Democracy Now! 10/15/15
Newly leaked government documents have provided an unprecedented window into the secret U.S. drone assassination program across the globe. In “The Drone Papers,” The Intercept reveals drone strikes have resulted from unreliable intelligence, stemming in large part from electronic communications data, or “signals intelligence,” that officials acknowledge is insufficient. The documents also undermine government claims that the drone strikes have been precise. In Afghanistan, strikes on 35 direct targets killed at least 219 other people. Among other revelations, they also suggest the strikes have hurt intelligence gathering and that unknown male victims have been labeled as “enemies killed in action” unless evidence later proves otherwise….
continue reading, including interview with Jeremy Scahill and links, at Democracy Now!
Filed under Afghanistan, War
interview, Democracy Now!, 5/24/13
Less than 24 hours after she interrupted President Obama’s major speech on the future of the secret drone war and Guantánamo, CodePink co-founder Medea Benjamin describes why she repeatedly interrupted Obama’s address. Benjamin, the author of “Drone Warfare: Killing by Remote Control,” criticized Obama for failing to explain why a U.S. drone in Yemen killed the teenage U.S. citizen Abdulrahman al-Awlaki in 2011. “I was very disappointed. He said that his policy is to capture, not kill. That’s just not true. I know personally of many incidents where it would have been very easy to capture people, like the 16-year-old Tariq Aziz in Pakistan, who was in Islamabad at a well-known hotel, but instead was killed by a drone strike two days later,” Benjamin says. “I think the president is really justifying the use of drones, which will continue to happen under his administration and be passed on to the next.”
see transcript and video at Democracy Now!.
by Lisa Longo, 3/10/13
This entire “debate” actually just annoys me, what is the real issue here? This debate was on my Facebook page last night, and this blog is mostly comments from that debate. It won’t be popular with liberals or conservatives, but I find the whole thing pretty despicable, and what Rand Paul did most of all. To accuse our President of plotting to kill US citizens on US soil as part of a publicity stunt? Well, I think Rand Paul needs to resign. He is a man on a mission, but the mission is not what is true or in the best interest of “we the people”, the day after his little stunt he sent out a totally false fundraiser letter claiming his inability to shut up somehow altered US policy. Honestly, this egomaniac is actually an elected official.
What is going on? Why the sudden questions? Well it all started with a letter Rand Paul wrote to our Attorney General. And in his first reply the Attorney General said, well under certain circumstances, I guess there might be circumstances where we could use a drone on US soil. What circumstances? Could you be in danger of a drone strike? Well, have you plotted the death of American’s and destruction of our government? If not, you are safe.
I’ve read many different reports on this, and at the end, they all come down to the same thing, the answer is no. Here is my question if Timothy McVeigh had been killed by a drone because he was about to blow up a federal building, would that have been justified? What if he was “just” shot? What about the guy in CA who was burned in that cabin? Where was his due process? Our government has ALWAYS had the right to use lethal force against enemies, this is a new weapon, not a new policy. I see it as just another red herring to try to make people distrust the Black man in the White House and the other Black man in charge of the Justice Department.
Feel free to comment, I am well aware I will bring on the ire of both sides on this issue, conservatives and liberals both, and here is the thing, I don’t agree with the use of drones, but guess what? No one asked if I approved, and no one asked if I approved of the invasion of Iraq either….
continue reading at Lisa Longo