PDA

View Full Version : Signature strikes discussed



Robert A Whit
04-29-2013, 03:31 PM
Preface;

A lot of attention is given by this administration to guns. And they prefer, most of us believe, to disarm us. The only thing stopping them is the constitution.

Yet the same government that wants us disarmed, or at the least, severely restricted in our owning guns, kills thousands of humans and excuses it.

The topic is signature drone strikes. Bear in mind, these strikes are not cleared with the governments in the killing area. If the citizens of Pakistan or Yemen, believe their own government approves of these killings, it easily can destabilize those countries where it is used.

Obama has killed thousands.

Imagine that it was happening in NY or Ohio or CA, or pick a state. And we were told that Russia only was killing humans THEY decided were dangerous or bad people.

Ok, here is an article. Use link to be briefed more fully.

-----------------------------------------------
http://www.propublica.org/article/drone-war-doctrine-we-know-nothing-about

by Cora Currier (http://www.propublica.org/site/author/cora_currier/) and Justin Elliott (http://www.propublica.org/site/author/justin_elliott/)
ProPublica, Feb. 26, 2013, 8 a.m.
·

The nomination of John Brennan to be CIA director has prompted intense debate (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/07/brennan-pressed-drones-confirmation/) on Capitol Hill and in the media about U.S. drone killings abroad. But the focus has been on the targeting of American citizens – a narrow issue that accounts for a miniscule proportion of the hundreds of drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen in recent years.
Consider: while four (http://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb/08/nation/la-na-targeted-killing-20130209) American citizens are known to have been killed by drones in the past decade, the strikes have killed anestimated (http://counterterrorism.newamerica.net/drones) total (http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/category/projects/drones/) of 2,600 to 4,700 people over the same period.


<aside>

Everything We Know So Far About Drone Strikes (http://www.propublica.org/article/everything-we-know-so-far-about-drone-strikes)
by Cora Currier, ProPublica




</aside>


The focus on American citizens overshadows a far more common, and less understood, type of strike: those that do not target American citizens, Al Qaeda leaders, or, in fact, any other specific individual.
In these attacks, known as “signature strikes (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=all#p[IPMIPM]),” drone operators fire on people whose identities they do not know based on evidence of suspicious behavior or other “signatures.” According to anonymously sourced media reports, such attacks on unidentified targets account for many, or even (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204621904577013982672973836.html) most (http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-02-08/world/36988536_1_drone-program-special-court-judicial-review), drone strikes.
Despite that, the administration has never publicly spoken about signature strikes. Basic questions remain unanswered.
What is the legal justification for signature strikes? What qualifies as a “signature” that would prompt a deadly strike? Do those being targeted have to pose a threat to the United States? And how many civilians have been killed in such strikes?
The administration has rebuffed repeated (http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/02/08/members-of-congress-have-asked-for-the-targeted-killing-memos-14-times/) requests from Congress to provide answers – even in secret.

fj1200
04-29-2013, 03:55 PM
Everything We Know So Far About Drone Strikes (http://www.propublica.org/article/everything-we-know-so-far-about-drone-strikes)<aside>by Cora Currier, ProPublica

What is the legal justification for signature strikes? What qualifies as a “signature” that would prompt a deadly strike? Do those being targeted have to pose a threat to the United States? And how many civilians have been killed in such strikes?</aside>
Just trust them, they're from the government.

Robert A Whit
04-29-2013, 04:03 PM
Just trust them, they're from the government.

I am still trying to figure out why of all entities, government is presumed to be always right.

fj1200
04-29-2013, 04:04 PM
I am still trying to figure out why of all entities, government is presumed to be always right.

Not by all but by too many.

Thunderknuckles
04-29-2013, 04:35 PM
Not by all but by too many.
Yup. That was purpose of the Constitution to begin with as the framers knew government could not be trusted to do the right thing when left on its own and needed to be checked by the governed. That whole philosophy has been dropped by the wayside by modern day progressives.
Thomas Jefferson would no doubt be on some watch list today for distrust of government.