Media Blackout As Obama Appoints First Ever "Assassination Czar"

It's been widely reported for years:

Guantánamo Bay files: Caught in the wrong place at the wrong time

Almost half of 212 Afghan prisoners either innocent or forced to fight for Taliban, while foreigners were simply rounded up

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/25/guantanamo-files-wrong-place-time

 

Strongly disagree that it's been widely reported, and to this day I have yet to read an official government official concede any of those numbers.

If we are going to establish a rubric that says independent reporting is significant for adjudicating programs, then let's apply it equally:

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/3/18/headlines

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/17/us-drone-strikes-pakistan-waziristan

An eyewitness who tracks drone attacks said:

"For every 10 to 15 people killed, maybe they get one militant," he said. "I don't go to count how many Taliban are killed. I go to count how many children, women, innocent people, are killed."

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/hVXvv_gaQhA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

For arguments sake, let's say that 80-90% of drone strike victims are civilian casualties and we find out definitively that the government carried out drone strikes in a cavalier manner with limited vetting, knowing full well that civilian casualties were guaranteed. Would it make any difference to you? More importantly, would it make any difference to our society at large?

In all likelihood, there would be a faction that expresses outrage, but for the most part it will get glossed over. A military official of some sort would take the fall, resign from his post and find a cushy career as a lobbyist, defense contractor, or media personality. Obama would of course express disappointment, and his apologists would be quick to accept said disappointment, and say that he had no idea what went on. In fact, it would somehow be construed as a positive for him and an addition to his 'legacy'.

Perhaps it is a cynical outlook, but it is my own impression of the sad state of affairs that occupies contemporary politics.

 

Assassinaton Czar....*sigh
This is going to be one long year...

 

I know there will be condemnation because of the "if'n you ain't wi't us, you ag'in us" attitude so prevalent here, but I have no problem reconciling both rhad's and SamF's positions on this (and other) issues.

 

I too can understand rhad’s concerns about transparency but also like the fact that bad guys are being taken off the field, as it were. I've always felt covert strikes were far superior to take out terrorists than all out warfare.

 

It's all a matter of degree along a changing continuum of what is acceptable to an individual. One's political philosophy is obviously a major factor in where one falls in that continuum. It doesn't make one absolutely right or wrong.

I see government as our vehicle and tool for making our lives better. Not as the enemy.

People unwilling to compromise who see government as the problem impair it's ability to get things done. For good or bad.

 

Perhaps I'm not entirely understanding your point....

Although I would agree that ones political philosophy contributes heavily into the perception one has on this particular issue (neocons almost assuredly for expansion of drone programs, libertarians unequivocally against, etc.), I think its unfair to assume any critic of the program holds to a particular political philosophy. Although I appreciate libertarian perspectives on foreign policy, I dont consider myself a libertarian and have never opposed government wholesale.

To mc mark's point, I think the simple question rhad and I are asking is how you even know that 'bad guys' are being taken off the field. I'd rather not rehash the entire discussion, but in this and other threads there's ample reason to suggest that civilian casualties are numerous, and that in certain instances there are no militants killed at all. This is what makes your preface a bit more perplexing; the entire point of being concerned about transparency is to say that there is absolutely none for us.

To restate something I said in another thread, there are many serious questions about the drone program, including how drone strikes affect prospects for peace, the lack of accountability for 'mistakes', compensation for victims, the lack of transparency, impact of drone strikes on international relations, domestic drone usage and other related issues.

 

The post you quoted was not directly related to the drone issue but more broadly related to the philosophical gulf that divides so much of our discourse here.

As I stated earlier, I agree with your position of the need for transparency and accountability and have the same concerns and questions regarding the drone program, but do not believe these questions or concerns negate the need for the program.

 

Well, certain random BBS Jackasses were making this argument years ago, even as far back as 2003 so it can't have been that big of a secret.
YOu can disagree, but your own ignorance doesn't disprove the fact that "wrong place, wrong time" releases occurred years ago.

And by the way, the height of ridiculousness is that you are saying you won't believe it until the government acknowledges it - whereas in most of your posts (including this one) tend to be explicitly or implicity based on the underlying thesis that the government basically can't be trusted.

I am applying it equally. First, you're quoting me anectdotes about things that are already accounted for in the links and data sets that I provided.

Second you have one random person kind of sort of insinuating to one that the ratio of collateral damage is 10:1, we have surveys by independent groups (that are not even remotely sympathetic to drone attacks at all) claiming its the exact opposite. These casualty figures aren't coming from DoD (in which case you'd believe them...right? :grin

Third, you posted a video that's headlined "No civilians killed in Obama's drone attacks; so explain..." I didn't watch it, because neither I, nor Obama, nor anybody else who has a ****ing clue has ever made this claim.

Then I'd be most upset that American bomber pilots were being replaced by defective machines that don't do the job any better (and in fact do it worse).

It's very easy and tempting to imagine a grandiose miltary industrial complex conspiracy to use drones and a massive cover-up . . . the more likely explanation is that they actually REALLY DO work in the way they are intended. You can debate that on its own merits, or you can send us down conspiracy/coverup rabbit holes.

 

Why can't Obama wage one of those wars where no innocent people are ever harmed at all like all the US wars of the 20th century?

Sam makes a valid point. The only argument to drone strikes is not to engage in any sort of warfare at all, which to be fair, is another argument entirely.

 

Wow. An intelligent thread from all sides. I'm impressed.

 

I'll try to make this my last comment in the thread (well, to SamF at least...).

There's a tremendous amount of convolution in your post, and I'm not really sure where to start.....

Perhaps one of the difficulties in this discussion is the failure to understand the underlying points being made. I'll try to be clearer in this rebuttal:

-If you understood the point I was trying to make, I was not disagreeing with the fact that the majority of those held in Guantanamo were 'wrong place, wrong time' detainees. I was disagreeing that it was widely reported- it was certainly not reported the same way, say, Senator Anthony Weiner's twitter pics were.

In fact, the amount of critical coverage being received about drone strikes almost exactly parallels that of Guanatanamo detainee coverage. One of the sources of said criticism comes from a guardian article, the very site you posted for substantiating the 'wide' reports of Guantanamo detainees.

-"the height of ridiculousness is that you are saying you won't believe it until the government acknowledges it"

This point was a challenge to what seemed to be the framework you were operating under, ie the administration said the drone program has been effective, therefore it must be.

I'm not sure sometimes whether you're actually ignorant of the administrations claims or being deliberately duplicitous. In either case, please see:

George Stephanopoulos interview with Brennan last year on this subject:

STEPHANOPOULOS: ....do you stand by the statement you have made in the past that, as effective as they have been, they have not killed a single civilian? That seems hard to believe.

BRENNAN: Well, what I said was that over a period of time before my public remarks that we had no information about a single civilian, a noncombatant being killed.

As for your point about them being 'already accounted for', again I'm not sure what you're referring to. You provided one link which was intended to be the 'end all' to the discussion regarding the efficacy of drone attacks.

In that linked report it cites that 70% of those killed are militants and only 30% are civilians (which in itself is a remarkably high percentage of civilians, but let's leave that aside for now). I've provided in this thread (and many others) reports to the contrary by independent research groups as well that rebut such claims and raise a number of important questions about drone strikes.

Additionally, I find the claim that the person was somehow 'random' to be interesting. The report you linked to was predicated entirely on one random persons claim- what makes him any more credible than the person I linked to?

There have been many, many reports questioning the process by which such designations get made (ie who is an ardent militant 'worthy' of assassination vs. low grade militant vs. civilian). Such sentiment and reporting is gaining steam, with the NY Times publishing an extensive story on the topic:

Greenwald, as usualy, has an excellent commentary on this topic.

An important nuance being missed in your rebuttal is my preface "for the sake of argument..."

Nonetheless, your response falls short on many count. That your largest disappointment would be with the inefficiency of drones rather than the mass of dead innocent civilians is telling.

As for your more likely explanation, again, the larger point is that neither of us have definitive evidence pointing one way or another. Any attempt to raise concerns is met by Obama apologists with similar rabid defenses, ostensibly because apologists have come to expect unending praise for Obama and shutter to think there may be some out there who are willing to question the official party line...

 

Good post vaids, I think this bears repeating:

And Greenwald's conclusion:

 

While I'm OK with drone strikes in principle, there is one problem with them - they don't yield any intelligence. Capturing terrorists would be even better, but it's legally and politically harder than just blowing them up. It is apparently some great crime against humanity to make a terrorist uncomfortable, but killing him with missiles, and with the possibility of collateral damage, is peachy keen - at least when a Democrat does it. More rubble, less trouble.

 

Speaking of collateral damage and who is or is not a militant, Salon has a good write up about the victims of a 2010 strike.

Excerpts:

 

My apologies, I thought it was in response to the dsicussion we were having.

I agree with your final statement, but would make one slight modification to it:

"I agree with your position of the need for transparency and accountability and have the same concerns and questions regarding the drone program, but do not believe these questions or concerns negate the possible need for the program."

The reason I add 'possible' is because it might be that the program is in fact not the most effective means of fighting a particular enemy and proves itself to be counterproductive on many fronts. At the same time, it may well be necessary in others depending on the context, nature of fight, and other important factors.

 

<object width="512" height="288"><param name="movie" value="http://www.hulu.com/embed/VQTeDiV2mXJREzx3j1lVUw"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.hulu.com/embed/VQTeDiV2mXJREzx3j1lVUw" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="512" height="288" allowFullScreen="true"></embed></object>

In case it doesnt embed properly, you can watch the clip here:

http://www.hulu.com/watch/366642/the-colbert-report-the-word-two-birds-with-one-drone

 

Leaving aside your political commentary that has been the case ever since the Geneva Conventions were first put forward.

 

The NYT story does show that the drone program might be the best solution when compared to the problems with other solutions. From the story it does appear that Obama looked at this as a practical compromise regarding the need to fight Al Qaeda and other considerations. Further that while Obama has expanded the program he has also been cautious about the use of it.

For example it is mentioned in the article that frequently Obama or someone else will pull the plug on a mission at the last minute and in another instance they stopped a mission using multiple strikes on a training base in Somalia as that would amount to carpet bombing. Also the counting of all military age males as militants also isn't so much a justification to use the drone strikes but as an after the fact rationalization for casualties beyond the intended target. From the article it sounds like Obama is very aware that the strikes kill civilians.

 

The plot thickens.