It is currently Wed Oct 01, 2014 1:20 pm


Post a new topicPost a reply Page 1 of 1   [ 6 posts ]
Author Message
 Post subject: Drones Buzzing Overhead
PostPosted: Tue Nov 27, 2012 6:11 am 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 9:06 pm
Posts: 216
Location: Iowa
Image


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Drones Buzzing Overhead
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 2:59 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 9:06 pm
Posts: 216
Location: Iowa
I read in the news today that Obama has appointed a new CIA director; John Brennan. I did some research online to find out how the media has portrayed Brennan. I came across a speech made by Brennan, the then Assistant to Obama for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism entitled: “The Ethics and Efficacy of the President’s Counterterrorism Strategy” http://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/the-e ... m-strategy where Brennan stated:
Quote:
Second, targeted strikes are ethical. Without question, the ability to target a specific individual, from hundreds or thousands of miles away, raises profound questions. Here, I think it’s useful to consider such strikes against the basic principles of the law of war that govern the use of force.

I don't understand what amerika's definition of the word ethics connotes because it is my belief that if they understood the true meaning of the word they would not use robotic weapons that wipe out more innocent people than the ones they claim are the "terrorists." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zf8bnYF-WxE


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Drones Buzzing Overhead
PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 4:06 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 9:06 pm
Posts: 216
Location: Iowa
“Virtually no other country agrees with the U.S.’s claimed authority to secretly declare people enemies of the state and kill them and civilian bystanders far from any recognized battlefield," said Hina Shamsi, the director of the ACLU’s National Security Project, in a statement. "To date, there has been an abysmal lack of transparency and no accountability for the U.S. government’s ever-expanding targeted killing program.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/24/un-drone-investigation_n_2542809.html?ref=topbar


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Drones Buzzing Overhead
PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2013 8:52 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 1:39 pm
Posts: 87
Location: Traditional homeland of the Shawnee
The drones are already flying over this nation. I saw one in October in Florida. It was flying at about 400 ft. It is a matter of time before our citizens are on the receiving end of a hellfire, sidewinder or sparrow missle. Why do you think the government has bought 1.6 BILLION rounds of ammunition? That is more than 5 rounds for every person in this land, legal and illegal. The military has estimated they fired a little over 5 million rounds per month in Iraq. That equals 24 years of rounds for our own citizens, at the rate of weapons fire in Iraq.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Drones Buzzing Overhead
PostPosted: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:34 pm 

Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 4:53 pm
Posts: 654
http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/techn ... snhp&pos=2


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Drones Buzzing Overhead
PostPosted: Sun Apr 14, 2013 11:19 am 

Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 4:53 pm
Posts: 654
Rights Groups, in Letter to Obama, Question Legality and Secrecy of Drone Killings:

In a letter sent to President Obama this week, the nation’s leading human rights organizations questioned the legal basis for targeted killing and called for an end to the secrecy surrounding the use of drones.

The “statement of shared concern” said the administration should “publicly disclose key targeted killing standards and criteria; ensure that U.S. lethal force operations abroad comply with international law; enable meaningful Congressional oversight and judicial review; and ensure effective investigations, tracking and response to civilian harm.”

The nine-page letter, signed by the American Civil Liberties Union, Amnesty International, the Center for Constitutional Rights, Human Rights First, Human Rights Watch, the Open Society Foundations and several other groups, is the most significant critique to date by advocacy groups of what has become the centerpiece of the United States’ counterterrorism efforts.

While not directly calling the strikes illegal under international law, the letter lists what it calls troubling reports of the criteria used by the Central Intelligence Agency and the Pentagon’s Joint Special Operations Command to select targets and assess results. The reported policies raise “serious questions about whether the U.S. is operating in accordance with international law,” the letter says. It is also signed by the Center for Civilians in Conflict and units of the New York University and Columbia Law Schools.

The letter comes as American strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, and the example the United States has set for the world, are drawing intense scrutiny. United Nations human rights investigators are reviewing the American record, and Congress has shown a new willingness to discuss the classified program in public, with a House subcommittee hearing on the constitutional and counterterrorism implications of targeted killing set for April 23. That hearing was postponed for a week in an effort to persuade the administration to send an official to testify, a committee aide said.

Caitlin Hayden, a spokeswoman for the National Security Council, said the administration was “committed to institutionalizing and explaining to the Congress and the public as much as possible about our drone policies, including the process for making strike decisions.” She added: “Our approach is marked by scrupulous adherence to the rule of law.”

By the count of the New America Foundation, a research group that tries to track targeted killing, the United States has carried out 422 strikes in Pakistan and Yemen, 373 of them since Mr. Obama took office in 2009, in addition to a handful in Somalia. The foundation estimates the number of deaths resulting from the strikes to be between 2,426 and 3,969, of which about 10 percent were of civilians and nearly as many of which were identified as “unknown.” An overwhelming majority of the strikes have been carried out by unmanned drone aircraft, though cruise missiles, fighter jets and helicopter gunships have also been used.

Agreeing to the degree of openness sought by the human rights groups would mean a sea change for the Obama administration. Though officials have given a series of careful speeches on the administration’s legal reasoning, the Justice Department’s classified legal opinions on the subject have been shared only recently, even with the Senate and House Intelligence Committees, and the government has asserted in battling Freedom of Information Act lawsuits that the Pakistan strikes are too politically delicate even to be officially acknowledged.

Gabor Rona, the international legal director of Human Rights First, said that the letter to Mr. Obama reflected increasing concern that government secrecy has hidden grave legal and practical problems with the strikes.

“The more the administration is rightly forced to disclose about who it is killing and why,” he said, “the more obvious it becomes that the practice is growing, is illegal in its scope, is causing large-scale civilian casualties and is a slow-moving train wreck with serious blowback consequences to U.S. national security.”

In pushing for greater candor, both the human rights groups and Congress are responding to Mr. Obama’s own stated goal. In his State of the Union address in January, the president said: “In our democracy, no one should just take my word that we’re doing things the right way. So, in the months ahead, I will continue to engage with Congress to ensure not only that our targeting, detention and prosecution of terrorists remains consistent with our laws and system of checks and balances, but that our efforts are even more transparent to the American people and to the world.”

No action has followed so far. In announcing his plans for a Judiciary Committee hearing, Senator Richard J. Durbin, the Senate’s second-ranking Democrat, noted that Mr. Obama “has made it clear he wants to work with Congress to establish ‘a legal architecture’ for drone strikes to prevent abuses.” Mr. Durbin said the hearing would “begin this important constitutional debate.”

The Obama administration has been asked to provide a witness to discuss its position on the drone strikes, but the administration has so far not agreed to provide one, according to the committee’s staff. Similarly, efforts on Thursday by Representative Jan Schakowsky, Democrat of Illinois, to get John O. Brennan, formerly the president’s counterterrorism adviser and now the C.I.A. director, to discuss strike policies during a hearing of the House Intelligence Committee went nowhere.

“I would say right now that I am at the helm of the C.I.A. and will carry out policy guidance as directed by the administration,” Mr. Brennan said.

Ms. Schakowsky was prompted to question Mr. Brennan in part by an article this week by McClatchy News Service reporting that it had obtained classified government documents showing that the drone strikes had killed hundreds of low-level suspected militants whose identities were not known. The article suggested that the documents undercut assertions by Mr. Obama and his aides.

“There are a lot of things that are printed in the press that are inaccurate, in my mind, and misrepresent the facts,” Mr. Brennan said. When Ms. Schakowsky pressed the point, he said, “I’m not going to engage in any type of discussion on that here today, congresswoman.”


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post a new topicPost a reply Page 1 of 1   [ 6 posts ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron