The long Washington Post profile this weekend of a top Central Intelligence Agency official contained a remarkable number of details about the man that heads the Agency’s Counterterrorism Center — remarkable because the man remained shrouded in mystery, referenced only by the first name of his cover identity, “Roger.” Roger chain smokes, swears, worked in Africa, was “pudgy” in his youth, and — oh, yeah — he’s Muslim.

This last fact was too much for one of America’s foremost Islamophobes to bear: to an Islamophobe, Islamic extremist terrorism is inseparable from Islam at large, so how could a Muslim head up a counter-terrorism operation? Leave aside that Roger presides over a CIA unit that he expanded from three unmanned drone aircraft to an entire fleet firing missiles that have crippled militant networks — including Al Qaeda — in Pakistan.

Leave aside that Roger presides over a CIA unit that he brought from having three unmanned drone aircraft to a fleet of them that fire myriad missiles which crippled militant networks — including Al Qaeda — in Pakistan. Never mind that retired Gen. David Petraeus, who now heads up the CIA, said of Roger: “No officer in the agency has been more relentless, focused, or committed to the fight against al-Qaeda than has the chief of the Counterterrorism Center.”

None of that was enough to convince Robert Spencer, a long-time ally of anti-Muslim mainstay Pamela Geller, that “Roger” just might be a Manchurian candidate foisted upon the CIA by Muslim extremists looking to destroy America:

[I]f Islamic supremacists wanted to subvert the U.S. defense against jihad terror, they couldn’t do it more easily than by turning someone in a position like Roger’s. The worst part of this story is that no one is even examining that as a possibility.

Maybe the Post’s Greg Miller simply realized that a guy who blows up the actual dangerous “Islamic supremacists” on a regular basis would make an unlikely candidate to be a plant within the system. Perhaps that’s because, under Roger’s watch, “core al Qaida’s ability to perform a variety of functions — including preserving leadership and conducting external operations — has weakened significantly,” according to Capitol Hill testimony by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.

But Spencer knows all that. He even says so:

The Washington Post, of course, follows the mainstream media line that Islam is a Religion of Peace that has been hijacked by a tiny minority of extremists, and so takes for granted that “Roger” has no loyalty issues, and proffers the drone campaign and the killing of bin Laden as proof.

Why still the questions, then? Because, Spencer says, “It is impossible to tell from this how serious he is about Islam.” The obvious implication in Spencer’s thinking is that “serious(ness)” about one’s faith — when that faith is Islam — means disloyalty to the U.S. Spencer should consider that the “mainstream media” might be right about this one.

Drones have constituted the sharp edge of U.S. global counter-terror strategy — flying high over hot spots, surveilling suspects and occasionally launching missiles down at them. Now, scaled down versions are being used right here in the United States. The L.A. Police Department is already using them. And civilians want to harness the power and efficiency of unmanned aircraft as well. The L.A. Times reported last year, “Farmers think drones could aid in spraying their crops with pesticides.” The federal government appears poised to allow it. But civil liberties groups have raised alarms about potential pitfalls in domestic drone use, including violating the privacy of U.S. citizens.

Now, a lawsuit against the federal government places in the crosshairs the complete lack of public information about just who, exactly, would be operating these drone aircraft over the U.S.

The San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) took the issue to the U.S. District Court in Norther California, reports the Washington Post. EFF is suing the U.S. Department of Transportation for information about domestic drones. The suit follows a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request which went unheeded by the Department and its subsidiary, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), that regulates airways and therefore domestic drone use. The complaint asserts: “There is currently no information available to the public on which specific public and civil entities have applied for, been granted or been denied certificates or authorizations to fly unmanned aircraft in the United States.” EFF spokeswoman Jennifer Lynch told the Post:

Drones give the government and other unmanned aircraft operators a powerful new surveillance tool to gather extensive and intrusive data on Americans’ movements and activities. As the government begins to make policy decisions about the use of these aircraft, the public needs to know more about how and why these drones are being used to surveil United States citizens.

Lynch said a good start towards increasing public knowledge about the programs — and the risks they pose to civil liberties — would be to know who wants to use drones, and who is getting permission to do so. “In my mind, the first step is to get the information from the FAA about who has authorization,” she said. “We don’t really know very much right now.”

Nearly half of Air Force drone pilots reported high stress levels in a new survey. The stress, linked to long and erratic work hours and a dramatic increase in the use of drones, leads to “high operational stress” for Reaper, Predator and Global Hawk drone pilots. A smaller number — including approximately a quarter of Global Hawk operators — exhibited signs of “clinical stress,” defined as anxiety, depression or stress severe enough to affect an operator’s family life or job performance.

Drone operators fly missions over Afghanistan, Iran, Yemen, Pakistan and Iraq from bases in Nevada and California. The study — conducted by the Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio — found that frequent shift-changes, “mind numbing” monotony, and increasing workloads contributed to the heightened stress levels. Between 65 and 70 percent of drone operators with symptoms of mental illness were not seeking treatment.

The dramatic growth in the use of drones in recent years has led the Air Force to increase the number of drone pilots but the ratio of pilots to drones remains low. The Pentagon has about 7,000 aerial drones and about 1,100 drone pilots. “There’s just not enough people,” Wayne Chappelle, an Air Force psychologist who helped conduct a six-month study of drone operators from 2010 to 2011, told USA Today. “You have to constantly sustain a high level of vigilance, both visual and auditory information, and that would be really tough to do when there’s a lot of monotony.”

While Lt. Gen. Larry James, Air Force deputy chief of staff for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, told USA Today that he didn’t think instances of pilot error could attributed to high stress levels among drone operators, instances of pilot error and civilian deaths have increased as drone mission over Afghanistan and Pakistan increase.

In April, a Predator done killed a Marine and a medic in what appeared to be the first case of “friendly fire” from a drone. And in late October, the drone program drew more negative publicity after 16-year-old Tariq Aziz and his cousin were killed in a drone strike one day after attending a “Waziristan Grand Jirga,” an official meeting, to discuss the impact of drone strikes on communities in Pakistan.

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney told a Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) audience last week that “nothing focuses [Iranian] minds more than suffering from sanctions and seeing a military option.” But yesterday, in a Fox News interview, Romney made clear that if president, he would have employed that military option when the U.S. spy drone crashed in Iran and even suggested he’d order Americans into Iran to retrieve it:

ROMNEY: Absolutely take it out. He was extraordinarily weak and timid in a critical moment. This will have severe implications for us, long term. And it was a terrible mistake on his part. I find it incomprehensible that he didn’t destroy it or go get it. I think destroying it would have been a good deal easier. Destroy it immediately or go get it. But the idea of letting it fall into the hands of people who will use it against us, use the intelligence capacity against us is an enormous mistake on the part of the president.

Watch it:

Romney isn’t alone in his calls for an airstrike to destroy the drone. Earlier this week, former Vice President Dick Cheney said the “right response” would have been to order a “quick airstrike” to destroy the drone.

But Romney is the first GOP voice to actually endorse an incursion into Iran to retrieve the drone. Romney glosses over the potential repercussions of a U.S. airstrike or raid on Iranian territory. Furthermore, the George W. Bush administration, with Cheney as Vice President, faced an even more confrontational situation when, on April 1, 2001, a mid-air collision between a Chinese fighter jet and a U.S. Navy intelligence aircraft forced the U.S. plane to make an emergency landing on China’s Hainan Island. The Bush administration resolved the crisis by issuing an apology.

Both Romney and Cheney are eager to criticize the White House for any perceived concessions to Iran but neither have criticized the Bush administration for its handling of a similar incident or acknowledged that a “quick airstrike” or committing military force to “go get it” could be seen as dangerously provocative policy decisions.