Fresh off of an interview yesterday in which he shrugged off civilian killings in the US drone war, top White House adviser John O. Brennan was ordered to provide more “openness” on the program at a speech today in Washington.
This time, Brennan centered on the legality of the strikes, insisting that not only does the Constitution allow the president to assassinate people anywhere on the planet, but that the drone program was “legal, ethical and wise.”
Brennan went on to insist that there was “nothing in international law” that prohibits launching attacks on “enemies” outside of actual battlegrounds. Several organizations took issue with this and his other claims.
The ACLU took issue in particular with the claim that secret discussions within the executive branch on who to assassinate constituted “due process,” while urging the White House to release the Justice Department memos on how they came to the conclusion that such things were legal.
Amnesty International’s counterterrorism head Tom Parker, a former top British official, said that drones were clearly a “legitimate weapon of war” but said that there was a “problem” with declaring the whole planet a battlezone.
Human Rights Watch also criticized the comments, saying that “direct participation [in] hostilities is the test for lethal targeting under international humanitarian law,” and that this would preclude attacking people outside of the actual warzones.
Hang on here, the arguement is that the leader of a country has the Authority on his or her own initiative to using say a missile of some sort against a country that it is not at war with but has persons that are or may in the future attack the first country then it is legal for the head of state to without a lawful declaration of War and remember the AUMF isnt a declaration of War, according to comments by hte Justices of the Supreme Court in the hearing stages of Hamdin V Rumsfeld, that went something like this WAR WHAT WAR WE ARE NOT AT WAR!
According to that scenario the attack on 9/11 being alledgedly OKayed by the Head of the Ruling Taliban was in fact legal under the constitution of Afghanistan wasnt an international crime,
Now what part of that second scenario is wrong? The sam,e as the First part where America THINKS it has the right to declare War on the Planet and that is what they have done because they are not attacking Terrorists in the majority they are attacking CIVILIANS with CIVILIANS itself an act of Terrorism! Also a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions and that is both US and International law!
Medea Benjamin made the CBS radio news this evening. You can here her protesting loudly the "shame" of drone strikes during the press conference. I missed the evening TV news. Wonder if they had anything on the drone war and or protest?
Unfortunately for Brennan and other American assassins, the American constitution does not determine international law. Where in international law is a country allowed to violate the borders of another sovereign state without declaring war on the same. Extrajudicial assassination has been used recently by Israel to promote its policies but should never have become an option for the USA which is steeped in Christian tradition.
Being "steeped in Christian tradition" is the problem. As Mark Twain put it, "If Jesus were alive today, the last thing he'd be is a Christian". That may be a little harsh, but "Christians" are some of the most blood-thirsty people around. These people rarely follow his precepts (love your enemy, ALL men are your neighbors, etc.). Instead, they lynch people or do pogroms or start wars or carpet-bomb citys. All of which is why I now call myself either a Buddhist or a Deist (labels don't really matter).
Many but not all Christians are as you say. I've met my fair share of idiots whether they care to believe in some deity or not. Let us not forget that Stalin and Mao were no deists and helped shuttle off this mortal coil tens of millions all in pursuit of making the "new man".
John O. Brennan is an ignorant shill. Period. Indiscriminate murder is neither "legal, ethical, or wise." Asshats the likes of Brennan, only render the utter immoral posture of U.S. war criminality as begging the question. When, oh when, do the war crimes tribunals begin?
Blazing Balls of Boaz, the urge to scream and hurl vulgar epithets is almost overwhelming.
Slaughter/terrorism is just that, no matter what lies and spin is put on it ! Fascist. imperialist amerika, at war with the World, is easily #1 in World terrorism !
I agree, but have at it. Hurling vulgar epithets at those most deserving can almost be cathartic. Almost.
The terrorist is an elephant or a donkey, red or blue, what difference does it make? Nations need to be able to shoot these things down, if they are at all interested in protecting their populaces. After all, it isn't like real living people are actually riding inside them.
Shooting drones down is not that hard, but that will bring F16's and B52's, shooting them down is hard but possible, but that will bring ICBMs tipped with you know what.
Only Americans can save the world from the likes of Bush and Obama, but will we?
Vote for Ron Paul?
Good terrorism — The worst of all evils
The principle behind drone warfare is the rational that the best way to overcome terrorism is by greater terrorism. The logic fails me, but that is the concept of it and their reason in the doing of it.
May I suggest a rationale? Preventing the apparent illegitimacy of the American regime to be commonly apprehended and acted upon.
Bush had Yoo, who said we could torture anyone we wanted as long as it didn't cause organ failure or death. Obama has Potassium Hydroxide, far more corrosive, who says he can kill anyone he wants, and that person's children as well.
The rationale is that if the president believes someone to be a terrorist, the president can order his summary execution in any country. US and international law, and the domestic laws of the nation where the murder takes place, can be abrogated by the president.
Now let's think about that reasoning. Suppose President Zardari gets ticked off about us killing so many of his citizens, which is clearly terrorism, and orders a hit on Obama. By Obama's reasoning, he would not only be justified, but could throw in the girls for good measure.
Americans would rightly be outraged, but by the reasoning they have already accepted, it would be justified. It's sick casuistry no matter who propounds it.
CassandraSpeaks,
There’s a big difference between real terrorists, like the ones now terrorizing Syria, and someone who opposes the US policies, noting that the US calls those who oppose its policies terrorists. The father and son murdered in Yemen belonged to the latter group.
But, as we see, it doesn't matter if you pull a trigger or write an article- you're still a Terrorist(tm) to the Establishment. You cannot be allowed to continue to speak out against Our Dear Leader (whoever he may be at the time) and expect to get away with it. If you speak, you're a terrorist. If you defend yourself verbally or physically, you're a terrorist.
Pretty soon, if Joe Sixpack and Suzy Boxwine get called Terrorists(tm) enough time, maybe they'll start acting like them.
Turner Diaries, anyone?
Drones as weapons could also be said to be "unusual punishment".
The whole idea and action of drones should be abandoned now before they become so infested in everyday life that nobody is safe and nobody is safe from their spying abilities.
They just announced a new Drone program along the US/Canada border from North Dakota to Eastern Washington. They are using the excuse of "natural disasters" and "drug interdiction".
They aren't going to say "We started the US/Canada border Drones so we can keep an eye out for all those militia groups". From N Dakota to E Washington is known as a hotbead of Militias, which the US gov't has always seen as a threat.
It looks like they may be preparing to "clean out" the entire NW and N Central areas of those they deem "dissident". First they will have to start demonizing a certain rogue element…maybe provide them with assistance in a T'ist attack (like they have done with some of unsuspecting muslims).
You can see how they needed a man of color (and a Democrat) to do their next step of dirty work. It would not work for a White Republican president. You can see how the Elites shift back and forth between Republican and Democrat depending on what their goals are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesuitism
My God! What does an "official" statement like that from the White House really mean? The entire world knows exactly what the drone strikes are – such official statements makes the White House itself look illegal and unethical. Have they no pride?
Pride? Oh they've plenty of that and other stuff as well. No… pride isn't a problem for them. Consider how they'd howl like banshees were a drone to take out the Prez and family. No hypocrisy there, eh?
Nice picture of the beast himself, by the way!
"…“legal, ethical and wise…”
Not friggin' likely. I guess the lawyers who signed off on this were the same lawyers who signed off on Bush/Cheney's "torture is legal" writ.
Al_Dove
“As Mark Twain put it, ‘If Jesus were alive today, the last thing he’d be is a Christian.’”
Early Christians gave all their wealth to the poor and were pacifists who obeyed the command, “Do not use force to overcome evil. If they strike you on the right cheek…” Whereas, modern Christians use a Bible riddled with contradictions, all Bibles being published by the rich and so corrupt as to command us to bear the sword for government, join the church and receive much wealth in this lifetime, etc;.
The biggest instigator of terror, and turmoil in the world today is the US. These drone attacks are acts of state sponsered terrorism against a fabricated enemy. One must hope that Obama, and all of those war criminals who support such barbarity end up in the Hague, or as a victim of their own sociopathy.
Whew what a relief, I didn't want to think the wanton murder of civilians by the US was ever, ever against the law!!
(gimme a break, the black guy is WORSE THAN BUSH in many insidious ways)
Very ethical! And soon in America if you happen to be driving along the road and happen to pass a drug dealer driving the other way when a drone hits them, oh well. You must of been up to no good as well!
This is called 'creating a new normal". This is what the presidency of the man who promised to be different is all about. It is about taking the nastiest., most vicious behaviour, and making it acceptable to the "progressive" and "liberal" crowd. The persona he was marketing may still work for the aging baby boomers, but the young generations may be more matter of fact — and dump the salesman of hope. Will his laywers now push for the first amendment rights for the drone?. Going global will only be a matter of free expression for the drone, carrying out humanitarian campaign and protecting the masses fromtyrants and oppressors! What a noble mission. If only WE, the real, live INDIVIDUALS could get EQUAL RIGHTS as a corporate individual, we could deduct all expenses of "maintaning our "work unit' to be work-ready and profit-making.
Well said Bianca. I have many friends who loathed the Bush presidency, the unlawful wars, the unlawful detaining of suspects, the unlawful erosion of civil liberties at home…but they don't have much of a problem when the Obomber Admin. does it, in fact they use the same watered-down arguements to defend them that the Republicans used to defend Bush.
Scary and dangerous are the hypocrites…
The only constitution in the entire world that allows its president or leader to murder is the Mafia constitution.
Don't forget that taxpayers are forced to fund the drone strikes. Pointing this out to those who somehow believe the strikes to be acceptable might be a more effective way to put an end to the violence.
since those strikes are legal and ethical i wish for any foreign goverment whos citicents are being bombarded by american drones to come forward and aim some missiles at american citicens on their own soil. this would clearly be an act of terrorrism then. after all, by obamas theory, every american is guilty because they are the ones financing this.
Drone Strikes = Terrorism without the risk of harm, the cowards ultimate murder weapon.
Unmanned drones make hijackers that crash planes into buildings look almost heroic .
Land of the free and the home of the brave my ass..
Get over it, there terrorists won and you voted them into office.