1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Media Blackout As Obama Appoints First Ever "Assassination Czar"

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by Hightop, May 23, 2012.

  1. Hightop

    Hightop Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2011
    Messages:
    1,257
    Likes Received:
    68
    Could you imagine the reaction from the American socialists if Bush appointed an Assassination Czar? The hypocrisy from the Left/Obama Cult is just outstanding and sick.

    [​IMG]

    <iframe width="640" height="480" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/AFs0lV42U7s" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

    John Brennan’s new power

    President Obama's counter-terrorism chief has "seized the lead" in secretly determining who will die by US drone

    BY GLENN GREENWALD


    <p>In November, 2008, media reports strongly suggested that President Obama intended to name John Brennan as CIA Director. But <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2008/11/glenn-greenwald-andrew-sullivan-celebrate-exceptional-news-john-brennan-wont-be-cia-dir">controversy</a> over Brennan’s recent history — he was a Bush-era CIA official who <a href="http://www.salon.com/2008/11/16/brennan/">expressly advocated</a> “enhanced interrogation techniques” and rendition — <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/25/obama-white-house-cia-brennan">forced him to “withdraw”</a> from consideration, as he publicly issued <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2008/11/brennan-withdraws/208166/">a letter</a> citing “strong criticism in some quarters” of his CIA advocacy.</p>
    <p>Undeterred by any of that unpleasantness, President Obama instead named Brennan to be his chief counter-Terrorism adviser, a position with arguably more influence that he would have had as CIA chief. Since then, Brennan has been caught peddling serious falsehoods in highly consequential cases, including <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/04/world/asia/04raid.html">falsely telling the world</a> that Osama bin Laden “engaged in a firefight” with U.S. forces entering his house and “used his wife as a human shield,” and then <a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/07/19/drones/">outright lying</a> when he claimed about the prior year of drone attacks in Pakistan: “there hasn’t been a single collateral death.” Given his history, it is unsurprising that Brennan has been at the heart of many of the administration’s most radical acts, including claiming the power to target American citizens for assassination-by-CIA without due process and the <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/30/world/la-fg-brennan-drones-20120501">more general policy</a> of secretly targeting people for death by drone.</p>
    <p>Now, Brennan’s power has <a href="http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2012/05/21/who_will_drones_target_who_in_the_us_will_decide/">increased even more</a>: he’s on his way to becoming the sole arbiter of life and death, the unchecked judge, jury and executioner of whomever he wants dead (of course, when Associated Press in this report uses the words “Terrorist” or “al-Qaida operative,” what they actually mean is: <em>a person accused by the U.S. Government, with no due process, of involvement in Terrorism</em>):</p>
    <div>
    <blockquote><p>White House counterterror chief <strong>John Brennan has seized the lead in choosing which terrorists will be targeted for drone attacks or raids</strong>, establishing a new procedure for both military and CIA targets.</p></blockquote>
    </div>
    <div>
    <blockquote><p>The effort<strong> concentrates power over the use of lethal U.S. force outside war zones within one small team at the White House.</strong></p>
    <p>The process, which is about a month old, means Brennan’s staff consults with the State Department and other agencies as to who should go on the target list, making the Pentagon’s role less relevant, according to two current and three former U.S. officials aware of the evolution in how the government goes after terrorists. . . .</p>
    <p>Brennan’s effort gives him greater input earlier in the process, before making final recommendation to President Barack Obama. Officials outside the White House expressed concern that drawing more of the decision-making process to Brennan’s office could <strong>turn it into a pseudo military headquarters</strong>, entrusting the fate of al-Qaida targets to a small number of senior officials. . . .</p>
    <p>Some of the officials carrying out the policy are equally <strong>leery of “how easy it has become to kill someone,”</strong> one said. The U.S. is targeting al-Qaida operatives for reasons such as being heard in an intercepted conversation plotting to attack a U.S. ambassador overseas, the official said. . . .</p>
    <div>
    <p>Human rights and civil liberties groups have argued for the White House to make public the legal process by which names end up on the targeting lists.</p>
    </div>
    <div>
    <p>“We continue to believe, based on the information available, that the (drone) program itself is not just unlawful but dangerous,” said Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU National Security Project. “It is dangerous to characterize the entire planet as a battlefield.”</p>
    </div>
    <div>
    <p><strong>Shrinking the pool of people deciding who goes on the capture/kill list means fewer people to hold accountable</strong>, said Mieke Eoyang from Third Way, a centrist Democratic think tank.</p>
    </div>
    <div>
    <p>“As a general principle, if people think someone is checking their work, they are more careful,” Eoyang said. “Small groups can fall victim to group-think.”</p>
    </div>
    </blockquote>
    </div>
    <p>Needless to say, all of this takes place in total secrecy, with no legal framework and no oversight of any kind. Indeed, even after they had Brennan publicly defend the CIA drone program, the Obama administration continue to <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303879604577412660996130728.html">insist in federal court</a> that the program is too secretive even to confirm its existence. It’s just a tiny cadre of National Security State officials who decide, in the dark, whom they want dead, and then — once the President signs off — it is done. This is the Change with which the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize laureate has gifted us: ”some of the officials carrying out the policy are equally leery of<strong> ‘how easy it has become to kill someone.’” </strong></p>
    <p><strong></strong><em>Reuters </em><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/10/06/execution_by_secret_wh_committee/">previously described</a> the secret process used to determine which human beings, including American citizens, would be targeted for due-process-free death-by-CIA: they “are <strong>placed on a kill or capture list by a secretive panel of senior government officials</strong>” with “no public record” nor “any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules” — an actual death panel, though one invented by the White House rather than established by law. And now John Brennan has even more control over the process, and fewer checks, when issuing these death sentence decrees.</p>
    <p>Remember in the Bush era when little things like the Patriot Act and warrantless eavesdropping and military commissions were the Radical and Lawless Assaults Trampling on Our Constitution and Our Values? Now, all those things are completely normalized — controversies over those policies are like quaint and obsolete relics of a more innocent era — and we now have things like unelected Death Sentence Czars instead.</p>
    <p>* * * * *</p>
    <p>Charles Davis has two good posts — one <a href="http://charliedavis.blogspot.com.br/2012/05/twit-story.html">here</a> and one <a href="http://charliedavis.blogspot.com.br/2012/05/fool-me-once.html?utm_source=feedburner&amp;utm_medium=feed&amp;utm_campaign=Feed:+FalseDichotomyByCharlesDavis+(false+dichotomy+by+charles+davis)&amp;utm_content=Google+Reader">here</a> — on the desperate mental gymnastics invoked by some Obama fanatics to justify (and, when that fails, ignore) all of this.</p>
    <p>&nbsp;</p>
    <p><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>UPDATE</strong></span>

    http://www.salon.com/2012/05/22/john_brennans_new_power/singleton/
     
    1 person likes this.
  2. rhadamanthus

    rhadamanthus Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2002
    Messages:
    14,304
    Likes Received:
    596
    This is the real culmination of our farcical "war on terror".
     
  3. jEXCLUSIVE

    jEXCLUSIVE Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2009
    Messages:
    351
    Likes Received:
    24
  4. rimbaud

    rimbaud Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 1999
    Messages:
    8,169
    Likes Received:
    676
    I don't know who is being quoted here but this is definitely true. This is turning life into even more of a video game. A guy tells another guy to tell another guy...to tell another guy to turn on his computer, use a joystick, and kill people through a video screen.
     
  5. rocketsjudoka

    rocketsjudoka Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    54,232
    Likes Received:
    42,232
    I am just curious but where were you when the last Admin. started the drone program?
     
  6. Nook

    Nook Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2008
    Messages:
    54,308
    Likes Received:
    113,137
    He was defending the Bush administration and their war on terror. Having said that, Obama has been an utter failure on the issue of human rights. People need to know what our government is doing.

    When we stop seeing Hilltop post as often, we will know that Hilltop is off the dole and employed.
     
  7. Rashmon

    Rashmon Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2000
    Messages:
    19,306
    Likes Received:
    14,531
    When faced with Romney vs. Obama in the voting booth, I wonder who Greenwald will prefer?
     
  8. SamFisher

    SamFisher Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    58,949
    Likes Received:
    36,509
    According to independent studies, the drone program has been very effective at both accomplishing its mission and minimalizing civilian casualties.

    What is the alternative? None whatsoever?

    I'm trying to think of this nonexistent core of "liberals" who thought that foreign covert action was totally off-the-table after 2001, but have now converted. Who are these people? Are these politicians? Pundits? BBS members?

    I dont' see anything inconsistent about not being in favor of torture/waterboarding, or denial of habeas corpus etc, and being in favor of covert action against miltants. You can argue at the margins, but it's not really hard to separate Jose Padilla from Osama Bin Laden. And frankly, the laughable suggestion that Yemen (safe passage through Yemen appears to be Glenn Greenwald's primary demand these days...) is some sort of safe haven where innocent people should chill with a bunch of militants with no reasonable expectation of getting all blowed up is just silly.

    OH, and LMFAO at meowgi screaming about socialists, while posting **** from Russia Today. Classic dumbass.
     
    1 person likes this.
  9. rhadamanthus

    rhadamanthus Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2002
    Messages:
    14,304
    Likes Received:
    596
    Define a militant. Heck, define a terrorist. (I note the "AP investigation" never bothers to either.) What constitutes evidence in support thereof? Is evidence even necessary? What are the long-term ramifications of these "covert" activities? Who is really benefiting - US citizens or US foreign policy advocates and the corporations that accompany them?

    EDIT: Actually, buried down at the bottom of the AP investigation article is this relevant bit:

     
    #9 rhadamanthus, May 23, 2012
    Last edited: May 23, 2012
  10. thadeus

    thadeus Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2003
    Messages:
    8,313
    Likes Received:
    726
    The real shame in all this comes from the fact that, no matter who wins the election among the major candidates, none of this will change.
     
  11. rhadamanthus

    rhadamanthus Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2002
    Messages:
    14,304
    Likes Received:
    596
    Agreed.
     
  12. trueroxfan

    trueroxfan Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2008
    Messages:
    4,170
    Likes Received:
    143
    Coming from someone who does not agree with Obama's policies:

    I completely agree with Drone attacks. I think our problem has always been not being FULLY dedicated to these wars. With the geographical difficulties we need more troops on the ground if we truly want to stamp out insurgents.
    But 10 years later these wars are still going on. Time to cut our losses and stop risking soldiers on a war we're not fully committed on winning.

    I am absolutely disgusted with the way we have treated Pakistan though. Pakistan's government is corrupt and two-faced and no one seems to want to call them out on it. As long as we're ACTUALLY taking out a good number of bad guys, I am not that concerned with the civilian casualties. Considering they cause more of their own civilian casualties with their idiotic laws, suicide bombings, Taliban recruiting, kidnapping, and protection of American threats.

    If they don't want to secure their border and ensure that no threats are crossing the border, than we are going to continue to take care of them ourselves. I applaud Obama for ignoring the critics on this one. I hope we see Drones at the US/Mexico border soon so we can stamp out illegal immigration, which the federal government has essentially ignored their duty to protect, leaving it to the states until people are up in arms about the various laws.

    As far as the Czar...who was it done by before? A C.I.A. analyst team I am sure, so this is basically leaving it to one guy who will still probably be fed info from his team. Now we just have a new department basically to handle it.
     
  13. SamFisher

    SamFisher Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    58,949
    Likes Received:
    36,509
    OK - nice attempt to source-bash the AP, but a British journo and a Pakistani journo have done this and all concluded the same thing.... there are peopple on the ground checking this stuff out.

    And I don't think it's that hard for them to go to a village and check if an attack was on the Haqqani network or a bunch of kids playing soccer. It's not that difficult at all. These are organized groups.

    Basically everybody who has looked at it to date has come to the conclusion that collateral damage from these strikes is very low (far lower than bombing etc)....you haven't really presented any evidence to suggest otherwise.

    Therefore I'm asking you - if drones are off the table, what's your alternative?

    If you're saying no covert action ever outside of a war between two states, then say it. If that's not what you're saying, then clarify.
     
  14. Bandwagoner

    Bandwagoner Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2006
    Messages:
    26,734
    Likes Received:
    3,480
    When you say bombing are you talking about cruise missiles, attacks from manned aircraft, ground artillery or...?

    I don't really understand how the collateral damage from a drone is less than a manned aircraft that uses the same or more advanced munitions fired from platforms with much more costly radar. It is probably some BS talking point from the CIA.
     
  15. rhadamanthus

    rhadamanthus Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2002
    Messages:
    14,304
    Likes Received:
    596
    It's hardly a source-bash - it's a succinct encapsulation of the entire problem, as Rogers puts more eloquently than I. Without any sort of oversight - who's to say these are "militants"? Heck, the AP cites a US official who claims they had "no reliable evidence" of any civilian casualties for the 10 strikes cited.

    Fair. But where is that expose? All I see is the AP saying villagers called them militants - and that they were easy to recognize as the bodies were taken away very soon after the strike. Is that sufficient?

    Looking over the reports cited in the PBS link (good article btw) I think we can easily claim 20% civilian casualty rate with confidence. So if we ignore the unanswered questions about who the militants are and the actual threat they represent...1 in 5 folks killed is innocent.

    So black and white...that's unlike you Sam. Who said drone strikes should be off the table?

    What's wrong with asking for some clarity on the program's methodology? If you're going to unleash the mechanical hound can't we at least try to prevent it from getting out of control?
     
  16. Bandwagoner

    Bandwagoner Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2006
    Messages:
    26,734
    Likes Received:
    3,480
    What methodology are you looking for? I think we all understand the basics right?
     
  17. rhadamanthus

    rhadamanthus Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2002
    Messages:
    14,304
    Likes Received:
    596
    I think I made that clear in my first post. And re-emphasized it with an edit.
     
  18. Bandwagoner

    Bandwagoner Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2006
    Messages:
    26,734
    Likes Received:
    3,480
    If you mean "Define a militant."


    it's someone

    "suspected of militant activities but who haven't necessarily been identified by name"
    -Brennan
     
  19. rhadamanthus

    rhadamanthus Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2002
    Messages:
    14,304
    Likes Received:
    596
    That's fscking crazy. Wow.
     
  20. Bandwagoner

    Bandwagoner Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2006
    Messages:
    26,734
    Likes Received:
    3,480
    I feel pretty confident that the same CIA guys in Pakistan who sniffed out Osama are able to tell who are the bad guys that need to go. I'm not sure why you don't or what methodology you want.
     

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now