legal case for drones

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013 ... rones.html

U.S. media complicit in Obama's drone doctrine

Some say U.S. president is waging a 'war on whistleblowers'

By Neil Macdonald, CBC News Posted: Feb 6, 2013 2:32 PM ET Last Updated: Feb 6, 2013 2:56 PM ET Read 157


In 2001, when Israel started killing militant Palestinian enemies (and, often, innocent bystanders) with missiles fired from helicopters hovering so high you could barely see them, foreign reporters were urged by the Israeli government to call the practice “targeted killing.”

Most of us, including many of my American colleagues, preferred the term “extrajudicial assassination.” We felt we were in the news business, not the euphemism business.

Today, 12 years later, the Washington Post carries a front-page headline about the U.S. drone program titled, “Targeted killings face new scrutiny.”

Yet another government document has been leaked, this time a so-called “white paper” in which the U.S. Department of Justice lays out the administration’s justification for killing American citizens it suspects of belonging to Al-Qaeda.

U.S. media outlets, it seems, are perfectly comfortable with the term “targeted killing,” now that it is a major tool for the Pentagon and CIA.

It’s also clear American media outlets are comfortable suppressing news the government does not want published. Today’s story reveals not just that the Americans have operated a secret drone base for years in Saudi Arabia, but that the Post, along with various other news organizations, have been keeping that fact to themselves at the government’s request.

History of suppressing sensitive information
It isn’t the first time such information has been suppressed. In 2005, bowing to the White House, the New York Times for months kept confidential the fact that the Bush administration had been carrying out warrantless wiretapping. The revelations eventually provoked Congress to pass a new law.

Reports on the U.S. drone program, also based on leaks, have described how Barack Obama’s administration has become ever more dependent on remote-controlled killing. Obama himself reportedly signs off personally on each target.

U.S. President Barack Obama, who once denounced George W. Bush-era security measures, has not just amplified Bush’s programs, but has begun hunting down and prosecuting officials who leak details.

The American public has been largely unconcerned with the program, except when the person killed has been an American citizen. (The U.S., unlike many other countries, accords its citizens special protections from government intrusions.)

That is the focus of the latest leak. The “white paper” in today’s story appears under the arid title “Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen Who Is a Senior Operational Leader of Al Qaeda or an Associated Force.”

The term “senior operational leader” appears to be key. An American citizen who is a low-level fighter would appear to enjoy a legal immunity that does not extend to foreign nationals suspected of planning or involvement in attacks on Americans.

As the Post story rather dryly notes, “The number of attacks on Americans is minuscule compared with the broader toll of the drone campaign, which has killed more than 3,000 militants and civilians in hundreds of strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia.”

There is an accompanying article today on the astonishing fact that 54 countries, including Canada, have participated in or enabled the CIA’s “extraordinary rendition” program of sending suspected militants to be interrogated, sometimes under torture, in secret prisons and by totalitarian regimes worldwide.

Twelve years ago, reporters had a different term for that sort of thing, too: kidnapping.

Obama's 'war on whistleblowers'
All these hardened security measures were begun under the Bush administration. President Obama, who once denounced them and even, as president, ordered Bush legal memos be made public, has not just amplified Bush’s programs, but has begun vigorously hunting down and prosecuting officials who leak details.

And that is one initiative the American media is not so comfortable with.

Some are calling it Obama’s “war on whistleblowers.” Current Attorney-General Eric Holder has prosecuted more officials for leaking information to reporters than any of his predecessors since the Second World War.

The government has hunted down intelligence officials who leaked details of expensive programs to spy on internet traffic, wiretaps placed in the Israeli embassy in Washington and of Obama’s personal involvement in selecting drone targets.

The lawyer for one of those officials said Holder’s prosecutors “don’t distinguish between bad people – people who spy for other governments, people who sell secrets for money – and people who are accused of having conversations and discussions.”

Several news outlets have noted, rather acidly, that the administration seems fairly expert at leaking classified material that makes the government look good.

None of this makes Obama different from any previous president. It just demonstrates his ability to keep the nation’s media on board, and mete out punishment when they publish the wrong sorts of secrets.

pj1981 wrote:

I don't think anyone thinks the countryside is about to become a battlefield,
I think the word was once.
The actions taken today set a precedence and could be used very differently for those in power
10, 15, 20 years from now. Controlling government or those in power is important because who's best interest do they really have at heart? We can't say for sure.
I see government/power using the guise of protecting us, that could very well be used one day to control us, of course with the best interests of itself. We are the worker bees after all,
we are replaceable, the hive must always make honey ... money that is.

Read NDAA, then we can continue the conversation.

Don't you people read these bills?

unsung wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

unsung wrote:

And today I'll be calling my Congressman to inquire about impeachment proceedings.

Any luck?

Well, considering my Congressman is a newly elected Democrat in Illinois I am not expecting anything.

"What do you want to impeach him for this week?"

-- a newly elected Congressman in Illinois

mikepegg44 wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

[
But if you were planning those murders here, there could be an attempt to arrest you. To me that is a distinction. The threats who have been eliminated in this fashion are hiding in places where we could not make a realistic attempt to apprehend them. I just don't see how we can leave them there to formulate their plans against us and take no action. I don't see how we realistically try and convict them short of a kangaroo court. I don't like trusting government officials with this much power either. I just don't see an alternative given the situation.

we are the great and powerful oz though...we have robots that roam the skies and can put a missile just about anywhere in the world within a few feet of where we want it to go and we can't make a reasonable attempt to apprehend them?

Even if I accept the premise that there is no other action that is possible, argue the facts in front of a judge. Try them in absentia. Do something other than have backroom discussions with cabinet members and secret kill lists that contain us citizens.

What would constitute a reasonable attempt? And once we had them, then what? How much intelligence gathering would be lost by describing it in open court? How much evidence would be deemed inadmissable because it was gathered covertly? While it may be ideal, I remain skeptical any of it is practical.

Jimmy V. I do understand your idea about taking care of what we can today, worry about tomorrow when it comes but with techno-monitoring tools just getting warmed up, once accepted — they become firmly entrenched not to easily be undone.
Drones, armed or not, is censorship. Here, we neively believe it's all about our safety. Abroad, we are hated for using them & there will be a backlash because of this.

Here's another bit of censorship passed onto me by a friend.
This letter is to advise you that Union Pacific will implement a Detection of System Access ("DSA")
program as a means to detect and deter potential violations of the Electronic Device Rule 2.21 . As you
know, this rule was implemented in response to the FRA's regulation aimed at reducing the safety risks
from railroad operating employees being distracted by the inappropriate use of electronic devices while
on duty. DSA provides TE& Y managers a report that identifies employees who have used a wireless
electronic device to access the internet while on duty.
Union Pacific is committed to protecting the safety of its employees and the public. DSA is a tool to
enhance safety by encouraging compliance with Rule 2.21 , which we all know is essential to safe
operations.

As I have said 'it's getting fairly crowded -- under the banner of safety'.
The monitoring of our every move, this free society, is taking on an appearance of one firmly entrenched, monitored society already. Tomorrows society is being set up for a police state existance. Honestly, the only way to counter these invasive trends is for the folks living right now to put up strong opposition, to promote a more individually responsible way to live and -- to require the same from our ruling duo: government & corporations.