Print 94 comment(s) - last by BRB29.. on May 29 at 11:11 AM

  (Source: TheChive)
Admission comes after months of denials, obfuscation, and silence

On Wednesday while President Barack Hussein Obama was preparing for his speech on drone death strikes, his administration acknowledged details on the strikes for the first time publicly.  

I. Administration Admits It Killed Americans With Drone Strikes

In his speech today, President Obama preached a message of optimism, suggesting that the "war on terror" might one day be over via "quiet determination; that strength of character and bond of fellowship; that refutation of fear – that is both our sword and our shield."

But their were also grim overtones.  Just hours before, on Wednesday, administration took a begrudging step forward, confirming -- for the first time -- that four American citizens had been killed in the Middle East with (warrantless) drone death strikes during President Obama's two terms.  Three of the four dead Americans were "inadvertent" casualties of strikes on other targets -- only one (Anwar al-Awlaki) was intended to be killed.

This marked a reversal of earlier policies that urged White House Press Secretaries to dodge or deflect questions on the killings, which had been the subject of lawsuits and widespread media reports.

The administration in its acknowledgement defended the legality of the killings, arguing the strikes met the standard set forth in Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.'s letter [PDF] to Congress, in which he wrote that an American terrorist must be classified as "a continuing, imminent threat to Americans", and be in a place where capture is not a feasible possibility.  It says that the President's speech "will discuss why the use of drone strikes is necessary, legal and just, while addressing the various issues raised by our use of targeted action."

President Obama
President Obama promises to be "transparent" about drone death strikes on American citizens. 
[Image Source: AP]

While the President is standing firm on killing Americans who turn to "terrorism", he's also reportedly extending new protections for foreign terrorists.  In classified policy guidance he reportedly signed this week, the President rules that strikes on foreigners must meet the same criteria as those on Americans.  The policy is expected to reduce strikes in regions like Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia -- and the civilian casualties that have accompanied such strikes.

President Obama also wants to transfer the drone strikes program to military control.  To date most of the death strikes have been the handiwork of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency.

Predator missile
Some feel the President shouldn't have the power to order the warrantless killings of Americans on U.S. soil. [Image Source: Drone Wars UK]

In his speech, the President somewhat dodged the question of warrantless drone death strikes on Americans on U.S. soil, a particular controversial part of the policy AG Holder defended.  To date no American is known to have been killed in such a strike, but AG Holder argued it would be legal in some extreme circumstances.

In his speech President Obama seems to suggest strikes on U.S. soil are off-limits, stating:

For the record, I do not believe it would be constitutional for the government to target and kill any U.S. citizen – with a drone, or a shotgun – without due process. Nor should any President deploy armed drones over U.S. soil.

But when a U.S. citizen goes abroad to wage war against America – and is actively plotting to kill U.S. citizens; and when neither the United States, nor our partners are in a position to capture him before he carries out a plot – his citizenship should no more serve as a shield than a sniper shooting down on an innocent crowd should be protected from a swat team.

However, the President's wording does not conclusively state that his policy is to never use drone strikes on U.S. soil -- just that he thinks it's a bad idea.

II. Lawsuits, Criticism Heats Up

Critics say the President's defense of drone killings is unacceptable.  Zeke Johnson of Amnesty International told The New York Times, "The Obama administration continues to claim authority to kill virtually anyone anywhere in the world under the ‘global battlefield’ legal theory and a radical redefinition of the concept of imminence.  President Obama should reject these concepts in his speech tomorrow and commit to upholding human rights, not just in word but in deed."

His agency has an active campaign against the death strikes.

The U.S. does pay "grief payments" of a few thousand dollars to civilian victims of drone strikes, but humanitarian groups say that is not acceptable.  The Pakistani judicial system has a current effort to propose UN war crimes charges against the U.S. for the civilian casualties.

Drone Killing
Critics say "grief payments" for civilian drone strike victims are not acceptable.
[Image Source: Reuters]
The President acknowledges civilian deaths, but called them a necessary evil in his speech.  He comments:

This last point is critical, because much of the criticism about drone strikes – at home and abroad – understandably centers on reports of civilian casualties. There is a wide gap between U.S. assessments of such casualties, and non-governmental reports. Nevertheless, it is a hard fact that U.S. strikes have resulted in civilian casualties, a risk that exists in all wars. For the families of those civilians, no words or legal construct can justify their loss. For me, and those in my chain of command, these deaths will haunt us as long as we live, just as we are haunted by the civilian casualties that have occurred through conventional fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq.

But as Commander-in-Chief, I must weigh these heartbreaking tragedies against the alternatives. To do nothing in the face of terrorist networks would invite far more civilian casualties – not just in our cities at home and facilities abroad, but also in the very places –like Sana’a and Kabul and Mogadishu – where terrorists seek a foothold. Let us remember that the terrorists we are after target civilians, and the death toll from their acts of terrorism against Muslims dwarfs any estimate of civilian casualties from drone strikes.

The decision to acknowledge drone death strikes on U.S. citizens, also allows legal challenges to the policy to move ahead.  The U.S. Department of Justice on Wednesday dropped an effort to throw out a case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Northern California, which claimed that the death strikes on the four Americans violated due process.  The DOJ had been arguing that the drone strikes were not confirmed and thus could not be the subject of a lawsuit, but Wednesday's admission scuttled that argument.

III. Closing Guantánamo Bay's Prison

In his speech President Obama is also expected to discuss a final path towards closing the prison in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.  During his 2007 campaign, the President promised to close that prison, a controversial legacy of President George W. Bush's administration.  But once elected, President Obama moved sluggishly.  Today Guantánamo Bay is still in operation and drawing criticism, albeit with less inmates than in 2008.

Guantanamo Bay
Human rights watchers have complained that the Guantánamo Bay proceedings are a sham.
[Image Source: Getty Images]

President Obama is expected to appoint a U.S. Department of State official to spearhead the effort to finish the closure.

IV. President Obama Says He Isn't Targeting Journalists

A final issue addressed in the President's speech was the issue of freedom of the press amidst the recent seizure of Associated Press phone records.  President Obama claimed the efforts weren't meant to target journalists -- only leakers.  He comments:

The Justice Department’s investigation of national security leaks offers a recent example of the challenges involved in striking the right balance between our security and our open society. As Commander-in Chief, I believe we must keep information secret that protects our operations and our people in the field. To do so, we must enforce consequences for those who break the law and breach their commitment to protect classified information. But a free press is also essential for our democracy. I am troubled by the possibility that leak investigations may chill the investigative journalism that holds government accountable.

Journalists should not be at legal risk for doing their jobs. Our focus must be on those who break the law. That is why I have called on Congress to pass a media shield law to guard against government over-reach. I have raised these issues with the Attorney General, who shares my concern. So he has agreed to review existing Department of Justice guidelines governing investigations that involve reporters, and will convene a group of media organizations to hear their concerns as part of that review. And I have directed the Attorney General to report back to me by July 12th.

Associate Press
President Obama's Justice Department stands accused of spying on AP offices and staffers.
[Image Source: Getty Images]
The President's proposed "Media Shield" law is currently seeing contentious debate in Congress.

Sources: The White House, The New York Times

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Leaving out specific facts
By Shadowself on 5/23/2013 5:53:11 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, four individuals who were U.S. citizens were killed. However, it should have been noted in the article that only one of those individuals was actually targeted and marked for death by they U.S. Government. The other three were collateral kills when others were killed.

While many will say, "It does not matter. One, four or four thousand is the same. Killing *any* American Citizen is unacceptable without due process.", the distinction should still be noted.

However, I do agree with the U.S. President when it comes to the concept that the U.S. can kill anyone by any reasonable means if 1) there is an imminent danger to the U.S. population (not just infrastructure, but to the people), 2) the person cannot be captured, and 3) the plot cannot be foiled.

However, the U.S. President and I are radical disagreement over the concept of both "imminent" and "cannot" with regard to capture or foiling the plot. If those terms were more narrowly and more specifically defined, I'd support this concept in full.

RE: Leaving out specific facts
By Cerin218 on 5/23/2013 6:41:31 PM , Rating: 1
Who determines the imminent danger? I mean the action in this article alone are without warrant. Remember, it's the terrorists today, could be you because you disagree with the administration tomorrow. You'll say it can never happen just like all the other countries it has happened in over the course of time.

RE: Leaving out specific facts
By M'n'M on 5/23/2013 7:30:28 PM , Rating: 2
Who determines the imminent danger? I mean the action in this article alone are without warrant. Remember, it's the terrorists today, could be you because you disagree with the administration tomorrow.

All good points. But let's remember that Congress authorized a war on terrorists (AQ and "associates"). So GWB and Obama are using their authority as commander in chief to prosecute that war. If this were WWII surely you wouldn't object to missions to assassinate Hitler or even a US citizen who decided to be his chief of training recruits. That's the basic viewpoint espoused by the present and prior administrations.

The problem I have is a "war" on terrorism isn't exactly a normal war. There may be no way to know if it's ever "won", if indeed it can ever be won. And so long as Congress keeps reauthorizing the AUMF, presidents will continue to use ... and eventually misuse ... their war powers. We the People need to push for a better definition of, and set limits on, what powers can be used to fight terrorism. And to make sure we don't end up in a defacto endless state of war, because that will end up with limitation on all the freedoms we used to hold dear.

RE: Leaving out specific facts
By ppardee on 5/23/2013 7:47:15 PM , Rating: 2
You hit the nail on the head.

"Even the war itself isn't real. The Party wants you to believe we are at war so as to channel your aggression away from the rightful target: the Party"

RE: Leaving out specific facts
By AlphaVirus on 5/24/2013 10:11:32 AM , Rating: 2
At first I was contempt with just reading everyone's comments but I had to login and let you know your second paragraph sums it all up perfectly.

All these people arguing about what GWB and Obama did right or wrong doesn't matter much, what matters is this US vs Terror (blanket term) that will cause an "endless state of war".

Thanks for reminding me that there are others that finally see things for what they are.

RE: Leaving out specific facts
By ipay on 5/24/2013 3:42:53 AM , Rating: 2
While many will say, "It does not matter. One, four or four thousand is the same. Killing *any* American Citizen is unacceptable without due process.", the distinction should still be noted.

Oh and there I thought the problem was that the drones operate on forein territority and blow up lots of innocent civilists.

But of course you are right. The problem is that AMERICAN people were killed without due process...

Let's see how long you need to continue bombing until the people of Pakista finally elect an radical just to spite the US.

Stuff like below doesn't exactly improve the way the world perceives the US.

Chief Justice Dost Muhammad Khan, who headed a two-judge bench that heard the petitions, ruled the drone strikes were illegal, inhumane and a violation of the UN charter on human rights. The court said the strikes must be declared a war crime as they killed innocent people. The case was filed last year by the Foundation for Fundamental Rights, a legal charity based in Islamabad, on behalf of the families of victims killed in a 17 March 2011 strike on a tribal jirga. The jirga, a traditional community dispute resolution mechanism, had been called to settle a chromite mining dispute in Datta Khel, North Waziristan. This strike killed more than 50 tribal elders, including a number of government officials. There was strong condemnation of this attack by all quarters in Pakistan including the federal government and Pakistan military.
Clive Stafford Smith of the London-based group Reprieve, which has supported the case, said: “Today's momentous decision by the Peshawar High Court shines the first rays of accountability onto the CIA's secret drone war.”

He added: “For the innocent people killed by U.S. drone strikes, it marks the first time they have been officially acknowledged for who they truly are - civilian victims of American war crimes.”

Seriously since the 50s the US government is doing its best to set the world on fire. Go on, but don't complain about the radicals you create.

"There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki