Soca Warriors Online Discussion Forum
General => General Discussion => Topic started by: elan on February 08, 2013, 10:48:32 PM
-
Don't know if there is a thread for this topic did not search.
What's y'all take on this technique/tactic/strategy?
With the new focus on targeting "Americans" who are Al Qaeda leaders and many saying that this is wrong, how do you think the government should proceed? Is there merit in apprehending "American" terrorists in foreign land and bringing them to justice in a court of law is it feasible of even probable?
Should such people not be treated as other terrorists? If they are considered "Americans" and are still granted protection under the law, how should the government react to a another country who may target and kills these "American" terrorists?
Drone Strikes Under Scrutiny
In more than a decade at war since Sept. 11, 2001, the United States has relied increasingly on drones to kill people away from the battlefield. It has faced few constraints. Now an overdue push for greater accountability and transparency is gathering steam, propelled by growing unease that America’s drones hit targets in countries with whom it is not formally at war, that there are no publicly understood rules for picking targets, and that the strikes may kill innocent civilians and harm, not help, American interests.
Related
Stanley McChrystal, the retired general, has warned that drone strikes are so resented abroad that their overuse could jeopardize America’s broader objectives. The secretary of state, John Kerry, spoke at his confirmation hearing of the need to make sure that “American foreign policy is not defined by drones and deployments alone.”
Read More... (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/07/opinion/drone-strikes-under-scrutiny.html)
-
I have no problems with the use of drones/drone strikes in principle... if a manned aircraft would take out the target without objections then I have no issue using unmanned aircrafts. I know the issue is less the un/manned aspect than the errant strikes... which in fairness has been on the decline since 2008 when Obama came into power and issued several directives (http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/13/opinion/bergen-civilian-casualties) aimed at minimizing civilian casualties.
The problem with drone strikes however is that it's an extra-judicial killing... a decision being made to execute someone without the benefit of a trial, with the government, in the form of the military, acting as judge jury and executioner. Most people were happy to turn the other way until all of a sudden "American citizens" (I put it in quote because though citizens in name, their actions bespeak loyalties to other states/entities, even those hostile to the U.S... aka treason. But even so, traitors deserve their day in court.
The particular problem this raises is that if we say it's okay for the government to kill American citizens without the benefit of trial, then that goes against everything the Constitution ('due process' in particular) stands for. It starts us down a very slippery slope. An ancillary question it raises is that if the US asserts the right to act in this manner, can it then complain if others do the same? Can the US complain if China starts using drones (they've already started using them for recon)? Can the US really complain if insurgents capture and kill American civilians? American servicement?
A reasonable pushback would be to say that these killings occur within the context and theater of warfare and as such exempt from the need for trial. If you pose an imminent threat then it is reasonable to negate that threat with deadly force. I could order you to disarm and 'arrest' you, but that's not how war works... you actively shooting at me means I'm at liberty to shoot back... or to even shoot preemptively given the assumptions on the battlefield. This "imminent threat" doctrine is currently being offered as a rationale for the targeting of American citizens, meant to address concerns the zero sum possibilities contemplated by critics. I think it's a reasonable compromise... American citizen or not, if you pose an imminent threat (as we are presently seeing in LA with the ex-cop) then to a certain extent you forego the right to due process.
-
I have real issues with assissination by remote control. American citizens, even the treasonous ones as you rightly pointed out, are entitled to their in court.
If this was Bush ordering these kiilings most of us would be screaming about constitutional rights.
Please address the difference between W "s premeptive war in Iraq and premptive drone strikes.
I shed no tears for most of the US Targets but I am wary of a President or any clandestine group making a decision on extra-judicial killings without oversight.
Now if Obama were to become aware of a credible plot to kill Americans or target America and he failed to act to stop such attacks he would be derelict.
Using drones may be less risky than say an invasion or a raid, but as you rightly pointed out, what will we say if China or North korea starts building a fleet of drones to target civilians?
I rememerb one justification used to invade Iraq was the fatc Saddam used gas against his "OWN" people. Much was made of it. Saddam was in fact using the gas premeptively to stop rebellion.
Where do we draw the line.
Killing enemy combatants is one thing, killing US citizens is another and frankly it appears illegal to me and my understanding of the US Constitution. (something you acknowledged)
-
"American citizens" (I put it in quote because though citizens in name, their actions bespeak loyalties to other states/entities, even those hostile to the U.S...
Good post Bakes and Very, Very good post TT - I didn't expect that to come from you.
But Bakes I take issue with the line above b/c I don't think there is any likely 'american citizen' victim of a drone strike who would pledge loyalty to any other current state over the US. So I think you put state in there to hedge what you really mean which is 'entity'...lemme go further and guess (i know this is the point where I am opening myself up for the bashing from you) that you have in mind Islamist.. or somebody who puts far higher weight on her doctrine or belief than she does to 'america'. Does being american mean that america 1st, God and everything else second? Are you more loyal to anything than america? some people are, but that doesn't mean that they should be executed on the whims of mostly white dudes :) in the pentagon or wherever.
-
Good post Bakes and Very, Very good post TT - I didn't expect that to come from you.
But Bakes I take issue with the line above b/c I don't think there is any likely 'american citizen' victim of a drone strike who would pledge loyalty to any other current state over the US. So I think you put state in there to hedge what you really mean which is 'entity'...lemme go further and guess (i know this is the point where I am opening myself up for the bashing from you) that you have in mind Islamist.. or somebody who puts far higher weight on her doctrine or belief than she does to 'america'. Does being american mean that america 1st, God and everything else second? Are you more loyal to anything than america? some people are, but that doesn't mean that they should be executed on the whims of mostly white dudes :) in the pentagon or wherever.
Don't assume. I put "states" because that is the typical basis for the 'treason' charge I later mentioned. Of course the US has been at war over the course of the past decade, more against an ideology than any traditional "state" hence the need to speak of "entities" as well. As for the rest... I honestly don't care much for the theological basis for waging war against the US. If your god tells you to take up arms against the US then I'm sure he's given you assurances that he'll protect you as well. If that "protection" fails to prevent a drone strike, well then that's between you and your god to sort out. The injection of race into the discussion is an pointless distraction.
-
Wait till you see whats coming in the near future
PBS Nova Rise of the Drones
http://www.youtube.com/v/4OKluZFZoHs
-
ok. from a us policy position as we move into the future where this clearly isn't a state vs state traditional war. how are you defining 'waging war'? is the taxi driver driving the dude who wish america and all its citizens burn in hell is she in material support and worthy of execution (by drone)? why have there been so many prisoners of war in the past? (why were they not all executed as they were in a war)?
-
I have real issues with assissination by remote control. American citizens, even the treasonous ones as you rightly pointed out, are entitled to their in court.
If this was Bush ordering these kiilings most of us would be screaming about constitutional rights.
Please address the difference between W "s premeptive war in Iraq and premptive drone strikes.
I shed no tears for most of the US Targets but I am wary of a President or any clandestine group making a decision on extra-judicial killings without oversight.
Now if Obama were to become aware of a credible plot to kill Americans or target America and he failed to act to stop such attacks he would be derelict.
Using drones may be less risky than say an invasion or a raid, but as you rightly pointed out, what will we say if China or North korea starts building a fleet of drones to target civilians?
I rememerb one justification used to invade Iraq was the fatc Saddam used gas against his "OWN" people. Much was made of it. Saddam was in fact using the gas premeptively to stop rebellion.
Where do we draw the line.
Killing enemy combatants is one thing, killing US citizens is another and frankly it appears illegal to me and my understanding of the US Constitution. (something you acknowledged)
I have "acknowledged" 90% of what you state... you just choose to convenient "acknowledge" that which I have already stated.
1. [E]ven the treasonous ones as you rightly pointed out, are entitled to their in court.
There is no such "entitlement" when it comes to warfare. Article 24 of the UN Charter in fact provides just such a distinction for when the use of force is in self-defense, in response to an armed attack or an imminent threat, and where the host state is unwilling or unable to take appropriate action. All of these factors exist in Pakistan and Afghanistan, the current sphere of drone operations. It is by no means hard and fast, and very much dictated by the individual circumstances.
2. If this was Bush ordering these kiilings most of us would be screaming about constitutional rights.
Utter nonsense. Drone strikes didn't begin with Obama... in fact under Bush, as few as 45 and as many as 52 strikes were conducted (see, page 12 (http://livingunderdrones.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Stanford-NYU-LIVING-UNDER-DRONES.pdf)). Nobody was "screaming about constitutional rights" then. Of course US citizens were included on the target list back then, but US citizens weren't then known to be among target operatives either. Being unconventional warfare the circumstances are changing on the fly, as are the methods employed to counter them.
And before anybody thinks any of this is new... targeted killings have been going on forever, just look up Isoroku Yamamoto.
3. Please address the difference between W "s premeptive war in Iraq and premptive drone strikes.
One is based on quantifiable, vetted and reliable information, the other was entirely pretextual.
Anything else?
4. I shed no tears for most of the US Targets but I am wary of a President or any clandestine group making a decision on extra-judicial killings without oversight.
Well there's nothing "clandestine" at all about the decision-making process... the CIA and Special Operations Command independently draw up their lists. Where there is no 'certainty' as to the incriminating activities of the person in question, Obama has insisted on being the one to personally sign off on the strike. As for harboring concerns, that is entirely fair, we SHOULD harbor such concerns, the challenge lies in arriving at a feasible compromise, which is being worked on as we speak.
5. Now if Obama were to become aware of a credible plot to kill Americans or target America and he failed to act to stop such attacks he would be derelict.
Using drones may be less risky than say an invasion or a raid, but as you rightly pointed out, what will we say if China or North korea starts building a fleet of drones to target civilians?
Every drone strike is made based on "credible plot(s) to kill Americans"... who else yuh thing Al Qaeda trying to kill? You don't think those plots are credible... or that the US just firing missile every time they hear some name whispered down the pipeline?
As for China and North Korea targeting civilians... the US isn't currently targeting civilians so that's a strawman argument. Besides, China done using drones long time they just doh have nobody to shoot them at.
6. I rememerb one justification used to invade Iraq was the fatc Saddam used gas against his "OWN" people. Much was made of it. Saddam was in fact using the gas premeptively to stop rebellion.
Where do we draw the line.
No. The justification was that he possessed WMDs and the predilection for using them as exemplified by the attack on the Kurds. That it was against his "own" people was part of the analysis to show just how ruthless he could be and therefore be treated as the threat he was. There was no talk about him striking "preemptively", whether his actions were responsive or preemptive mattered little, the discussion focused on his use of chemical agents... had he used bombs no one would have given one frig about the attack on the Kurds. There is ample precedence for preemptive strikes where war is concerned... one party always starts the conflict (Pearl Harbor, Fort Sumter, anyone?)... that by nature is preemptive.
The line is drawn at a credible threat that otherwise cannot be negated.
7. Killing enemy combatants is one thing, killing US citizens is another and frankly it appears illegal to me and my understanding of the US Constitution. (something you acknowledged)
I never said it was illegal... I said critics argue that it violates due process. My own position is that it's not that hard and fast but rather driven by the facts and totality of each circumstance.
-
ok. from a us policy position as we move into the future where this clearly isn't a state vs state traditional war. how are you defining 'waging war'? is the taxi driver driving the dude who wish america and all its citizens burn in hell is she in material support and worthy of execution (by drone)? why have there been so many prisoners of war in the past? (why were they not all executed as they were in a war)?
See my comments above regarding Article 24 of the UN Charter and the use of force to negate threats of imminent danger. There is ample precedence and justification for these acts... even if the public is only now belatedly getting apprised of the situation.
-
The CIA and the military are carrying out an illegal “targeted killing” program in which people far from any battlefield are determined to be enemies of the state and killed without charge or trial.
The executive branch has, in effect, claimed the unchecked authority to put the names of citizens and others on “kill lists” on the basis of a secret determination, based on secret evidence, that a person meets a secret definition of the enemy. The targeted killing program operates with virtually no oversight outside the executive branch, and essential details about the program remain secret, including what criteria are used to put people on CIA and military kill lists or how much evidence is required.
Shit like this is the reason why people does cyah take de ACLU serious at times. If I can use a simple Google search to find out that there is a process by which targets are identified, who the decision-makers are and what criteria are used; that the justifications are derived from existing law and precedence... then what is the ACLU's excuse for putting out this biased piece of trash (http://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/targeted-killings)?
-
The CIA and the military are carrying out an illegal “targeted killing” program in which people far from any battlefield are determined to be enemies of the state and killed without charge or trial.
The executive branch has, in effect, claimed the unchecked authority to put the names of citizens and others on “kill lists” on the basis of a secret determination, based on secret evidence, that a person meets a secret definition of the enemy. The targeted killing program operates with virtually no oversight outside the executive branch, and essential details about the program remain secret, including what criteria are used to put people on CIA and military kill lists or how much evidence is required.
Shit like this is the reason why people does cyah take de ACLU serious at times. If I can use a simple Google search to find out that there is a process by which targets are identified, who the decision-makers are and what criteria are used; that the justifications are derived from existing law and precedence... then what is the ACLU's excuse for putting out this biased piece of trash (http://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/targeted-killings)?
Here bakes. Here is the first. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Aulaqi
Please tell me based on your open source research bakes. FOR CERTAIN. The IMMINENT threat posed by this dude and all of the process, criteria, everything you highlighted. Let me know which americans are on the list right now. Should I be surprised if somebody not on your list is executed?
-
Don't fear the Reaper... like Eugene Robinson put it, "Barrack the Assassin"!
-
Here bakes. Here is the first. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Aulaqi
Please tell me based on your open source research bakes. FOR CERTAIN. The IMMINENT threat posed by this dude and all of the process, criteria, everything you highlighted. Let me know which americans are on the list right now. Should I be surprised if somebody not on your list is executed?
I don't have any list so I really don't know what it is you asking me for. How am I supposed to know who's on the list?
As for Aulaqi... you just looking for talk if it is you're arguing whether this fella was involved in terrorist activities or whether the threat he posed was imminent or certain. He don't have to have a gun in his hand himself in order to pose an imminent threat... if that is the criteria yuh trying to argue then what crime was Bin Laden guilty of?
-
I have "acknowledged" 90% of what you state... you just choose to convenient "acknowledge" that which I have already stated.
1. [E]ven the treasonous ones as you rightly pointed out, are entitled to their in court.
There is no such "entitlement" when it comes to warfare. Article 24 of the UN Charter in fact provides just such a distinction for when the use of force is in self-defense, in response to an armed attack or an imminent threat, and where the host state is unwilling or unable to take appropriate action. All of these factors exist in Pakistan and Afghanistan, the current sphere of drone operations. It is by no means hard and fast, and very much dictated by the individual circumstances.
We are not talking about just any enemy combatant. Yuh playing smart with foolishness here…we are specifically addressing the extra-judicial murder of US citizens..something you RIGHTLY acknowledged [/b]“then that goes against everything the Constitution ('due process' in particular) stands for.” That doh mean entitled to yuh day in court?[/b]
2. If this was Bush ordering these kiilings most of us would be screaming about constitutional rights.
Utter nonsense. Drone strikes didn't begin with Obama... in fact under Bush, as few as 45 and as many as 52 strikes were conducted (see, page 12). Nobody was "screaming about constitutional rights" then. Of course US citizens were included on the target list back then, but US citizens weren't then known to be among target operatives either. Being unconventional warfare the circumstances are changing on the fly, as are the methods employed to counter them.
And before anybody thinks any of this is new... targeted killings have been going on forever, just look up Isoroku Yamamoto.
Again we are not addressing drone strikes alone..we are discussing drone strikes against US CITIZENS….! And while I have always known of CIA sponsored executions, the killing of US citizens without their day in court is HIGHLY ILLEGAL and “against everything the constitution stands for.”
Explain what the hell you mean when you say “US citizens were included on the target list back then, but they weren’t known to be among the target operatives either?” You trying to tell me that the US intelligence operatives made a list with names and did not know US citizens were among those targeted?” I find that highly incredulous!
3. Please address the difference between W "s premeptive war in Iraq and premptive drone strikes.
One is based on quantifiable, vetted and reliable information, the other was entirely pretextual.
Anything else?
Yes there is something else…You have access to Saddamn’s intelligence? How do you know one is pretextual and one is based on quantifiable intelligence..I remember Colin Powell making that same argument, that he had quantifiable, vetted and reliable information about Iraq's possession of WMD's before the UN to JUSTIFY an illegal invasion of Iraq. I also remember our current President being very vocally opposed to that self same invasion!
4. I shed no tears for most of the US Targets but I am wary of a President or any clandestine group making a decision on extra-judicial killings without oversight.
Well there's nothing "clandestine" at all about the decision-making process... the CIA and Special Operations Command independently draw up their lists. Where there is no 'certainty' as to the incriminating activities of the person in question, Obama has insisted on being the one to personally sign off on the strike. As for harboring concerns, that is entirely fair, we SHOULD harbor such concerns, the challenge lies in arriving at a feasible compromise, which is being worked on as we speak.
There should be no compromise. The targeting of US citizens without the input of a court using any means should not even be a consideration. Where do we draw the line? What is stop them attacking US citizens right here at home? And how can you asy it is not clandestine? Special groups approved by the president deciding to execute US citizens with a trial is surely clandestine as we are not made privy to the 'facts" of innocence or guilt. You already satted that the government is acting as judge, jury and executioner. I would rather not have such a circumstance.
5. Now if Obama were to become aware of a credible plot to kill Americans or target America and he failed to act to stop such attacks he would be derelict.
Using drones may be less risky than say an invasion or a raid, but as you rightly pointed out, what will we say if China or North korea starts building a fleet of drones to target civilians?
Every drone strike is made based on "credible plot(s) to kill Americans"... who else yuh thing Al Qaeda trying to kill? You don't think those plots are credible... or that the US just firing missile every time they hear some name whispered down the pipeline?
As for China and North Korea targeting civilians... the US isn't currently targeting civilians so that's a strawman argument. Besides, China done using drones long time they just doh have nobody to shoot them at.
Again we are not just discussing drone strikes, but drone strikes against US citizens, as President his oath was to uphold the Constitution. ““I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
6. I rememerb one justification used to invade Iraq was the fatc Saddam used gas against his "OWN"people. Much was made of it. Saddam was in fact using the gas premeptively to stop rebellion.
Where do we draw the line.
No. The justification was that he possessed WMDs and the predilection for using them as exemplified by the attack on the Kurds. That it was against his "own" people was part of the analysis to show just how ruthless he could be and therefore be treated as the threat he was. There was no talk about him striking "preemptively", whether his actions were responsive or preemptive mattered little, the discussion focused onhis use of chemical agents... had he used bombs no one would have given one frig about the attack on the Kurds. There is ample precedence for preemptive strikes where war is concerned... one party always starts the conflict (Pearl Harbor, Fort Sumter, anyone?)... that by nature is preemptive.
The line is drawn at a credible threat that otherwise cannot be negated.
Absolutely, the entire justification for that invasion of Iraq was that we were acting preemptively! Had he ever attacked or threatened the USA?
7. Killing enemy combatants is one thing, killing US citizens is another and frankly it appears illegal to me and my understanding of the US Constitution. (something you acknowledged)
I never said it was illegal... I said critics argue that it violates due process. My own position is that it's not that hard and fast but rather driven by the facts and totality of each circumstance.
If it is against everything the Constitution stands for then how de hell it is not illegal? Is the Constitution not the highest law of the Land?
It is either against the Constitution or it is not!
-
then that goes against everything the Constitution ('due process' in particular) stands for. It starts us down a very slippery slope.
And it is clandestine if no courts are involved. just a small group.
steups.
As I said, I merely presented the argument of critics so as to set up the response, which I later did... this is happening within the context of warfare. If no courts are involved it's extra-judicial. Clandestine means it's happening under cover, meaning secretive... basically the same bullshit the ACLU was stating in that blog post. There's nothing clandestine about it, while not 100% transparent (and it needs not be, in the interest of national security), we know who the decision-makers are, and what the criteria is for putting individuals on the list.
-
then that goes against everything the Constitution ('due process' in particular) stands for. It starts us down a very slippery slope.
And it is clandestine if no courts are involved. just a small group.
steups.
As I said, I merely presented the argument of critics so as to set up the response, which I later did... this is happening within the context of warfare. If no courts are involved it's extra-judicial. Clandestine means it's happening under cover, meaning secretive... basically the same bullshit the ACLU was stating in that blog post. There's nothing clandestine about it, while not 100% transparent (and it needs not be, in the interest of national security), we know who the decision-makers are, and what the criteria is for putting individuals on the list.
The entire notion of executing US citizens extra-judicial makes me queasy.
-
The entire notion of executing US citizens extra-judicial makes me queasy.
As well it should, but I doh have a problem with it in the current context where man training and recruiting terrorists, who themselves targeting civilians. If yuh want to play brave and turncoat on the US then just be sure to make yuh peace with yuh God.
-
Somehow I missed this...
We are not talking about just any enemy combatant. Yuh playing smart with foolishness here…we are specifically addressing the extra-judicial murder of US citizens..something you RIGHTLY acknowledged [/b]“then that goes against everything the Constitution ('due process' in particular) stands for.” That doh mean entitled to yuh day in court?[/b]
Again we are not addressing drone strikes alone..we are discussing drone strikes against US CITIZENS….! And while I have always known of CIA sponsored executions, the killing of US citizens without their day in court is HIGHLY ILLEGAL and “against everything the constitution stands for.”
You have comprehension issues or what? I began by stating that this doesn't apply when the American citizen in question is at war with the US, what part of that so hard to understand? More on this later.
Explain what the hell you mean when you say “US citizens were included on the target list back then, but they weren’t known to be among the target operatives either?” You trying to tell me that the US intelligence operatives made a list with names and did not know US citizens were among those targeted?” I find that highly incredulous!
That should read "US citizens were NOT included on the (Bush) target list back then, but they (US citizens) weren't known to be among the target operatives either." In other words... no US citizen was targeted for execution under Bush because we didn't know of any US citizen enemy combatant then.
Yes there is something else…You have access to Saddamn’s intelligence? How do you know one is pretextual and one is based on quantifiable intelligence..I remember Colin Powell making that same argument, that he had quantifiable, vetted and reliable information about Iraq's possession of WMD's before the UN to JUSTIFY an illegal invasion of Iraq. I also remember our current President being very vocally opposed to that self same invasion!
You's ah kind ah imps or what? You are trying to draw comparisons between Bush's 'preemptive' invasion of Iraq and what you're classifying as preemptive drone strikes. There IS no comparison because we now know that the Bush administration lied in order to make the case for war against Iraq. There was no "quantifiable, vetted and reliable" information there were lies. Therefore the reasons proffered in making the case for war against Iraq were a ruse... we now know that, therefore they were pretextual. I don't need to know what intelligence Saddam had... again the issue wasn't the nature of the strike against the Kurds, it was the means... chemical warfare. As I said, which you evidently didn't understand... had he used bombs against the Kurds there would have been no outrage.
There should be no compromise. The targeting of US citizens without the input of a court using any means should not even be a consideration. Where do we draw the line? What is stop them attacking US citizens right here at home? And how can you asy it is not clandestine? Special groups approved by the president deciding to execute US citizens with a trial is surely clandestine as we are not made privy to the 'facts" of innocence or guilt. You already satted that the government is acting as judge, jury and executioner. I would rather not have such a circumstance.
You sounding like them idiot Republicans speaking in absolute... 'bout there should be no compromise. No law is hard and fast, there are always nuances.
Again we are not just discussing drone strikes, but drone strikes against US citizens, as President his oath was to uphold the Constitution. ““I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Do I even have to mention (yet again) that the exigency of warfare renders moot the Constitutional considerations?
Absolutely, the entire justification for that invasion of Iraq was that we were acting preemptively! Had he ever attacked or threatened the USA?
You make no sense... no one justified the war on the basis of preemptive action... the war AND preemptive action were both justified by the lies about WMDs. Again... that whole "pretextual" thing again nah. Try and keep up.
If it is against everything the Constitution stands for then how de hell it is not illegal? Is the Constitution not the highest law of the Land?
It is either against the Constitution or it is not!
Exigencies of warfare. Also you'd asked if 'due process' didn't mean having your day in court. No it does not. It means notice (of the state's complaint against you) and an opportunity to be heard (in response). Ideally this should happen every time, but that isn't always possible or feasible. What due process is due a gunman holding an innocent person hostage... other than "drop your weapon"? Or one engaged in a shootout with police? In the theater of warfare if you're engaged in combat against another side then you are on notice that they have a 'complaint' against you and by not putting down your arms you have conceded your opportunity to be heard. This is why in conventional warfare you are given an opportunity to surrender.
-
I don't have any list so I really don't know what it is you asking me for. How am I supposed to know who's on the list?
You don't think this might be why you don't know who on the list? Or why they on the list?
The executive branch has, in effect, claimed the unchecked authority to put the names of citizens and others on “kill lists” on the basis of a secret determination, based on secret evidence, that a person meets a secret definition of the enemy.
including what criteria are used to put people on CIA and military kill lists or how much evidence is required.[/quote]
As for Aulaqi... you just looking for talk if it is you're arguing whether this fella was involved in terrorist activities
so being 'involved' in terrorist activities is the secret criteria? how involved? what is the tipping point? what gets you on the list?
or whether the threat he posed was imminent or certain. He don't have to have a gun in his hand himself in order to pose an imminent threat... if that is the criteria yuh trying to argue then what crime was Bin Laden guilty of?
no Bin Laden is a red herring here Bakes. let me not take the bait. I am ignoring this part.
Bakes you real disappointing here picking "certain" above all the other characteristics of the word imminent. Imminent mean about to happen in a SHORT SPACE of TIME. Iran can't come today and say Israel will certainly attack iran (whether today or 1000 years from now) so they must pre-emptively strike Israel. that will never satisfy article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, so because the criteria so open source, let me know what made his threat so imminent. what was the evidence that is so non-secretive.
I don't see any concrete details to support your judgement that the bolded parts of the ACLU statement it shit. That is exactly how i see it.
So in short bakes. I get that it cool with you for 'Washington' to label anybody - american or not - a terrorist and that automatically gives them the right to execute such person without trial (or a secret sham of a trial that is only used in these cases). But that is you. You are a true 'patriot'. unquestioned faith in your gov't above all.
-
You don't think this might be why you don't know who on the list? Or why they on the list?
The executive branch has, in effect, claimed the unchecked authority to put the names of citizens and others on “kill lists” on the basis of a secret determination, based on secret evidence, that a person meets a secret definition of the enemy.
including what criteria are used to put people on CIA and military kill lists or how much evidence is required.
Did you read the link that I provided in my initial response to truetrini... or do you I have to spoonfeed yuh and turn around and wipe yuh ass fuh yuh when yuh done digesting and egesting it?
"According to US authorities, these strikes target “groups of men who bear certain signatures, or defining characteristics associated with terrorist activity, but whose identities aren’t known.”
Do you or the ACLU have any proof that any of the targets were NOT involved in terrorist activities? All this talk about secret this and secret that... implying that there's something askance about the process of identifying targets... any proof that they've been wrong? And I don't me those who are accidentally killed, I'm talking about "targets."
so being 'involved' in terrorist activities is the secret criteria? how involved? what is the tipping point? what gets you on the list?
Chances are that associating with members of a known terrorist cell and posting videos calling for attacks on the US, videos clearly used as recruiting pitches and yet others showing you helping train fighters... chances are all of that would get you put on the list as Al-Aulaqi did. I realize yuh have yuh Muslim sympathies, but that's no excuse for exercising a little bit of intellectual curiosity (by doing your own research, or at least by following the links when provided) and common sense as well.
no Bin Laden is a red herring here Bakes. let me not take the bait. I am ignoring this part.
Look, I really doh have no patience with dotishness. You asked about what imminent threat Al-Aulaqi posed. He was connected to both the Fort Hood shooter and the Nigerian fella who try tuh light he jockey shorts afire. Even if yuh want to discount that... the Yemeni government was trying him in absentia (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/8104321/Anwar-al-Awlaki-charged-in-Yemen-with-crimes-against-foreigners.html) for helping plot attacks against foreigners in Yemen. I know, I know... is American puppets in Yemen who do that right? ::)
Maybe is time you come clean... what is your connection to Al-Aulaqi?
Bakes you real disappointing here picking "certain" above all the other characteristics of the word imminent. Imminent mean about to happen in a SHORT SPACE of TIME. Iran can't come today and say Israel will certainly attack iran (whether today or 1000 years from now) so they must pre-emptively strike Israel. that will never satisfy article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, so because the criteria so open source, let me know what made his threat so imminent. what was the evidence that is so non-secretive.
I "disappointing" you... LOL. Sorry Miss, ah go try harder on mih test next time.
GTFOH... I not here for your "appointment" or "disappointment". You have offered nothing of your own to counter the policy of the Obama administration. All you have offered is empty talk parroting "secret" this and "secret" that. Your dictionary definition of "imminent" is meaningless in the context and exigency of warfare. There is well-established precedence supporting this notion. Look up Schenck vs. The US, where the "clear and present danger" test was established. Although countenanced with respect to speech, the issue was speech that had the potential to incite unrest. The court made it clear that what might fly during times of peace, might be potentially more dangerous during times of war. When yuh done with that check out Brandenburg v. Ohio, where the court examined the meaning of "imminent lawless action"... focusing less on the "SHORT SPACE of TIME" Webster dictionary nonsense you offering, and more on a real world determination of what is the intent behind the action, and what is the likelihood of it being acted upon by others. In other words, I suspect yuh's ah smart fella but yuh like to act like yuh doh understand: what was Al-Aulaqi's intent behind the videos and what was the likelihood that his followers would act upon his words? That right there is how the law contemplates the issue of "imminence" when it comes to advocacy of lawlessness as yuh boy was doing on YouTube and in the mosques in Yemen and Alexandria, VA.
I don't see any concrete details to support your judgement that the bolded parts of the ACLU statement it shit. That is exactly how i see it.
So in short bakes. I get that it cool with you for 'Washington' to label anybody - american or not - a terrorist and that automatically gives them the right to execute such person without trial (or a secret sham of a trial that is only used in these cases). But that is you. You are a true 'patriot'. unquestioned faith in your gov't above all.
Even if I was to drop said 'concrete proof' on yuh head yuh still wouldn't see it. And please, spare me the bullshit. At no point did I say or suggest that I was cool with 'Washington' labeling "anybody" a terrorist. Try that reductio ad absurdum nonsense with somebody who head could get easily tied up. Is not "anybody" being targeted and killed right now.. the unintended collateral targets aside. Is people engaged terrorist activities (and we all know what that is, so doh play dotish), who hold a senior position (one where they are given responsibilities and can influence a large number of followers). Yuh could try and label me "true patriot" and accuse me of having "unquestioned faith in [the] gov't" all yuh like. That sort of ad hominem doh really faze me, so try yuh best.
-
Do you or the ACLU have any proof that any of the targets were NOT involved in terrorist activities?
sorry, I thought the burden of proof went the other way around ::)
Chances are that associating with members of a known terrorist cell
guilty by association?
posting videos calling for attacks on the US,
I do not believe that that is the case in this one example that we are talking about. Some brave researcher could prove me wrong though if they could find the non-deleted youtube videos.
videos clearly used as recruiting pitches and yet others showing you helping train fighters... chances are all of that would get you put on the list as Al-Aulaqi did.
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/dec/31/nation/la-na-terror-intel31-2009dec31
"He's saying all this but we haven't determined all of it is true; whether [Awlaki] blessed it or gave the green light or was the impetus behind it," the FBI official said. "It's very possible and it's being investigated. But it's also possible he's saying it to give himself credibility" among militants who look up to Awlaki.
you know a real trial would help bring all these minor details out. ;)
the Yemeni government was trying him in absentia (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/8104321/Anwar-al-Awlaki-charged-in-Yemen-with-crimes-against-foreigners.html) for helping plot attacks against foreigners in Yemen. I know, I know... is American puppets in Yemen who do that right? ::)
same yemen with the secret CIA jails? or another one?
Maybe is time you come clean... what is your connection to Al-Aulaqi?
lawd, is now self you want a drone to come strike thu my window :)
I'll check out your links and references.
-
The burden of proof is on the one asserting a position... and so since I say the strikes were justified against Al-Aulaqi I offered the evidence put forth by the Obama administration... and yuh bawl
"guilty by association"
"I do not believe"
"...a real trial" (Did Yamamoto get a trial? How about sniper targets... dem does get trials?)
"Yemen... secret CIA jails"
::)
In short not one shred of evidence or argument in opposition, just trying to discredit the source or otherwise intimating that it's insufficient. Offer your proof. The way yuh trying to play Devil's Advocate it is clear that you have some kinda connection to Al-Aulaqi out dey in New Mexico. But me eh give yuh wrong talk shit behind de computer screen. If yuh really believe he was innocent or that your ties to him are innocent yuh wouldn't have nutten tuh hide.
-
How Yamamoto get in this?
he way yuh trying to play Devil's Advocate it is clear that you have some kinda connection to Al-Aulaqi out dey in New Mexico.
hehehehehehe
-
How Yamamoto get in this?
His was a targeted killing... targeted killings during times of war, though extreme, are nothing new.
-
How Yamamoto get in this?
His was a targeted killing... targeted killings during times of war, though extreme, are nothing new.
well yeah but that different...after we crack teh code we get him on de beach but dais not extra-judicial in the truest sense.
-
How Yamamoto get in this?
His was a targeted killing... targeted killings during times of war, though extreme, are nothing new.
well yeah but that different...after we crack teh code we get him on de beach but dais not extra-judicial in the truest sense.
Nah he was shot down in an ambush... very much extra-judicial. They coulda force the plane to land and capture him, but the decision was made to take him out so as to break the will of the Japanese navy. It wasn't no gunfight kinda thing, they knew his itinerary, tracked him and shot him out the sky.
-
How Yamamoto get in this?
he way yuh trying to play Devil's Advocate it is clear that you have some kinda connection to Al-Aulaqi out dey in New Mexico.
hehehehehehe
lol. i hope the real cia dudes smarter than allyuh 2 retards ;)
-
lol. i hope the real cia dudes smarter than allyuh 2 retards ;)
Well dey eh scoop you up yet, right?
-
That LA cop on the run is going to be the first public drone assassination by the government and it also going to test the waters on public reaction ;)
-
So let me get this: according to news articles in the last 6 mts.
1) DHS tested drones over the US (currently using them along the Canadian Border and to a minimal amount on the southern border.
2) DHS has bought 250 million rounds of Jacketed Hollow Point in .40 Caliber for "target practice" (either they love blowing tax payer dollars/ they prepping for something/ Or Big Sis Janet is just incompetent)
3) DHS has given out over 50 mil in contracts to Firearms Co... ordered over 65,000 sidearms to be produced, major contracts with H&K and Sig to produce new weapons cambered in .40.
4) Has ordered an additional 20 million rounds (caliber unknown) this year.
5) De DHS stockpile is 1.6 Billion rounds of Ammo..
6) Maxine Waters say that Barracus have compiled a comprehensive database on Americans.
7) DHS has been doing "military style" drills around the US on major cities...
8) Recently awarded a 217 mil contract to a formerly stained mil co-founded in N.C. :devil:
hmmmm the plot thickens...
-
So let me get this: according to news articles in the last 6 mts.
1) DHS tested drones over the US (currently using them along the Canadian Border and to a minimal amount on the southern border.
2) DHS has bought 250 million rounds of Jacketed Hollow Point in .40 Caliber for "target practice" (either they love blowing tax payer dollars/ they prepping for something/ Or Big Sis Janet is just incompetent)
3) DHS has given out over 50 mil in contracts to Firearms Co... ordered over 65,000 sidearms to be produced, major contracts with H&K and Sig to produce new weapons cambered in .40.
4) Has ordered an additional 20 million rounds (caliber unknown) this year.
5) De DHS stockpile is 1.6 Billion rounds of Ammo..
6) Maxine Waters say that Barracus have compiled a comprehensive database on Americans.
7) DHS has been doing "military style" drills around the US on major cities...
8) Recently awarded a 217 mil contract to a formerly stained mil co-founded in N.C. :devil:
hmmmm the plot thickens...
got Sources?
*grabs Snicker*
-
Man hunt for ex-soldier who shot police chief's daughter and killed policeman
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/376732/Man-hunt-for-ex-soldier-who-shot-police-chief-s-daughter-and-killed-policeman
POLICE plan to use spy drones in the hunt for a Rambo-style ex-soldier and policeman who has murdered three people and vowed to kill again.
By: Mike ParkerPublished: Sun, February 10, 2013
Christopher Dorner is thought to be hiding in California’s snow-capped San Bernardino mountain
They believe burly, heavily-armed Christopher Dorner is holed-up in the wilderness of California’s snow-capped San Bernardino mountains 80 miles east of Los Angeles.
The burnt-out shell of his pick-up truck was discovered in the nearby resort of Big Bear, where residents and tourists have been warned to stay indoors as the search continues.
Yesterday, as a task force of 125 officers, some riding Snowcats in the rugged terrain, continued their search, it was revealed that Dorner has become the first human target for remotely-controlled airborne drones on US soil.
A senior police source said: “The thermal imaging cameras the drones use may be our only hope of finding him. On the ground, it’s like looking for a needle in a haystack.”
Asked directly if drones have already been deployed, Riverside Police Chief Sergio Diaz, who is jointly leading the task force, said: “We are using all the tools at our disposal.”
The use of drones was later confirmed by Customs and Border Patrol spokesman Ralph DeSio, who revealed agents have been prepared for Dorner to make a dash for the Mexican border since his rampage began.
He said: “This agency has been at the forefront of domestic use of drones by law enforcement. That’s all I can say at the moment.”
Dorner, who was fired from the LAPD in 2008 for lying about a fellow officer he accused of misconduct, has vowed to wreak revenge by “killing officers and their families”.
In a chilling, 6,000 word “manifesto” on his Facebook page he has threatened to “bring warfare” to the LAPD and “utilise every bit of small arms training, demolition, ordinance and survival training I’ve been given.”
Dorner, 33, who rose to the rank of lieutenant in the US Navy and served in Iraq before joining the LAPD, also ominously warned that he has shoulder-launched surface-to-air missiles to “knock out” any helicopters used to pursue him.
Last night, Brian Levin, a psychologist and professor of criminal justice at Cal State University, San Bernardino, said: “We’re talking about someone who basically perceives that a tremendous injustice has been done to him that took his life and identity.
“Now he is, quite literally, at war.”
Dorner’s rampage began last Sunday when he shot dead Monica Quan, 27, the daughter of a former LAPD captain, and her fiancé Keith Lawrence as they sat in their car outside their home in Irvine, California.
Three days later, he stole a boat at gunpoint from an 81-year-old man at a yacht club in San Diego, near the Mexican border. He abandoned the boat when he could not get its engine to start.
The thermal imaging cameras the drones use may be our only hope of finding him. On the ground, it’s like looking for a needle in a haystack.
A senior police source
The following day, last Thursday, he was involved in a shoot-out with police in Cornona, 110 miles north of San Diego. The officers, one of whom was wounded, had been guarding one of his intended online targets.
Later that day, in nearby Riverside, he killed one police officer, whose name has not yet been revealed for security reasons, and wounded a second after opening fire on their car at a set of traffic lights.
As the manhunt for him broadened across numerous police jurisdictions, police mistakenly shot and wounded a mother and daughter delivering newspapers in a pick-up truck similar to Dorner’s.
That incident, in the LA suburb of Torrance, was astonishingly followed two hours later by another in the same area, when police again opened fire on a pick-up. This time, there were no casualties. Hours later, Dorner’s actual pick-up truck was found on a forest road near Big Bear City.
“He had torched it,” a San Bernardino police spokesman said. “We assume it may have broken down before he set fire to it.”
Since then, the huge manhunt for Dorner has focused on an area where hundreds of log cabins, both owned and rented out to tourists, are dotted around the mountainside.
“There is a strong possibility he is using an empty or abandoned one as a bolt-hole,” the police spokesman added last night.
LAPD police chief Charlie Beck, who has pleaded on TV with Dorner to surrender, accepted he might be “difficult to find”, adding: “He knows what he is doing. We trained him and he was also a member of the armed forces. It is extremely worrisome and scary.”
Police have also pleaded with local residents not to try to mount a civilian vigilante force or try to aid in the hunt for the fugitive.
However, one Big Bear resident, Dennis Pollock, said: “I did 12 years in the Marine Corps. Give me a sniper rifle, some gear, and point me in his general direction and get out of my way.”
Another local said: “We know every inch of this terrain and could be a real help to the cops, but all they’ve told us to do is stay at home and lock all our doors.”
Last night, America’s National Weather Centre warned that the hunt for Dorner could be further hampered by an expected snowfall of up to 6ins in the mountains. Wind gusts of up to 50mph are also forecast, creating an extreme wind-chill factor in the already freezing conditions.
San Bernardino County Sheriff John McMahon said: “To be honest, he could be anywhere right now. Torching his own vehicle could have been a diversion to throw us off track. Anything is possible with this man.”
The Plot thickens :devil:
-
So let me get this: according to news articles in the last 6 mts.
1) DHS tested drones over the US (currently using them along the Canadian Border and to a minimal amount on the southern border.
2) DHS has bought 250 million rounds of Jacketed Hollow Point in .40 Caliber for "target practice" (either they love blowing tax payer dollars/ they prepping for something/ Or Big Sis Janet is just incompetent)
3) DHS has given out over 50 mil in contracts to Firearms Co... ordered over 65,000 sidearms to be produced, major contracts with H&K and Sig to produce new weapons cambered in .40.
4) Has ordered an additional 20 million rounds (caliber unknown) this year.
5) De DHS stockpile is 1.6 Billion rounds of Ammo..
6) Maxine Waters say that Barracus have compiled a comprehensive database on Americans.
7) DHS has been doing "military style" drills around the US on major cities...
8) Recently awarded a 217 mil contract to a formerly stained mil co-founded in N.C. :devil:
hmmmm the plot thickens...
Still waiting on your sources...
-
So let me get this: according to news articles in the last 6 mts.
1) DHS tested drones over the US (currently using them along the Canadian Border and to a minimal amount on the southern border.
2) DHS has bought 250 million rounds of Jacketed Hollow Point in .40 Caliber for "target practice" (either they love blowing tax payer dollars/ they prepping for something/ Or Big Sis Janet is just incompetent)
3) DHS has given out over 50 mil in contracts to Firearms Co... ordered over 65,000 sidearms to be produced, major contracts with H&K and Sig to produce new weapons cambered in .40.
4) Has ordered an additional 20 million rounds (caliber unknown) this year.
5) De DHS stockpile is 1.6 Billion rounds of Ammo..
6) Maxine Waters say that Barracus have compiled a comprehensive database on Americans.
7) DHS has been doing "military style" drills around the US on major cities...
8) Recently awarded a 217 mil contract to a formerly stained mil co-founded in N.C. :devil:
hmmmm the plot thickens...
Still waiting on your sources...
me too lol
all I know bout is the public drills in the Midwest cities and buying up of ammo (not sure what type).
-
well it does appear drones are being considered or used to hunt Dorner...
-
well it does appear drones are being considered or used to hunt Dorner...
Drones are not being 'considered'.. they're already deployed. The only question is whether they are only being used for surveillance, in keeping with statutory restrictions when deployed over the continental US, or if they have been surreptitiously armed to "hunt" him down as you say.
-
Interesting perspective...
America’s Troubled Drone Policy: Let the Debate Finally Begin
by John Kael Weston Feb 10, 2013 12:00 AM EST
For John Kael Weston and other men on the frontlines of Iraq and Afghanistan drone strikes raise many uncomfortable questions. He writes about why we need clearer policy and guidelines for these silent killers—and that we must realize their huge cost in civilian lives.
“Remember the bad guys we killed with the Predator after the Taghaz bombing?”
A U.S. Marine Cpl. waits for radio transmissions at his platoon’s defensive position during Operation Shahem Tofan in Helmand province. (Cpl. Reece Lodder)
My Marine friend’s call came late one night in mid-2011 from Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania (home to the U.S. Army’s War College) while I was in Leadville, Colorado. He wanted to vent about drones and our nation’s kill strategy from the sky. An incident two years earlier in a remote stretch of yellow desert in southern Afghanistan’s Helmand Province stuck with him, gnawing at his conscience.
This war-hardened Marine infantry officer could not shake the image of watching a “guilty” man die, as cameras thousands of feet above beamed live streaming video footage to Camp Leatherneck’s command center. The feed showed how the missile severed both legs of one of the men, who then tried to drag and conceal what was left of himself into the new crater that became his grave. Marines watched from half-a-province away as the man bled to death, nowhere to hide. Those in the White House and Pentagon would be pleased: another kill added to the long list. This time a bullseye from a distance made clean, easy, and effective.
“Let’s talk about it,” I replied. If anyone wanted revenge, we did.
The bad guys, after all, were linked (but not indisputably) to a suicide bomber who blew up two Marines and a Navy Corpsman in a market the day after a Marine commanding general and I had visited them. We shook their hands as they began a new mission at the edge of America’s military empire, overstretched and unforgiving to frontline troops on third tours.
We spent the next couple of hours on the phone, the first of many conversations about drone warfare—its legal complexities, moral dimensions, and our firsthand experiences.
***
In Afghanistan in 2009 and 2010, where I served as a State Department political adviser to a 20,000-strong Marine Expeditionary Brigade, I got used to being briefed frequently on the deadly variety of drone missions. Some succeeded as planned; others did not.
SEAL and DELTA Teams usually received top priority in their hunts for “jackpot” targets and dedicated air surveillance assets. Rarely were missions that resulted in unplanned outcomes—called “dryholes” in frontline lingo—briefed in any detail to us. They should have been. We don’t always get the bad guys in the zero-dark hours after midnight, when civilians die at our hands. This side of the National Security Staff inbox warrants just as much scrutiny as the “HVT” (high-value target) categories.
An Afghan I first met in Khost Province told me recently, “Only few drones get success among the dozens because of either the false time or wrong report.” He believes they should continue to operate but be conducted more carefully, with better intelligence and Afghan leaders helping to frame the issue.
My Marine friend later wrote to me, noting that “innocents are killed on battlefields – always have been and unfortunately always will be – what I am saying about what bothers me goes back to the effect killing has on your psychology, the psychological damage that occurs, damage that can be made worse when killing innocents.”
Despite the effects of PTSD on drone operators stationed in the Nevada desert, the toll remains far greater among Pashtun parents and children. As a former U.S. Government official, I paid blood money (termed “condolence payments” in Pentagon and State Department prose) to families who lost brothers, sisters, sons, and daughters in operations of ours that went wrong. We usually handed over a maximum of $5,000 American dollars per death in Iraq or Afghanistan. It was never easy. And I never knew exactly how Washington priced out their lives.
“Our drone hammer makes everyone look like that nail that needs to be flattened.”
Now with our nation’s longest war ending, “kill lists” and bureaucratic memos make an already distant war even more remote—and antiseptic. It is a deceptive picture that obscures the truth. Under both the Bush and Obama Administrations, a slippery slope of self-justifications has become too commonplace. Republican and Democratic in-house lawyers have issued Executive Branch orders in convenient but questionable and euphemistic legalese. Enhanced interrogation techniques. Extraordinary rendition. Enemy combatants. Black sites. Imminent. And so on. Words to confuse the conscience.
It is this gray area that troubles my Marine friend and me. His late-night call extended into an ongoing wider discussion about the courses he is taking at the Army War College. It is there he and classmates study the history and practice of warfare—how Americans fought in the past, present, and how we’re planning to fight into the future. Iraq and Afghanistan veterans like him have seen how detached policy has become from the human costs on the ground. As have I. Memos in Washington do not translate well in places like Helmand. (They didn’t in Iraq, either.)
While we both did not believe the man cut in two by our drone deserved a tactical reprieve or “due process” review on the battlefield, watching men die warps the soul. Intelligence that drives our decisions is never complete, and in his words, “our drone hammer makes everyone look like that nail that needs to be flattened.”
The Marine officer went on to emphasize in a follow-on email, “There is a gap in the system that ensures we are really killing bad guys and not innocents, which of course leads to the fact that hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed in World War II on purpose by our government, which then leads to what is the value of human life – one versus ten, us versus them?”
From Washington, drones appear to be an attractive, or possibly cheaper, alternative compared to another war or extending our nation’s longest, in Afghanistan, beyond 2014, the date President Obama has promised to end it. White House spokesman Jay Carney declared this way of warfare as preferable to massed invasions of villages, thereby lessening needless deaths in faraway battlefields.
Having survived Fallujah, Khost, Sadr City, and Helmand myself—plenty of American and Iraqi and Afghan friends did not—I understand Mr. Carney’s logic. Many of us are indeed war-weary and war-wary, especially everyone who served “over there” again and again.
But this quiet war of stealth in the skies above only became a public topic of discussion because of a leaked memo outlining when an American commander in chief can “legally” kill an American citizen and because of ++John Brennan’s nomination to CIA director++[ http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/09/john-brennan-and-the-drone-consensus.html]. Why did it take a leak to get the debate going? What we need is a deeper examination of the pros and cons. Terrorists have been killed, as they should be when we locate them. But so have civilians, more than a few. The overriding question, however, remains: when can U.S. leaders make lethal determinations about citizens outside established due process or legal proceedings?
This overdue debate should be welcomed by Americans. As Oregon Senator Ron Wyden tweeted, “Every American has the right to know when their government believes that it is allowed to kill them.” Achieving the proper balance between rights and security requires active, ongoing discussion, not more secret memos passed between administration lawyers. General Stanley McChrystal has expressed skepticism about drones. In a recent Reuters interview he remarked: "What scares me about drone strikes is how they are perceived around the world. The resentment created by American use of unmanned strikes ... is much greater than the average American appreciates. They are hated on a visceral level, even by people who've never seen one or seen the effects of one."
Brennan, in contrast, has voiced full-throated support, while current and incoming defense secretaries, Mr. Panetta and Mr. Hagel, have offered vague statements. Secretary of State John Kerry has yet to go on the record in a substantive way.
President Obama’s decision to release information to relevant Congressional oversight committees outlining his team’s legal reasoning—why and when a U.S. citizen might be targeted—should help initiate broad dialogue. Former Vice President Dick Cheney’s “dark side” logic still begs for a small-d democratic airing and key senators seem ready, at last, to ask the hard questions. That is Congress’s crucial balance-of-power role in our democracy.
***
My Marine friend said neither man killed by our Predator strike that night in Helmand proved to be the intended target. He added, “but they both were bad . . . loaded with weapons, grenades, etc.”
He sounded almost convinced.
Are we?
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/09/america-s-troubled-drone-policy-let-the-debate-finally-begin.html
-
why you post that last one bakes?
-
why you post that last one bakes?
Same reason I made every other post.
-
http://news.yahoo.com/faa-moves-toward-creating-6-drone-test-sites-220301879--politics.html
(http://l2.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/EpTxumQIZmRjXEhevRRVVA--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Y2g9MTU5MDtjcj0xO2N3PTI0MjI7ZHg9MDtkeT0wO2ZpPXVsY3JvcDtoPTQxNDtxPTg1O3c9NjMw/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ap_webfeeds/f89a54bf736c8705290f6a706700a383.jpg)
WASHINGTON (AP) — In a major step toward opening U.S. skies to thousands of unmanned drones, federal officials Thursday solicited proposals to create six drone test sites around the country.
The Federal Aviation Administration also posted online a draft plan for protecting people's privacy from the eyes in the sky.
The plan would require each test site to follow federal and state laws and make a privacy policy publicly available.
Privacy advocates worry that a proliferation of drones will lead to a "surveillance society" in which the movements of Americans are routinely monitored, tracked, recorded and scrutinized by the authorities.
The military has come to rely heavily on drones overseas. Now there is tremendous demand to use drones in the U.S. for all kinds of tasks that are too dirty, dull or dangerous for manned aircraft.
Drones, which range from the size of a hummingbird to the high-flying Globalhawks that weigh about 15,000 pounds without fuel, also are often cheaper than manned aircraft. The biggest market is expected to be state and local police departments.
The FAA is required by a law enacted a year ago to develop sites where civilian and military drones can be tested in preparation for integration into U.S. airspace that's currently limited to manned aircraft.
The law also requires that the FAA allow drones wide access to U.S. airspace by 2015, but the agency is behind schedule, and it's doubtful it will meet the deadline, the Transportation Department's inspector general said in a report last year.
The test sites are planned to evaluate what requirements are needed to ensure the drones don't collide with planes or endanger people or property on the ground. Remotely controlled drones don't have a pilot who can see other aircraft the way an onboard plane or helicopter pilot can.
There's also concern that links between drones and their on-the-ground operators can be broken or hacked, causing the operator to lose control of the drone.
Military drones use encrypted GPS signals for navigation, which protects them from hacking, but the GPS signals used by civilian drones don't have that protection.
"Our focus is on maintaining and improving the safety and efficiency of the world's largest aviation system," Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said in a statement.
"This research will give us valuable information about how best to ensure the safe introduction of this advanced technology into our nation's skies."
The test sites are also expected to boost the local economy of the communities where they are located. About two dozen government-industry partnerships have been formed over the past year to compete for the sites.
"Today's announcement by the FAA is an important milestone on the path toward unlocking the potential of unmanned aircraft and creating thousands of American jobs," said Michael Toscano, president and CEO of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International.
"States across the country have been eager to receive this FAA designation because they recognize the incredible economic and job creation potential it would bring with it," he said in a statement.
Industry experts predict the takeoff of a multibillion-dollar market for civilian drones as soon as the FAA completes regulations to make sure they don't pose a safety hazard to other aircraft. Potential civilian users are as varied as the drones themselves.
Power companies want them to monitor transmission lines.
Farmers want to fly them over fields to detect which crops need water. Ranchers want them to count cows.
Film companies want to use drones to help make movies. Journalists are exploring drones' newsgathering potential.
The FAA plans to begin integrating drones starting with small aircraft weighing less than about 55 pounds.
The agency forecasts an estimated 10,000 civilian drones will be in use in the U.S. within five years.
The Defense Department says the demand for drones and their expanding missions requires routine and unfettered access to domestic airspace, including around airports and cities, for military testing and training. Currently, the military tests drones in specially designated swaths of airspace in mostly remote parts of the country where they are likely to encounter relatively few other aircraft.
The Customs and Border Patrol uses drones along the U.S.-Mexico border. And the FAA has granted several hundred permits to universities, police departments and other government agencies to use small, low-flying drones. For example, the sheriff's department in Montgomery County, Texas, has a 50-pound ShadowHawk helicopter drone intended to supplement its SWAT team.
The sheriff's department hasn't armed its drone, although the ShadowHawk can be equipped with a 40 mm grenade launcher and a 12-guage shotgun.
The prospect of armed drones patrolling U.S. skies has alarmed some lawmakers and their constituents. More than a dozen bills have been introduced in Congress and state legislatures to curb drone use and protect privacy.
President Barack Obama was asked Thursday about concerns that the administration believes it's legal to strike American citizens abroad with drones and whether that's allowed against citizens in the U.S. If not, how would he create a legal framework to help citizens know drone strikes can't be used against them?
"There's never been a drone used on an American citizen on American soil," the president said, speaking during an online chat sponsored by Google in which he was promoting his policy initiatives.
"We respect and have a whole bunch of safeguards in terms of how we conduct counterterrorism operations outside of the United States.
The rules outside of the United States are going to be different than the rules inside the United States, in part because our capacity, for example, to capture terrorists in the United States are very different than in the foothills or mountains of Afghanistan or Pakistan."
He said he would work with Congress to make sure the American public understands "what the constraints are, what the legal parameters are, and that's something that I take very seriously."
Earlier this week, an FAA official told a meeting of potential test site bidders that aviation regulations prohibit dropping anything from aircraft, which could be interpreted to bar arming civilian drones, according to an industry official present at the meeting who requested anonymity because he wasn't authorized to speak publicly.
___
Follow Joan Lowy on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/AP_Joan_Lowy
-
Word is that the DHS has been simulating different scenarios, including a collapse of the financial system and the civil society,
http://news.investors.com/politics-andrew-malcolm/020813-643707-obama-homeland-security-vast-ammunition-purchases.htm
Why are the feds loading up on so much ammo?
By Andrew Malcolm
Posted 02/08/2013 09:02 AM ET
In a puzzling, unexplained development, the Obama administration has been buying and storing vast amounts of ammunition in recent months, with the Department of Homeland Security just placing another order for an additional 21.6 million rounds.
Several other agencies of the federal government also began buying large quantities of bullets last year. The Social Security Administration, for instance, not normally considered on the frontlines of anything but dealing with seniors, explained that its purchase of millions of rounds was for special agents' required quarterly weapons qualifications. They must be pretty poor shots.
But DHS has been silent about its need for numerous orders of bullets in the multiple millions. Indeed, Examiner writer Ryan Keller points out Janet Napolitano's agency illegally redacted information from some ammunition solicitation forms following media inquiries.
According to one estimate, just since last spring DHS has stockpiled more than 1.6 billion bullets, mainly .40 caliber and 9mm. That's sufficient firepower to shoot every American about five times. Including illegal immigrants.
To provide some perspective, experts estimate that at the peak of the Iraq war American troops were firing around 5.5 million rounds per month. At that rate, DHS is armed now for a 24-year Iraq war.
The perceived need for so much ammunition in federal custody is especially strange given Obama's double-barreled emphasis in his inaugural address on the approaching end in Afghanistan "of a decade of war." And he also noted, "We, the people, still believe that enduring security and lasting peace do not require perpetual war."
The lack of a credible official explanation for such awesome ammunition acquisitions is feeding all sorts of conspiracy theories, mainly centered on federal anticipation of some kind of domestic insurrection. Napolitano has at times alluded to threats from the extreme right-wing.
Other conspiracists harken back to an Obama Colorado campaign speech in July, 2008. That day he deviated from his prepared text to say:
"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
Writing at American Thinker, Lee Cary noted at the time that the speech context seemed to involve expanded opportunities for community service. But as still happens when Obama goes off-teleprompter, his non-fortuitous word choice on the fly such as "national security force" prompted numerous writers to speculate since about some kind of national Obama para-military force.
And as great as Obama's unlikely, newly-revealed passion for skeet-shooting might be, that involves shotguns, not handguns over-heated from blasting off millions of rounds.
Additionally, Napolitano, a former governor of Arizona, is widely expected to seek the 2016 Democrat presidential nomination. But you wouldn't think she'd need that much ammo for such a bid.
-
Why are the feds loading up on so much ammo?
that's a stupid question. Obviously to "protect the Homeland" from nutcases who have underground bunkers full of ammunition.
-
all kicks aside: lets hope their intentions are noble and not nefarious :beermug:
-
So let me get this: according to news articles in the last 6 mts.
1) DHS tested drones over the US (currently using them along the Canadian Border and to a minimal amount on the southern border.
2) DHS has bought 250 million rounds of Jacketed Hollow Point in .40 Caliber for "target practice" (either they love blowing tax payer dollars/ they prepping for something/ Or Big Sis Janet is just incompetent)
3) DHS has given out over 50 mil in contracts to Firearms Co... ordered over 65,000 sidearms to be produced, major contracts with H&K and Sig to produce new weapons cambered in .40.
4) Has ordered an additional 20 million rounds (caliber unknown) this year.
5) De DHS stockpile is 1.6 Billion rounds of Ammo..
6) Maxine Waters say that Barracus have compiled a comprehensive database on Americans.
7) DHS has been doing "military style" drills around the US on major cities...
8) Recently awarded a 217 mil contract to a formerly stained mil co-founded in N.C. :devil:
hmmmm the plot thickens...
got Sources?
*grabs Snicker*
There are several published federal reports that the Government put out requesting quotes for 1.6 billion rounds of ammo.
Now Alex jones the right wing rasio host and shit talker made it out to be rather sisnister.
What Daft's report above does not state is that large amounts are used for training.
Typcially when ordering a lrge about of anything the government buys for a period of 3-5 years and sends out what is referred to as strategic sourcing contracts, this guarantees a good price or best price scenario.
I attended training in Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Glynco Georgia and they use millions of rounds per year. That is the largest Federal training facility of its kind and kind of the main hub, but there are other training areas also and they use quite a large number of rounds too, even if not as much as Glynco.
The second largest purchased of rounds is Immigration...they use a whole lot and they tend to stock up in border areas for obvious reasons.
As for social security buying a whole laod of hollow point bullets, I can not make any comment on that.
But the purchase of 16 billions rounds is accurate but does not seem as nefarious as Daft is making it out to be.
-
No thoughts on what Rand Paul did? I would have never paid him any attention before yesterday, but he won my admiration for that.
-
No thoughts on what Rand Paul did? I would have never paid him any attention before yesterday, but he won my admiration for that.
Gained my respect also..this drone strike shit is f**king really scary.
-
Allyuh must be easily impressed if a publicity stunt like that meant to pander to the simpletons who form the Republican base have allyuh cumming all over allyuh self so.
-------------------
In other news...
In his initial 50-minute interrogation on Dec. 25, 2009, before he stopped speaking for a month, Mr. Abdulmutallab said he had been sent by a terrorist named Abu Tarek, although intelligence agencies quickly found indications that Mr. Awlaki was probably involved. When Mr. Abdulmutallab resumed cooperating with interrogators in late January, an official said, he admitted that “Abu Tarek” was Mr. Awlaki. With the Nigerian’s statements, American officials had witness confirmation that Mr. Awlaki was clearly a direct plotter, no longer just a dangerous propagandist.
“He had been on the radar all along, but it was Abdulmutallab’s testimony that really sealed it in my mind that this guy was dangerous and that we needed to go after him,” said Dennis C. Blair, then director of national intelligence.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/world/middleeast/anwar-al-awlaki-a-us-citizen-in-americas-cross-hairs.html?pagewanted=all
-
Allyuh must be easily impressed if a publicity stunt like that meant to pander to the simpletons who form the Republican base have allyuh cumming all over allyuh self so.
-------------------
In other news...
In his initial 50-minute interrogation on Dec. 25, 2009, before he stopped speaking for a month, Mr. Abdulmutallab said he had been sent by a terrorist named Abu Tarek, although intelligence agencies quickly found indications that Mr. Awlaki was probably involved. When Mr. Abdulmutallab resumed cooperating with interrogators in late January, an official said, he admitted that “Abu Tarek” was Mr. Awlaki. With the Nigerian’s statements, American officials had witness confirmation that Mr. Awlaki was clearly a direct plotter, no longer just a dangerous propagandist.
“He had been on the radar all along, but it was Abdulmutallab’s testimony that really sealed it in my mind that this guy was dangerous and that we needed to go after him,” said Dennis C. Blair, then director of national intelligence.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/world/middleeast/anwar-al-awlaki-a-us-citizen-in-americas-cross-hairs.html?pagewanted=all
lol;. you doh believe in cross examination no more? sufficient for execution? Bless up padnah! :beermug:
-
lol;. you doh believe in cross examination no more? sufficient for execution? Bless up padnah! :beermug:
There are exceptions in every case... police obligated to allow due process or "cross-examination" when ah man pointing ah gun at dem or somebody else? Here you have a man actively involved in advising Nidal Hassan, then the Nigerian "underwear bomber" tell dem that he went Yemen to meet with him... den de Times Square bomber was tracked to Yemen meeting with him. Yuh want dem tuh wait and arrest him yuh say? Okay... keep dreaming.
-
I wonder if yuh gyul Margret woulda call a strike on muh boy Nelson? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/from-terrorist-to-tea-with-the-queen-1327902.html
-
I wonder if yuh gyul Margret woulda call a strike on muh boy Nelson? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/from-terrorist-to-tea-with-the-queen-1327902.html
ah doubt it. thatcher had a good instinct for the british interest. now, if it was the IRA ....
-
I wonder if yuh gyul Margret woulda call a strike on muh boy Nelson? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/from-terrorist-to-tea-with-the-queen-1327902.html
ah doubt it. thatcher had a good instinct for the british interest. now, if it was the IRA ....
Contradictory nonsense.
-
I wonder if yuh gyul Margret woulda call a strike on muh boy Nelson? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/from-terrorist-to-tea-with-the-queen-1327902.html
ah doubt it. thatcher had a good instinct for the british interest. now, if it was the IRA ....
so thatcher's family invite de "terrorist" to de funeral and snub de kirchner. :yellowcard:
-
http://www.radiolab.org/story/60-words/ (http://www.radiolab.org/story/60-words/) Very good listen. As Obama tries to get congress to give him the blessings that he gave Bush to wage an infinite war on whoever the military gets together and decides to execute on their hitlists. from yemen, to somalia to syria forever.
-
ACLU seeks disclosure of criteria used for placing individuals on targeted-killing program (http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/3/16/aclu-sues-obama-administration-in-bid-to-view-targeted-killing-parameters.html)
Rights group sues White House over Obama’s drone ‘kill list’
ACLU seeks disclosure of criteria used for placing individuals on targeted-killing program
March 16, 2015 12:55PM ET
by Ned Resnikoff @resnikoff
The American Civil Liberties Union sued Barack Obama’s administration in federal court on Monday in an attempt to compel the release of classified information regarding the White House’s secretive targeted-killing program.
The lawsuit, which was first reported by The Guardian, seeks disclosure of the criteria for placing individuals on the administration’s “kill list.” Obama acknowledges that the White House has remotely singled out and eliminated suspected terrorists, but the administration has guarded closely any information about how the targets are selected.
“The public should know who the government is killing and why it’s killing them,” said ACLU deputy legal director Jameel Jaffer in a statement. “There’s no good reason why legal memos relating to the targeted-killing program should be secret in their entirety. Nor is there any legitimate justification for the government’s refusal to acknowledge individual strikes or to disclose civilian casualties or to disclose the procedures under which individuals are added to government ‘kill list.’”
Exact figures regarding the number of people killed through U.S targeted-killing programs, including drone strike campaigns, are difficult to obtain. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism estimates that 2,442 to 3,942 people in Pakistan have been killed by CIA drone strikes since 2004. Although Pakistan is by far the site of the most frequent strikes, hundreds more people are thought to have been killed by U.S. drones in Yemen, Somalia and Afghanistan.
In May 2013, the White House formally acknowledged that four of those killed by U.S. drone strikes since the program began have been American citizens. Last June the U.S. Justice Department released a previously secret memo explaining the legal rationale for targeting one of those citizens, high-ranking Al-Qaeda member Anwar al-Awlaki, killed in Yemen by a U.S. drone in September 2011.
However, much is still unknown about the broader criteria for identifying targets. In October 2012, The Washington Post reported that the White House was developing a new system, known as the disposition matrix, for prioritizing targets. Exactly how the disposition matrix works is still unknown, but subsequent disclosures have revealed that the CIA relies in part on NSA surveillance to uncover new targets.
The ACLU is already pursuing two other lawsuits aimed at forcing disclosures in regards targeted killings. But ACLU national security project director Hina Shamsi said the lawsuit filed Monday had the broadest scope and “updates our earlier requests."
In particular, the ACLU is seeking a full version of the presidential policy guidance (PPG), a set of targeted-killing guidelines that Obama signed in May 2013. The White House has published a fact sheet summarizing the contents of the PPG, but the full text is still secret.
“It appears that the government isn’t abiding by those standards, which we think are too broad anyway,” Shamsi told Al Jazeera, citing recent reports from Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch claiming that drone attacks are continuing to cause needless civilian casualties.
Sarah Knuckey, a co-director at Columbia Law School’s Human Rights Institute, said the government has yet to reveal under what circumstances the PPG applies to airstrikes.
“We know for sure that it doesn’t apply in Afghanistan, because that is clearly within the context of an armed conflict,” she said. But the question of its applicability in countries like Yemen and Somalia is hazier, she said.
Additionally, the U.S. government has yet to clarify the evidentiary standards for determining who qualifies as associated forces linked to Al-Qaeda and who qualifies as a lawful target in general. Knuckey also said the government has not yet given a definition for who it considers an imminent threat.
“We know the U.S. has an expanded or elongated definition of imminence compared to what international law would define as the term, but we don’t know its content,” Knuckey said.
Shamsi said the lawsuit is about ensuring that the public has sufficient information to debate the merits of the government’s targeted killings. The ACLU is also seeking information regarding any investigations the government may have made into targeted killings after they were carried out.
“The government asserts that it knows that its killings are lawful but it refuses to release factual information, including after-the-fact investigations over whether the killings are legal,” she said.
“If there was a release — redacted, of course — of poststrike investigations into specific strikes, then we could have a debate about whether those strikes were lawful or not, whether the claims of civilian harm were accurate or not,” said Knuckey. “That’s the debate we should be having."
A spokeswoman for the White House National Security Council told Al Jazeera that it does not comment on issues being litigated.
-
Eye in the sky: Police drones out for Carnival.
By Shane Superville (Newsday).
The Police Air Support Unit will be keeping a close watch on Carnival celebrations from above, using drones, a press release announced this afternoon.
The drones will be deployed throughout the country with particular emphasis in the Port of Spain division to ensure the safety and security of the public.
In addition, the release said police will be monitoring the use of other drones and cautioned drone users that the necessary safety steps are taken, especially in relation to aircraft. Drone users are reminded that drones are not to be flown within five kilometres of any manned aircraft, including at the boundary of an airport or within two kilometres of a helipad at an altitude of over 400 feet, over any crowded area or over any public event.
The police also reminded the public that there are designated no-fly zones for general drone operators, which include Port of Spain, Pointe-a-Pierre, Chaguaramas, Caroni, Point Lisas, Point Fortin and Galeota.
Drone users are also reminded that drones are not to be flown within five kilometres of any manned aircraft including at the boundary of an airport or within two kilometres of a helipad at an altitude of over 400 feet, over any crowded area or over any public event.