Kickin' Names Is Takin' It In The Ass
2012-11-26 15:12:51 UTC
War Criminal, Murderer Obama's 'Drone-Warfare Rulebook' Condemned By
Human Rights Groups
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/25/obama-drone-warfare-rulebook
President Barack Obama's administration is in the process of drawing
up a formal rulebook that will set out the circumstances in which
targeted assassination by unmanned drones is justified, according to
reports.
The New York Times, citing two unnamed sources, said explicit
guidelines were being drawn up amid disagreement between the CIA and
the departments of defense, justice and state over when lethal action
is acceptable.
Human-rights groups and peace groups opposed to the CIA-operated
targeted-killing programme, which remains officially classified, said
the administration had already rejected international law in pursuing
its drone operations.
"To say they are rewriting the rulebook implies that there isn't
already a rulebook" said Jameel Jaffer, the director of the American
Civil Liberties Union's Center for Democracy. "But what they are
already doing is rejecting a rulebook – of international law – that
has been in place since [the second world war]."
He said the news was "frustrating", because it relied on "self-serving
sources". The New York Times piece was written by one of the
journalists who first exposed the existence of a White House "kill
list", in May.
The ACLU is currently involved in a legal battle with the US
government over the legal memo underlying the controversial targeted
killing programme, the basis for drone strikes that have killed
American citizens and the process by which individuals are placed on
the kill list.
Jaffer said it was impossible to make a judgement about whether the
"rulebook" being discussed, according to the Times, was legal or
illegal.
"It is frustrating how we are reliant on self-serving leaks" said
Jaffer. "We are left with interpreting shadows cast on the wall. The
terms that are being used by these officials are undefined, malleable
and without definition. It is impossible to know whether they are
talking about something lawful or unlawful.
"We are litigating for the release of legal memos. We don't think the
public should have to reply on self-serving leaking by unnamed
administrative officials."
The New York Times said that, facing the possibility that the
president might not be re-elected, work began in the weeks running up
to the 6 November election to "develop explicit rules for the targeted
killing of terrorists by unmanned drones, so that a new president
would inherit clear standards and procedures, according to two
administration officials".
It went on to say that Obama and his advisers were still debating
whether remote-controlled killing should be a measure of last resort
against imminent threats to the US, or whether it should be more
widely used, in order to "help allied governments attack their enemies
or to prevent militants from controlling territories".
Jaffer said he was sceptical about the significance of the debate
outlined in the piece. He said: "The suggestion is that there is a
significant debate going on within the administration about the scope
of the government's authority to carry out targeted killings. I would
question the significance of the debate. If imminent is defined as
broadly as some say it is within the administration then the gap
between the sides is narrow.
"It matters how you define 'imminent'. The Bush administration was
able to say it didn't condone torture because of the definition of
torture. You might think that if someone says, 'I believe we should
only use targeted killings only when there's an imminent threat,' you
might think that sounds OK. But without terms like 'imminent' being
defined it is impossible to evaluate the arguments."
Medea Benjamin, the co-founder of Code Pink, an anti-war group, said
the news that formal rules were being written for targeted killing was
"disgusting".
"That they are trying to write the rules for something that is illegal
is disgusting" said Benjamin. "They are saying, 'The levers might be
in the wrong hands.' What about the way they are using them right now?
There is nothing about taking drones out of the hands of the CIA –
which is not a military organisation – or getting rid of signature
strikes, where there is no evidence that people are involved in
terrorist activities."
In Pakistan and Yemen, the CIA and the military have carried out
"signature strikes" against groups of suspected and unnamed militants,
as well as strikes against named terrorists.
Benjamin said she had just come back from Pakistan, where the
"intensity of the backlash will take generations to overcome".
The New York Times quotes an official who, speaking on condition of
anonymity, said there was "concern that the levers might no longer be
in our hands" after the election.
In October, Obama referred to efforts to codify the controversial
drone programme. In an interview with Jon Stewart on The Daily Show on
18 October, the president said: "One of the things we've got to do is
put legal architecture in place and we need congressional help in
order to do that, to make sure that not only am I reined in but any
president is reined in, in terms of some of the decisions we're
making".
While Obama and administration officials have commented publicly on
the legal basis for targeted killings, the program is officially
secret. In court, government lawyers fighting lawsuits by the ACLU
continue to claim that no official has ever formally acknowledged the
drones, and that there might not even be a drone programme.
Two lawsuits – one by the ACLU and the other by the ACLU and the NYT –
seeking information on the legal basis on targeted killing, are still
pending.
-----
How's That Hopey-Changey Thing Working Out For You?
Human Rights Groups
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/25/obama-drone-warfare-rulebook
President Barack Obama's administration is in the process of drawing
up a formal rulebook that will set out the circumstances in which
targeted assassination by unmanned drones is justified, according to
reports.
The New York Times, citing two unnamed sources, said explicit
guidelines were being drawn up amid disagreement between the CIA and
the departments of defense, justice and state over when lethal action
is acceptable.
Human-rights groups and peace groups opposed to the CIA-operated
targeted-killing programme, which remains officially classified, said
the administration had already rejected international law in pursuing
its drone operations.
"To say they are rewriting the rulebook implies that there isn't
already a rulebook" said Jameel Jaffer, the director of the American
Civil Liberties Union's Center for Democracy. "But what they are
already doing is rejecting a rulebook – of international law – that
has been in place since [the second world war]."
He said the news was "frustrating", because it relied on "self-serving
sources". The New York Times piece was written by one of the
journalists who first exposed the existence of a White House "kill
list", in May.
The ACLU is currently involved in a legal battle with the US
government over the legal memo underlying the controversial targeted
killing programme, the basis for drone strikes that have killed
American citizens and the process by which individuals are placed on
the kill list.
Jaffer said it was impossible to make a judgement about whether the
"rulebook" being discussed, according to the Times, was legal or
illegal.
"It is frustrating how we are reliant on self-serving leaks" said
Jaffer. "We are left with interpreting shadows cast on the wall. The
terms that are being used by these officials are undefined, malleable
and without definition. It is impossible to know whether they are
talking about something lawful or unlawful.
"We are litigating for the release of legal memos. We don't think the
public should have to reply on self-serving leaking by unnamed
administrative officials."
The New York Times said that, facing the possibility that the
president might not be re-elected, work began in the weeks running up
to the 6 November election to "develop explicit rules for the targeted
killing of terrorists by unmanned drones, so that a new president
would inherit clear standards and procedures, according to two
administration officials".
It went on to say that Obama and his advisers were still debating
whether remote-controlled killing should be a measure of last resort
against imminent threats to the US, or whether it should be more
widely used, in order to "help allied governments attack their enemies
or to prevent militants from controlling territories".
Jaffer said he was sceptical about the significance of the debate
outlined in the piece. He said: "The suggestion is that there is a
significant debate going on within the administration about the scope
of the government's authority to carry out targeted killings. I would
question the significance of the debate. If imminent is defined as
broadly as some say it is within the administration then the gap
between the sides is narrow.
"It matters how you define 'imminent'. The Bush administration was
able to say it didn't condone torture because of the definition of
torture. You might think that if someone says, 'I believe we should
only use targeted killings only when there's an imminent threat,' you
might think that sounds OK. But without terms like 'imminent' being
defined it is impossible to evaluate the arguments."
Medea Benjamin, the co-founder of Code Pink, an anti-war group, said
the news that formal rules were being written for targeted killing was
"disgusting".
"That they are trying to write the rules for something that is illegal
is disgusting" said Benjamin. "They are saying, 'The levers might be
in the wrong hands.' What about the way they are using them right now?
There is nothing about taking drones out of the hands of the CIA –
which is not a military organisation – or getting rid of signature
strikes, where there is no evidence that people are involved in
terrorist activities."
In Pakistan and Yemen, the CIA and the military have carried out
"signature strikes" against groups of suspected and unnamed militants,
as well as strikes against named terrorists.
Benjamin said she had just come back from Pakistan, where the
"intensity of the backlash will take generations to overcome".
The New York Times quotes an official who, speaking on condition of
anonymity, said there was "concern that the levers might no longer be
in our hands" after the election.
In October, Obama referred to efforts to codify the controversial
drone programme. In an interview with Jon Stewart on The Daily Show on
18 October, the president said: "One of the things we've got to do is
put legal architecture in place and we need congressional help in
order to do that, to make sure that not only am I reined in but any
president is reined in, in terms of some of the decisions we're
making".
While Obama and administration officials have commented publicly on
the legal basis for targeted killings, the program is officially
secret. In court, government lawyers fighting lawsuits by the ACLU
continue to claim that no official has ever formally acknowledged the
drones, and that there might not even be a drone programme.
Two lawsuits – one by the ACLU and the other by the ACLU and the NYT –
seeking information on the legal basis on targeted killing, are still
pending.
-----
How's That Hopey-Changey Thing Working Out For You?