Leaked: Drone Kill List: Authority to kill American citizens has no geographic limit

[Oxymoron]

Does this 'technically' include, or is it a precursor to, drone attacks on U.S soil?

http://www.democracynow.org/2013/2/5...ked_obama_memo

Content from external source:

The Obama administration’s internal legal justification for assassinating U.S. citizens without charge has been revealed for the first time. In a secret Justice Department memo, the administration claims it has legal authority to assassinate U.S. citizens overseas even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the United States. We’re joined by Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union. "If you look at the memo ... there’s no geographic line," says Jaffer. "The Obama administration is making, in some ways, a greater claim of authority [than President Bush]. They’re arguing that the authority to kill American citizens has no geographic limit."

NBC News, the Obama administration claims it has the legal authority to target citizens who are, quote, "senior operational leaders," of al-Qaeda or "an associated force" — even if there’s no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S. In September 2011, a U.S. drone strike in Yemen killed two American citizens: Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan. The following month, another U.S. drone strike killed al-Awlaki’s 16-year-old son Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, who was born in Denver.

Content from external source:

Last month, a federal judge denied a request by the American Civil Liberties Union and The New York Times for the Justice Department to disclose its legal justification for the targeted killing of Americans.

Related?

http://www.latimes.com/business/mone...,7365434.story

Content from external source:

Charlottesville, Va., has taken action against the use of police spy drones, ordering a two-year moratorium on the citywide use of unmanned aircraft. It is the first city in the nation to do so, supporters say, and its move may prompt other municipalities to act.

Seeking tough regulation over the future use of civilian drones in U.S. airspace, the City Council passed a resolution that prohibits police agencies from utilizing drones outfitted with anti-personnel devices such as Tasers and tear gas.

It also sought to block governments from using data recorded via police spy drones in criminal prosecutions.

[jvnk08]

Read the whitepaper yourself: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/se...hite_Paper.pdf

The first sentence says "in a foreign country". Is it a precursor to killing American citizens on American soil? I'm not sure. AFAIK that is already possible and legal if they are deemed enemy combatants(that's not simply a label given to undesirables, its backed by intelligence research into the person). More realistically I think they would first pursue arrest.

[Oxymoron]

Read the whitepaper yourself: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/se...hite_Paper.pdf

The first sentence says "in a foreign country". Is it a precursor to killing American citizens on American soil?

Thanks. I think it refers in the main to Drone usage as killing of terrorists by conventional armed forces is pretty much established in Afghanistan/Iraq anyway and the CIA assassin squads are now out in the open...

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...n-unit/259856/

Content from external source:

It was one of the biggest secrets of the post-9/11 era: soon after the attacks, President Bush gave the CIA permission to create a top secret assassination unit to find and kill Al Qaeda operatives. The program was kept from Congress for seven years. And when Leon Panetta told legislators about it in 2009, he revealed that the CIA had hired the private security firm Blackwater to help run it. "The move was historic," says Evan Wright, the two-time National Magazine Award-winning journalist who wrote Generation Kill. "It seems to have marked the first time the U.S. government outsourced a covert assassination service to private enterprise."

Content from external source:

Running operations through Blackwater gave the CIA the power to have people abducted, or killed, with no one in the government being exactly responsible." None of this is new information, though I imagine that many people reading this item are hearing about it for the first time.

It appears to widen the scope geographically and there are already reports of Drones in Mali etc.

Obama appears to be pushing the envelope on this quite rapidly... massive increases in Drone strikes and general usage... not very much concern for 'collateral damage'... dead innocents who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I'm not sure. AFAIK that is already possible and legal if they are deemed enemy combatants(that's not simply a label given to undesirables, its backed by intelligence research into the person). More realistically I think they would first pursue arrest.

Was interesting to note they already had the 'baby drones' with tazers in the U.S . I think 'enemy combatants' covers a large remit but we will see

[jvnk08]

Thanks. I think it refers in the main to Drone usage as killing of terrorists by conventional armed forces is pretty much established in Afghanistan/Iraq anyway and the CIA assassin squads are now out in the open...

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...n-unit/259856/

Content from external source:

It was one of the biggest secrets of the post-9/11 era: soon after the attacks, President Bush gave the CIA permission to create a top secret assassination unit to find and kill Al Qaeda operatives. The program was kept from Congress for seven years. And when Leon Panetta told legislators about it in 2009, he revealed that the CIA had hired the private security firm Blackwater to help run it. "The move was historic," says Evan Wright, the two-time National Magazine Award-winning journalist who wrote Generation Kill. "It seems to have marked the first time the U.S. government outsourced a covert assassination service to private enterprise."

Content from external source:

Running operations through Blackwater gave the CIA the power to have people abducted, or killed, with no one in the government being exactly responsible." None of this is new information, though I imagine that many people reading this item are hearing about it for the first time.

It appears to widen the scope geographically and there are already reports of Drones in Mali etc.

Why do you think those are US drones...?

Obama appears to be pushing the envelope on this quite rapidly... massive increases in Drone strikes and general usage... not very much concern for 'collateral damage'... dead innocents who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Where do you get the impression they are increasing in frequency? They happen every few days at most frequent. It's terrible that innocent people are being killed, but it's important to keep perspective here: the collateral damage is actually a lot less than conventional warfare.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan

Was interesting to note they already had the 'baby drones' with tazers in the U.S . I think 'enemy combatants' covers a large remit but we will see

Frankly I don't get the hysteria around drones. Why don't folks learn how to build their own, and in the process learn their limitations if you're so afraid of what they can do. If a small UAV can hit a moving target with a tazer, I'll be surprised.

[SR1419]

Obama appears to be pushing the envelope on this quite rapidly... massive increases in Drone strikes and general usage... not very much concern for 'collateral damage'... dead innocents who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

"Massive increases" ? Hyperbole?


Actually, drone strikes in Pakistan have been decreasing for the last few years- They peaked in 2010 with 117, 64 in 2011, 46 last year and 8 so far this year

http://www.longwarjournal.org/pakistan-strikes.php

Drone strikes in Yemen have increased- from 2 in 2010, to 10 in 2011 to 42 last year:

http://www.longwarjournal.org/multim...men-strike.php

The use of drones actually is the best tool for limiting "collateral damage" as potential targets can be watched over hours to verify to a greater degree and to allow time to strike when the risk for civilian casualties is minimal or non-existent.

[Oxymoron]

"Massive increases" ?

Yes

http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com...e-in-pakistan/

Content from external source:

Although the pace of strikes has slowed considerably this year, CIA attacks have struck Pakistan’s tribal areas on average once every five days during Obama’s first term – six times more than under George W Bush. Here, we look at the key moments of Obama’s drone campaign

Hyperbole?

No

Actually, drone strikes in Pakistan have been decreasing for the last few years- They peaked in 2010 with 117, 64 in 2011, 46 last year and 8 so far this year

Do you run a PR agency?

http://www.longwarjournal.org/pakistan-strikes.php

Drone strikes in Yemen have increased- from 2 in 2010, to 10 in 2011 to 42 last year:

Massive increase?... Yes. Hyperbole?... No.

http://www.longwarjournal.org/multim...men-strike.php

The use of drones actually is the best tool for limiting "collateral damage" as potential targets can be watched over hours to verify to a greater degree and to allow time to strike when the risk for civilian casualties is minimal or non-existent.

Hyperbole?... Yes. Outright misrepresentation of facts?... Yes.

Content from external source:


Obama’s drone campaign started three days into his presidency. But of the 12 – 23 reportedly killed in the pair of strikes, at least 12 were reportedly civilians, including four children. When the president was told of the civilian deaths he was ‘not a happy man’, Newsweek later reported. But this didn’t prevent the CIA from launching more covert strikes in the first year of Obama’s presidency than in all of Bush’s eight-year tenure.

Content from external source:

at least 119 civilians were reportedly killed between Obama’s inauguration and the year’s end. And some strikes appeared to adopt shocking tactics, including two incidents where missiles hit funerals. The second such strike, reportedly killing at least five, occurred eight days after Obama accepted the Nobel Peace Prize.

Apparently it is not merely me being hypersensitive or alarmist or practicing hyperbole...

http://www.presstv.ir/usdetail/287964.html

Content from external source:

Attacks by U.S. military forces in Afghanistan, including air strikes, have reportedly killed hundreds of children over the last four years, according to the U.N. body monitoring the rights of children.

The Geneva-based Committee on the Rights of the Child told the United States this week that it is "alarmed at reports of the death of hundreds of children as a result of attacks and air strikes by the U.S. military forces in Afghanistan."

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012...n_1909167.html

Content from external source:

a study published on Tuesday claims that not only are very few key targets killed, but that the attacks have resulted in high civilian casualties – including children - and have greatly increased resentment towards the US. The report, by Stanford University and New York University, warns that the CIA's drone campaign, which has escalated under Obama, "terrorises men, women and children" in north-west Pakistan "twenty-four hours a day".
What do you think about US drone strikes?

Carry on, there's no other way to fight terrorism in Pakistan

16.07%

They should be halted right now in light of this report

53.64%

They should be used more sparingly and only against confirmed high-profile terrorist targets

30.29%

Seems one of us have our facts wrong... I wonder who? Perhaps more to the point... Why?

[SR1419]

There are more drone strikes under Obama than Bush - that is true...part of the reason is a shift from traditional air strikes (planes) to drones...part of it is a deliberate campaign. But they have decreased substantially over the last few years in Pakistan

http://www.longwarjournal.org/multim...men-strike.php

Hyperbole?... Yes. Outright misrepresentation of facts?... Yes.

Seems one of us have our facts wrong... I wonder who? Perhaps more to the point... Why?[/B]

No- stating that Drones have the potential to limit civilian casualties more that any other air-delivery method is not hyperbole or a misrepresentation of facts. Try again.

In 10 strikes in Yemen in 2010- 0 civilian casualties, 5 strikes so far this year- 0 casualties.

In Pakistan- since 2010 1541 "enemies" killed versus 59 unintentional civilian deaths.

-

Content from external source:

The civilian casualty rate has been dropping sharply since 2008. The number of civilians, plus "unknowns," those individuals whose precise status could not be determined from media reports, reported killed by drones in Pakistan during Obama's tenure in office were 11% of fatalities. So far in 2012 it is close to 2%. Under President Bush it was 33%.

[Oxymoron]

There are more drone strikes under Obama than Bush - that is true...part of the reason is a shift from traditional air strikes (planes) to drones...part of it is a deliberate campaign. But they have decreased substantially over the last few years in Pakistan





No- stating that Drones have the potential to limit civilian casualties more that any other air-delivery method is not hyperbole or a misrepresentation of facts. Try again.

In 10 strikes in Yemen in 2010- 0 civilian casualties, 5 strikes so far this year- 0 casualties.

In Pakistan- since 2010 1541 "enemies" killed versus 59 unintentional civilian deaths.

-

Content from external source:

The civilian casualty rate has been dropping sharply since 2008. The number of civilians, plus "unknowns," those individuals whose precise status could not be determined from media reports, reported killed by drones in Pakistan during Obama's tenure in office were 11% of fatalities. So far in 2012 it is close to 2%. Under President Bush it was 33%.

http://dawn.com/2012/12/19/no-obama-...s-in-pakistan/

Sandy Hook:

Content from external source:

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

Pakistan... and wherever: "Bug Splats"

Content from external source:

It must follow that what applies to the children murdered there by a deranged young man also applies to the children murdered in Pakistan by a sombre American president. These children are just as important, just as real, just as deserving of the world’s concern.

Yet there are no presidential speeches or presidential tears for them, no pictures on the front pages of the world’s newspapers, no interviews with grieving relatives, no minute analysis of what happened and why.
If the victims of Mr Obama’s drone strikes are mentioned by the state at all, they are discussed in terms which suggest that they are less than human.
The people who operate the drones, Rolling Stone magazine reports, describe their casualties as “bug splats”, “since viewing the body through a grainy-green video image gives the sense of an insect being crushed”.

"Who will avenge the blood of these Pakistanis?"


U.S certainly knows how to create 'terrorists'... Never ending war? Was that a plan?

[SR1419]

Never ending war? same as it ever was.

It definitely sucks when innocent people die...and war is miserable.

But using drones is the best option for limiting civilian casualties if you are going to attack.

...as opposed to...say...a suicide bomber.

[jvnk08]

Yes


http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com...e-in-pakistan/

Content from external source:

Although the pace of strikes has slowed considerably this year, CIA attacks have struck Pakistan’s tribal areas on average once every five days during Obama’s first term – six times more than under George W Bush. Here, we look at the key moments of Obama’s drone campaign

No


Do you run a PR agency?


http://www.longwarjournal.org/pakistan-strikes.php


Massive increase?... Yes. Hyperbole?... No.

The quoted statistic defeats your own point.


Comparatively it is a "massive increase". You need to understand how the exponential function works though. In doing so, you'll see these drone strikes are still fairly rarely used.

http://www.longwarjournal.org/multim...men-strike.php

The use of drones actually is the best tool for limiting "collateral damage" as potential targets can be watched over hours to verify to a greater degree and to allow time to strike when the risk for civilian casualties is minimal or non-existent.

Hyperbole?... Yes. Outright misrepresentation of facts?... Yes.

I don't think you understand how devastating conventional munitions are in comparison. Additionally, the Taliban do a better job of killing civilians than the US ever will.

Content from external source:


Obama’s drone campaign started three days into his presidency. But of the 12 – 23 reportedly killed in the pair of strikes, at least 12 were reportedly civilians, including four children. When the president was told of the civilian deaths he was ‘not a happy man’, Newsweek later reported. But this didn’t prevent the CIA from launching more covert strikes in the first year of Obama’s presidency than in all of Bush’s eight-year tenure.

Content from external source:

at least 119 civilians were reportedly killed between Obama’s inauguration and the year’s end. And some strikes appeared to adopt shocking tactics, including two incidents where missiles hit funerals. The second such strike, reportedly killing at least five, occurred eight days after Obama accepted the Nobel Peace Prize.

Apparently it is not merely me being hypersensitive or alarmist or practicing hyperbole...


http://www.presstv.ir/usdetail/287964.html


[EX]Attacks by U.S. military forces in Afghanistan, including air strikes, have reportedly killed hundreds of children over the last four years, according to the U.N. body monitoring the rights of children.

Yes, Iranian state media isn't biased at all.

The drone strikes are certainly setting an ungainly precedent, but they is a lot of sensationalism around them.

[Oxymoron]

The quoted statistic defeats your own point.

Seriously... you think I do not understand that Obama has drastically increased the amount of strikes and flying times of Predator drones in relation to Bush.

Comparatively it is a "massive increase". You need to understand how the exponential function works though. In doing so, you'll see these drone strikes are still fairly rarely used.

Fairly rarely used... They are used in Pakistan because Pakistan will not allow foreign troops on their soil, (despite the seal team incursion) and the U.S can't just stand back and watch so they brokered a deal to fly drones as Pakistan President 'Doesn't really care about collateral damage'.

I don't think you understand how devastating conventional munitions are in comparison. Additionally, the Taliban do a better job of killing civilians than the US ever will.

I am perfectly aware of the damage conventional munitions do. The fact is, the U.S and U.N have no right being there at all... Israel has no right stealing land from Syria or Lebanon... The whole lot are banksters fraudsters criminals who could not care less about the people. Land grab, money grab and power grab... thats it.

They don't even care about U.S citizens... so why on earth would they care about anyone else.

Yes, Iranian state media isn't biased at all.

The drone strikes are certainly setting an ungainly precedent, but they is a lot of sensationalism around them.

Well even the U.N think they are pretty sensational and are looking into them... but then I suppose they must be biased?

http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com...-drone-deaths/

Content from external source:

UN launches major investigation into civilian drone deaths. Civilians reported killed: 473-893
Children reported killed: 176 Total reported injured: 1,270-1,433

And this is just Pakistan...and U.S is not even at war with them!

[truthbearer]

I've been searching the Web on polls on this - just to see who are for or against the use of drones. I saw one on eQuibbly though: http://www.equibbly.com/disputes/usi...e-u-s-citizens

What strikes me is this line taken from their debate: "If they're an enemy of the U.S. by virtue of having declared war on the U.S. and demonstrated by their words and actions that they are a serious threat, they should no longer be considered American citizens in the eyes of the law. They should be taken out by any means possible to protect the truly innocent."

So, it's like saying that anyone who is a suspected terrorist can be killed.. but will this really solve the problem, or harbor more anti-American sentiments? Does the end justify the means?

Technology is not the question. The very issue here is ethics because we're talking about taking lives, human life for that matter.