Patterico's Pontifications

3/19/2010

The Drones of War

Filed under: International,Obama,War — DRJ @ 7:09 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

The Obama Administration has expanded the use of CIA and military drones, especially in Pakistan, and CIA Director Panetta is positive about their use:

“CIA Director Leon Panetta gave an interview to the Washington Post claiming that the “secret war” of drone assaults in Pakistan is having a major impact on al Qaeda.”

During his Presidency, Bush authorized the use of drones but President Obama has significantly expanded their use. There were objections to the use of drones during the Bush years and also after Obama took office, with many liberals complaining that drones increased civilian deaths and were used in countries with which the U.S. is not at war. In January, the ACLU announced an effort to obtain specific information about drone attacks:

“The ACLU is asking the government to release basic information about its use of drones to execute targeted killings. The group believes that “the use and proliferation of this tactic must be the subject of public scrutiny and debate.” The strikes are reportedly being carried out both by US military forces and the CIA.

The request is seeking information, including who may be targeted and the geographical limits on where drone strikes may occur. It wants information about the scope and consequences of drone strikes, including a breakdown of the total number of people killed, the civilian casualty toll, the number of people killed who were fighters with the Afghan Taliban or al-Qaeda in Afghanistan or who had some other terror-related affiliation or status.

“The public has been kept in the dark and is therefore unable to assess the wisdom or legality of the strikes,” the group claimed.”

The ACLU’s request was directed at the CIA and 3 government Departments — Defense, Justice, and State. Politico reports the CIA responded and the ACLU is pursuing an intra-agency appeal. The ACLU also sued to compel disclosure by the other agencies earlier this week.

— DRJ

27 Responses to “The Drones of War”

  1. That’s a very patriotic information gathering request by the ACLU according to Holder standards.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  2. Good one, daleyrocks.

    DRJ (daa62a)

  3. Under Bush they didn’t need to bother with a request, they would just find someone to leak the info to the NYT.

    MD in Philly (59a3ad)

  4. i was wondering who we’d have to lean on to get a few Reapers and Predators assigned to the ACLU offices….. terrorist supporters are still terrorists.

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  5. Under Bush they didn’t need to bother with a request, they would just find someone to leak the info to the NYT.

    And why does the American Civil Liberties Union have any standing to critique any military operation in a foreign country? This is worse than LBJ or Jimmy Carter micromanaging military operations. At least it is in the constitution that they were the CIC. I’m still looking for where the ACLU is in the chain of command.

    MU789 (e935dc)

  6. If they give me that report, I promise two things:
    1- I will personally deliver it to the named attorney’s that filed the request;
    2- They will never read it.

    AD - RtR/OS! (b083e4)

  7. Comment by redc1c4 — 3/19/2010 @ 8:27 pm

    Getting Reapers and Predators assigned to monitor ACLU HQ is no problem.
    Now, getting the OK to give them a Hellfire or two, that could be problematic.

    AD - RtR/OS! (b083e4)

  8. Now, getting the OK to give them a Hellfire or two, that could be problematic.

    that’s what commo glitches are for….. %-)

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  9. I love glitches.

    AD - RtR/OS! (b083e4)

  10. Why is the ACLU complaining about targeted killings of foreign enemies in wartime?

    Have they forgotten what the “A” stands for?

    Michael Ejercito (6a1582)

  11. 10.Why is the ACLU complaining about targeted killings of foreign enemies in wartime?
    Have they forgotten what the “A” stands for?

    Comment by Michael Ejercito

    Because if they are ‘enemies’ to the US of yesterday and today, they are good, and look forward to the post-America America that the ACLU is looking forward to, the one where you can do whatever you want, as long as it lines up with their decrees.

    All equal in misery, except those in the Politburo who are special because they have the intellectual and moral superiority to tell the rest of us what to do. Since they are superior, they don’t have to abide by the same rules that govern us, or live under the same conditions. As soon as they can get the guns we cling to out of our hands and the religious convictions out of our minds and hearts then all will be well, and you will love Big Brother.

    Of course, Dostoyevsky’s version of the “Superman” didn’t quite work out that way. (Neither did Lucifer’s, either, old Saul.)

    MD in Philly (59a3ad)

  12. Trotsky was a member of the Politburo, as was Beria; for all the good it did them (not to mention almost the entire military general staff of the late-30’s).

    AD - RtR/OS! (c811db)

  13. I got a membership request letter — sent unsolicited, of course — from the ACLU last week. Because it came with a postage-paid return envelope I had the pleasure of scrawling “the hell with the ACLU” on it and sending it (along with all the original packaging) back to them.

    JVW (fd30ab)

  14. 12.Trotsky was a member of the Politburo, as was Beria; for all the good it did them (not to mention almost the entire military general staff of the late-30’s).
    Comment by AD – RtR/OS!

    Be it the French, the Russian, the Chinese or whoever else, it should not be surprising that revolutions spawn those who want to take over from the revolutionists. When deception, manipulation, and illegitimate means become the norm for those with demonic ambition, anything goes. But it happens anyway because those arrogant enough to drive the process think they will always be able to ride the wave and manage the process. The only way to manage the process is to be as ruthless as Stalin or Hitler, and at some point humanity will not bear it any longer, but at what a cost.

    MD in Philly (59a3ad)

  15. I am quite amazed that with the sudden evaporation of the anti-war movement occasioned by the election of a Democrat to the White House, the ACLU has not also folded its tent for a while.

    sherlock (e1e91e)

  16. The Nazis and the Bolsheviks came about because of a disastrous war. People who had lost sons and brothers and were starving lost faith in their government. And were looking for a strong man and a sack of potatoes to keep them alive for one more week.

    And somebody to blame for their troubles. The Jews were a good scapegoat in both countries. Lawyers seem to be a good one in ours.

    If we were to go down that path, the ACLU will be the first to go to the concentration camps and gulags. And the technicians and torturers it was fighting will find themselves in comfortable positions in the new regime the exact same way imprisoned poachers and serial killers found jobs in the Einzatzgruppen.

    nk the trained scientific researcher (db4a41)

  17. I am quite amazed that with the sudden evaporation of the anti-war movement occasioned by the election of a Democrat to the White House, the ACLU has not also folded its tent for a while.

    They are in a tough spot, what with liberal Dems controlling the executive and legislative branches, but don’t forget that in its own way the ACLU is a bureaucracy that employs probably hundreds of people, so they need to continue raising money to meet expenses. Don’t be surprised then if from time to time they have to take a swing at the Dems.

    JVW (fd30ab)

  18. “… Nazis and the Bolsheviks came about because of a disastrous war…”

    Except, the Bolshies existed before the advent of WW-1, and Lenin’s route to power was facilitated by the German (Prussian) High Command with his secret train trip from Switzerland to Russia in the midst of WW-1, where he engaged in a power struggle with the Menshiviks over who was going to control post-Tsarist Russia.

    The Nazi’s capitalized on the utter incompetance of the Weimar regime, and the economic devastation resulting from the conditions imposed upon Germany by the Versailles Treaty. Plus, in the lead up to the election of ’33, the great enemy of the National Socialist German Workers Party, was the Communists – these were the two antagonists in the great street brawls that marked German urban life following the ’29 Crash, and why Hitler (and Rohm) created the Brown Shirts (SA), to fight those brawls.

    AD - RtR/OS! (c811db)

  19. What’s the problem with the ACLU again? Since when does engaging in government oversight make someone a terrorist sympathizer?

    [For the record, this is directed at the comments section, not the post itself. This shall henceforth be known as “Standard Disclaimer ^(tm)”]

    Leviticus (30ac20)

  20. And somebody to blame for their troubles. The Jews were a good scapegoat in both countries. Lawyers seem to be a good one in ours

    Except the lawyers are tied in with those on the inside track to fascism. I guess at some point those in power could get strong enough to throw the trial lawyers under the bus, but at the time being they are favored by the one, hence no mention of tort reform.

    From my point of view we are not in disagreement, nk. I was just pointing out that once a revolution gathers momentum, it’s a hard thing to control. One huge exception is the American, where it was the character of Washington, for one, that kept things on the path to a republic. (Like Cincinnatus millenia ago). Of course, Cincinnatus’ integrity was not replicated by those who eventually came later. Hence Franklin’s, “If you can keep it.”

    It will be nice if ten years from now we will look back and realize we were overreacting and being too pessimistic.

    MD in Philly (59a3ad)

  21. “…we were overreacting and being too pessimistic.”

    Certainly a better possibility than the alternative.

    AD - RtR/OS! (c811db)

  22. Spot on with post #3, MD, and you as well with #15, Sherlock.

    GeneralMalaise (20e943)

  23. From the title, I thought we were about to discuss a Cindy Sheehan speech.

    Best thing about Obama’s election is that the media ignores Code Pink.

    Steve G (7d4c78)

  24. “What’s the problem with the ACLU again? Since when does engaging in government oversight make someone a terrorist sympathizer?”

    #1 – Amir Mohamed Meshal

    #2 – “Opposes virtually all post-9/11 national security measures enacted by U.S. government.”

    #3 – “Since 9/11, the ACLU, along with the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, has led a coalition of civil liberties groups urging city councils across the United States to pass resolutions creating “Civil Liberties Safe Zones”; that is, to be non-compliant with the provisions of the Patriot Act. The ACLU also endorsed the Civil Liberties Restoration Act of 2004, which was introduced by leftist Democrats in Congress to roll back, in the name of protecting civil liberties, vital national-security policies that had been adopted after the September 11th terrorist attacks.”

    #4 – “When the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and the Justice Department instituted a program requiring males visiting the U.S. from Arab and Muslim nations to register with the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, the ACLU organized protests against what it called this “discriminatory” policy. It similarly protested an FBI anti-terrorism initiative to count and document all of America’s mosques, wherein extremist calls for violent jihad were not uncommon.”

    #5 – “On the eve of Operation Iraqi Freedom in March 2003, when FBI and Homeland Security agents were tracking down illegal Iraqi immigrants considered to be dangerous, the ACLU set up a telephone hotline and conducted “Know Your Rights” training sessions giving illegals free advice on how to avoid deportation.”

    #6 – “In a 2002 federal lawsuit naming Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta as a defendant, the ACLU challenged a new Aviation Transportation Security Act policy prohibiting non-citizens from working as airport security screeners. In conjunction with the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the ACLU has lobbied against any policy that would authorize security personnel at airports and border checkpoints to scrutinize travelers from terrorism-sponsoring nations any more closely than other travelers. Depicting racial and ethnic profiling as “shameful and unlawful,” the ACLU has represented Muslim and Middle Eastern plaintiffs in discrimination lawsuits against numerous airlines.”

    #7 – “The ACLU opposes the Computer-Assisted Passenger Profiling System (CAPPS) used by airlines to check for various passenger characteristics that have historically been correlated with terrorist activities. In late 1997, when the CAPPS system was first set to be put in place, the ACLU set up a special online complaint form to collect information on incidents of discrimination and mistreatment by airport security personnel. As Gregory Nojeim explained, his organization was “concerned that the CAPPS system will have an unequal impact on some passengers, resulting in their being selected for treatment as potential terrorists based on their race, religion or national origin.”The ACLU has sued over the National Security Agency’s terrorist surveillance program in Detroit, New York, Oregon, and San Francisco.”

    #8 – “The Texas chapter of the ACLU was a signatory to a February 20, 2002 document, composed by the radical group Refuse & Resist, condemning the detention of immigrants apprehended in connection with post-9/11 terrorism investigations. The document read, in part, “[T]hey [the U.S. government] are coming for the Arab, Muslim and South Asian immigrants. … The recent ‘disappearances,’ indefinite detention, the round-ups, … the denial of any due process … have chilling similarities to a police state.”

    #9 – “In 2003 the ACLU held rallies on behalf of an Intel software engineer in Oregon named Maher Mofeid Hawash, whom U.S. officials were keeping in custody on suspicion that he had given material support to Taliban and al Qaeda forces fighting American troops in Afghanistan. (In February 2004, Hawash was convicted of the aforementioned crimes and was sentenced to seven years in prison.)”

    #10 – “The ACLU passionately defended Sami Al-Arian, the former North American head of Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ). In an effort to thwart the U.S. government’s investigation of Al-Arian’s role in funding PIJ suicide bombings in Israel, the ACLU said that the search warrants authorizing an FBI raid of his home and offices were overly broad, and that the items seized as evidence should therefore be returned to him.”

    #11 – “The ACLU also came to the defense of radical attorney Lynne Stewart, who in February 2005 was convicted on charges that she had illegally “facilitated and concealed communications” between her client, the incarcerated “blind sheik” Omar Abdel Rahman, and members of his Egyptian terrorist organization, the Islamic Group, which has ties to al Qaeda. On February 17, 2005, just after Stewart had been sentenced for her crimes, the ACLU of Massachusetts declared her prosecution “a chilling testament to what is being done to individual rights and to the rule of law itself in the name of ‘fighting terrorism.'”

    #12 – “In August 2005, the publication G2 Bulletin reported that ACLU lawyers had been present during interrogations of captured al Qaeda and Taliban enemy combatants who were being detained in Guantanamo Bay; in the majority of cases, these attorneys advised the inmates that they were under no obligation to answer military interrogators’ questions.”

    etc…. etc…. etc…. ad nauseum…

    GeneralMalaise (20e943)

  25. any organization demanding the release of classified targeting parameters and restrictions into the public domain is acting to the benefit of the enemies being targeted, since such information will aid them in avoiding these attacks.

    this is, by definition, giving aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war, and as such is treason, the penalty for which, upon conviction, is death.

    the ACLU has no need for the information, no standing to ask for it, and no reason to do so except as an attempt to impede or end this portion of the war effort, which is not an act likely to improve or protect civil liberties here in America, or elsewhere.

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  26. 23.From the title, I thought we were about to discuss a Cindy Sheehan speech….
    Comment by Steve G

    That was funny.

    MD in Philly (59a3ad)

  27. Comment by redc1c4 — 3/20/2010 @ 11:49 am

    The ACLU, America’s unique Fifth-Column – Quisling’s all!

    AD - RtR/OS! (cdee11)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1031 secs.