know how your position is in the minority.

What sort of crypto-nonsense is that?
posted by Burhanistan at 12:53 PM on December 17, 2012


Oh, wait. I get it. But still, kind of an odd way to say that more people are going to voice outrage/sadness/etc over the shootings than drone attacks.
posted by Burhanistan at 12:56 PM on December 17, 2012


Comparison shopping outrage fodder ain't likely to help maintain healthy respectful discussion &c. But you might be interested the spiegel link was posted the other day in the drone grafiti thread and it seemed nobody noticed it.
posted by bukvich at 1:04 PM on December 17, 2012


I'm very glad to hear that Brandon quit. I hope others decide they've had enough too.
posted by orme at 1:12 PM on December 17, 2012


I'm glad to see that the drone outragers have gotten over their tens-of-thousands-of-innocents-killed-in-two-wars outrage so quickly.

Me, not so much. I actually think that drones, while still not exactly laudable, are a better response to the foreign terrorist thing than wholesale invasion. If only for the reduction of collateral casualties.

(Please don't read this as approval of drone warfare as an acceptable instrument of foreign policy, but as a choice of the lesser of two evils)
posted by Artful Codger at 1:16 PM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]


Better a drone than a B-52 strike?
posted by entropos at 1:23 PM on December 17, 2012


The interesting thing about drone warfare is that it seems to more or less remove any direct moral culpability for atrocity from any one individual. Everyone in the whole chain, from the president to the guys that load the bombs in the drones, to the guys on the ground that order the strikes to the guy that pushes a button can more or less wave their hands and say 'it's not my fault' while children lie dying in a desert a thousand miles away.
posted by empath at 1:28 PM on December 17, 2012 [3 favorites]


I disagree, empath. I think the chain that attempts to shield any one person from having feel responsible for death was the same pre-drone; the man who orders infantry to charge doesn't actually shoot anyone, and the person choosing sites to bomb doesn't actually drop one. Drones aren't particularly revolutionary. They seem to me to be a more precise version of the cruise missile strikes that were common in the 1990s. From the article, the stress the drone system puts on a soldier at the bottom of the hierarchy is certainly the same tragic element that modern war has always had.
posted by riruro at 2:35 PM on December 17, 2012 [2 favorites]


The interesting thing about drone warfare is that it seems to more or less remove any direct moral culpability for atrocity

Like riruro, I also disagree. As does the OP

I could agree that the media can't get as much juicy footage from a handful of drone strikes as they can from all-out invasion, which makes it easier for the average person to remain relatively unaware of the casualties of drone strikes.

[They] can more or less wave their hands and say 'it's not my fault' while children lie dying in a desert a thousand miles away.

Like they haven't done that with regards to the 20,000+ civilian deaths in the Afghanistan war?
posted by Artful Codger at 2:43 PM on December 17, 2012


Artful Codger wrote: I actually think that drones, while still not exactly laudable, are a better response to the foreign terrorist thing than wholesale invasion.

I used to think the same way, but the drone program is just expanding and expanding and nobody seems to be interested in pulling it back. At least an invasion would focus your country's mind on what it's doing, and its goals. I suspect that the drone program is like the TSA: it's expensive, full of failure, and unlikely to achieve its stated objective; but the political benefits of cutting it back would be small and the political costs would be horrendous.

As for foreign terrorists, I note that many of the 9/11 hijackers (and Osama bin Laden) came from Saudi Arabia. It is absolutely inconceivable that the USA would attack Saudi Arabia, despite the fact that radicals in the Kingdom undoubtedly had a lot more to do with that attack than a bunch of Afghan villagers.
posted by Joe in Australia at 2:46 PM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]


I'm glad to see that the drone outragers have gotten over their tens-of-thousands-of-innocents-killed-in-two-wars outrage so quickly.

If Romeny had won, the outragers would have been vocal here after Romeny was in charge. Right now, because the one in charge has a D after the name - its all good.

(boots on ground vs drone) warfare as an acceptable instrument of foreign policy, but as a choice of the lesser of two evils

The idea of violence as acceptable foreign policy goes to the heart of the Nation's embrace and love affair with violence. Even over the rule of law - as shown by placing on its money a President who decided that what the Court had ruled mattered not and resulted in what is called The Trail of Tears.
posted by rough ashlar at 3:06 PM on December 17, 2012 [3 favorites]


How to erase the human soul:

Step 1: Build a machine that is capable of ending life
Step 2: Show someone the button that makes it work
Step 3: Pay them to press it.
posted by sarastro at 3:08 PM on December 17, 2012 [2 favorites]


How to erase the human soul:

Samuel Colt made them equal.

Apparently by erasing everyone's unique humanity.
posted by GuyZero at 3:27 PM on December 17, 2012


Joe in Oz:I used to think the same way, but the drone program is just expanding and expanding and nobody seems to be interested in pulling it back. At least an invasion would focus your country's mind on what it's doing, and its goals.

So, tens of thousands of innocent casualties is better than tens of innocent casualties because, well, the country's mind would be, um, focused.

The Afghanistan debacle is going on 11 years old, btw. Some focus.

It is absolutely inconceivable that the USA would attack Saudi Arabia, despite the fact that radicals in the Kingdom undoubtedly had a lot more to do with that attack than a bunch of Afghan villagers.

I agree with the sentiment, but I suspect the Saudi's wouldn't allow anything so target-able as an identifiable terrorist encampment within their borders. The Saudi regime hasn't stuck around for so long by being stupid.
posted by Artful Codger at 4:27 PM on December 17, 2012


It's stupid to accuse folks who oppose the drone program of hypocrisy as if full scale invasion is the only other choice. Not responding to terrorism with violence is a real and often pragmatic better choice.
posted by Drinky Die at 4:45 PM on December 17, 2012 [5 favorites]


BTW this was posted in the not-quote-dead previous thread http://www.metafilter.com/122454/Coming-Home-to-Roost-Domestic-Drones-US
posted by jjwiseman at 4:58 PM on December 17, 2012


Which is surprising because usually it makes the front page of the news and the US defends it as being necessary for national security.
I think the point was that the deaths are reported by the operators as being dogs.
Better a drone than a B-52 strike?
It's certainly cheaper, and thus more likely to be done. Additionally, you have the problem that drone strikes could be done without human operators. I would bet that this guy's job could be replaced with a software program using sophisticated machine vision technology. It might not be as accurate, but it could be done.

Additionally, the costs of these drones could be pretty low, especially if they were mass produced. So you could have thousands or even millions ($10 billion could get you 1 million $10,000 drones, and that's a drop in the bucket compared to our current military spending.

In the past, you could only wage war if you could find people willing put their lives on the line to fight for your cause. Now all you need is money and a GIS system loaded up with targets.
I'm glad to see that the drone outragers have gotten over their tens-of-thousands-of-innocents-killed-in-two-wars outrage so quickly.
First of all, hundreds of thousands, if not over a million people were killed in the Iraq war - it depends on which study you look at. Secondly, thousands of people have been killed in these drone strikes. The difference between killing thousands of people, and killing tens of thousands is only one order of magnitude. Given the fact that the wars are ending and the drone strikes are continuing, if not accelerating it's not surprising that people would be upset about the drones strikes.

Are you also surprised that Israelis seem more upset about missiles from gaza then they are about the holocaust? Or being exiled from Egypt? Stuff happening now matters to people more then stuff that happened in the past.
So, tens of thousands of innocent casualties is better than tens of innocent casualties because,
Tens? Looking at the statistics on Wikipedia:
Total strikes: 350
Total reported killed: 2,586 – 3,375
Civilians reported killed: 472 – 885
Children reported killed: 176
Total reported injured: 1,252 – 1,401
The source on that is the Bureau of Investigative Journalism. I've seen numbers larger then 1k for civilian deaths in the past, and in some cases every fighting-age male killed can is counted as a 'millitant' - we don't really know the exact number, and that's just for pakistan. But the upper estimate here is closer to 1,000 then it is to 10
posted by delmoi at 6:06 PM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]


Colonel Tart really has prostituted himself.
posted by wilful at 6:13 PM on December 17, 2012


It would be poetic justice if al Qaida managed to rig up a few drone bombs, and then flew them directly into the portable trailers where these people work. Of course such an attack would be labelled as terrorism.
posted by Meatbomb at 6:27 PM on December 17, 2012 [4 favorites]


“Mere words cannot match the depths of your sorrow, nor can they heal your wounded hearts … These tragedies must end. And to end them, we must change.” Every parent can connect with what Barack Obama said about the murder of 20 children in Newtown, Connecticut. There can scarcely be a person on earth with access to the media who is untouched by the grief of the people of that town.

It must follow that what applies to the children murdered there by a deranged young man also applies to the children murdered in Pakistan by a sombre American president. These children are just as important, just as real, just as deserving of the world’s concern. Yet there are no presidential speeches or presidential tears for them; no pictures on the front pages of the world’s newspapers; no interviews with grieving relatives; no minute analysis of what happened and why.
George Monbiot, "Bug splats", 17/12/12
posted by wilful at 7:38 PM on December 17, 2012 [5 favorites]


"No. That was a dog,"

so many quotables. ultimately, no one one has addressed the powerful moral concerns of being able to kill without risk of death. that is the paradox drone pilots face
posted by Shit Parade at 8:00 PM on December 17, 2012 [2 favorites]


delmoi, your wikipedia link to drone strikes and fatalities shows that from a high in 2010. the drone strikes have been DECREASING annually, from a high of 128 strikes in 2010, to 45 this year, with a similar decline in reported casualties.

Further, the same article describes how the missiles themselves were improved, and the targeting practices altered to minimize "civilian" casualties.

Pulling from the article:

A report by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, released 4 February 2012, stated that from under the Obama administration (2008–2011) drone strikes killed between 282 and 535 civilians, including 60 children.

Not quite the 1000+, unless you hold Obama accountable for Bush's drone use as well. And in terms of the ratio of intended targets to civilians killed, it's indisputable that drones have a lower ratio of collateral casualties than the full-on invasions, not to mention all the other joys that an invading army visits upon its hosts.

To recap - drone operations are apparently not expanding, the number of strikes has declined annually, and operational changes apparently have reduced the percentage of unintended casualties.

I am not a fan of visiting remote controlled death on foreign lands, and I'm disturbed by the moral and legal implications of drone strikes. But waging full out war is worse, in every conceivable way. Given that the US still feels threatened enough that inaction is not an option... how can anyone not see the current tactic of selective drone hits as a clearly 'less evil' option?

Note again that the annual number of strikes is declining, if that article can be believed. How is that bad?
posted by Artful Codger at 8:17 PM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]


Artful Codger: "I am not a fan of visiting remote controlled death on foreign lands, and I'm disturbed by the moral and legal implications of drone strikes. But waging full out war is worse, in every conceivable way. Given that the US still feels threatened enough that inaction is not an option... how can anyone not see the current tactic of selective drone hits as a clearly 'less evil' option? "

This 'lesser evil' talk is bullshit. There is another choice- no drone strikes, no invasion.

Obama is quite aware of the consequences of his 'signature strikes', but they're politically easy. That, for me, is the definition of evil. If he was shedding tears, it was because they put something in his eyes.
posted by dunkadunc at 8:37 PM on December 17, 2012 [2 favorites]


Won't somebody please think of the operators.
posted by clarknova at 8:45 PM on December 17, 2012


> Won't somebody please think of the operators.

Sadly, the PTSD of the operators may be the most politicallly correct Pro/Con discussion topic for getting beyond this. For many voters the only reason not to go to war and blow people up all over the place is that our soldiers sometimes get killed doing it.

wikiquote is missing that Ho Chi Minh thing about we will still win if your kill ratio turns out to be 30 to 1.
posted by bukvich at 9:25 PM on December 17, 2012


So can we talk about how our hero drone operators put their lives on the line every day?
Let's have that discussion.
posted by clarknova at 10:50 PM on December 17, 2012


For comparison, I present my great-uncle Ernie who flew in a bomber in WWII.

The only danger faced by drone pilots is psychological, and that's an improvement. If soldiers from my country need (actually need) to fight a war, I'd strongly prefer they don't die. I would have liked to have met Ernie.

Before he died, Ernie was presumably psychologically scarred by the danger he faced, but if he was disturbed about the innocents he killed it could only have been in the abstract. I can't wish PTSD on a drone operator, I just can't, but on some level I almost do, because I'm glad that someone in the chain of responsibility for a child's death will carry that death until the day they die. An improvement?
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 11:31 PM on December 17, 2012 [1 favorite]


I am not a fan of visiting remote controlled death on foreign lands, and I'm disturbed by the moral and legal implications of drone strikes. But waging full out war is worse, in every conceivable way. Given that the US still feels threatened enough that inaction is not an option... how can anyone not see the current tactic of selective drone hits as a clearly 'less evil' option?

Less evil? Sure! Still too evil for me to tolerate though.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:32 AM on December 18, 2012 [1 favorite]


how can anyone not see the current tactic of selective drone hits as a clearly 'less evil' option?

Well how about these two:

1) I say "I am going to kill you", draw my sword, and advance towards you.
2) I hide on a hill, overlooking your house, and without you ever knowing anything I shoot you with a sniper rifle.

I would say 2) is more evil because you have killed me in a sneaky way, with no chance to defend myself.

It is already pretty poor sportsmanship to fly overhead with an expensive jet airplane and drop a bomb on me when all I have is a rifle, but at least I can try to kill you.
posted by Meatbomb at 2:13 AM on December 18, 2012


1) I say "I am going to kill you", draw my sword, and advance towards you.
2) I hide on a hill, overlooking your house, and without you ever knowing anything I shoot you with a sniper rifle.


3) I throw hand grenades into your neighborhood (which house do you live in again?) until I'm more or less sure you're dead, then throw some more just to be on the safe side. Option 3 is pre-precision aerial bombing, and drones are much less evil than that.

It is already pretty poor sportsmanship...

War has absolutely nothing to do with sports. In the extraordinarily rare case that a war needed to be fought I'd want it to look as much as possible like our NFL pro bowl team rolling over their rec-league touch footballers. Our swords versus their safety scissors. I'd want it so damn quick and unfair that casualties are low on both sides. If fighting a country that has actually gone Godwin league warmongering, screw fair.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 7:11 AM on December 18, 2012 [2 favorites]


This 'lesser evil' talk is bullshit. There is another choice- no drone strikes, no invasion.

I want that too, but I'll be grateful for an incremental improvement in the meantime. Drone strikes are decreasing, not expanding.
posted by Artful Codger at 7:25 AM on December 18, 2012


Artful Codger wrote: Drone strikes are decreasing, not expanding.

How do you know that? Don't these statistics have to pried out of your government, which considers them official secrets? Isn't it true that your government has military bases all over the world, and that it has undeclared military actions in places like Somalia, Yemen, and Mali? The Washington Post certainly thinks so.
posted by Joe in Australia at 1:12 PM on December 18, 2012 [1 favorite]


Interesting link Joe.
Finding and killing Terrorist suspects.... that phrase just about sums up US policy
as seen from abroad. No justice, no trial just suspect them and kill them and America as whole doesn't object.
Not a big change from Bush days of if you aren't for us you're against us. Plus c'est la change.
posted by adamvasco at 2:36 PM on December 18, 2012


The terrorists don't think war should have any rules, that's one of the reasons we're better than them.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:42 PM on December 18, 2012


The terrorists don't think war should have any rules, that's one of the reasons we're better than them.

Maybe I am missing the obvious joke, because apparently we're not. Pooh pooh the idea of "sportsmanship" all you want, but how is a drone strike different from a car bomb or roadside IED?
posted by Meatbomb at 7:38 PM on December 18, 2012 [2 favorites]


As has been said before, a car bomb is a poor man's B-52.

Wars are always carried out against civilian populations, and those who say differently are full of it.
posted by dunkadunc at 7:44 PM on December 18, 2012 [2 favorites]






Badges for playing video games? It's been done.
posted by Joe in Australia at 2:09 AM on December 19, 2012


Incidentally, the article Homunculus linked to says
There have actually been 447 drone strikes in Afghanistan this year. That means drone strikes represent 11.5 percent of the entire air war — up from about 5 percent last year.

Never before in Afghanistan have there been so many drone strikes. For the past three years, the strikes have never topped 300 annually, even during the height of the surge. Never mind 2014, when U.S. troops are supposed to take a diminished role in the war and focus largely on counterterrorism. Afghanistan’s past year, heavy on insurgent-hunting robots, shows that the war’s future has already been on display.
So more drones, attacking targets in places most people have never heard of, killing people whose poverty is such that they could not possibly attack the USA, even if we accept the US military's claims about these villagers' perverse hatred of a country that shatters their homes and their children's bodies.

More drones, year after year, aimed by recruits in front of targeting screens aped ever more accurately by video games. I suppose one day the business of killing may be crowdsourced and the killing will be done by volunteers sitting slack jawed and slackbellied on velour couches, jiggling their joysticks in the cold light of their televisions, playing simulation after simulation for the reward of thinking that this time - this time - the bombs may be real.
posted by Joe in Australia at 2:26 AM on December 19, 2012 [4 favorites]


Thanks for the other links on the current state of drone warfare. I was clearly misinformed about what's happening this year.

It's probably perverse of me, but it still seems that drone strikes are a more fitting response to GENUINE terrorist adversaries than all-out invasion. I don't see anything particularly noble about a 21st century superpower invading a struggling medieval theocracy for a decade when the real enemy is just a relatively small band of plotters. I think one can justify this conclusion simply on sheer numbers of collateral casualties; if the drones have a higher ratio of "bad-guys" to innocents killed, and the overall number of innocents killed is down by more than an order of magnitude compared to invasions, then drones are better than invasions. "Sportsmanship" be damned.

Psychologically, I think it might be more productive too. It's hard for locals to side with a country that's just invaded you and flattened your town repeatedly, whereas if it can be seen that just the radicals are being targeted, i think it becomes an easier decision for locals to disassociate with the radicals, deny them support, and without local sympathy or support, many of these groups will wither and die. (Again, this is probably perverse of me)

I don't know where this will all go. My sense of Obama is that he's not as rabid a war-hawk as his predecessors, and that given the chance he would choose to avoid the military option. I guess this makes me perverse AND naive.
posted by Artful Codger at 9:33 AM on December 19, 2012


Glenn Greenwald: -Newtown kids v Yemenis and Pakistanis: what explains the disparate reactions?
posted by adamvasco at 2:28 PM on December 19, 2012 [1 favorite]












Everything You Always Wanted to Know about US Drone Strikes *but Were Afraid to Ask
You might have heard about the “kill list.” You’ve certainly heard about drones. But the details of the U.S. campaign against militants in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia — a centerpiece of the Obama administration’s national security approach – remain shrouded in secrecy. Here’s our guide to what we know— and what we don’t know.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 1:06 AM on January 12, 2013


That last link is broken. Here's a fixed one:
Everything You Always Wanted to Know about US Drone Strikes *but Were Afraid to Ask
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:48 AM on January 12, 2013


Targeted Killing and Drone Warfare
It is always a hard question whether new technologies require the revision of old arguments. Targeted killing isn’t new, and I am going to repeat an old argument about it. But targeted killing with drones? Here the old arguments, though they still make sense, leave me uneasy.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 8:33 AM on January 12, 2013




Double-tap strikes are almost certainly war crimes by anyone's definition. The idea of a double-tap strike is that the first one kills or injures the target, while the second one kills the first responders. It's astonishing that Business Insider sees nothing incongruous in lumping the US military's tactic together with the one used by suicide bombers (also see this other article from the same organisation). It's worth reading this article on the subject, too.

Incidentally, this was reportedly the USA's response to a report by Christof Heyns, the UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial killings, summary or arbitrary executions:
the US put out a statement in Geneva saying there was "unequivocal US commitment to conducting such operations with extraordinary care and in accordance with all applicable law, including the law of war".

It added that there was "continuing commitment to greater transparency and a sincere effort to address some of the important questions that have been raised".

posted by Joe in Australia at 2:08 PM on January 14, 2013 [2 favorites]




How Can You Resist the Age of Drones?
Five activists were arraigned last week in federal court on charges stemming from a peaceful demonstration at Beale Air Force Base north of Sacramento, Calif., protesting drone warfare last October. Rev. Sharon Delgado, Jan Hartsough, David Hartsough, Jane Kesselman and Shirley Osgood were charged with unlawfully entering the Beale facility to protest the base’s drone fleet and will be headed to trial in April. (Four others were arrested but their charges were dropped.)
posted by the man of twists and turns at 10:33 PM on January 16, 2013




« Older It's a pretty big tree.   |   The brief and beautiful life of Stella Joy Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post