This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Guest Post: Drone Club
Submitted by John Aziz of Azizonomics
Drone Club
The first rule of Fight Club?
You don’t talk about Fight Club.
Obama isn’t a member of Fight Club; he’s a member of Drone Club — which targets individuals in foreign lands, including American citizens and their families, for extrajudicial assassination by drone. And the first rule of Drone Club?
You don’t talk about it.
Apple has for the third time this month rejected an iPhone app which alerts the user to a drone attack and to the number of people killed. Drones+ enables those concerned to track the strikes to their handset.
This is no doubt an uncomfortable prospect for the US authorities, whose use of drones extends to Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, where no war has been declared. Such drone strikes have killed more than 3,300 people in Pakistan alone since 2004, according to reports by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.
Now we don’t know who made this decision, whether Apple thinks that citizens knowing of drone strikes is a national security risk, or whether Apple were leaned on by the CIA, NSA or Pentagon — though given that Obama has prosecuted more whistleblowers than all other Presidents combined, the latter wouldn’t be entirely unsurprising. Nonetheless, whatever the truth this is a very disturbing development — after all, how can we rightly judge the administration’s foreign and national security policy without having up to date facts?
Obama claims that the drone strikes are conducted on a very rigorous basis:
1 “It has to be a target that is authorised by our laws.”
2 “It has to be a threat that is serious and not speculative.”
3 “It has to be a situation in which we can’t capture the individual before they move forward on some sort of operational plot against the United States.”
4 “We’ve got to make sure that in whatever operations we conduct, we are very careful about avoiding civilian casualties.”
5 “That while there is a legal justification for us to try and stop [American citizens] from carrying out plots … they are subject to the protections of the Constitution and due process.”
At least two of those five points appear to be half-truths at best. In both Yemen and Pakistan, the CIA is allowed to launch a strike based on the target’s “signature” — that is, whether he appears to look and act like a terrorist. As senior U.S. officials have repeatedly confirmed, intelligence analysts don’t even have to know the target’s name, let alone whether he’s planning to attack the U.S. In some cases, merely being a military-aged male at the wrong place at the wrong time is enough to justify your death.
Micah Zenko adds:
What I found most striking was his claim that legitimate targets are a ‘threat that is serious and not speculative,’ and engaged in ‘some operational plot against the United States. The claim that the 3,000+ people killed in roughly 375 nonbattlefield targeted killings were all engaged in actual operational plots against the U.S. defies any understanding of the scope of what America has been doing for the past ten years.
Of course, just as worrying as the actual policy is the fact that the public widely approves of it.
The sharpest edges of President Obama’s counterterrorism policy, including the use of drone aircraft to kill suspected terrorists abroad and keeping open the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, have broad public support, including from the left wing of the Democratic Party.
A new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that Obama, who campaigned on a pledge to close the brig in Cuba and to change national security policies he criticized as inconsistent with U.S. law and values, has little to fear politically for failing to live up to all of those promises.
The survey shows that 70 percent of respondents approve of Obama’s decision to keep open the prison at Guantanamo Bay. He pledged during his first week in office to close the prison within a year, but he has not done so.
Obama has also relied on armed drones far more than Bush did, and he has expanded their use beyond America’s defined war zones. The Post-ABC News poll found that 83 percent of Americans approve of Obama’s drone policy, which administration officials refuse to discuss, citing security concerns.
83%? It was George Lucas’ Princess Amidala who noted that freedom usually dies to thunderous applause.
Extrajudicial punishments are by their nature unlawful, since they bypass the due process of the legal jurisdiction in which they occur. Extrajudicial killings often target leading political, trade union, dissident, religious, and social figures and may be carried out by the state government or other state authorities like the armed forces and police.
I’d like to see Obama answering as to whether his sanctioning of extrajudicial killing resides within the rule of law.
Ben Swann wanted to know the same thing, but Obama wasn’t answering:
You don’t talk about Drone Club.
»
- 13325 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
On the basis of past actions, such an event (or events) would be a green light for some serious elimination of Civil Rights. With the ongoing militarisation of the Police forces, and the well publicised bulk purchases of hollowpoint ammo by Organisations that should not really need this (National Weather Service???) alarm bells ought to be ringing everywhere.
The possibility is that such an event could be at least partially "facilitated" as a false flag event, not necessarily with the intention of significant casualty numbers (casualties are a problem to treat and "consume" healthcare resources that might be wanted by the "better-connected"), rather something that would dent National Pride and / or the sense of "National Security".
Now that would be a real bonanza for those in the corridors of power, who would prefer the "We the People" mindset to be replaced pronto by a far more useful "We the Serfs" one . . . . .
"Israel has practiced targeted killings of anyone deemed a threat to Israel."
How has such conduct become so acceptable as to not even warrant a raised eyebrow? What did Steve Jobs have to say about this subject? No comment. What does Mark Zuckerberg have to say? No comment. Our Presidents, current and past? No comment. How about the owners of corporations like Oracle, Google, etc, etc. NO COMMENT. How about the media? No comment.
Why even in this very thread there is NO COMMENT.
“We will have a world government whether you like it or not. The only question is whether that government will be achieved by conquest or consent.”
Paul Warburg, Jewish Banker, testimony before the U.S. Senate, February 17, 1950
that was SIXTY TWO years ago. that comment alone should awakened the masses to what lay ahead.
So America, make sure you No COMMENT your freedoms away. You will be SLAVES but at least you won't be ANTI_SEMITIC.
“We Jews, we are the destroyers and will remain the destroyers. Nothing you can do will meet our demands and needs. We will forever destroy because we want a world of our own.”
“You Gentiles,” by Maurice Samuels, p. 155).
HAVE A NICE DAY in ISRAEL/AMERICA!
HAVE A NICE DAY IN ISRAEL/EUROPA!
G'DAY MATE IN ISRAEL/AUSTRALIA!
LMFAO
Free Jon Corzine!
JPMorgan Said to Face Escalating Senate Probe of CIO Losshttp://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-06/jpmorgan-said-to-face-escalatin...
The mindset is not much different than Germany in the thirties. When citizens give a blind eye to torture and murder and justify it for reasons of self protection there is no stopping it.
Whatever America might have been, it is no longer. If there is such a thing as an Anti-Christ, we are seeing the generation where it evolves from the Stalin's and Hitlers to something yet unknown. The Constitution is no longer honored. The vote yesterday for "God" and Jerusalem" at the DNC illustrates that the voters voices have no say.
It is only a matter of time.
If it doesn't change, America will not survive as in the end the rules they are playing by do not conform to a far greater set of rules and the latter rules always win in the end. Don't ask me how or why, they do. A lot of people will suffer.
"America" hasn't survived, if in fact it ever "lived" in the Disney-version most people allude to.
let your mind know this, and you may find a new way to be whilst you continue to live here.
The problem with the US American people is that they have no experience how life is under a real terror regime. They should be thankful that they had not to make such an experience till now and do everything to avoid it in the future.
And because they have no idea how such a life is they should stop giving other countries population advice how to act and behave in such an envirorment. Especially when US soldiers and mercenaries are engaged permanently in acts of terror on a worldwide scale.
The common thing all terror regime of the past and present have is: Terror!! A citizen under a terror regime does not even have to do something against the regime. No, he might just be picked as a sample to show that nobody is save from the terrror. The terror can hit anybody anytime. This unsecurity makes the people managable for the regime. The fear!!!
Or as Winston Churchil once said: We have nothing to fear but the fear.
People having fear for their life are people which are easy to manage. Its that simple.
And let it be no doubt. The so called night raids of the US forces in Iraq Afghanistan and what do I know where else are a very good terror instrument. They have learned it from Stalin.
Each night the population knows there are soldiers on the streets breaking up houses and they pull out the one or other family member and then they disappear. It might happen that the unlucky guy is never seen again alive. But others return to their families after they went through the torture hell of KZs or Abu ghraibs. Its all the same. (Note: not all KZ were mass killing faciliies. The KZs in Germany opened up already in 1933 when Hitler grabbed power. These early KZ were built for Germans to terrorize them and were highly comparable to Abu Ghraib practices).
Well, now that we know what you're not going to talk about, what are you going to talk about. Oh, nevermind; your general educational level is so bad I don't really care what you're going to talk about.
Off the charts fucking nuts.
Hint - don't be walking around your property carrying any kind of long cylindrical object. Maybe you think you're just minding your own business going to fix your irrigation system but as far as the boyz at Nellis AFB are concerned you're a fuckin terrorist. Oh - and all you guys going deer hunting in camo - keep a close eye on the sky and be ready to duck.
Yeah, no matter what and who currently aroung the world is a target, it's all just practice for the targeting of the civilian population.
Justice Black writing for the Supreme Court of the United States in
Reid v. Covert, 354 US 1 (1957)
I.
At the beginning we reject the idea that when the United States acts against citizens abroad it can do so free of the Bill of Rights. The United States is entirely [354 U.S. 1, 6] a creature of the Constitution. 3 Its power and authority have no other source. It can only act in accordance with all the limitations imposed by the Constitution. 4 When the Government reaches out to punish a citizen who is abroad, the shield which the Bill of Rights and other parts of the Constitution provide to protect his life and liberty should not be stripped away just because he happens to be in another land. This is not a novel concept. To the contrary, it is as old as government. It was recognized long before Paul successfully invoked his right as a Roman citizen to be tried in strict accordance with Roman law. And many centuries later an English historian wrote:
"In a Settled Colony the inhabitants have all the rights of Englishmen. They take with them, in the first place, that which no Englishman can by expatriation put off, namely, allegiance to the Crown, the duty of obedience to the lawful commands of the Sovereign, and obedience to the Laws which Parliament may think proper to make with reference to such a Colony. But, on the other hand, they take with them all the rights and liberties of British Subjects; all the rights and liberties as against the Prerogative of the Crown, which they would enjoy in this country." 5
The rights and liberties which citizens of our country enjoy are not protected by custom and tradition alone, they have been jealously preserved from the encroachments [354 U.S. 1, 7] of Government by express provisions of our written Constitution. 6
Among those provisions, Art. III, 2 and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments are directly relevant to these cases. Article III, 2 lays down the rule that:
"The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed."
The Fifth Amendment declares:"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;...."
And the Sixth Amendment provides:
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed...."
The language of Art. III, 2 manifests that constitutional protections for the individual were designed to restrict the United States Government when it acts outside of this country, as well as here at home....
You know why I still have a little faith?
As I read the above, I realize there is a minority who honors the Constitution and their eyes and ears are not affected by the propaganda they try and whitewash their dirty laundry in.
Why some of us can see what is going on and object strongly and others do not? I don't know, but I am glad there are you out there. I am not an American, but fortunately I have known and know the good ones.
Hmm, wouldn't #1, that it has to be authorized by our laws, void any strikes on US citizens? You know, those pesky 6th and 14th amendments to the US Constitution?
And... how about an iPhone app that lets you know if you are the target of an impending drone strike.
dup
how do i buy general atomics?
gotta talk to the Blue Broz.
And what about the drone strikes on families holding wedding celebrations or other family gatherings. Why are these families seen as legitimate targets for drone strikes?
The answer is most probabaly very simple. Sheer terror. To show the Afghanis and Pakistanis what is going to happen if one member of their familiy clan attacks or participates in attacks on the occupying forces.
There is no shortage of Afghanis and Pakistanis to strike against the occupying forces but there is the big threat of the US to strike back on the family of the attacker. No matter if its boys or girls or woman. Preferably such drone strikes are hitting wedding celebrations. Simply because it shows that the US is showing no mercy for the families of enemy combattants.
These drone strikes on families make very muich sense for the CIA because it is the only language the tribal society in Afghanistan and Pakistan understands (in the opinion of the CIA). The message to the clan chiefs is: If one memeber of your family is fighting against the US or UK forces, then it might happen that "by accident" a drone hits a familiy gathering soon. Be it a wedding or a funeral or whatever. The whole family is the target.
I bet there are plenty of Pakistanis who, out of burning desire for revenge against any Americans, would gladly sign up as drone jockeys when the American terror state turns inward. Most of them will never figure out how they have been played by a common enemy. Divide and conquer.
"It has to be a situation in which we can’t capture the individual before they move forward on some sort of operational plot against the United States."
For example, when they used the drones to spy on farmers. Clearly, the farmers are are growing WMDs.
A few weeks back, this 'American' author targeted an individual who wrote on ZeroHedge as a site, bringing the article to the attention of 'american' regulars on here, so that they can pour their 'american' sense of love on that guy.
How is this different from Obama?
For 'Americans', the group is all and the submission to the group, the allegiance to the group is proven by smearing, tackling down, destroying so called exterior enemies.
Obama is your typical US citizen as is the author of the OP.
Here lies the issue: envy. Obama is the big chief and there can only be one.
'Americans' offers nothing different in terms of behaviour, only a change in mug.
"noted that freedom usually dies to thunderous applause."
damn i wanted to write this!!!