'Drone Papers' Revelations Are a Cry for Ending the Slaughter
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/drone_papers_revelations_are_a_cry_for_e
nding_the_slaughter_20151105/
Posted on Nov 5, 2015
By Marjorie Cohn
The Young Turks / Youtube
A new whistleblower has joined the ranks of Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning,
John Kiriakou and other courageous individuals. The unnamed person, who
chose to remain anonymous because of the Obama administration's vigorous
prosecution of whistleblowers, is a member of the intelligence community.
In the belief that the American public has the right to know about the
"fundamentally" and "morally" flawed U.S. drone program, this source
provided The Intercept with a treasure trove of secret military documents
and slides that shine a critical light on the country's killer drone
program. These files confirm that the Obama administration's policy and
practice of assassination using armed drones and other methods violate the
law.
The documents reveal the "kill chain" that decides who will be targeted. As
the source said, "This outrageous explosion of watchlisting-of monitoring
people and racking and stacking them on lists, assigning them numbers,
assigning them 'baseball cards,' assigning them death sentences, without
notice, on a worldwide battlefield-it was, from the very first instance,
wrong."
These secret documents demonstrate that the administration kills innumerable
civilians due to its reliance on "signals intelligence" in undeclared war
zones, following cellphones or computers that may or may not be carried by
suspected terrorists. The documents show that more than half the
intelligence used to locate potential targets in Somalia and Yemen was based
on this method.
"It isn't a surefire method," the source observed. "You're relying on the
fact that you do have all these powerful machines, capable of collecting
extraordinary amounts of data and intelligence," which can cause those
involved to think they possess "godlike powers."
"It's stunning the number of instances when selectors are misattributed to
certain people," the source noted, characterizing a missile fired at a
target in a group of people as a "leap of faith."
The Obama administration has never provided accurate civilian casualty
counts. In fact, CIA director and former counterterrorism adviser John
Brennan falsely claimed in 2011 that no civilians had been killed in drone
strikes in nearly a year. In actuality, many people who are not the intended
targets of the strikes are killed. "The Drone Papers" tell us the
administration labels unidentified persons who are killed in a drone attack
"enemies killed in action," unless there is evidence posthumously proving
them innocent. That "is insane," the source said. "But [the intelligence
community has] made ourselves comfortable with that." The source added,
"They made the numbers themselves so they can get away with writing off most
of the kills as legitimate."
The administration's practice of minimizing the civilian casualties is
"exaggerating at best, if not outright lies," according to the source.
Since the U.S. is involved in armed conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan,
international humanitarian law-namely, the Geneva Conventions-must be
applied to assess the legality of targeted killing. The Geneva Conventions
provide that only combatants may be targeted.
From January 2012 to February 2013, a campaign dubbed Operation Haymaker was
carried out in the Afghan provinces of Kunar and Nuristan. According to "The
Drone Papers," during a five-month period almost 90 percent of the people
killed in airstrikes were not the intended targets. This campaign paralleled
an increase in drone attacks and civilian casualties throughout Afghanistan.
What's more, the campaign did not significantly degrade al-Qaida's
operations there.
The U.S. is violating the right to life enshrined in the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Because the U.S. ratified this
treaty, it constitutes binding domestic law under the Supremacy Clause of
the Constitution, which states, "Treaties shall be the supreme law of the
land."
Under international humanitarian law, an "armed conflict" requires the
existence of organized armed groups engaged in fighting of certain
intensity. The groups must have a command structure, be governed by rules,
provide military training and have organized acquisition of weapons, as well
as communications infrastructure. Legal scholars, including University of
Cambridge professor Christine Gray, have concluded that "the 'war against
Al-Qaeda' does not meet the threshold of intensity of a non-international
armed conflict, and Al-Qaeda does not meet the threshold of an organized
armed group."
The U.S. is not involved in "armed conflict" in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia.
Thus, the law enforcement model must be applied to assess the legality of
actions in those countries. This model limits the use of lethal force to
situations where there is an imminent threat to life and nonlethal measures
would be inadequate.
In 2013, as President Obama gave a speech at the National Defense
University, the administration released a fact sheet that said the target
must pose a "continuing, imminent threat to US persons" before lethal force
may be used. But Obama has waived the imminence requirement in Pakistan.
Although a spokesperson for the National Security Council told The Intercept
that "those guidelines remain in effect today," "The Drone Papers" state
that the target need only present "a threat to US interest or personnel."
This is a far cry from an imminence requirement. And once the president
signs off on a target, U.S. forces have 60 days to execute the strike. A
60-day period flies in the face of the imminence mandate for the use of
lethal force off the battlefield.
Philip Alston, United Nations special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary
or arbitrary executions, affirms that a targeted killing is lawful only if
required to protect life and no other means-such as capture or nonlethal
incapacitation-is available to protect life.
Besides being illegal, Obama's preference for killing instead of
apprehension prevents the administration from gathering crucial
intelligence. Obama stated in 2013, "America does not take strikes when we
have the ability to capture individual terrorists; our preference is always
to detain, interrogate, and prosecute." But Michael Flynn, former head of
the Defense Intelligence Agency, told The Intercept, "We don't capture
people anymore." Slides provided by "The Drone Papers" source cite a 2013
study by the Pentagon's Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Task
Force that said "kill operations significantly reduce the intelligence
available from detainees and captured material." The task force recommended
capture and interrogation rather than killing in drone strikes.
The American public is largely unaware of the high number of civilian
casualties from drone strikes. A study conducted by American University
professor Jeff Bachman concluded that both The New York Times and The
Washington Post "substantially underrepresented the number of civilians
killed in drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen, failed to correct the public
record when evidence emerged that their reporting was wrong and ignored the
importance of international law."
Gregory McNeal, an expert on national security and drones at Pepperdine
School of Law, wrote that in Afghanistan and Iraq, "when collateral damage
[civilian casualties] did occur, 70 percent of the time it was attributable
to failed-that is, mistaken-identification."
"Anyone caught in the vicinity is guilty by association," "The Drone Papers"
source notes. If "a drone attack kills more than one person, there is no
guarantee that those persons deserved their fate. . So it's a phenomenal
gamble."
Drones are Obama's weapon of choice because they don't result in U.S.
casualties. "It is the politically advantageous thing to do-low cost, no
U.S. casualties, gives the appearance of toughness," according to former
Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair. "It plays well domestically,
and it is unpopular only in other countries. Any damage it does to the
national interest only shows up over the long term." Part of the damage, as
Flynn pointed out, is that drones make the fallen into martyrs. They create
"a new reason to fight us even harder," he said.
The United Nations charter's mandate for peaceful resolution of disputes and
prohibition of military force except in self-defense is not a pipe dream. A
study by the Rand Corp. concluded that between 1968 and 2006, 43 percent of
incidents involving terrorist groups ended by a "peaceful political
resolution with their government," 40 percent "were penetrated and
eliminated by local police and intelligence agencies," and only 7 percent
were ended by the use of military force.
Nevertheless, The Wall Street Journal reported that the military plans to
increase drone flights by 50 percent by 2019.
In describing how the special operations community views the prospective
targets for assassination by drone, "The Drone Papers" source said, "They
have no rights. They have no dignity. They have no humanity to themselves.
They're just a 'selector' to an analyst. You eventually get to a point in
the target's life cycle that you are following them, you don't even refer to
them by their actual name." This results in "dehumanizing the people before
you've even encountered the moral question of 'is this a legitimate kill or
not?' "
The American Civil Liberties Union has filed three lawsuits seeking
information about the government's use of lethal drones. Rep. Keith Ellison,
co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, is calling for increased
transparency and congressional oversight of the drone program. "The report
makes it clear," he noted, that "the U.S. drone program operates on highly
questionable legal ground and offends our principles of justice."
Drone pilots operate thousands of miles from their targets. But many of them
suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder. Some are refusing to fly the
drones. In September, the Air Force Times ran a historic ad-paid for by 54
U.S. veterans and vets' organizations-urging Air Force drone operators and
other military personnel to refuse orders to fly drone surveillance and
attack missions.
"The Drone Papers" source implores us to take action to stop this travesty.
"We're allowing this to happen," the source said. "And by 'we,' I mean every
American citizen who has access to this information now, but continues to do
nothing about it."
The newly released documents are a clarion call to us all to demand that our
government stop the killing. It is illegal, it is immoral, and it makes us
more vulnerable to terrorism.
http://www.truthdig.com/ http://www.truthdig.com/
'Drone Papers' Revelations Are a Cry for Ending the Slaughter
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/drone_papers_revelations_are_a_cry_for_e
nding_the_slaughter_20151105/
Posted on Nov 5, 2015
By Marjorie Cohn
The Young Turks / Youtube
A new whistleblower has joined the ranks of Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning,
John Kiriakou and other courageous individuals. The unnamed person, who
chose to remain anonymous because of the Obama administration's vigorous
prosecution of whistleblowers, is a member of the intelligence community.
In the belief that the American public has the right to know about the
"fundamentally" and "morally" flawed U.S. drone program, this source
provided The Intercept with a treasure trove of secret military documents
and slides that shine a critical light on the country's killer drone
program. These files confirm that the Obama administration's policy and
practice of assassination using armed drones and other methods violate the
law.
The documents reveal the "kill chain" that decides who will be targeted. As
the source said, "This outrageous explosion of watchlisting-of monitoring
people and racking and stacking them on lists, assigning them numbers,
assigning them 'baseball cards,' assigning them death sentences, without
notice, on a worldwide battlefield-it was, from the very first instance,
wrong."
These secret documents demonstrate that the administration kills innumerable
civilians due to its reliance on "signals intelligence" in undeclared war
zones, following cellphones or computers that may or may not be carried by
suspected terrorists. The documents show that more than half the
intelligence used to locate potential targets in Somalia and Yemen was based
on this method.
"It isn't a surefire method," the source observed. "You're relying on the
fact that you do have all these powerful machines, capable of collecting
extraordinary amounts of data and intelligence," which can cause those
involved to think they possess "godlike powers."
"It's stunning the number of instances when selectors are misattributed to
certain people," the source noted, characterizing a missile fired at a
target in a group of people as a "leap of faith."
The Obama administration has never provided accurate civilian casualty
counts. In fact, CIA director and former counterterrorism adviser John
Brennan falsely claimed in 2011 that no civilians had been killed in drone
strikes in nearly a year. In actuality, many people who are not the intended
targets of the strikes are killed. "The Drone Papers" tell us the
administration labels unidentified persons who are killed in a drone attack
"enemies killed in action," unless there is evidence posthumously proving
them innocent. That "is insane," the source said. "But [the intelligence
community has] made ourselves comfortable with that." The source added,
"They made the numbers themselves so they can get away with writing off most
of the kills as legitimate."
The administration's practice of minimizing the civilian casualties is
"exaggerating at best, if not outright lies," according to the source.
Since the U.S. is involved in armed conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan,
international humanitarian law-namely, the Geneva Conventions-must be
applied to assess the legality of targeted killing. The Geneva Conventions
provide that only combatants may be targeted.
From January 2012 to February 2013, a campaign dubbed Operation Haymaker was
carried out in the Afghan provinces of Kunar and Nuristan. According to "The
Drone Papers," during a five-month period almost 90 percent of the people
killed in airstrikes were not the intended targets. This campaign paralleled
an increase in drone attacks and civilian casualties throughout Afghanistan.
What's more, the campaign did not significantly degrade al-Qaida's
operations there.
The U.S. is violating the right to life enshrined in the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Because the U.S. ratified this
treaty, it constitutes binding domestic law under the Supremacy Clause of
the Constitution, which states, "Treaties shall be the supreme law of the
land."
Under international humanitarian law, an "armed conflict" requires the
existence of organized armed groups engaged in fighting of certain
intensity. The groups must have a command structure, be governed by rules,
provide military training and have organized acquisition of weapons, as well
as communications infrastructure. Legal scholars, including University of
Cambridge professor Christine Gray, have concluded that "the 'war against
Al-Qaeda' does not meet the threshold of intensity of a non-international
armed conflict, and Al-Qaeda does not meet the threshold of an organized
armed group."
The U.S. is not involved in "armed conflict" in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia.
Thus, the law enforcement model must be applied to assess the legality of
actions in those countries. This model limits the use of lethal force to
situations where there is an imminent threat to life and nonlethal measures
would be inadequate.
In 2013, as President Obama gave a speech at the National Defense
University, the administration released a fact sheet that said the target
must pose a "continuing, imminent threat to US persons" before lethal force
may be used. But Obama has waived the imminence requirement in Pakistan.
Although a spokesperson for the National Security Council told The Intercept
that "those guidelines remain in effect today," "The Drone Papers" state
that the target need only present "a threat to US interest or personnel."
This is a far cry from an imminence requirement. And once the president
signs off on a target, U.S. forces have 60 days to execute the strike. A
60-day period flies in the face of the imminence mandate for the use of
lethal force off the battlefield.
Philip Alston, United Nations special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary
or arbitrary executions, affirms that a targeted killing is lawful only if
required to protect life and no other means-such as capture or nonlethal
incapacitation-is available to protect life.
Besides being illegal, Obama's preference for killing instead of
apprehension prevents the administration from gathering crucial
intelligence. Obama stated in 2013, "America does not take strikes when we
have the ability to capture individual terrorists; our preference is always
to detain, interrogate, and prosecute." But Michael Flynn, former head of
the Defense Intelligence Agency, told The Intercept, "We don't capture
people anymore." Slides provided by "The Drone Papers" source cite a 2013
study by the Pentagon's Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Task
Force that said "kill operations significantly reduce the intelligence
available from detainees and captured material." The task force recommended
capture and interrogation rather than killing in drone strikes.
The American public is largely unaware of the high number of civilian
casualties from drone strikes. A study conducted by American University
professor Jeff Bachman concluded that both The New York Times and The
Washington Post "substantially underrepresented the number of civilians
killed in drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen, failed to correct the public
record when evidence emerged that their reporting was wrong and ignored the
importance of international law."
Gregory McNeal, an expert on national security and drones at Pepperdine
School of Law, wrote that in Afghanistan and Iraq, "when collateral damage
[civilian casualties] did occur, 70 percent of the time it was attributable
to failed-that is, mistaken-identification."
"Anyone caught in the vicinity is guilty by association," "The Drone Papers"
source notes. If "a drone attack kills more than one person, there is no
guarantee that those persons deserved their fate. . So it's a phenomenal
gamble."
Drones are Obama's weapon of choice because they don't result in U.S.
casualties. "It is the politically advantageous thing to do-low cost, no
U.S. casualties, gives the appearance of toughness," according to former
Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair. "It plays well domestically,
and it is unpopular only in other countries. Any damage it does to the
national interest only shows up over the long term." Part of the damage, as
Flynn pointed out, is that drones make the fallen into martyrs. They create
"a new reason to fight us even harder," he said.
The United Nations charter's mandate for peaceful resolution of disputes and
prohibition of military force except in self-defense is not a pipe dream. A
study by the Rand Corp. concluded that between 1968 and 2006, 43 percent of
incidents involving terrorist groups ended by a "peaceful political
resolution with their government," 40 percent "were penetrated and
eliminated by local police and intelligence agencies," and only 7 percent
were ended by the use of military force.
Nevertheless, The Wall Street Journal reported that the military plans to
increase drone flights by 50 percent by 2019.
In describing how the special operations community views the prospective
targets for assassination by drone, "The Drone Papers" source said, "They
have no rights. They have no dignity. They have no humanity to themselves.
They're just a 'selector' to an analyst. You eventually get to a point in
the target's life cycle that you are following them, you don't even refer to
them by their actual name." This results in "dehumanizing the people before
you've even encountered the moral question of 'is this a legitimate kill or
not?' "
The American Civil Liberties Union has filed three lawsuits seeking
information about the government's use of lethal drones. Rep. Keith Ellison,
co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, is calling for increased
transparency and congressional oversight of the drone program. "The report
makes it clear," he noted, that "the U.S. drone program operates on highly
questionable legal ground and offends our principles of justice."
Drone pilots operate thousands of miles from their targets. But many of them
suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder. Some are refusing to fly the
drones. In September, the Air Force Times ran a historic ad-paid for by 54
U.S. veterans and vets' organizations-urging Air Force drone operators and
other military personnel to refuse orders to fly drone surveillance and
attack missions.
"The Drone Papers" source implores us to take action to stop this travesty.
"We're allowing this to happen," the source said. "And by 'we,' I mean every
American citizen who has access to this information now, but continues to do
nothing about it."
The newly released documents are a clarion call to us all to demand that our
government stop the killing. It is illegal, it is immoral, and it makes us
more vulnerable to terrorism.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/worse_than_we_thought_tpp_a_total_corpor
ate_power_grab_nightmare_20151105/
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/worse_than_we_thought_tpp_a_total_corpor
ate_power_grab_nightmare_20151105/
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/worse_than_we_thought_tpp_a_total_corpor
ate_power_grab_nightmare_20151105/
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/watch_neil_degrasse_tyson_wins_debate_2
0151105/
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/watch_neil_degrasse_tyson_wins_debate_2
0151105/
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/watch_neil_degrasse_tyson_wins_debate_2
0151105/
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/donald_trump_and_ben_carson_the_outsider
s_have_found_their_way_in_20151105/
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/donald_trump_and_ben_carson_the_outsider
s_have_found_their_way_in_20151105/
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/donald_trump_and_ben_carson_the_outsider
s_have_found_their_way_in_20151105/
http://www.truthdig.com/arts_culture/item/brooklyn_film_review_an_ugly_duckl
ing_soars_from_new_ground_20151105/
http://www.truthdig.com/arts_culture/item/brooklyn_film_review_an_ugly_duckl
ing_soars_from_new_ground_20151105/
http://www.truthdig.com/arts_culture/item/brooklyn_film_review_an_ugly_duckl
ing_soars_from_new_ground_20151105/ http://www.truthdig.com/
http://www.truthdig.com/
http://www.truthdig.com/about/http://www.truthdig.com/contact/http://www.tru
thdig.com/about/advertising/http://www.truthdig.com/user_agreement/http://ww
w.truthdig.com/privacy_policy/http://www.truthdig.com/about/comment_policy/
C 2015 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
http://www.hopstudios.com/
http://support.truthdig.com/signup_page/subscribe
http://support.truthdig.com/signup_page/subscribe
http://www.facebook.com/truthdighttp://twitter.com/intent/follow?source=foll
owbutton&variant=1.0&screen_name=truthdighttps://plus.google.com/+truthdight
tp://www.linkedin.com/company/truthdighttp://truthdig.tumblr.com/http://www.
truthdig.com/connect
