"John Brennan is grilled on drones" by Mark Mazzetti and Scott Shane | New York Times, February 08, 2013
WASHINGTON — Engaging a high-ranking Obama administration official for the first time in an extensive public discussion of the use of drones for targeted killing on Thursday, senators pressed John O. Brennan, President Obama’s nominee for director of the CIA, about the secrecy of the strikes, their legal basis, and the reported backlash they have produced in Pakistan and Yemen.
Adding a new element to the roiling debate, the Senate Intelligence Committee’s chairwoman, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, said she would review proposals to create a new court to oversee targeted killings. She gave no details but said such a court would be analogous to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which oversees eavesdropping on US soil....
She doesn't have any good answers on guns, huh? Wants to ban Americans from having them to defend themselves (when not even the LAPD can't defend themselves), and yet wants a secret court to sign off on arming Obama with missiles?
Brennan, 57, also faced intense questioning about whether he was responsible for leaks of classified information and about whether he has been candid about his involvement in the agency’s interrogation program under President George W. Bush.
But the senators repeatedly returned to the targeted killings Brennan has helped direct.
The hearing came three days after the leak of a Justice Department document explaining the legal rationale for the killing of US citizens who join Al Qaeda.
Then why aren't drone missiles raining down on the CIA? "Al-CIA-Duh," indeed!
On the eve of Brennan’s appearance, the White House gave into pressure from lawmakers and said members of the Senate and House Intelligence committees could see the full classified legal memorandum justifying the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki.
The US-born cleric joined Al Qaeda in Yemen and was killed in Yemen by a CIA drone strike in September 2011.
For the what, third time?
Related: AmeriKan Missiles Keep Things All in the Family in Yemen
So when did they recruit him, at the Pentagon luncheon?
Feinstein expressed frustration at the committee’s difficulty in getting information about the targeted killing program. She said that while senators were allowed to view two legal memos, they were still seeking eight others, and committee staff members were still prohibited from reading the classified documents.
In his opening statement, Brennan acknowledged ‘‘widespread debate’’ about the administration’s counterterrorism operations but strongly defended them, saying that the United States remained ‘‘at war with Al Qaeda.’’
Excuse me, but every time I see that term it makes me take a crap.
Yeah, who are the terrorists again?
He said later that when CIA drone strikes accidentally kill civilians, those mistakes should be admitted.
Easy to say at a confirmation hearing, and there is nothing accidental about the murder of innocents based on lies. It's a government made of war criminals, folks, and all we get in the way of justice is this shit show fooley in front of the Senate.
“We need to acknowledge it publicly,’’ he said. ‘‘In the interests of transparency, I believe the United States government should acknowledge it.’’
Pfffft!
Obama came in on that four years ago and he has been one of the most secretive presidents in AmeriKan history!
But senators repeatedly complained that there is too little transparency about the targeted killing program, sometimes producing misleading information in the media.
That last part is a given now.
“I think that this has gone about as far as it can go as a covert activity,’’ Feinstein told reporters after the hearing.
The hearing began in chaotic fashion, as protesters stood up and began shouting at Brennan before they were escorted out of the room. One man yelled, ‘‘Assassination is against the Constitution!’’ and one woman held up a sign that read: ‘‘Drones Fly Children Die.’’
The protests continued as Brennan began his opening statement. After the fifth interruption, Feinstein temporarily stopped the hearing and cleared the room, asking that activists from the peace group Code Pink not be readmitted.
Look, I don't want to knock the ladies, but....
Controlled Opposition Embarrass Banker Minion Summers
"Code Pink is on the payroll of Winston Foundation, an organization linked to the National Endowment for Democracy, a documented CIA front, and connected as well to the Rockefeller Family Fund, the Carnegie Corporation, the Heinz Family Foundation, and the Soros Foundations. In 2003, Code Pink shared office space with the Institute for Policy Studies, an organization taking money from the Turner, Ford, MacArthur and Charles Stewart Mott foundations. The Ford Foundation is notorious for funding liberal organizations. It is connected to the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, and the CIA (see Alternative Media Censorship: Sponsored by CIA’s Ford Foundation?)."
I know it is difficult to accept, dear readers, but it is the truth. They exist to provide the false veneer of democracy, free speech, and protest in AmeriKa. How do you think they got into Pakistan anyway? My comments there still stand.
When Brennan resumed his testimony, the top Republican on the committee, Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, pressed him on his knowledge of the CIA’s previous use of brutal interrogation methods, which were adopted when Brennan was deputy to the agency’s number three official.
Now that Chambliss is retiring from the Senate he finally found a conscience?
“I had some visibility into some of the activities there,’’ Brennan said. ‘‘But I was not a part of any type of management structure or aware of most of the details.’’ He said he opposed coercive methods and expressed objections privately to colleagues at the spy agency.
Pffft! He just passed the buck while lying!
That makes him qualified for the job though, doesn't it?
--more--"
"Obama should explain policies for drone attacks on Americans" February 08, 2013
After refusing in the past even to acknowledge the existence of memos offering a legal basis for targeting American citizens who’ve become Al Qaeda leaders, the Obama administration on Thursday agreed to show these documents to members of the congressional intelligence committees. It’s a positive step, but doesn’t go far enough. The administration owes the public a broader explanation of the legal theories behind drone attacks on Americans who have joined Al Qaeda, such as Anwar al-Awlaki, the radical cleric who was killed in 2011.
That's from the transparent Obama administration.
The attacks have become a topic of concern surrounding President Obama’s nomination of John Brennan, the White House counterterrorism adviser, to head the CIA. Earlier this week, NBC obtained an administration “white paper” outlining its procedures for targeting American citizens who have become “high level” Al Qaeda officials. The paper states that the CIA can strike only if “an informed, high-level official” decides the citizen poses “an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States.”
The paper raised alarms among civil libertarians and prompted calls from Congress for the full Justice Department memos, so lawmakers can determine whether the policy comports with US and international law. The focus of the American Civil Liberties Union’s objections was the elastic standard for determining what constitutes an “imminent” threat: The target must be a high-level Al Qaeda leader, but need not be actively engaged in a terrorist attack.
The ACLU is certainly justified in seeking clarity, both over the procedures and their legal basis. Targeting American citizens, even those linked to Al Qaeda, should be the product of a careful system, with checks and balances, that comes into use only in cases involving a serious threat to national security.
But despite those concerns, there are reasons to define an imminent threat in ways that involve some measure of subjective judgment. The nature of Al Qaeda’s war against the United States offers, in itself, a demonstration of how threats need not yet be operational to present a serious risk to American lives. Awlaki was a relentless propagandist who is said to have actively recruited others to launch deadly attacks, including the 2005 London bombings and the foiled 2007 plot against Fort Dix, N.J.
I'm reading one now (as they identify two more false flags).
Other senior Al Qaeda figures, US intelligence believes, are engaged in developing new types of weapons that can evade airline security and bring down jetliners. Given that opportunities to target such figures are few and far between, waiting until their operatives go into action is impractical. Nonetheless, their intent to strike at the United States must be clear before any US officials launch a drone attack.
There is little evidence that Awlaki or any other American was incorrectly targeted. But the administration’s secrecy is a problem in itself. Americans need to be told which principles guide these drone attacks. The White House, and the Justice Department, need to provide a fuller accounting of the drone program.
How about ending it?
--more--"
"Memo details drone policy on US citizens; US allows strikes against citizens involved in plots" by Pete Yost | Associated Press, February 06, 2013
WASHINGTON — An unclassified Justice Department memo reveals that the Obama administration has had more lenient rules than publicly known for when drone attacks can be launched to kill US citizens working abroad with terrorists.
How long until they are launched here, America?
The government does not need evidence that a specific attack is imminent, the newly disclosed Justice Department white paper says, only that the targeted suspect is involved in ongoing plotting against the United States.
‘‘The threat posed by Al Qaeda and its associated forces demands a broader concept of imminence in judging when a person continually planning terror attacks presents an imminent threat,’’ the document says.
The undated document surfaced as Obama administration official John Brennan, who helped manage the drone program, heads to Capitol Hill on Thursday for his confirmation hearing to become CIA director. The hearing will take place as a growing number of senators are asking to see a still-classified Justice Department legal opinion that justifies the administration’s position on drones.
White House press secretary Jay Carney declined Tuesday to discuss details, saying only that President Obama takes seriously his responsibility to protect the United States and its citizens from Al Qaeda terrorists. The fact that he has bought into the whole program is probably the most disappointing thing about his presidency.
If nothing else I expected some honesty after the Bush years. Silly me.
‘‘He also takes his responsibility in conducting the war against Al Qaeda as authorized by Congress in a way that is fully consistent with our Constitution and all the applicable laws,’’ Carney said.
Good, then he can be held accountable for all the war crimes.
Carney said care is taken to execute the strikes with precision and avoid the loss of innocent life. ‘‘These strikes are legal, they are ethical, and they are wise,’’ Carney said....
(Blog editor's chin drops to chest)
--more--"
How interesting that Obama didn't inform Congress but left rules for Romney:
"Obama crafted drone rules in case of Romney win" by Scott Shane | New York Times, November 25, 2012
WASHINGTON — Facing the possibility that President Obama might not win a second term, his administration accelerated work in the weeks before the election to develop explicit rules for the targeted killing of terrorists by unmanned drones, so that a new president would inherit clear standards and procedures, according to two administration officials.
The matter may have lost some urgency after Nov. 6. But with more than 300 drone strikes and some 2,500 people killed by the CIA and the military since Obama first took office, the administration is still pushing to make the rules formal and resolve internal uncertainty and disagreement about when lethal action is justified.
All innocent souls.
Obama and his advisers are still debating whether remote-control killing should be a measure of last resort against imminent threats to the United States, or a more flexible tool, available to help allied governments attack their enemies or to prevent militants from controlling territory.
It hardly appears to be measure of last resort. In fact, it's becoming the first line of defense because AmeriKa's armies are exhausted.
Though publicly the administration presents a united front on the use of drones, behind the scenes there is longstanding tension. The Defense Department and the CIA continue to press for greater latitude to carry out strikes; Justice Department and State Department officials, and the president’s counterterrorism adviser, John O. Brennan, have argued for restraint, officials say.
Right, Brennan is the good guy. Gimme a f***ing break!
More broadly, the administration’s legal reasoning has not persuaded many other countries that the strikes are acceptable under international law.
Translation: AmeriKa is engaged in WAR CRIMES every time they let one of those missiles fly.
For years before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the United States routinely condemned targeted killings of suspected terrorists by Israel, and most countries still object to such measures.
Oh, btw, turns out Muslims didn't do 9/11; Israel and her helpers in various western governments and intelligence agencies did.
But since the first targeted killing by the United States in 2002, two administrations have taken the position that the United States is at war with Al Qaeda and can legally defend itself by striking its enemies wherever they are found.
Obama personally approves the names and the strikes, making him a murderous war criminal. I know people are out there saying, no, no, but it's the truth. Increased drone missile strikes was not the change for which I was hoping.
Though national security officials insist that the process is meticulous and lawful, the president thinks it should be institutionalized.
I think our war-criminal political class should be institutionalized.
--more--"
And the program is expanding:
"US plans drone base in Africa" by Eric Schmitt | New York Times, January 29, 2013
WASHINGTON — The US military command in Africa is preparing to establish a drone base in northwest Africa to increase unarmed surveillance of local affiliates of Al Qaeda and other Islamist extremist groups that officials say pose a growing menace to the region.
Yup, CIA-Duh is EVERYWHERE!
For now, officials say, they envision flying only unarmed surveillance drones from the base, although they have not ruled out conducting missile strikes at some point if the threat worsens.
That's why I didn't comment on the unarmed aspect in the paragraph above. I knew it was crap when I read it.
If the base is approved, its most likely location would be in Niger, a largely desert nation on the eastern border of Mali, where French and Malian troops are battling Al Qaeda-backed fighters who control the northern part of that country. The US military’s Africa Command is also discussing options for the base with other countries in the region, including Burkina Faso, officials said.
That's also where Saddam Hussein didn't try to get yellowcake uranium, readers.
The key impetus for a drone base in the region is to provide surveillance assistance to the French-led operation in Mali.
Hey, whatever excuse gets us in there.
“This is directly related to the Mali mission, but it could also give Africom a more enduring presence for ISR,’’ one US military official said Sunday, referring to intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance.
A handful of unarmed Predator drones would carry out surveillance missions in the region and fill a need for more detailed information on a range of regional threats — including militants in Mali and the unabated flow of fighters and weapons from Libya — that US military commanders and intelligence analysts say has been sorely lacking....
The US military has a very limited presence in Africa, with only one permanent base, in Djibouti, more than 3,000 miles from Mali. A new drone base in northwest Africa would join a constellation of small air bases in recent years on the continent, including in Ethiopia, for surveillance missions flown by drones or turboprop planes designed to look like civilian aircraft.
The Africa Command’s planning still needs approval from the Pentagon and eventually from the White House, as well as from officials in Niger. US military officials said they were still working out some details, and no final decision had been made.
But in Niger on Monday, the two countries reached a status-of-forces agreement that provides legal protection to US troops in the country, including any who might deploy to a new drone base.
Looks to me like the DECISION HAS BEEN MADE!
The plan could face resistance from some in the White House who are wary of committing any additional US forces to a fight against a poorly understood web of extremist groups in North Africa.
If approved, the base could ultimately have as many as 300 US military and contractor personnel, but it would probably begin with far fewer people than that, military officials said.
And we will never leave.
--more--"
Also see: Sunday Globe Special: Drone Degree Program
Do You Hear a Buzzing Sound?
They are already flying above you, American. All the president has to do is give the okay, and whoosh....
