Well, I don't claim to know Barak Obama, even though he and Michell
seem to know me by my first name. I get email after email from them.
But seriously, Obama is like Bill Cosby or Flip Wilson, or Jack Benny,
all three of these men were favorites of mine at one time or another.
But I never knew any of them. I always marveled at people who read
the trashy publications and believed they were on first name basis
with celebrities.
Two of my close friends are former directors of the Department of
Services for the Blind here in Washington. Both of them are far
different in private life than the face they presented to the public.
In fact, a few former members of my staff have made the same comment
about me.
So who really knows the private citizen, Barak Obama? And frankly,
who really cares? Obama, to me, is the face he presents to the world.
He is a composite of all his decisions, all of the people he chose to
serve him, regardless of how he came to those decisions.
I will tell you something I'm certain you already know. An Assistant
Director gets to do all the unpleasant stuff that the Director does
not want to do. That was my job for three years. Many of the
decisions I made were not to my personal liking. But I took the job
with my eyes wide open, and I knew full well who I was working for.
Of course I would say, "I'm working for the blind people of my state".
And of course I was, as shaped by the vision of my boss.
Looking back I can see some things I did that I would never have done
if I had full control of my assistant directorship. But at the same
time, none of my decisions cost millions of lives, or suffering, or
meddling in the affairs of weaker nations. Blind people were not
worse off during and following my time working on their behalf.
And speaking of that, I just signed a new contract that will take us
to June 30th of 2017. While there are many things about the Older
Blind Program that rub me the wrong way, we justify what we do by
saying that it is better than nothing. Sounds like "the lesser of two
evils". On the basis of that, why can't I bring myself to sign on
with Hillary Clinton? Wouldn't she be better than
Donald(Nothing)Trump?
Remember, the programs I supported and worked for did not endanger the
lives of innocent people. And those in positions of ordering their
destruction are also in a position to know that that is the outcome of
their decisions. I can't any longer put my support on a murderer. I
voted for Obama in 2008, but after he continued the Bush War, I
refused to add my name in 2012. And if anyone is more murderous than
our Prince of Peace, it is Hell Fire Hillary.
So come 2017, Barak Obama will leave his office and move on to
whatever reward he, the first Black president, is given. Even despite
the racism that boils just below the surface of so many God Fearing
Senators and Representatives, Obama is a clever man. I can bet he's
been working out the rest of his public life for many months.
Hopefully that will bring an end to all of those emails from the
Obama's. They will care as much about my personal life as I will care
of theirs. But now Hillary is calling me by name. Gads!
Carl Jarvis
On 7/3/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
And besides, how much of it is due to Obama, the person, and how much is
due
to all of the people in his administration. And when he chose all of those
Clintonites for his administration, was that a free choice that he made or
was it part of a deal to which he had to agree in order to receive the
nomination?
Speaking of Obama, last night was Garrison Keillor's last program with
Prarie Home before he officially retires from the show. There was an actual
phone call from Obama, recognizing the occasion and wishing him luck, and a
discussion about what Obama will do after his Presidency ends. I missed a
piece at the beginning of it. Interestingly, Obama sounded rather different
than he does during his speeches. Yes, it was really Obama, not one of the
typical skits on Prarie Home. Keillor has always been an openly
unapologetic supporter of the Democratic Party. I wonder how much money he
contributed to Obama's campaign.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: Carl Jarvis [mailto:carjar82@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 10:52 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Miriam Vieni
Subject: Re: [blind-democracy] IN TRANSPARENT ACT, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION
ERASES CIVILIAN DEATHS FROM DRONE STRIKES
The Prince of Peace strikes again...and again...and again.
I suppose I shouldn't be picking on Obama. He did 't put his name in for
the Nobel Peace Prize. And besides, didn't Henry Kissinger receive one of
his very own for helping to end the war he helped to begin?
Carl Jarvis
***
The armistice took effect in January 1973, and the same autumn Henry
Kissinger was awarded the Peace Prize together with his counterpart Le Duc
Tho. The latter refused to accept the Prize, and for the first time in the
history of the Peace Prize two members left the Nobel Committee in protest.
On 7/2/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
IN TRANSPARENT ACT, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION ERASES CIVILIAN DEATHS FROM"exaggerating at best, if not outright lies."
DRONE STRIKES Kevin Gosztola 2016-07-01
01JUL2016 Kevin Gosztola
President Barack Obama convenes a meeting in the Situation Room to
discuss the latest on the San Bernardino, Calif., shootings, Saturday,
Dec. 5, 2015.
Photo by the White House on Flickr.
38
President Barack Obama's administration claims 64 to 116 "non-combatants"
have been killed by CIA or United States military drone strikes. The
number is preposterously low, and the best evidence yet of how the
government propagandizes the public into believing drones are
"precise" and rarely kill anyone but targeted "terrorists."
The casualty counts, along with an executive order on "pre- and
post-strike policies," were released right before Fourth of July
weekend, a clear act aimed at ensuring the least amount of attention
was given to the administration's latest effort to conceal the truth
of who is killed by targeted assassinations.
A "summary of information" released by the Director for National
Intelligence (DNI) maintains 473 strikes "against terrorist targets
outside areas of active hostilities." It states somewhere between
2,372 and 2,581 "combatants" were killed.
"The assessed range of non-combatant deaths provided to the DNI
reflects consideration of credible reports of non-combatant deaths
drawn from all-source information, including reports from the media
and non-governmental organizations," the summary states. "The assessed
range of non-combatant deaths includes deaths for which there is an
insufficient basis for assessing that the deceased is a combatant."
However, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, based in London, has
documented news reports of U.S. drone attacks in Pakistan, Somalia,
and Yemen for years. The New York Times, BBC, and Dawn.com in Pakistan
have each used the data compiled by the Bureau.
According to the Bureau, drone strikes by the Obama administration
have killed over 400 civilians in Pakistan, including dozens of
children. In Yemen, at least 65 civilians have been killed in drone
strikes, as well as
68 civilians in "other covert operations." There have been at least 10
civilians killed in Somalia by drone strikes or "other covert
operations."
This indicates the Obama administration effectively erased the deaths
of more than 400 civilians, including children. However, even the
Bureau's data is incomplete, simply because it is extremely difficult
for news media to identify the dead after drone strikes.
The number of strikes in the assessment is lower than the Bureau's
number.
The Bureau's data suggests over 530 strikes have been launched by the
Obama administration. The Bureau's total number killed in strikes in
Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia is 2,609.
That figure is not that much higher than the DNI's number, which is
2,436.
When considering the fact that DNI counted fewer strikes than the
Bureau, it becomes clear the discrepancy in numbers is entirely a
result of how the Obama administration decides who is and is not a
civilian or "non-combatant."
The international human rights organization, Reprieve, declares in a
recent report [PDF], "Every previous (rare) public, on-record
statement made by the Obama administration on the program has been
shown to be false or deeply misleading. Moreover, the administration
has repeatedly shifted the goal posts, secretly redefining who can be
targeted and what it means to be a civilian. Therefore, simply
announcing numbers without context, or the names of civilian victims,
will do nothing."
Documents provided to The Intercept by a whistleblower and published
as "The Drone Papers" showed the military designates people killed in
strikes as EKIA or "enemies killed in action."
Journalist Jeremy Scahill wrote in his book, "The Assassination Complex,"
which is based on "The Drone Papers":
Unless evidence posthumously emerged to prove the males killed were
not terrorists or 'unlawful enemy combatants,' EKIA remained their
designation, according to the source. That process, he said, "is
insane. But we've made ourselves comfortable with that. The
intelligence community, JSOC, the CIA, and everybody that helps
support and prop up these programs, they're comfortable with that
idea." The source described official U.S. government statements
minimizing the number of civilian casualties inflicted by drone strikes
as
The DNI's assessment does not ignore the fact that there is aorganizations."
discrepancy between government numbers and numbers of "non-governmental
It argues the government's numbers are correct because informationthe group," the DNI asserts.
"unavailable to non-governmental organizations" was used.
"The U.S. government draws on all available information (including
sensitive
intelligence) to determine whether an individual is part of a
belligerent party fighting against the United States in an armed
conflict; taking a direct part in hostilities against the United
States; or otherwise targetable in the exercise of national
self-defense," the assessment contends. "Thus, the U.S. government may
have reliable information that certain individuals are combatants, but
are being counted as non-combatants by non-governmental organizations."
How is it possible that non-governmental organizations or media
sources might be wrong?
"Further analysis of an individual's possible membership in an
organized armed group may include, among other things: the extent to
which an individual performs functions for the benefit of the group
that are analogous to those traditionally performed by members of a
country's armed forces; whether that person is carrying out or giving
orders to others within the group; or whether that person has
undertaken certain acts that reliably connote meaningful integration into
In other words, whether those individuals killed were targeted or not,counts casualties.
if they die, it may be acceptable because they performed tasks, which
benefited a designated terrorist group, like they were a maid, a
driver, or perhaps a mechanic, who worked on a terrorist group's car.
It may be possible after the person died to go back and assess their
online activities and conclude they shared ideology with the group,
and thus, justify their death.
As the DNI states, post-strike reviews involve "video observations,
human sources and assets, signals intelligence, geospatial
intelligence, accounts from local officials on the ground, and open
source reporting. Information reviewed may "confirm" a person's
"combatant status." The information can provide "insights that are
likely unavailable to non-governmental organizations."
The DNI also suggests that the figures may not match reports because
of the "deliberate spread of misinformation by some actors, including
terrorist organizations, in local media reports." However, the DNI
gives no examples and so it is impossible to confirm whether this is
more than just some wild suggestion intended to justify how the
government
The Obama administration previously maintained CIA drone strikes onlyprogram.
were authorized against "specific senior operational leaders of al
Qaida and associated forces," believed to have been involved in the
September 11, 2001, attacks, who are plotting attacks, which pose an
"imminent" threat to Americans. Yet, leaked intelligence documents
reported on by McClatchy Newspapers proved this was not true.
"The intelligence reports list killings of alleged Afghan insurgents
whose organization wasn't on the U.S. list of terrorist groups at the
time of the
9/11 strikes; of suspected members of a Pakistani extremist group that
didn't exist at the time of 9/11; and of unidentified individuals
described as 'other militants' and 'foreign fighters,'" [Note: The
DNI's figures did not include Afghan casualties because those are in a
declared battlefield.] Obama also issued an executive order to revamp
"pre- and post-strike measures" for addressing "civilian casualties."
It states the government will "review or investigate incidents
involving civilian casualties, including by considering relevant and
credible information from all available sources." But if the
government has a system biased toward confirming deaths as justified
"combatant" casualties, what triggers a review or investigation? And
how do those reviews or investigations seek to conceal what happened
by seeking out any little bit of information that might make it
possible to posthumously label that person a "combatant" or terrorist?
There will now supposedly be a process for the U.S. government to
grant condolence payments to families of civilians killed. If this
even happens, there will be hundreds of civilians, whose families
never are eligible to receive such payments because of the
government's process for post-strike reviews.
In response to this transparent act of government deception, Jennifer
Gibson, an attorney for Reprieve, declared, "For three years now,
President Obama has been promising to shed light on the CIA's covert
drone
Today, he had a golden opportunity to do just that. Instead, he chosehttps://shadowproof.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/23460287881_561887d220_k.
to do the opposite. He published numbers that are hundreds lower than
even the lowest estimates by independent organizations."
"The only thing those numbers tell us is that this administration
simply doesn't know who it has killed. Back in 2011, it claimed to
have killed 'only 60' civilians," Gibson added. "Does it really expect
us to believe that it has killed only 4 more civilians since then,
despite taking hundreds more strikes?"
Not a single civilian is named. It is a disgraceful offense to the
families of civilians who have been killed.
Faisal bin Ali Jaber, a Yemeni engineer, who has sued the Obama
administration for killing his family, reacted, "The Obama
Administration is wrong to think that publishing statistics makes up
for the pain his secret drone program has caused families like mine."
"It's no surprise that the White House didn't bother to consult the
victims of drone strikes before publishing these figures-the U.S. has
never even acknowledged its role in the deaths of our loved ones. My
brother-in-law was an Imam who was leading a campaign against al
Qaida's ideology, particularly their targeting of young boys," Jaber
said. "He spoke out against al Qaida in his sermons just few days
before he was assassinated. We all expected that one day he would be
killed by al Qaida, but instead he was killed by a U.S drone."
"Obama's secret drone wars have also killed schoolteachers, policemen,
women, and children. What we need from President Obama is an
apology-and a promise that these terrible crimes will not be repeated."
. mm-0https://shadowproof.com/dissenter/
. https://shadowproof.com/bullpen/
. mm-1https://shadowproof.com/sharp-edges/
. https://shadowproof.com/next-cold-war/
. mm-2https://shadowproof.com/prison-protest/
. mm-3https://shadowproof.com/category/features/
. menu-menu-2
. https://shadowproof.com/chelsea-manning-coverage
. https://shadowproof.com/category/dissenter/protest-music-project/
. https://shadowproof.com/category/dissenter/unauthorized-disclosure/
. menu-menu-2
. https://shadowproof.com/category/sharp-edges/delete-your-account/
. menu-menu-2
. https://shadowproof.com/prison-protest/gaming-the-system/
. https://shadowproof.com/prison-protest/resources/
. menu-menu-2
. mm-4https://shadowproof.com/category/podcasts/
. https://shadowproof.com/category/community/letter-to-the-editor/
. https://shadowproof.com/category/life/
. https://shadowproof.com/about/community-guidelines/
. mm-3
. https://shadowproof.com/category/sharp-edges/delete-your-account/
. https://shadowproof.com/category/shadowproof-presents/
. https://shadowproof.com/category/dissenter/unauthorized-disclosure/
. Home
. Latest News
. https://shadowproof.com/category/dissenter/
. https://shadowproof.com/category/new/
. https://shadowproof.com/category/sharp-edges/
. https://shadowproof.com/category/next-cold-war/
. https://shadowproof.com/category/prison-protest/
. Podcasts
. https://shadowproof.com/category/sharp-edges/delete-your-account/
. https://shadowproof.com/category/dissenter/unauthorized-disclosure/
. https://shadowproof.com/category/shadowproof-presents/
. Events
. About
. https://shadowproof.com/contact/
. https://shadowproof.com/about/staff-and-contributors/
. https://shadowproof.com/about/community-guidelines/
. https://shadowproof.com/about/history/
. https://shadowproof.com/about/organizational-goals/
. https://shadowproof.com/about/advertise/
. https://shadowproof.com/about/privacy-statement/
. Pitch A Story
. Donate
. https://donate.shadowproof.com/page/contribute/membership
https://www.facebook.com/shadowproofcomhttp://shadowproof.com/feedhttp
s://tw
itter.com/shadowproofcomhttps://www.youtube.com/c/shadowproofcom
https://shadowproof.com/https://shadowproof.com/
. The Dissenter
. https://shadowproof.com/chelsea-manning-coverage
. https://shadowproof.com/category/dissenter/protest-music-project/
. https://shadowproof.com/category/dissenter/unauthorized-disclosure/
. The Bullpen
. Sharp Edges
. https://shadowproof.com/category/sharp-edges/delete-your-account/
. The Next Cold War
. Prison Protest
. https://shadowproof.com/prison-protest/gaming-the-system/
. https://shadowproof.com/prison-protest/resources/
. Features
. https://shadowproof.com/category/podcasts/
. https://shadowproof.com/category/sharp-edges/delete-your-account/
. https://shadowproof.com/category/shadowproof-presents/
. https://shadowproof.com/category/dissenter/unauthorized-disclosure/
. https://shadowproof.com/category/community/letter-to-the-editor/
. https://shadowproof.com/category/life/
. https://shadowproof.com/about/community-guidelines/
. https://shadowproof.com/https://shadowproof.com/
Dissenter FeaturedThe DissenterTop Posts In Transparent Act, Obama
Administration Erases Civilian Deaths From Drone Strikes
01Jul2016
https://shadowproof.com/author/kgosztola/https://shadowproof.com/autho
r/kgos
ztola/Kevin Gosztola
0 Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. 1
jpghttps://shadowproof.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/23460287881_5618"exaggerating at best, if not outright lies."
87d220
_k.jpg
President Barack Obama convenes a meeting in the Situation Room to
discuss the latest on the San Bernardino, Calif., shootings, Saturday,
Dec. 5, 2015.
Photo by the White House on Flickr.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.Error! Hyperlink reference not
valid.Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.Error! Hyperlink reference
not valid.Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.Error! Hyperlink
reference not valid.Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.Error!
Hyperlink reference not valid.
President Barack Obama's administration claims 64 to 116 "non-combatants"
have been killed by CIA or United States military drone strikes. The
number is preposterously low, and the best evidence yet of how the
government propagandizes the public into believing drones are
"precise" and rarely kill anyone but targeted "terrorists."
The casualty counts, along with an executive order on "pre- and
post-strike policies," were released right before Fourth of July
weekend, a clear act aimed at ensuring the least amount of attention
was given to the administration's latest effort to conceal the truth
of who is killed by targeted assassinations.
A "summary of information" released by the Director for National
Intelligence (DNI) maintains 473 strikes "against terrorist targets
outside areas of active hostilities." It states somewhere between
2,372 and 2,581 "combatants" were killed.
"The assessed range of non-combatant deaths provided to the DNI
reflects consideration of credible reports of non-combatant deaths
drawn from all-source information, including reports from the media
and non-governmental organizations," the summary states. "The assessed
range of non-combatant deaths includes deaths for which there is an
insufficient basis for assessing that the deceased is a combatant."
However, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, based in London, has
documented news reports of U.S. drone attacks in Pakistan, Somalia,
and Yemen for years. The New York Times, BBC, and Dawn.com in Pakistan
have each used the data compiled by the Bureau.
According to the Bureau, drone strikes by the Obama administration
have killed over 400 civilians in Pakistan, including dozens of
children. In Yemen, at least 65 civilians have been killed in drone
strikes, as well as
68 civilians in "other covert operations." There have been at least 10
civilians killed in Somalia by drone strikes or "other covert
operations."
This indicates the Obama administration effectively erased the deaths
of more than 400 civilians, including children. However, even the
Bureau's data is incomplete, simply because it is extremely difficult
for news media to identify the dead after drone strikes.
The number of strikes in the assessment is lower than the Bureau's
number.
The Bureau's data suggests over 530 strikes have been launched by the
Obama administration. The Bureau's total number killed in strikes in
Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia is 2,609.
That figure is not that much higher than the DNI's number, which is
2,436.
When considering the fact that DNI counted fewer strikes than the
Bureau, it becomes clear the discrepancy in numbers is entirely a
result of how the Obama administration decides who is and is not a
civilian or "non-combatant."
The international human rights organization, Reprieve, declares in a
recent report [PDF], "Every previous (rare) public, on-record
statement made by the Obama administration on the program has been
shown to be false or deeply misleading. Moreover, the administration
has repeatedly shifted the goal posts, secretly redefining who can be
targeted and what it means to be a civilian. Therefore, simply
announcing numbers without context, or the names of civilian victims,
will do nothing."
Documents provided to The Intercept by a whistleblower and published
as "The Drone Papers" showed the military designates people killed in
strikes as EKIA or "enemies killed in action."
Journalist Jeremy Scahill wrote in his book, "The Assassination Complex,"
which is based on "The Drone Papers":
Unless evidence posthumously emerged to prove the males killed were
not terrorists or 'unlawful enemy combatants,' EKIA remained their
designation, according to the source. That process, he said, "is
insane. But we've made ourselves comfortable with that. The
intelligence community, JSOC, the CIA, and everybody that helps
support and prop up these programs, they're comfortable with that
idea." The source described official U.S. government statements
minimizing the number of civilian casualties inflicted by drone strikes
as
The DNI's assessment does not ignore the fact that there is aorganizations."
discrepancy between government numbers and numbers of "non-governmental
It argues the government's numbers are correct because informationthe group," the DNI asserts.
"unavailable to non-governmental organizations" was used.
"The U.S. government draws on all available information (including
sensitive
intelligence) to determine whether an individual is part of a
belligerent party fighting against the United States in an armed
conflict; taking a direct part in hostilities against the United
States; or otherwise targetable in the exercise of national
self-defense," the assessment contends. "Thus, the U.S. government may
have reliable information that certain individuals are combatants, but
are being counted as non-combatants by non-governmental organizations."
How is it possible that non-governmental organizations or media
sources might be wrong?
"Further analysis of an individual's possible membership in an
organized armed group may include, among other things: the extent to
which an individual performs functions for the benefit of the group
that are analogous to those traditionally performed by members of a
country's armed forces; whether that person is carrying out or giving
orders to others within the group; or whether that person has
undertaken certain acts that reliably connote meaningful integration into
In other words, whether those individuals killed were targeted or not,counts casualties.
if they die, it may be acceptable because they performed tasks, which
benefited a designated terrorist group, like they were a maid, a
driver, or perhaps a mechanic, who worked on a terrorist group's car.
It may be possible after the person died to go back and assess their
online activities and conclude they shared ideology with the group,
and thus, justify their death.
As the DNI states, post-strike reviews involve "video observations,
human sources and assets, signals intelligence, geospatial
intelligence, accounts from local officials on the ground, and open
source reporting. Information reviewed may "confirm" a person's
"combatant status." The information can provide "insights that are
likely unavailable to non-governmental organizations."
The DNI also suggests that the figures may not match reports because
of the "deliberate spread of misinformation by some actors, including
terrorist organizations, in local media reports." However, the DNI
gives no examples and so it is impossible to confirm whether this is
more than just some wild suggestion intended to justify how the
government
The Obama administration previously maintained CIA drone strikes onlyprogram.
were authorized against "specific senior operational leaders of al
Qaida and associated forces," believed to have been involved in the
September 11, 2001, attacks, who are plotting attacks, which pose an
"imminent" threat to Americans. Yet, leaked intelligence documents
reported on by McClatchy Newspapers proved this was not true.
"The intelligence reports list killings of alleged Afghan insurgents
whose organization wasn't on the U.S. list of terrorist groups at the
time of the
9/11 strikes; of suspected members of a Pakistani extremist group that
didn't exist at the time of 9/11; and of unidentified individuals
described as 'other militants' and 'foreign fighters,'" [Note: The
DNI's figures did not include Afghan casualties because those are in a
declared battlefield.] Obama also issued an executive order to revamp
"pre- and post-strike measures" for addressing "civilian casualties."
It states the government will "review or investigate incidents
involving civilian casualties, including by considering relevant and
credible information from all available sources." But if the
government has a system biased toward confirming deaths as justified
"combatant" casualties, what triggers a review or investigation? And
how do those reviews or investigations seek to conceal what happened
by seeking out any little bit of information that might make it
possible to posthumously label that person a "combatant" or terrorist?
There will now supposedly be a process for the U.S. government to
grant condolence payments to families of civilians killed. If this
even happens, there will be hundreds of civilians, whose families
never are eligible to receive such payments because of the
government's process for post-strike reviews.
In response to this transparent act of government deception, Jennifer
Gibson, an attorney for Reprieve, declared, "For three years now,
President Obama has been promising to shed light on the CIA's covert
drone
Today, he had a golden opportunity to do just that. Instead, he chose
to do the opposite. He published numbers that are hundreds lower than
even the lowest estimates by independent organizations."
"The only thing those numbers tell us is that this administration
simply doesn't know who it has killed. Back in 2011, it claimed to
have killed 'only 60' civilians," Gibson added. "Does it really expect
us to believe that it has killed only 4 more civilians since then,
despite taking hundreds more strikes?"
Not a single civilian is named. It is a disgraceful offense to the
families of civilians who have been killed.
Faisal bin Ali Jaber, a Yemeni engineer, who has sued the Obama
administration for killing his family, reacted, "The Obama
Administration is wrong to think that publishing statistics makes up
for the pain his secret drone program has caused families like mine."
"It's no surprise that the White House didn't bother to consult the
victims of drone strikes before publishing these figures-the U.S. has
never even acknowledged its role in the deaths of our loved ones. My
brother-in-law was an Imam who was leading a campaign against al
Qaida's ideology, particularly their targeting of young boys," Jaber
said. "He spoke out against al Qaida in his sermons just few days
before he was assassinated. We all expected that one day he would be
killed by al Qaida, but instead he was killed by a U.S drone."
"Obama's secret drone wars have also killed schoolteachers, policemen,
women, and children. What we need from President Obama is an
apology-and a promise that these terrible crimes will not be repeated."
