Media Blackout As Obama Appoints First Ever "Assassination Czar"

Pardon me while I die laughing. The CIA's history is a goldmine of corruption, policy-driven atrocities, and massive failures.

 

LOL-K

I think you hold the minority opinion if you feel their intel in Pakistan should not currently be trusted.

 

I'd rather have a minority opinion than a gullible one.

 

I'd love to hear why you think they are incompetent at discerning good guys from bad. Or how after tracking down Osama you show so much doubt of their Pakistan intel.

 

Rather than waste my time citing books and/or scouring the internets for associated relevant links about the CIA's dubious history (which you are no doubt already aware of - you're a smart fellow) ... why don't we turn this stupid game around: I'd love to hear why you think they are super competent at discerning good guys from bad.

Considering that the primary point of my argument is that "militant" is undefined and nebulous (as is "militant activities") the onus is really on you to prove that such a statement is undeserved. Unfortunately for you, it appears our good friend Mr. Brennan appears unwilling to elaborate. So you advocate, essentially, that we'll just have to trust him, and ignore the legacy of ashes.

 

What procedure do you want to put in then? Obviously some degree of secrecy has to be involved. Congressional committee? Judges?

It strikes me that most of the anti-drone stuff is driven by emotion (understandable, flying death machines and video games is scary sh-t) rather than focus on the actual facts/cost benefits etc.

You're correct to state that Brennan's supposed definition of a out of context militant is frightening and could lead to a slippery slope, but the reality of the situation as applied is that it really hasn't and given the relatively limited scope of the drone program (as opposed to say, the iraq war) its hard to envision it doing so. And again, the charges of hypocrisy really fall flat. I'm a realist. The Iraq war - to take an example - was a an idea with a lot more negatives than positives - this was obvious going in, other than to morons in the W admin and their various cheerleaders. The Drone program doesn't seem to be the same case.

 

I have a hard time seeing the leap of faith you seem to be describing.
Al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders are in Pakistan.
Despite dumping millions of dollars for decades into Pakistan, their military seems complicit or incompetent.
The agents responsible for identifying and locating them have been in Pakistan for years buying intel with millions of dollars.

I am sure each case is unique and a judgement call. These are small scale operations and I doubt they have in depth guidelines.

 

There has been a lot of discussion in this thread, and I wanted to add a few points to what has already been said:

- When discussing drone strikes, there tends to be an assumption that the overwhelming majority of the victims are known militants, and that civilian casualties are aberrant, nominal use cases. I find such an assumption perplexing- though it is challenging to fully appraise the program given its secrecy, we can make an intelligent determination using facts we know to trump this notion:

1) Let us agree that official reports from the miltary/government will almost assuredly report favorable figures. If, hypothetically, a large group of innocent civilians were killed accidently, it is highly unlikely that such a mistake would be fully acknowledged. More likely would be a report claiming that at least some portion of the victims aligned or were tied to terrorist groups.

2) That said, even official reports transmit an alarming rate of civilian casualties, with 'low ball' estimates hovering between 7-10%.

3) Analogizing between drone attacks and Guantanamo Bay detainees is quite purposeful for this activity- it has long been posited that every detainee held in Gitmo was captured on the battlefield and known to be a terrorist.

Of the 779 men once held at Guantanamo Bay, over 600 have already been released. As of January of this year, 171 detainees remained, and of them 89 were fully cleared for release by a joint review conducted by the military, CIA, FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. So out of the total number of detainees once held, we're looking at roughly 90% who have eventually been found to either have been low level militants not worth keeping or innocent individuals with no terrorist ties.

My point is that there is ample reason to doubt the numbers and question the process; to simply assume that the military is performing its due diligence is negligent on our end, and brings with it real world consequences that are often underappreciated.

- What we are beginning to witness on the global stage is a fundamental shift in world politics. As a result of political uprisings and increased political participation taking place in foreign nations, leaders in those nations are finding themselves in a position where they have to respond more readily to the concerns of their populace or find themselves in the midst of a potential uprising or voted out of office.

The US's track record in most of these nations has been far from stellar, and it is something that most Americans simply dont appreciate (look at how desparately Karzai wants the US to stay...it's quite evident that without a US military presence he'll be ousted immediately). Take Pakistan for instance- civil unrest over drone strikes has been palpable, and every major news outlet in the country has spent extensive time reporting on it. Drone strikes are discussed in academic circles in the country, and the leadership in the country has had to take a stance against it even if they previously relented to US pressure.

As a result, Pakistan's government has repeatedly demanded an end to drone strikes. Additionally, we are seeing a variety of actions within the country that demonstrate an open antagonism towards US foreign policy in that part of the world.

Predictably, the primary response from US political pundits has been condascension towards Pakistan, including calls for eliminating aid to Pakistan, increasing drone attacks, and for some, going to war.

Pakistan is not alone, and there is a growing chorus across much of the world concerned about the US's actions and foreign policy footprint. There's no doubt that the US, as it currently stands, will maintain its footing in the world stage for the near future, but it should come as no surprise that countries throughout the world will stray from the reflexive servility with which they've responded in the past.

 

Comparing the drone program to the Iraq war seems unfair. And I don't think I agree with your argument that it's hard to envision the drone program expanding. It's the easiest thing in the world to envision...because it has been expanding, rapidly.

 

Excellent post that expands on everything I tried to convey in my (hindsight is 20-20) stupidly Socratic posts earlier in the thread.

 

The same CIA that has either allowed or participated in the execution of American citizens abroad by foreign governments for being dissenters is the one to be trusted? How do we know that the people they classify as enemy combatants are really a military threat? Do you know whether people who do not agree with the current Afghan government and wish to raise money to oust political leaders have been targeted as "combatants?"

Unchecked drone programs seem like a tool that allows the CIA to more efficiently accomplish many of the same things they've done for years that are dark and dirty.

 

This. Many people who claim to be against expansion of government take little or no issue with the CIA deporting and assassinating citizens. If that's not an Orwellian state, I don't quite know what is.

 

YOu and Meowgiclown and greenwald and the rest are out lambasting everybody for being hypocrites and such for opposign certain Bush era initiatives but giving this one the old "meh". I don't think it's invalid to dicuss that era if the charge is that no inconsistency is allowed.

Look at the post above this one - VAIDS 13 is saying it's the same as Guantanamo bay. It's not at all - it's the opposite in fact. MOst of the folks released from Guantanomo bay were just random farmers or foot soldiers or whatever caught up in massive sweeps when the Army/marines couldn't sort anything out . These operations are by definition the exact opposite (tend to be higher value targets based on intel).

 

I supported the drone attacks under Bush, and I support them now under Obama.

I don't see these as assassination. We are in a state of war with Al Qaeda. Plain and simple.

 

I do think Meowgi likes to do this (in fact, it's pretty much all he does). But I'm more interested in lambasting the folks in power. I've b****ed about it and given mc mark some grief, but I've hardly been focused on that aspect alone. Frankly it's a dumb argument - most of the journalists and citizens upset about this would be classified as "progressive". Fox news and it's ilk never bring it up even though it's easy ammunition for anti-Obama campaigns because, obviously, it would make them look enormously r****ded for supporting Bush.

Yet, the black sites where they sent these supposed enemy combatants (or should I call them militants?) prior to Guantanamo (such as Bagram) are run in conjunction with... the very same CIA.

So in one instance they cannot sort anything out, until 2 years of maltreatment afterwords - but in the case of drones they are "high value targets based on intel". Perhaps the same sort of high value intel that led to Khalid El-Masri's wonderful story about months of CIA torture and imprisonment because of a misunderstanding related to the spelling of his name.

 

I never claimed it to be the 'same'. I noted it to be an important use case for paralleling between programs considering the fact that we have much more visibility into Gitmo cases and no visibility when it comes to drone attacks.

As for your claim about Gitmo detainees- do you have any sources to verify those claims? How did you arrive at the conclusion that most were random farmers or foot soldiers? I've yet to hear an administration official make such a claim...

I'm having trouble with how these operations are 'by definition' the exact opposite.

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism has reported an estimated 2,433-3,093 deaths from drone strikes, with an additional 1,163-1,268 injured. The number of Guantanamo detiainees were 779.

It is not only conceivable, but in fact likely that the detainees were taken in far more definitive contexts- troops on the ground had to phyisically apprehend these people, and we can presume that most did so on some grounds.

If we are saying that victims of drone strikes are higher value targets, we're saying that all 2,000+ victims are high value targets (or atleast a significant portion of them are). I find such a claim highly specious, to say the least.

 

I can agree with a lot of what you have written but still say that drone strikes are probably still going to be needed. As others have noted is that we are at war with Al Qaeda and that the alternatives of special forces missions, heavy bombings, invasion and occupation are all far more problematic than drone strikes.

I am uncomfortable with the secrecy around it and as I states in another thread at the minimum it should be clarified if CIA officials are acting as military or something else and then be held to account under the laws of war.

Just to add I appreciate the amount of knowledge and research that Vaids and Rhad have been bringing to these issues. Compare this to the paranoid rantings, birther and other nonsense that most of the other critiques of the Obama Admin. seem to be about. It does say something that the most substantial criticism made about Obama is coming from people who supported Obama.

 

Thinning the herd -- 21st century version.

 

They are gathering intel. They give this intel to the military who carries out the attacks. The agents aren't lasing targets.

 

Much of the drone program is run by the CIA. This goes beyond just gathering intel.