Drones And Their Use In Counterterrorism
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2013-02-07/drones-and-their-use-counterterrorism
A major architect of U.S. drone policy, John Brennan, will appear today before the Senate as President Obama's nominee to be CIA director. Last night the White House ordered the release of classified drone documents to lawmakers. The Obama administration has increasingly relied on predator drones to fight terrorism. A number of high-level terrorists has been killed by drone strikes. Supporters of U.S. drone policy say it's effective, less costly and will remain a major tool in warfare. But human rights activists and other critics say civilian casualties are still too high, the program lacks transparency and the U.S. might be setting precedents it will come to regret. Guest host Tom Gjelten talks with a panel of experts about drones and counterterrorism.
Guests
Lawrence Korb
senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and former assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration.
Christopher Swift
adjunct professor of National Security Studies at Georgetown University; a fellow at the University of Virginia’s Center for National Security Law.
C. Dixon Osburn
director of law and security at Human Rights First.
Peter Bergen
CNN's national security analyst; director of national security studies at the New America Foundation; author of "Manhunt: The Ten-Year Search for bin Laden - From 9/11 to Abbottabad."
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
The Bush administration`s very public policy that okay`d between 25 and 35 (innocent) collateral deaths during drone strikes,was wrong and offensive. Most lefties were irate with that policy,including myself.With so many innocent people dying,next of kin almost had no choice,but revenge. I was okay with surgical strikes,as seen on tv during the first Gulf War. A War on the bad guys. Nothing has changed for me. I haven`t heard of that kind of senseless killing by the Obama administration. What I have heard,very loud and very clearly,is right wing critics whining every time Obama gets a terrorist. WHINING when Bin Laden was taken out .Even louder WHINING when Obama took out American born terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki. The time for terrorists to protest is when the "WANTED DEAD OR ALIVE" posters go up.
Can`t talk to a T-Party/Republican when his face is buried in a hankie,wiping the tears for the terrorists.
When the Obama team got Bin Laden,does anybody recall any T-Party/Republican saying thanks? Job well done? No way,only more criticism. THAT`S BEING OFFENSIVE !!
If Congresspersons and Senators wanted a perfect way to oppose Obama then the recent legal statement (memo) released through NBC provides that opportunity. Glenn Greenwald and Noam Chomsky have both repeatedly decried Presidential murder by drone, recalling the legal briefs supporting pre-emptive war and murder by the state from Nazi ideologue Carl Schmitt. As in the Bush administration with characters like John Yoo claiming unchecked powers for the Unitary Executive there is no shortage of judicial prostitutes. Now if remote murder weren't stupid enough now comes the assertion that the President can execute citizens abroad on suspicion alone. Instead of preserving rights, members of Congress seem to be going along with an irrational and Unconstitutional opinion. They even say this statement, and other related more extreme secret protocols available only to those with a top security clearance, will help them confirm Obama's appointments to run the security state. I can't condone such powers or crimes and believe by remaining silent and not objecting I would be an accomplice. How can we recruit military personnel to defend a shredded Constitution? This is some hallucinatory leadership!
Can't stop believing Zero Dark Thirty can you Cliff?
It's almost like believing Innocence of Muslims;
like believing Triumph of the Will.
Many have been protesting the loosie goosie interpretation of our laws for many years. The Patriot Act. Rendition. We`ve had the warrant less wire tap debate. Torture isn`t torture,but some new moronic name.We`ve seen the loss of habeas corpus. No warrants,where Americans are arrested and never seen again... ALL THESE THINGS ARE OLD NEWS..
Where ya been? Now some are whining because of continued success...
Wow - can you imagine the uproar from liberals if George Bush had done what the Obama admin. is doing now -- killing American citizens without a trial etc!!!
You can't have it all. You cannot decrease the defense budget, respond to every bad thing on the planet [like Syria], and have our troops handing out candy and flowers.
This is a very brutal world with a lot a bad guys. The drone solution is brilliant and should be used. That's the short term solution.
The downside is this. What do we do when terrorists are here, flying drones in New York City? Or Washington? They can do it today with off the shelf pieces. Soon, they can do it with armed drones that can hurt people or places.
Pandora's box has already been opened.
Where you been Bo ? Bush invented this stuff. The Obama team has better aim is all.
I agree. Success for the less than 1% means austerity of human rights for the 99% plus. In the same way we have speculatory Libertine debt imposed on us we have the protection racket debt (extortion) also. Karl Polanyi predicted we'd get mafia government and mafia finance if we let the market run its course deregulated. And here we are. (Brecht and Weill observed the same consequences in their "Three Penny Opera.")
But Cliff is correct that the T(error) Party cannot praise Obama's mafia ruthlessness (wrong brand despite the elephant dung on Barack's wingtips) , nor can they credibly condemn it because they've all been here before (2001-2009). They have to stick to dissing Michelle's bangs and deconstructing Social Security.
I'm so used to arguing @DRShow that I take on my allies.
As Reagan was quoted on SNL (Hellcats of the Navy) "Oops, took out one of our boys. Well... nobody's good enough to share the skies with me."
The first thing that needs to be addressed, before any discussion about drone strikes & collateral damage, we need to determine if these people - these targets - should be killed in the first place. Only if these people should be killed, can we discuss methods. To begin this discussion, we should put aside the case of the one American who was killed because his case is exceptional. So, these people that are being killed, should they be killed?
The next issue is who and how it’s determined that someone is put on the hit list. Let’s consider when someone is put on the FBI's Most Wanted list. When we do that we are knowingly raising the risk of a violent confrontation, likely an armed one. Who & how is it determined who goes on the list?
The key difference is the goal. We no longer label people “Wanted Dead or Alive.” The goal is to apprehend the alleged lawbreaker & bring them to justice. When a lawbreaker flees the U.S., the FBI may pursue, but usually relies on the host country to apprehend the suspect and then we try to extradite them.
This is not the case in war. When someone is not just a lawbreaker but someone who is determined to kill Americans without any personal reasons, we are usually at war. Our soldiers are free to shoot anyone from the “other side” who is about to shoot one of us. Are we at war? Fighting terrorists is different from fighting a war because there is no “front.” There are no uniformed soldiers on the other side. There is no recognized authority like a country with which to negotiate.
Also, terrorists don’t confront our soldiers. They try to kill us without being present, or, in the case of suicide bombers, without caring if they are killed. So, the next question is how do we prevent their killing us before we kill them.
Obviously if there are peaceful ways of keeping them from killing us we should try them. If that’s not possible, only then can we determine how we should kill them.
War is Peace....Rubbish
Beware the M.I.C......
The U.S. are the Real Terrorist of the World
We have never had a discussion as a country about these issues. We should do so rationally, without regard to which party is in power and who started what and who was using what first.
Those are all tangents.
If we determine these people how should we do it. Your guests should list the options and consider the pros and cons of each method.
bribribri- Domestic drones are here (border, police), and considering that Iran has hacked an advanced one and landed it safely Air Force One may soon have a bogie on its tail. (Flare measures will be ineffective on a remote operator.) Considering how many rogue loudmouth fascist sheriffs we apparently have, what would one of those seceders do if the feds sent them a model plane? But when the first one happens, expect to be lied to. From here on out, always expect misinformation (on this subject). There are hobbyists who are building Pentagon and DARPA stuff at home. (Frontline: remote controlled warfare- watch online)
lleanaDU- Don't forget the collateral damage. Many more bystanders have been killed and wounded than supposed terrorists. Hellfire missiles can't sniff out Al Queida. My suspicion is that this is Empire's way of pretending omnipotence, and terrorizing all or parts of the planet. Rays from space will come next. Cost is no object when complete obedience and awe can be induced. If we don't get some law in the crack pretty soon we are all cocktail franks. And I ain't kiddin'!
We should question why we never question....
On 9/11 Cheney ordered the stand down of the air defense missiles around the Pentagon and the Washington DC area.....
So far the best coverage of this critical issue has been over at Dr. Marcy Wheeler's website Emptywheel. net. She has been covering this issue for quite awhile, Amy Goodman of Democracy Now had a member of the ACLU on the other day who is very involved in investigating this drone killing issue. He talked about Anwar al Alawaki's son who was 16 was killed and another young man with him when a US drone killed them. He also mentioned that ACLU's estimate is that 4000 people have been killed by US drones. The US just tosses all of these people they have killed in a big pile and call them collateral damage. Horrific. Please discuss al alawaki's son, and the 4000 people killed by the US. Also the UN's investigation into killings by the US..please discuss
Assassinations and surgical strikes are one thing. But one of the worst aspects of these strikes, at least the ones being performed in Somalia (dubbed "signature strikes"), is the fact that often times the administration doesn't even know WHO is being killed. They just target a group of people with certain characteristics deemed to be associated with "terrorism" and pull the trigger. They then classify those killed as "enemy combattants" without ever having verified their identity. This should at least feel troubling to most people.
“War approved by Congress is not illegal”
So because we have declared perpetual War, we can use drones where and whenever we please.
As far as the civilians that die for high crime of being in wrong place at wrong time - you have to break some eggs for an omelet- most of’em are godless Arabs anyway. When innocents die, this is actually a GOOD thing because it helps generate perpetual hate against America. Perpetual hate recruits more terrorists, justifying perpetual War.
Without justification for perpetual War how could we justify a 100 billion a month military budget?
It’s kind of a virtuous circle.
Thank you for taking my call. You commented that the question of the use of drones for targeted killings of US citizens is principally a legal question.
I am concerned that there has been a significant erosion of constitutional rights with the passage of recent legislation, and would like your guests to comment as to whether there is a connection between these three new laws.
The NDAA 2012 authorizes the indefinite detention of US Citizens without due process. President Obama said that his administration would not understand the law as such. Instead, said Obama, “My administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.”
The Enemy Expatriation Act permits the government to strip a US citizen of their citizenship if they are deemed a "hostile" without going before a court of law.
Finally the administration is currently arguing that warrantless tracking of the location of Americans' mobile devices is perfectly legal, and Congressman Ed Markey reports that the government made 1.3 million warrantless requests for this information in 2011, and that number is going up every year.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist by any means, but I find this a frightening combination of powers, and erosion of constitutional rights, when the government can so easily take due process away from US citizens. And initiate a drone strike based on the combination of those legal premises.
The guests redirected the thrust of my question, which was not about the continuity between the Bush Administration policies and the Obama Administration's, but whether or not these laws taken in combination are a significant erosion of US citizen's Constitutional rights and create a legal foundation for targeted drone killings of US citizens.
When Pakistan begin to use their drones on our soil, don’t be concerned-
they are just acting on information about Americans with “bad intent” towards Pakistan.
Was it Dr. Swift from Georgetown paraphrasing Clausewitz ?
"The purpose of war is to degrade the abilities of the opponent until overpowerment or capitulation occurs." Talk about using a quote to restate the obvious! My estimation is that the "War on Terrorism" like the "War on Drugs", another "front" in class warfare by global Oligarchs. Right now Big Bidness has degraded the abilities of the populace through austerity and fraud so that they can hardly resist shock and awe. If Swift maintains his cavalier attitude in training banal careerists in corporate evil he is an enemy every American citizen. But maybe he's like his namesake Jonathan playing devil's advocate as he relishes us Lilliputians crushed. It's a sick aquarium where Daddy Bigfish thinks he's training future leaders.
Paul Kosmas: It's a repressive government that labels every inquiring, informed, deducing citizen a conspiracy theorist.
I DONT BELIEVE IN BOMBING! Its like if we cant win the game we will win the figth.....I quess the people we call extremist... ..building bomb shelters and storing food and water...mite b on point...Can u imagine sitting in the backyard...watching your grandbaby planting her flowers in backyard with her little dolls...and you look up and see a bomb coming down on her............exactly......
We are all flesh and blood.
urbanrage: We never question because we fear the gaze of disapproval, and the omnipresent punishment should we persist. This segment was about an armed gaze; looks that kill.
"Many buildings around the world are constructed with wired plastique built in so that demolition is relatively inexpensive at obsolescence." (heard on NHK from Japan recently: see also Paul Laffoley at Radiorbit hosted by Mike Hagen) The bin Laden Group were construction managers on the WTC project.
America is exceptional and as such should be able to target bomb whenever and wherever in the world they please. Anyone who should question such a notion is “with the terrorists”, subject to deportation.
Isn’t this in the Patriot Act?
Ain't gonna be pretty when some radical group ( or nations) obtain drone capability against the USA. It will probably happen sometime in the future.
Winston Churchill once spoke about war becoming much worse because of what he called "preverted science." If he were alive today, he would probably say "perverted technology."
Just want to make sure I have this straight:
Capture and EIT to get information, endangering no one, killing no one; bad
Drone killing target, the occasional innocent, getting no information; good
Regarding lethally-weaponized drones, the US makes up the legal rules as it goes along/sees fit, and you really have to be a staunch believer in "US Exceptionalism" to go along with it in the slightest. The arrogance and the glibness of all these "commentators" (armchair warriors) is chilling indeed. "The banality of evil" comes to mind.
For example, there have been numerous reports of entire wedding parties in Afghanistan being incinerated "by mistake". Faulty "intelligence"? Or just "intelligence" up to the pre-Iraq debacle standard? Or "intelligence" crafted to fit the policy? In my view, use of weaponized drones should surely be recognized by any reasonably sane person as criminal madness.
So in that light, Brennan may be perfect to head up the modern-day CIA. However, for the 99.9% of the rest of us, the resulting guaranteed perpetual war is not in our interests. The "bi-partisan" mindless agreement that lethal drones are "OK" -- as demonstrated by this "discussion" -- speaks volumes regarding the total lack of any leadership in the US today and the inability of either major party to provide it.
clifffroparma wrote: " I haven`t heard of that kind of senseless killing by the Obama administration." That's right... you haven't HEARD and you probably never will HEAR... even though it has happened, and multiple times. Brennan, POTUS and the boys pat answer on this is that they got their authority from the A.U.M.F. that was signed by congress just after 9/11. (on Bush's watch)
Have you forgotten that your standard talking points for the left are: The ruined economy, global warming, the sky is falling, the social security and medicare glass is half empty (because of the 1%) and the reason that your cheerios are soggy in the morning is that it's all Bush's fault... who would'a thunk that an A.U.M.F. means an authorized hunting license FOREVER?
Scale model predator drone for sale on Amazon.
Read the comments ...
Maisto Fresh Metal Tailwinds 1:97 Scale Die Cast United States Military Aircraft - US Air Force Medium Altitude, Long Endurance, Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) RQ-1 Predator
In war it is "legitimate" to kill the enemy. The problem is that we now believe that just by using the word "war" makes us at war and that can be anywhere and everywhere and can include anyone we choose to include.If being at war -simply means saying you're at war -with this group ,that group or that individual-then what is actually happening is that we use semantics to deprive people ,of their rights which we no longer recognize as universal. The only way out for us -,the only way to rationalize killing people we wish to kill without due process while maintaining to believe in universal rights[including due process] is to use the semantics of the word "war"to rationalize killing people we wish to kill.A pedophile, rapist, serial kller,drug gang, is as much a threat to the lives and security of civilians yet we don't say we're at "war" with them because regardless of the threat they pose to civilians we have no desire to deprive them of due process."Innocent till proven guilty,universal human rights,due process",etc except if we really hate you!