When a US citizen heard he was on his own country's drone target list, he wasn’t sure he believed it. After five near-misses, he does – and is suing the United States to contest his own execution
This is America ? I am sure that drone strikes have killed valid targets, with really limited US casualties. But at what cost?
This is America ?
In 2014, former CIA and NSA director Michael Hayden said in a public debate, “We kill people based on metadata.”
According to multiple reports and leaks, death-by-metadata could be triggered, without even knowing the target’s name, if too many derogatory checks appear on their profile. “Armed military aged males” exhibiting suspicious behavior in the wrong place can become targets, as can someone “seen to be giving out orders.” Such mathematics-based assassinations have come to be known as “signature strikes.”
In one extreme case, the CIA reportedly killed 76 children and 29 adults solely in attacks targeting Al Qaeda heavy Ayman al Zawahiri. They never got him. He is the current head of Al Qaeda.
In all, she found that as many as 1,147 people may have died just in attacks targeting the 41 men she studied. The victims were disproportionately children. In attacks targeting 14 men in Pakistan, 142 children died.
I am sure that drone strikes have killed valid targets, with really limited US casualties. But at what cost?
This, while deplorable, seems to be the main point of the drone program. Kill enough of those illegal combatants without causing too much of a stir back home. The way I see it, it just creates...
with really limited US casualties
This, while deplorable, seems to be the main point of the drone program. Kill enough of those illegal combatants without causing too much of a stir back home.
But at what cost?
The way I see it, it just creates more distrust and general dislike with the people being bombed. Which means the U.S. government can justify creation of more drone attacks; effectively perpetuating the War on Terror indefinitely.
What can citizens or otherwise outraged persons do against a massive military-industrial complex? We are easily drowned out by calls of national security.
I feel like the late Obama era drone strikes will serve to mar Obama's legacy more than the absurdly blatant spite that Trump is trying to show to his policies. Nothing justices death, even war,...
I feel like the late Obama era drone strikes will serve to mar Obama's legacy more than the absurdly blatant spite that Trump is trying to show to his policies. Nothing justices death, even war, but there's no way that Obama wasn't out there thinking "this shit will reduce casualties" when it's clear that the opposite is true. Just like Bush and blackwater, the military experimentation Obama undertook had seriously unintended consequences. I think we would be remiss not to attribute the defeat of ISIS in large part to Obama, but the cost has been great and only now does it seem to have quieted down.
I think, given enough time, Trump will experience similar fuck ups, altho I'm not sure he could really do anything at this point that would surprise anyone, or make him somehow that much worse than we already know he is
Not killing terrorists reduce casualties. Killing them with drones is still better than killing them with boots on the ground.
Nothing justices death, even war, but there's no way that Obama wasn't out there thinking "this shit will reduce casualties" when it's clear that the opposite is true.
Not killing terrorists reduce casualties. Killing them with drones is still better than killing them with boots on the ground.
what the fuck (it's a long read, but not one I regret spending time on) The defense/judge are now trying to use due process to let Kareem go to trial before a drone kills him for an unknown...
what the fuck
(it's a long read, but not one I regret spending time on)
The essence of Faisal bin Ali Jaber v. Barack Hussein Obama et al. is that when we kill abroad, even by mistake, even in an undeclared war, this is foreign policy and therefore outside of judicial authority. This left the Jabers’ claim “nonjusticiable,” i.e., literally outside the reach of the law.
There have been death-penalty cases before, but never one where neither the crime nor the sentence is known to the defense.
In the human rights litigation equivalent of going after Al Capone for tax evasion, they pushed Kareem’s claim by citing the Administrative Procedure Act, the 1946 law that specifically grants the judiciary the right to review the actions of federal agencies.
The defense/judge are now trying to use due process to let Kareem go to trial before a drone kills him for an unknown reason. What does this move say about the "game" (legal system) it's played in?
This is America ?
I am sure that drone strikes have killed valid targets, with really limited US casualties. But at what cost?
This, while deplorable, seems to be the main point of the drone program. Kill enough of those illegal combatants without causing too much of a stir back home.
The way I see it, it just creates more distrust and general dislike with the people being bombed. Which means the U.S. government can justify creation of more drone attacks; effectively perpetuating the War on Terror indefinitely.
What can citizens or otherwise outraged persons do against a massive military-industrial complex? We are easily drowned out by calls of national security.
I feel like the late Obama era drone strikes will serve to mar Obama's legacy more than the absurdly blatant spite that Trump is trying to show to his policies. Nothing justices death, even war, but there's no way that Obama wasn't out there thinking "this shit will reduce casualties" when it's clear that the opposite is true. Just like Bush and blackwater, the military experimentation Obama undertook had seriously unintended consequences. I think we would be remiss not to attribute the defeat of ISIS in large part to Obama, but the cost has been great and only now does it seem to have quieted down.
I think, given enough time, Trump will experience similar fuck ups, altho I'm not sure he could really do anything at this point that would surprise anyone, or make him somehow that much worse than we already know he is
Not killing terrorists reduce casualties. Killing them with drones is still better than killing them with boots on the ground.
what the fuck
(it's a long read, but not one I regret spending time on)
The defense/judge are now trying to use due process to let Kareem go to trial before a drone kills him for an unknown reason. What does this move say about the "game" (legal system) it's played in?