Drone attacks
- Thread starter actinanass
- Start date
Europeans would freak out if Muslim or African troops were in their country. Especially in Texas, Arizona, or Mississippi, there would be Al-Texas, Al-Arizona, or Al-Mississippi setup within minutes bombing their airlines, shootings, and flying planes into their buildings.
You don't even have to wear a military uniform for this to happen. This guy killed seven people at a Sikh temple. He ignorantly thought he was attacking Muslims.
Bin Laden response is actually the norm when there is troop presence from two radically different cultures. This has created a vicious cycle of terrorism and military response, terrorism and a greater military response such as drones.
You don't even have to wear a military uniform for this to happen. This guy killed seven people at a Sikh temple. He ignorantly thought he was attacking Muslims.
Bin Laden response is actually the norm when there is troop presence from two radically different cultures. This has created a vicious cycle of terrorism and military response, terrorism and a greater military response such as drones.
Last edited:
I am expanding on my earlier comments.
Oh, Okay.
. . . continue to ignore Post 69 then..
<iframe src="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/oct/05/john-fleming/should-obama-apologize-policy-shift-drone-strikes-/" width=800 height=1000></iframe>
I agree. The policy considerations need to be examined and, where deficient, reformed.
Not to be presumptive, I just don't know that mere "supporting Al Qaeda is grounds for assassination" though. Is that all takes ???
Does it make any difference whether the troop presence is at the invitation of the host government ??? Or, is the objection of any group or people within the country sufficient justification to deny that presence ???
Do the KKK, Skinheads, Black Panthers, SLA, etc., et al., have that same say ???
Didn't know that Bin Laden had ascended to the head of state of any Muslim country, elected or by strong-arm.
So long as your agreement is a mere belief; I think you're free to have it -- and the First Amendment supports it. But if your conduct moves beyond a mere belief, to some active assistance in furthering the goals of Al Qaeda, would you be on steady ground ???
Is this really true though ???
Aside from someone who may have met their own demise because of their proximity to someone else who had been targeted presumably because of his/her "active" support of those at war with the U.S., who do you know of that was "targeted" for mere belief ???
If that has happened, I condemn it. But, you seem to be saying people are targeted for "mere belief" -- and I'm saying I am not aware of that.
Do you have something along the lines of proof that is the case; something more than just speculation ???
And you know that ("just because he supported or belonged") how ???
Is that just opinion or do you have some kind of proof ???
Again, if you're right; if he just held such beliefs but no action towards causing his beliefs to materialize, I'm with you.
But how do YOU know that was the extent of his activity ??? If its based upon "skepticism" -- do you have something that at least smells like smoke, i.e., that says al-Awlaki was not engaged in building bombs, training suicide bombers, or openly espousing the use of terrorism ???
,
Al-Alwaki was a propogandist. But he was also a US citizen.... and we should be highly alarmed by the incredible loose and mercurial standards we use to empoy drones. For example, assuming you have no misgivings about the US killing it's own citizens when they become propagandists for our "enemies". how comfortable are you with us killing their children? Alawki's son (also a US citizen) was killed in the same strike.
This drone policy is a disaster Que.
Read up sir.
Relevant articles (1)* be sure to read the NYT article linked within this piece.(2) (3)
Well... I've already conceded that both parties are largely homogeneous when it comes to foreign policy. They mostly have tonal differences but their ultimate aims are dominated by the same corporate/imperial interests. I guess my biggest concern with your posts here is that you've criticized Dems/Obama with something that the Republicans are just as (if not more) guilty of.
I just find your criticism here a little disingenuous man. That's all.
Be consistent.
Without question I will read the articles. But let's be clear, I don't think I've ever said that the drone program or policy is a success or that it is optimal. And, if I haven't said it, I will here -- the drone policy most definitely needs to be examined, if not re-examined. I believe there are fundamental questions that need to be explored, a few of which I mentioned here, that I believe need to be considered/debated in the course of formulating the policy.
You imply that Al-Alwaki was a mere propagandist. Perhaps, so. But I think there needs to be definition or at least clarity as to what acts, regardless of the words used to describe them, go beyond passiveness such that they make the actor a participant to the point where, irregardless of the persons nationality, that person has exposed himself to the same treatment, whatever that may be under the circumstances, that any other combatant might suffer, under the same or similar circumstances.
.
Fair enough Que,
Alwaki and Samir Khan (killed in the same strike) were both targeted for being "master propagandists". Unfortunately Alwaki's 16 year old (US citizen) son was killed as well. Partly because the current standard labels any male "of fighiting age" in the vicinity of a terror suspect a "combatant". Crazy, crazy stuff.
It's the same rationale we use to bomb the daylights out of funerals and weddings (a tactic our own State Dept calls "terrorism"... when employed by the bad guys of course).
I was hoping the OP would have responded to the "is that all it takes" comment, but he didn't (sometimes thats my way of extending a challenge to do what you've done here), so thank you for taking up that mantle.
What we have here are what I call "Fact Questions" (facts that need to be resolved, by someone) -- and I don't know if any of us really know what happened (as I said, I will read the articles you pointed out, in that regard) but I also know from a bit of experience that what intelligence knows (or, thinks it knows) rarely reaches public consumption. Of course, I have to admit that the lack of sunshine on the whole process makes us all wonder what is really happening, especially when we've learned over the years that the facts are not always what government say they are. That tells me, that there has to be some kind of oversight (i.e., FISA-like proceedings) over the process (that promotes at least some degree of public confidence), which, based on whats come to light thus far, seems to be lacking in the drone program.
.
Bro, I don't want to sound callous and I don't think that I am (notwithstanding how it might sound -- LOL) but one of the most unfortunate (no, probably THE MOST unfortunate) aspect of war is that inevitably and assuredly, innocents will most certainly suffer. That fact should also be taken into consideration in the formation of the policy (especially with respect to drones because of the increased likelihood that innocents will be harmed when the human eye is so distant from the action).
.
No problem.
Great points. The lack of transparency is definitely fuelling a lot of the criticism. It's also understandable that this sort of thing doesn't necessarily lend itself to public scrutiny.
Also... just to clarify. Alwaki and Khan were known propagandists affiliated with Al Qaeda. According to gov sources... Alwaki himself was a mid level operative who was targeted for his particularly effective brand of English speaking propaganda.
No doubt bruh. You don't sound callous. I'm very familiar with wages of war. But I happen to think this "war on terror" is largely a farce... and that our current policy virtually guarantees more blowback and instability.
FAA moves toward creating 6 drone test sites in US
FAA moves toward creating 6 drone test sites in US
By JOAN LOWY | Associated Press – Thu, Feb 14, 2013
WASHINGTON (AP) — In a major step toward opening U.S. skies to thousands of unmanned drones, federal officials Thursday solicited proposals to create six drone test sites around the country.
The Federal Aviation Administration also posted online a draft plan for protecting people's privacy from the eyes in the sky. The plan would require each test site to follow federal and state laws and make a privacy policy publicly available.
Privacy advocates worry that a proliferation of drones will lead to a "surveillance society" in which the movements of Americans are routinely monitored, tracked, recorded and scrutinized by the authorities.
The military has come to rely heavily on drones overseas. Now there is tremendous demand to use drones in the U.S. for all kinds of tasks that are too dirty, dull or dangerous for manned aircraft. Drones, which range from the size of a hummingbird to the high-flying Globalhawks that weigh about 15,000 pounds without fuel, also are often cheaper than manned aircraft. The biggest market is expected to be state and local police departments.
The FAA is required by a law enacted a year ago to develop sites where civilian and military drones can be tested in preparation for integration into U.S. airspace that's currently limited to manned aircraft.
The law also requires that the FAA allow drones wide access to U.S. airspace by 2015, but the agency is behind schedule, and it's doubtful it will meet the deadline, the Transportation Department's inspector general said in a report last year.
The test sites are planned to evaluate what requirements are needed to ensure the drones don't collide with planes or endanger people or property on the ground. Remotely controlled drones don't have a pilot who can see other aircraft the way an onboard plane or helicopter pilot can.
There's also concern that links between drones and their on-the-ground operators can be broken or hacked, causing the operator to lose control of the drone. Military drones use encrypted GPS signals for navigation, which protects them from hacking, but the GPS signals used by civilian drones don't have that protection.
"Our focus is on maintaining and improving the safety and efficiency of the world's largest aviation system," Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said in a statement. "This research will give us valuable information about how best to ensure the safe introduction of this advanced technology into our nation's skies."
The test sites are also expected to boost the local economy of the communities where they are located. About two dozen government-industry partnerships have been formed over the past year to compete for the sites.
"Today's announcement by the FAA is an important milestone on the path toward unlocking the potential of unmanned aircraft and creating thousands of American jobs," said Michael Toscano, president and CEO of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International.
"States across the country have been eager to receive this FAA designation because they recognize the incredible economic and job creation potential it would bring with it," he said in a statement.
Industry experts predict the takeoff of a multibillion-dollar market for civilian drones as soon as the FAA completes regulations to make sure they don't pose a safety hazard to other aircraft. Potential civilian users are as varied as the drones themselves. Power companies want them to monitor transmission lines. Farmers want to fly them over fields to detect which crops need water. Ranchers want them to count cows. Film companies want to use drones to help make movies. Journalists are exploring drones' newsgathering potential.
The FAA plans to begin integrating drones starting with small aircraft weighing less than about 55 pounds. The agency forecasts an estimated 10,000 civilian drones will be in use in the U.S. within five years.
The Defense Department says the demand for drones and their expanding missions requires routine and unfettered access to domestic airspace, including around airports and cities, for military testing and training. Currently, the military tests drones in specially designated swaths of airspace in mostly remote parts of the country where they are likely to encounter relatively few other aircraft.
The Customs and Border Patrol uses drones along the U.S.-Mexico border. And the FAA has granted several hundred permits to universities, police departments and other government agencies to use small, low-flying drones. For example, the sheriff's department in Montgomery County, Texas, has a 50-pound ShadowHawk helicopter drone intended to supplement its SWAT team.
The sheriff's department hasn't armed its drone, although the ShadowHawk can be equipped with a 40 mm grenade launcher and a 12-guage shotgun. The prospect of armed drones patrolling U.S. skies has alarmed some lawmakers and their constituents. More than a dozen bills have been introduced in Congress and state legislatures to curb drone use and protect privacy.
President Barack Obama was asked Thursday about concerns that the administration believes it's legal to strike American citizens abroad with drones and whether that's allowed against citizens in the U.S. If not, how would he create a legal framework to help citizens know drone strikes can't be used against them?
"There's never been a drone used on an American citizen on American soil," the president said, speaking during an online chat sponsored by Google in which he was promoting his policy initiatives.
"We respect and have a whole bunch of safeguards in terms of how we conduct counterterrorism operations outside of the United States. The rules outside of the United States are going to be different than the rules inside the United States, in part because our capacity, for example, to capture terrorists in the United States are very different than in the foothills or mountains of Afghanistan or Pakistan."
He said he would work with Congress to make sure the American public understands "what the constraints are, what the legal parameters are, and that's something that I take very seriously."
Earlier this week, an FAA official told a meeting of potential test site bidders that aviation regulations prohibit dropping anything from aircraft, which could be interpreted to bar arming civilian drones, according to an industry official present at the meeting who requested anonymity because he wasn't authorized to speak publicly.
http://news.yahoo.com/faa-moves-toward-creating-6-drone-test-sites-220301879--politics.html
FAA moves toward creating 6 drone test sites in US
By JOAN LOWY | Associated Press – Thu, Feb 14, 2013
WASHINGTON (AP) — In a major step toward opening U.S. skies to thousands of unmanned drones, federal officials Thursday solicited proposals to create six drone test sites around the country.
The Federal Aviation Administration also posted online a draft plan for protecting people's privacy from the eyes in the sky. The plan would require each test site to follow federal and state laws and make a privacy policy publicly available.
Privacy advocates worry that a proliferation of drones will lead to a "surveillance society" in which the movements of Americans are routinely monitored, tracked, recorded and scrutinized by the authorities.
The military has come to rely heavily on drones overseas. Now there is tremendous demand to use drones in the U.S. for all kinds of tasks that are too dirty, dull or dangerous for manned aircraft. Drones, which range from the size of a hummingbird to the high-flying Globalhawks that weigh about 15,000 pounds without fuel, also are often cheaper than manned aircraft. The biggest market is expected to be state and local police departments.
The FAA is required by a law enacted a year ago to develop sites where civilian and military drones can be tested in preparation for integration into U.S. airspace that's currently limited to manned aircraft.
The law also requires that the FAA allow drones wide access to U.S. airspace by 2015, but the agency is behind schedule, and it's doubtful it will meet the deadline, the Transportation Department's inspector general said in a report last year.
The test sites are planned to evaluate what requirements are needed to ensure the drones don't collide with planes or endanger people or property on the ground. Remotely controlled drones don't have a pilot who can see other aircraft the way an onboard plane or helicopter pilot can.
There's also concern that links between drones and their on-the-ground operators can be broken or hacked, causing the operator to lose control of the drone. Military drones use encrypted GPS signals for navigation, which protects them from hacking, but the GPS signals used by civilian drones don't have that protection.
"Our focus is on maintaining and improving the safety and efficiency of the world's largest aviation system," Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said in a statement. "This research will give us valuable information about how best to ensure the safe introduction of this advanced technology into our nation's skies."
The test sites are also expected to boost the local economy of the communities where they are located. About two dozen government-industry partnerships have been formed over the past year to compete for the sites.
"Today's announcement by the FAA is an important milestone on the path toward unlocking the potential of unmanned aircraft and creating thousands of American jobs," said Michael Toscano, president and CEO of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International.
"States across the country have been eager to receive this FAA designation because they recognize the incredible economic and job creation potential it would bring with it," he said in a statement.
Industry experts predict the takeoff of a multibillion-dollar market for civilian drones as soon as the FAA completes regulations to make sure they don't pose a safety hazard to other aircraft. Potential civilian users are as varied as the drones themselves. Power companies want them to monitor transmission lines. Farmers want to fly them over fields to detect which crops need water. Ranchers want them to count cows. Film companies want to use drones to help make movies. Journalists are exploring drones' newsgathering potential.
The FAA plans to begin integrating drones starting with small aircraft weighing less than about 55 pounds. The agency forecasts an estimated 10,000 civilian drones will be in use in the U.S. within five years.
The Defense Department says the demand for drones and their expanding missions requires routine and unfettered access to domestic airspace, including around airports and cities, for military testing and training. Currently, the military tests drones in specially designated swaths of airspace in mostly remote parts of the country where they are likely to encounter relatively few other aircraft.
The Customs and Border Patrol uses drones along the U.S.-Mexico border. And the FAA has granted several hundred permits to universities, police departments and other government agencies to use small, low-flying drones. For example, the sheriff's department in Montgomery County, Texas, has a 50-pound ShadowHawk helicopter drone intended to supplement its SWAT team.
The sheriff's department hasn't armed its drone, although the ShadowHawk can be equipped with a 40 mm grenade launcher and a 12-guage shotgun. The prospect of armed drones patrolling U.S. skies has alarmed some lawmakers and their constituents. More than a dozen bills have been introduced in Congress and state legislatures to curb drone use and protect privacy.
President Barack Obama was asked Thursday about concerns that the administration believes it's legal to strike American citizens abroad with drones and whether that's allowed against citizens in the U.S. If not, how would he create a legal framework to help citizens know drone strikes can't be used against them?
"There's never been a drone used on an American citizen on American soil," the president said, speaking during an online chat sponsored by Google in which he was promoting his policy initiatives.
"We respect and have a whole bunch of safeguards in terms of how we conduct counterterrorism operations outside of the United States. The rules outside of the United States are going to be different than the rules inside the United States, in part because our capacity, for example, to capture terrorists in the United States are very different than in the foothills or mountains of Afghanistan or Pakistan."
He said he would work with Congress to make sure the American public understands "what the constraints are, what the legal parameters are, and that's something that I take very seriously."
Earlier this week, an FAA official told a meeting of potential test site bidders that aviation regulations prohibit dropping anything from aircraft, which could be interpreted to bar arming civilian drones, according to an industry official present at the meeting who requested anonymity because he wasn't authorized to speak publicly.
http://news.yahoo.com/faa-moves-toward-creating-6-drone-test-sites-220301879--politics.html
Court Upholds Domestic Drone Use in Arrest of American Citizen
A motion to dismiss charges based on the use of a Predator drone was denied Wednesday
By JASON KOEBLER
August 2, 2012
A North Dakota court has preliminarily upheld the first-ever use of an unmanned drone to assist in the arrest of an American citizen.
A judge denied a request to dismiss charges Wednesday against Rodney Brossart, a man arrested last year after a 16-hour standoff with police at his Lakota, N.D., ranch. Brossart's lawyer argued that law enforcement's "warrantless use of [an] unmanned military-like surveillance aircraft" and "outrageous governmental conduct" warranted dismissal of the case, according to court documents obtained by U.S. News.
District Judge Joel Medd wrote that "there was no improper use of an unmanned aerial vehicle" and that the drone "appears to have had no bearing on these charges being contested here," according to the documents.
Court records state that last June, six cows wandered onto Brossart's 3,000 acre farm, about 60 miles west of Grand Forks. Brossart allegedly refused to return the cows, which led to a long, armed standoff with the Grand Forks police department. At some point during the standoff, Homeland Security, through an agreement with local police, offered up the use of an unmanned predator drone, which "was used for surveillance," according to the court documents.
Grand Forks SWAT team chief Bill Macki said in an interview that the drone was used to ensure Brossart and his family members, who were also charged, didn't leave the farm and were unarmed during the arresting raid.
Brossart faces felony terrorizing and theft of property charges and a misdemeanor criminal mischief charge. Although his charges weren't dismissed, Brossart won a motion to move the trial from Nelson County—which has a population of 3,100—to nearby Grand Forks County.
Brossart is believed to be the only American citizen who was arrested with the assistance of a drone on U.S. soil. John Villasenor, of the Washington, D.C.-based Brookings Institution, says the legality of domestic drone use likely stems from two Supreme Court cases that allow police to use "public, navigable airspace" for evidence gathering.
Domestic drone use has become a controversial topic over the past several months, with Congress directing the Federal Aviation Administration to devise guidelines for proper drone use.
Wednesday, Massachusetts Democrat Rep. Edward Markey released a draft of a bill that would require private drone operators to inform the government of any data collected by drones and would require law enforcement to "minimize the collection … of information and data unrelated to the investigation of a crime."
States are "increasingly using unmanned aircraft systems in the United States, including deployments for law enforcement operations," according to the bill. There "is the potential for unmanned aircraft system technology to enable invasive and pervasive surveillance without adequate privacy protections."
In April, Brossart told U.S. News that he thought the SWAT team use of the drone was "definitely" illegal. Some estimates suggest that there may be as many as 30,000 unmanned drones operated in the United States by 2020 for uses such as wildfire containment and surveillance, law enforcement, and surveying.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...estic-drone-use-in-arrest-of-american-citizen
Court Upholds Domestic Drone Use in Arrest of American Citizen
A motion to dismiss charges based on the use of a Predator drone was denied Wednesday
By JASON KOEBLER
August 2, 2012
A North Dakota court has preliminarily upheld the first-ever use of an unmanned drone to assist in the arrest of an American citizen.
A judge denied a request to dismiss charges Wednesday against Rodney Brossart, a man arrested last year after a 16-hour standoff with police at his Lakota, N.D., ranch. Brossart's lawyer argued that law enforcement's "warrantless use of [an] unmanned military-like surveillance aircraft" and "outrageous governmental conduct" warranted dismissal of the case, according to court documents obtained by U.S. News.
District Judge Joel Medd wrote that "there was no improper use of an unmanned aerial vehicle" and that the drone "appears to have had no bearing on these charges being contested here," according to the documents.
Court records state that last June, six cows wandered onto Brossart's 3,000 acre farm, about 60 miles west of Grand Forks. Brossart allegedly refused to return the cows, which led to a long, armed standoff with the Grand Forks police department. At some point during the standoff, Homeland Security, through an agreement with local police, offered up the use of an unmanned predator drone, which "was used for surveillance," according to the court documents.
Grand Forks SWAT team chief Bill Macki said in an interview that the drone was used to ensure Brossart and his family members, who were also charged, didn't leave the farm and were unarmed during the arresting raid.
Brossart faces felony terrorizing and theft of property charges and a misdemeanor criminal mischief charge. Although his charges weren't dismissed, Brossart won a motion to move the trial from Nelson County—which has a population of 3,100—to nearby Grand Forks County.
Brossart is believed to be the only American citizen who was arrested with the assistance of a drone on U.S. soil. John Villasenor, of the Washington, D.C.-based Brookings Institution, says the legality of domestic drone use likely stems from two Supreme Court cases that allow police to use "public, navigable airspace" for evidence gathering.
Domestic drone use has become a controversial topic over the past several months, with Congress directing the Federal Aviation Administration to devise guidelines for proper drone use.
Wednesday, Massachusetts Democrat Rep. Edward Markey released a draft of a bill that would require private drone operators to inform the government of any data collected by drones and would require law enforcement to "minimize the collection … of information and data unrelated to the investigation of a crime."
States are "increasingly using unmanned aircraft systems in the United States, including deployments for law enforcement operations," according to the bill. There "is the potential for unmanned aircraft system technology to enable invasive and pervasive surveillance without adequate privacy protections."
In April, Brossart told U.S. News that he thought the SWAT team use of the drone was "definitely" illegal. Some estimates suggest that there may be as many as 30,000 unmanned drones operated in the United States by 2020 for uses such as wildfire containment and surveillance, law enforcement, and surveying.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...estic-drone-use-in-arrest-of-american-citizen
Lindsey Graham: Drone Strikes Have Killed 4,700 People
Amanda Terkel
Posted: 02/21/2013 1:01 pm EST
WASHINGTON -- Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) estimated that the United States has killed 4,700 people in drone strikes, saying he supported the Obama administration's program.
"We've killed 4,700," Graham told the Easley Rotary Club in South Carolina on Tuesday afternoon. "Sometimes you hit innocent people, and I hate that, but we're at war, and we've taken out some very senior members of al Qaeda.”
His comments were first reported by Easley Patch.
Wired's Spencer Ackerman noted that Graham's comments were significant, because they were "the first public death toll provided by a U.S. government official for the signature method of killing in the U.S.’ sprawling, global counterterrorism campaign."
But Graham spokesman Kevin Bishop insisted to The Huffington Post that the senator was simply citing publicly available information from the London-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism. Earlier this month, MSNBC also cited the 4,700 figure (around 6:39 in the video).
Micah Zenko at the Council on Foreign Relations said the number Graham cited is the Bureau of Investigative Journalism's "highest estimated range for 'total reported killed' in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia: 4,756." Estimates put forward by other independent groups are significantly lower, although as Ackerman pointed out, the Bureau's number doesn't include drone strikes in Afghanistan and Iraq -- which could push the toll higher.
The federal government has refused to give any death toll at all. The Obama administration currently takes the position that it can use drones to strike U.S. citizens deemed threats overseas and that it has no legal obligation to admit it, even after the fact.
Graham also told the Rotary audience that he believes the drone program "has been very effective" and is against adding additional layers of judicial oversight.
"I can't imagine in World War II for Roosevelt to have gone to a bunch of judges and said, 'I need your permission before we can attack the enemy,'" Graham said.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/21/lindsey-graham-drone-strikes_n_2734133.html
Amanda Terkel
Posted: 02/21/2013 1:01 pm EST
WASHINGTON -- Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) estimated that the United States has killed 4,700 people in drone strikes, saying he supported the Obama administration's program.
"We've killed 4,700," Graham told the Easley Rotary Club in South Carolina on Tuesday afternoon. "Sometimes you hit innocent people, and I hate that, but we're at war, and we've taken out some very senior members of al Qaeda.”
His comments were first reported by Easley Patch.
Wired's Spencer Ackerman noted that Graham's comments were significant, because they were "the first public death toll provided by a U.S. government official for the signature method of killing in the U.S.’ sprawling, global counterterrorism campaign."
But Graham spokesman Kevin Bishop insisted to The Huffington Post that the senator was simply citing publicly available information from the London-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism. Earlier this month, MSNBC also cited the 4,700 figure (around 6:39 in the video).
Micah Zenko at the Council on Foreign Relations said the number Graham cited is the Bureau of Investigative Journalism's "highest estimated range for 'total reported killed' in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia: 4,756." Estimates put forward by other independent groups are significantly lower, although as Ackerman pointed out, the Bureau's number doesn't include drone strikes in Afghanistan and Iraq -- which could push the toll higher.
The federal government has refused to give any death toll at all. The Obama administration currently takes the position that it can use drones to strike U.S. citizens deemed threats overseas and that it has no legal obligation to admit it, even after the fact.
Graham also told the Rotary audience that he believes the drone program "has been very effective" and is against adding additional layers of judicial oversight.
"I can't imagine in World War II for Roosevelt to have gone to a bunch of judges and said, 'I need your permission before we can attack the enemy,'" Graham said.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/21/lindsey-graham-drone-strikes_n_2734133.html
Iran condemns Boston but criticizes US policy
Iran condemns Boston but criticizes US policy
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI | Associated Press
Wed, Apr 17, 2013
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iran's top leader condemned the twin bombing attacks in Boston but at the same time charged that U.S. policies employ a double standard when it comes to its drone attacks that kill innocent civilians.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Iran is opposed to the killing of innocent people, whether in Boston, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq or Syria.
"The Islamic Republic of Iran, which follows the logic of Islam, is opposed to any bombings and killings of innocent people no matter it is in Boston, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq or Syria and condemns it," he said.
Khamenei, who was addressing Iranian military commanders in Tehran, criticized the U.S. for killing people with drones in Pakistan and Afghanistan and backing forces that kill others in Iraq and Syria.
"What kind of logic is this that if children and women are killed by Americans in Afghanistan and Pakistan and by U.S.-backed terrorists in Iraq and Syria is not a problem but if a bombing happens in the U.S. or another Western country, the whole world should pay the cost?" he asked. His comments were posted
"The U.S. and others claiming to support human rights remain silent towards the massacre of innocent people in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria but create global controversy when explosions occur in the U.S.," he said.
Iran is the chief regional ally of Syrian President Bashar Assad and is considered close to Iraq's Shiite Muslim-dominated government.
Khamenei charged that Western civilization was collapsing because of such double standards.
"Western civilization is on the verge of collapse and downfall because of contradictions, lack of logic, coercions and lack of care for human principles," he said.
http://news.yahoo.com/iran-condemns-boston-criticizes-us-policy-153125547.html
Iran condemns Boston but criticizes US policy
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI | Associated Press
Wed, Apr 17, 2013
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iran's top leader condemned the twin bombing attacks in Boston but at the same time charged that U.S. policies employ a double standard when it comes to its drone attacks that kill innocent civilians.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Iran is opposed to the killing of innocent people, whether in Boston, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq or Syria.
"The Islamic Republic of Iran, which follows the logic of Islam, is opposed to any bombings and killings of innocent people no matter it is in Boston, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq or Syria and condemns it," he said.
Khamenei, who was addressing Iranian military commanders in Tehran, criticized the U.S. for killing people with drones in Pakistan and Afghanistan and backing forces that kill others in Iraq and Syria.
"What kind of logic is this that if children and women are killed by Americans in Afghanistan and Pakistan and by U.S.-backed terrorists in Iraq and Syria is not a problem but if a bombing happens in the U.S. or another Western country, the whole world should pay the cost?" he asked. His comments were posted
"The U.S. and others claiming to support human rights remain silent towards the massacre of innocent people in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria but create global controversy when explosions occur in the U.S.," he said.
Iran is the chief regional ally of Syrian President Bashar Assad and is considered close to Iraq's Shiite Muslim-dominated government.
Khamenei charged that Western civilization was collapsing because of such double standards.
"Western civilization is on the verge of collapse and downfall because of contradictions, lack of logic, coercions and lack of care for human principles," he said.
http://news.yahoo.com/iran-condemns-boston-criticizes-us-policy-153125547.html
Re: Iran condemns Boston but criticizes US policy
Does Iran condemn the stoning of women?
Does Iran condemn the stoning of women?
CIA didn't always know who it was killing in drone strikes, classified documents show
<IFRAME SRC="http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/05/18781930-exclusive-cia-didnt-always-know-who-it-was-killing-in-drone-strikes-classified-documents-show" WIDTH=860 HEIGHT=1400></IFRAME>
<IFRAME SRC="http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/05/18781930-exclusive-cia-didnt-always-know-who-it-was-killing-in-drone-strikes-classified-documents-show" WIDTH=860 HEIGHT=1400></IFRAME>
Similar threads
