WP: Secrecy defines Obama’s drone war

[SkinsHokieFan]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/secrecy-defines-obamas-drone-war/2011/10/28/gIQAPKNR5O_story.html?tid=sm_twitter_washingtonpost

Since September, at least 60 people have died in 14

reported CIA drone strikes in Pakistan’s tribal regions. The Obama

administration has named only one of the dead, hailing the elimination of Janbaz

Zadran, a top official in the Haqqani insurgent network, as a

counterterrorism victory.

The identities of the rest remain classified, as does the existence of the

drone program itself. Because the names of the dead and the threat they were

believed to pose are secret, it is impossible for anyone without access to U.S.

intelligence to assess whether the deaths were justified.

The administration has said that its covert, targeted killings with

remote-controlled aircraft in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and potentially beyond

are proper under both domestic and international law. It has said that the

targets are chosen under strict criteria, with rigorous internal oversight.

It has parried reports of collateral damage and the alleged killing of

innocents by saying that drones, with their surveillance capabilities and

precision missiles, result in far fewer mistakes than less sophisticated

weapons.

Yet in carrying out hundreds of strikes over three years — resulting in an

estimated 1,350 to 2,250 deaths in Pakistan — it has provided virtually no

details to support those assertions.

In outlining its legal reasoning, the administration has cited broad

congressional authorizations and presidential approvals, the international laws

of war and the right to self-defense. But it has not offered the American

public, uneasy allies or international authorities any specifics that would

make it possible to judge how it is applying those laws.

Click link for rest

[Larry]

He may be telling the truth. About the efficacy of the program, and the need for secrecy.

I wish I could be certain.

There are times when I wish that we had something like a statute of limitations on secrets. Where, after a certain time, the information comes out.

Or maybe a legal requirement that things like this be audited, and the summary be released. ("The audit concludes that in 2009, there were X strikes, resulting in Y deaths, Z of which were actual legitimate targets.") No names, dates, or other specifics. But enough information for the American people to make an informed decision on whether to trust the government with this power.

But, that would require trusting the auditor.

[Teller]

One of the things I've been very pleasantly surprised with is Obama's prosecution of the war on terror. He's been efficient and effective, and I would think that if the Pakistanis had any major gripes, they would come to light. (Though maybe not. We're not privy to the "back room" conversations between leaders.) Still, I take the position that he's fighting the war legally until proven otherwise. I fully grant that I'm an American homer though.

[Thiebear]

Edit: Replace Washington DC or New York for every death mentioned above and "Drones" with hijacked Airplanes = We retailiated with 2 wars.

Shouldn't we at least have a FISA board or Congression review stating 'all is good' they were bad guys.

After the fast and furious program do we take this at face value?

The administration has said that its covert, targeted killings with

remote-controlled aircraft in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and potentially beyond

are proper under both domestic and international law. It has said that the

targets are chosen under strict criteria, with rigorous internal oversight

Were allowed to fly into any country in the world and assisinate any person by international law?

If we changed this to read:

The Taliban of Afghanistan has said that its covert, targeted killings with

remote-controlled aircraft in Pennsylvania, NY, Washington DC and potentially beyond

are proper under both domestic and international law. It has said that the

targets are chosen under strict criteria, with rigorous internal oversight.

Does that make it law abiding?

[GibbsFactor]

It's okay. We give Pakistan aid so they don't mind us sending in drones.

[SnyderShrugged]

Obama = Bush 2

[Koolblue13]

Everything is so backwards. There should be a need for any killings. There shouldn't be a war on terror. We need a war on dependency. We need to hold our "allies" in the ME accountable for their own actions, by not blindly supporting them. This is an undefinable war with no clear out come. We will never bomb our enemies away. We will never kill enough people and neither will they. We need a complete fundamental shift in all of our thinking about this entire bull**** situation.

[Larry]

I could see a requirement for a FISA-like process. Something so that the judicial branch is involved, somehow.

[GibbsFactor]

He may be telling the truth. About the efficacy of the program, and the need for secrecy.

I wish I could be certain.

There are times when I wish that we had something like a statute of limitations on secrets. Where, after a certain time, the information comes out.

Or maybe a legal requirement that things like this be audited, and the summary be released. ("The audit concludes that in 2009, there were X strikes, resulting in Y deaths, Z of which were actual legitimate targets.") No names, dates, or other specifics. But enough information for the American people to make an informed decision on whether to trust the government with this power.

But, that would require trusting the auditor.

The problem I have with de-classification is that it's rarely the whole picture and even if it is, could lead to metrics to help identify current classified operations and how they are handled.

I don't think Obama is in the business of killing civilians and I feel deep down that he would stop the attacks if too much collateral damage was occurring. These drone attacks are very similar to the Homefront show on Showtime. What do the drone attacks do on that show? Incite hatred and radicalism.

However, at the same time, I hope Obama knows that and is being presented with hard evidence that these attacks are in fact needed (as long as we keep with our current Foreign Policy status quo.

---------- Post added December-20th-2011 at 10:22 AM ----------

Everything is so backwards. There should be a need for any killings. There shouldn't be a war on terror. We need a war on dependency. We need to hold our "allies" in the ME accountable for their own actions, by not blindly supporting them. This is an undefinable war with no clear out come. We will never bomb our enemies away. We will never kill enough people and neither will they. We need a complete fundamental shift in all of our thinking about this entire bull**** situation.

People don't have the brain power to digest that.

[visionary]

Everything is so backwards. There should be a need for any killings. There shouldn't be a war on terror. We need a war on dependency. We need to hold our "allies" in the ME accountable for their own actions, by not blindly supporting them. This is an undefinable war with no clear out come. We will never bomb our enemies away. We will never kill enough people and neither will they. We need a complete fundamental shift in all of our thinking about this entire bull**** situation.

Agreed about holding our allies acountable. On the other hand we have to do the same with our enemies.

It would be nice if there was no need for killings. Unfortunately some people won't go away just because we do.

[GibbsFactor]

Agreed about holding our allies acountable. On the other hand we have to do the same with our enemies.

It would be nice if there was no need for killings. Unfortunately some people won't go away just because we do.

I think the current generation of leadership in the Taliban and Al Queda are lost causes (15 to 45 year olds). I think we have the power to change the under 15 year olds hatred and extremism. Continuing these drone attacks simply delays it.

[Thiebear]

If Pakistan only killed 60 people in the United States with Drone attacks would we be okay with it?

Fox/Cnn/Msnbc wouldn't make it better...

[twa]

I could see a requirement for a FISA-like process. Something so that the judicial branch is involved, somehow.

As long as it is justified under War Powers the judiciary has no business in overseeing military/paramilitary strikes.(nor do they wish to )

As long as we are operating under the current AUMF the Executive branch is greatly in charge,and even w/o(but there are a few more hurdles then)

Congress could reign it in to a degree,but even they could not stop it.

The international court perhaps,but even then it is a rather weak control and easily ignored

---------- Post added December-20th-2011 at 10:06 AM ----------

If Pakistan only killed 60 people in the United States with Drone attacks would we be okay with it?

Fox/Cnn/Msnbc wouldn't make it better...

Depends on which 60 people in my case,and on why the US wasn't handling it's responsibilities

[No Excuses]

I think the current generation of leadership in the Taliban and Al Queda are lost causes (15 to 45 year olds). I think we have the power to change the under 15 year olds hatred and extremism. Continuing these drone attacks simply delays it.

The are taught an extremist philosophy before the age of 15. We can stop the drone attacks, they'll find other propaganda.

The only hope is for reformed educational systems in these countries. Sadly, the Pakistani youth education system is badly broken.

[Thiebear]

As long as it is justified under War Powers the judiciary has no business in overseeing military/paramilitary strikes.(nor do they wish to )

As long as we are operating under the current AUMF the Executive branch is greatly in charge,and even w/o(but there are a few more hurdles then)

Congress could reign it in to a degree,but even they could not stop it.

The international court perhaps,but even then it is a rather weak control and easily ignored

---------- Post added December-20th-2011 at 10:06 AM ----------

Depends on which 60 people in my case,and on why the US wasn't handling it's responsibilities

So if its 1200 people is that worse? and what responsibilites now, we can talk about the killings by the US if you want?

We turned 2 countries upside down and shook them for 3000 deaths... how close do we get because we are the biggest on the planet.

Yet in carrying out hundreds of strikes over three years — resulting in an

estimated 1,350 to 2,250 deaths in Pakistan

[visionary]

I think the current generation of leadership in the Taliban and Al Queda are lost causes (15 to 45 year olds). I think we have the power to change the under 15 year olds hatred and extremism. Continuing these drone attacks simply delays it.

There were extremists before the drone attacks and there will still be extremists if they stop.

The problem we have is eliminating the ones who won't give up, and at the same time positively influencing those who might be open to another way of living.

That isn't to say that I am 100% behind the drone attacks. I didn't really like the idea when Obama mentioned it when he ran for election.

But there are some really nasty folks out there who have no problem blowing up tons of their own people and us if they can.

They aren't just going to disapear if we stop trying to take them out.

The drones have done a good job of that so far.

What effects they'll have in the long run are still up in the air though.

I wish there was a better way to do things...I just don't know that there is right now.

I do think we need to at least try to minimize any none terrorist casualties and have some sort of oversight though.

(if we don't already)

[GibbsFactor]

The are taught an extremist philosophy before the age of 15. We can stop the drone attacks, they'll find other propaganda.

The only hope is for reformed educational systems in these countries. Sadly, the Pakistani youth education system is badly broken.

If they aren't seeing the devastation, they have opportunities such as schools, things would change slowly. That's what McCain was talking about with his "why not 100 years". That's how long it would take but you have to use those 100 years building infrastructure and not bombing with drones.

[twa]

So if its 1200 people is that worse? and what responsibilites now, we can talk about the killings by the US if you want?

We turned 2 countries upside down and shook them for 3000 deaths... how close do we get because we are the biggest on the planet.

We shook those countries for much more than simply 3K deaths,just as we do drone strikes for larger principles.

[USS Redskins]

Obama is a killing machine.

Like a real life Terminator, except well, President and he just orders the guys to do it but hell, he has terrorists killed left and right. I mean 2000+ killed in drone strikes? Damn! This dude cant get enough Terrorist killing!

Good for him.

Though, I do wonder if the Peace Prize people regret that decision.

[Thiebear]

We shook those countries for much more than simply 3K deaths,just as we do drone strikes for larger principles.

That wasn't an answer. How many deaths on 'insert any country here' is allowed?

Is 2000 too many or do we ignore them because we believe the gov't if we agree with it?

You go after the fast and furious as a secret radical agenda that had a coverup that HAS to be investigated. (1American 40mexicans).

But this, this is okay.

[twa]

how many depends on the country obviously,tolerance levels vary....as do abilities

as far as fast and furious,you must be using the generic you,as I haven't bothered much with it.

people get killed along the border all the time,some of them I don't mind either

why the attempted link between what are clearly national security matters and law enforcement?

[visionary]

If they aren't seeing the devastation, they have opportunities such as schools, things would change slowly. That's what McCain was talking about with his "why not 100 years". That's how long it would take but you have to use those 100 years building infrastructure and not bombing with drones.

And in the meantime?

The drones are a recent development...the terrorism and extremism there isn't.

We need a solution that deals with both the short term and the long term.

[GibbsFactor]

And in the meantime?

The drones are a recent development...the terrorism and extremism there isn't.

We need a solution that deals with both the short term and the long term.

The drones are a tactic. It's the strategy that's created the mess in the first place.

[visionary]

The drones are a tactic. It's the strategy that's created the mess in the first place.

I'm not quite sure what you mean.

[GibbsFactor]

I'm not quite sure what you mean.

You said the drones were the recent development and that the terrorism and extremism isn't. I'm agreeing with you. I added that the strategy is what fuels the extremism.