fuzzy lines, secrecy and zero legal accountability seem to be preferred. hence the choice of the CIA over Defense to take the war to the terrorists.
Sadly, we are agreed on this point. Hence why I laughed near the beginning of the OP about this being the most "transparent" administration ever. To their ever-so-slight credit, at least they don't try to float that out anymore. And it's likely even easier to hide actions in the CIA than it is in the military.
You act like this is something new
.
Judge Andrew Napolitano joined Megyn Kelly on America Live this afternoon to discuss the recent revelation by former White House press secretary Robert Gibbs that he was told to never admit to the existence of the CIA drone program.
"When I went through the process of becoming press secretary, one of the first things they told me was, you're not even to acknowledge the drone program. You're not even to discuss that it exists," Gibbs said Sunday on MSNBC.
That admission has raised questions again over the use of the top-secret strikes against terror suspects abroad.
Kelly asked the judge just how transparent the government is supposed to be when it comes to targeting terror suspects and potentially revealing secrets "that could get troops killed or Americans killed."
Napolitano responded by saying we "shouldn't be in the business of killing."
Kelly then emphasized that she only meant killing terrorists.
"He shouldn't be in the business killing people in friendly territories," said Napolitano. "These are people that could easily be arrested or people who could be taken care of by the government of the country in which they're located. But when the president thinks he can willy-nilly use drones however, whenever, and against whomever he wishes and then lie about it, we have a problem."
Judge Napolitano: Obama's Legal Justification For Drones Is Hogwash
.
Most transparent administration ever?
Robert Gibbs Told Not To Acknowledge Drone Program Exists As White House Press Secretary
VIDEO: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/46979738/n...ayes/#50927331
Former White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Sunday that he was told not to "acknowledge" or "discuss" the secret drone program when becoming the government's top spokesman.
Chris Hayes, host of MSNBC's "Up," played a video clip of Gibbs and current press secretary Jay Carney dodging questions about drones in the White House briefing room before asking if the Obama administration has been sufficiently forthcoming about the controversial targeted killing program. Gibbs, who recently became an MSNBC contributor, recalled the instructions he was given upon taking the job.
“When I went through the process of becoming press secretary," Gibbs said, "one of the things, one of the first things they told me was, ‘You’re not even to acknowledge the drone program. You’re not even to discuss that it exists.'”
The national media was slow covering the secret drone war in Pakistan and Yemen during Obama's first term, which has been difficult to track given both the government's secrecy and that strikes often take place in remote areas. But the drone media debate has gained steam early in Obama's second term, alongside questions for top counter-terror official John Brennan upon his nomination to become CIA director.
Gibbs said that once he figured out a reporter's question was about the drone program, "I realized I'm not supposed to talk about it."
“Here’s what’s inherently crazy about that proposition," Gibbs said. "You’re being asked a question based on reporting of a program that exists. So you’re the official government spokesperson acting as if the entire program -- pay not attention to the man behind the curtain."
While Gibbs referenced the "Wizard of Oz" on Sunday, a federal judge last month described the "Alice-in-Wonderland nature" of the Obama administration's secrecy over drones in a decision against The New York Times' request for legal memos outlining the rationale for targeting a U.S. citizen suspected of terrorist ties. The White House has not publicly released the legal memos, but Carney made several references to the legal rationale in a 16-page Department of Justice white paper -- but only after it was leaked to NBC News.
Gibbs said he hasn't talked to Obama recently about transparency and the drone program, but said he thinks the president has seen that the White House's denial of the program "when it’s obviously happening, undermines people’s confidence overall in the decisions that their government makes."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...cs&ir=Politics
That's a stunningly ignorant statement.
the way we're doing it now is fairly new.
Looks like exposure of a typical day at the Whitehouse.
Hovver Ins ution on the AUMF: http://www.hoover.org/publications/d...article/141091
what exactly is new?
signature strikes, to take a single example. there's more to it if you care to educate yourself -- you might even find some pertinent info in old ST threads.
Targeted killing has been criticized by human rights activists for 30+ years.
The only thing that's changed is the name and the use of drones.
Wikipedia links to some pertinent info on it, if you care to educate yourself.
Nixon took down Allende, St Ronnie had his CIA/special ops mess around in Central America and sell arms to his buddies in Iran.
Eisenhauer took down democratically elected Hossedegh in Iran in early 1950s when H. tried to kick out UK/US oilcos. Eventually led to Khomeini and the raping of the American Tehran Embassy (which St Ronnie never avenged)
Would Fox Repug Propaganda network run such a story below if dubya/ heard were in office?
Alternet.org DOES with "their" leftist, communist, Muslim terrorist Barrry in office.
'Signature Strikes' On Unidentified People: The Drone War Doctrine We Still Know Nothing About
The focus of the debate over drones has been the targeting of American citizens – a narrow issue that accounts for a miniscule proportion of the hundreds of strikes carried out in recent years.
Consider: while four American citizens are known to have been killed by drones in the past decade, the strikes have killed anestimated total of 2,600 to 4,700 people over the same period.
The focus on American citizens overshadows a far more common, and less understood, type of strike: those that do not target American citizens, Al Qaeda leaders, or, in fact, any other specific individual.
In these attacks, known as “signature strikes,” drone operators fire on people whose iden ies they do not know based on evidence of su ious behavior or other “signatures.” According to anonymously sourced media reports, such attacks on unidentified targets account for many, or even most, drone strikes.
http://www.alternet.org/world/signat...out?paging=off
In his memoir My American Journey, Colin Powell recollects his tours in Vietnam, first as a U.S. Army captain in 1962 and 1963, and later as a major in 1968 and 1969. Due to the length of the war, Powell notes that many officers and noncommissioned officers deployed to Vietnam were wholly unprepared, leading to a “breakdown in morale, discipline, and professional judgment.”
”
I recall a phrase we used in the field, MAM, for military-age male. If a helo spotted a peasant in black pajamas who looked remotely su ious, a possible MAM, the pilot would circle and fire in front of him. If he moved, his movement was judged evidence of hostile intent, and the next burst was not in front but at him. Brutal? Maybe so.”
The term “military-age male” is not defined in military doctrine, though it is routinely used by military officials in counterinsurgency operations to describe individuals who are deemed guilty not based on evidence, but rather on their demography. For example, in unsecured areas of Afghanistan all “fighting-age males,” which comprise any male between the ages of fifteen and seventy, may be required to undergo a biometric scan by U.S. soldiers or Afghan security forces............
https://blogs.cfr.org/zenko/2012/07/...ature-strikes/
How Does the U.S. Mark Unidentified Men in Pakistan and Yemen as Drone Targets?
The Obama administration has never spoken publicly about signature strikes. Instead, generally anonymous officials have offered often vague examples of signatures. The resulting fragmentary picture leaves many questions unanswered.
In Pakistan, a signature might include:
Training camps…
- Convoys of vehicles that bear the characteristics of Qaeda or Taliban leaders on the run. – Senior American and Pakistani officials,New York Times, February 2008.
- “Terrorist training camps.” – U.S.Diplomatic Cable released by Wikileaks, October 2009.
- Gatherings of militant groups or training complexes. – Current and former officials,Los Angeles Times, January 2010.
- Bomb-making or fighters training for possible operations in Afghanistan…. a compound where unknown individuals were seen assembling a car bomb. – Officials, Los Angeles Times, May 2010.
- Travel in or out of a known al-Qaeda compoundor possession of explosives. – U.S. officials, Washington Post, February 2011.
- Operating a training camp… consorting with known militants. – High-level American official, The New Yorker, September 2011.
A group of guys…
- Large groups of armed men. – Senior U.S. intelligence official, Associated Press, March 2012.
- Groups of armed militants traveling by truck toward the war in Afghanistan.–Administration officials, Washington Post, April 2012.
- The joke was that when the C.I.A. sees “three guys doing jumping jacks,” the agency thinks it is a terrorist training camp. – Senior official, May 2012.
- “The definition is a male between the ages of 20 and 40” – Former Ambassador to Pakistan Cameron Munter, Daily Beast, November 2012.
- “Armed men who we see getting into pickup trucks and heading towards the Afghanistan border or who are in a training exercise.” – Former Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, Council on Foreign Relations, January 2013.
http://www.propublica.org/article/ho...-as-drone-targ
IIRC, drones have blown away a couple weddings parties in Afghanistan, 10s of people killed on a wedding day.
War crimes
lol resting content with the top item in the google search, then not reading it.
if you can't see the difference between catching a fish on a line and dropping a grenade in a barrel of fish, I can't help you. that ain't targeted.
Last edited by Winehole23; 03-02-2013 at 05:22 AM.
Especially when you make the strike not being 100% sure you've got the right target, like we do.
Unfortunately for anyone happening to be standing so close by as to be injured or killed by our attacks on bad guys -- or, merely probable bad guys -- they are by definition terrorists or incipient ones (should they survive.)
And at the very least aiders and abettors of terrorists (or putative terrorists) against whom we were merely defending ourselves.
Last edited by Winehole23; 03-02-2013 at 05:38 AM.
Signature strikes go back to 2008. They're a relative novelty.
They push the moral envelope too, not that you seem to have noticed.
Last edited by Winehole23; 03-02-2013 at 05:41 AM.
having a presidentially determined hit list for US citizens that is publicly defended as a national security prerogative, as above in the OP, is another novelty.
Last edited by Winehole23; 03-02-2013 at 05:56 AM.
I don't know why you're assuming I haven't noticed.
I could find more, but honestly I really am content resting on Operation El Dorado Canyon.
And I'm not in the mood to argue that 4+ years of the term "signature strike" means it is or isn't old news.
^^^ Oh look who's in my thread again
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
