PRESIDENT OBAMA'S SECRET KILL LIST

The Obama Administration has been maintaining a secretive list of targets to attack as part of the surgical drone strike program. There are claims that this process is very precise and only targets militants - a claim that will be examined more below. Some argue that this process has a "take no prisoners approach," with more emphasis on killing than detaining. "While scores of subjects have been killed under Mr. Obama, only one has been taken into American custody, and the president has balked at adding new prisoners to Guantanamo (New York Times)."

Yet what exactly defines a terrorist? Is there a strict set of legal guidelines that dictates who is a terrorist and who is not? Or is the process arbitrary? Much of this decision making process is highly secretive, so it is hard to tell.

"Mr. Obama has placed himself at the helm of a top secret "nominations" process to designate terrorists for kill or capture...Mr Obama is the liberal law professor who campaigned against the Iraq war and torture, and then insisted on approving every new name on an expanding "kill list," poring over terrorist suspects' biographies on what one official calls the macabre "baseball cards" of an unconventional war (New York Times)."

 

OBAMA'S DRONE STRIKES EXCEED BUSH ADMINISTRATION LEVELS

Many people elected Barack Obama into office because they saw him as a more peaceful alternative to George Bush's aggressive military policies. Yet Barack Obama has actually launched more drone strikes than his predecessor.

"During the Bush administration, there was an American drone attack in Pakistan every 43 days; during the first two years of the Obama administration, there was a drone strike there every four days. And two years into his presidency, the Nobel Peace Prize-winning president was engaged in conflicts in six Muslim countries: Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen and Libya. The man who went to Washington as an “antiwar” president was more Teddy Roosevelt than Jimmy Carter (New York Times)."

 

ZERO CASUALTIES OR HUNDREDS?

In 2011, After much urging from the ACLU to reveal public information on the clandestine Drones Program, the White House's top counter-terrorism advisor John Brennan broke the silence by telling reporters the following: "in the last year 'there hasn't been a single collateral death because of the exceptional proficiency, precision of the capabilities that we've been able to develop (ACLU).'"

However, independent estimates place that number at 3,000 (New America Foundation), a much bigger number than John Brennan's zero. More often than not, the targets are located by a drone that is 30,000 feet in the air. It is not even required for the Defense Department to know the names of the people being targeted.

"Today, the Defense Department can attack suspects in Yemen whose names they don't know (New York Times)."

Which raises the question; How accurate can these strikes really be?

 

DOES THIS KILL LIST HAVE TRANSPARENCY?

When the U.S. monopoly on Drone Warfare was airtight, most of the details of this program were kept out of public view. For example, on March 15th 2013, a three-judge federal appeals court panel unanimously ruled that the CIA gave inadequate response to a lawsuit brought about by the American Civil Liberties Union seeking records about drone strikes (Reuters).

Yet now that China and Russia are expressing interest in developing their own Drone Programs, the White House is becoming more open about establishing a series of global "guidelines" for the program.

White House National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden has said that the administration is committed to explaining to Congress and the public as much as possible about its drone policies, including how decisions to strike are made. "We are constantly working to refine, clarify, and strengthen the process for considering terrorist targets for lethal action," Hayden said. (Reuters).

Yet despite statements about more guidelines and transparency, the standards for getting on the kill list remain fuzzy. "The details are a closely guarded secret - part of a pattern for a president who came into office promising transparency (New York Times)."

 

THEY MUST ALL BE MILITANTS

Who is a militant and who isn't?

"Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent (New York Times)."

Basically, anyone in an area of "known terrorist activity", or seen with a top Al Qaeda operative, are guilty until proven innocent. An anonymous official is quoted as saying, “Al Qaeda is an insular, paranoid organization — innocent neighbors don’t hitchhike rides in the back of trucks headed for the border with guns and bombs (New York Times)."

So basically, what this means, is that anyone seen with a suspected terrorist is a terrorist by association: family members, farmers, doctors, religious officials, etc.

Some top officials have even called this a "Wac-A-Mole" approach to counter-terrorism: "the invention of new category of aerial attack following complaints of careless targeting; and presidential acquiescence in a formula for counting civilian deaths that some officials think is skewed to produce low numbers (New York Times)."

 

A REAL DEFINITION FOR "TERRORIST" REMAINS TO BE SEEN

The State Department has also complained that the criteria used by the C.I.A for identifying a terrorist signature strike is too lax. "The joke was that when the C.I.A. sees 'three guys doing jumping jacks,' the agency thinks it is a terrorist training camp, said one senior [State Department] official. Men loading a truck with fertilizer could be bomb-makers — but they might also be farmers, skeptics argued (New York Times)."

 

DRONE STRIKES ARE FUELING TERRORISM

The Obama Administration is claiming to fight terrorism with these drone strikes. Yet the ultimate irony is that these strikes are actually fueling terrorist activity in the nations they target. There is rising public anger in Pakistan and Yemen over drone strikes. A 2011 poll revealed that over 73% of Pakistanis have an "unfavorable view" of the United States. Obama's covert drone war has succeeded in radicalizing the local population of Yemen, driving tribesmen to join networks linked to terrorist plots against the United States (Common Dreams).

"Drones have replaced Guantanamo as the recruiting tool of choice for militants; in his 2010 guilty plea, Faisal Shazad, who had tried to set off a car bomb in Times Square, justified targeting civilians by telling the judge, 'When the drones hit, they don't see children (New York Times).'"

 

KILLING AMERICAN CITIZENS WITHOUT TRIAL

One of the most controversial outcomes of these surgical drone strikes was the killing of American Citizen Anwar al Awlaki, an American born cleric and Al Qaeda propagandist who was hiding in Yemen. Yes, Anwar was publicly calling for more attacks. Yes, this cleric's sermons even inspired the shootings at Fort Hood. Yet Anwar was an American Citizen who was killed, without a trial, in a country that we were not at war with. He was even killed along with Samir Khan, an American citizen who was not on the kill list, but who was traveling with Anwar.

Obama administration lawyers have asserted that it is lawful to kill a United States citizen if that person was an "informed, high-level official" in Al Qaeda who posed an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States. This was found in a leaked legal document (New York Times).

Anwar's death opens the door to many more questionable uses of power. Is it right for the United States Government to kill anyone, anywhere, who inspires dissent against the United States government without a trial - including their own citizens? Do we have the right to also kill bystanders who may be in the same room as one of these "suspected terrorists"?

 

SIGNATURE STRIKE INVESTIGATION

 

LIVING UNDER DRONES

Also See: Drone 'Signature Strike' Witness Responds To Obama Speech: 'I Don't Trust A Single Word' (Huffington Post, 6-19-13)

 

RELATED LINKS

IMAGES

President Obama's Super Aggressive Drone War in One Graphic (Business Insider, 12-14-13)

 

OBAMA AND DRONES

'Signature Strikes' and Obama's Empty Rhetoric on Drones (Alternet, 7-11-13)

Secret ‘Kill List’ Proves a Test of Obama’s Principles and Will (New York Times, 5-29-12)

Warrior in Chief (New York Times, 4-28-12)

Obama's Drone War on Women and Children (You Tube, 4-13-12)

As drone monopoly frays, Obama seeks global rules (Reuters, 3-17-13)

Chilling legal memo from Obama DOJ justifies assassination of US citizens (The Guardian, 2-5-13)

 

DRONES AND THE U.S

CIA Chief Accused of Murder Over Hangu Drone Strike (Dawn, 11-27-13)

Drone Victims Take on Washington DC (Anti War, 11-15-13)

5 Myths Used to Justify Death by Drone and America's Assassination Policy (Alternet, 8-12-13)

Bureau Investigation Finds Fresh Evidence of CIA Drone Strikes on Rescuers (Common Dreams, 8-1-13)

U.S. Drones Bomb Civilian Rescuers (Business Insider, 7-3-13)

Memo Cites Legal Basis for Killing U.S. Citizens in Al Qaeda (New York Times, 2-5-13)

Civilian Deaths from CIA Drone Strikes: Zero or Dozens? (ACLU, 7-19-11)

 

WARCRIMES AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

U.S. May be Guilty of War Crimes Over Drone Use (RT, 10-22-13)

Q & A: US Targeted Killings and International Law (Human Rights Watch, 12-19-11)

 

PAKISTAN

In Protest Against Unending Drone Attacks, Pakistan Party 'Unmasks' CIA Station Chief (Common Dreams, 11-27-13)

Drone Strikes in Pakistan: Reapers of Their Own Destruction (Common Dreams, 11-25-13)

Afghanistan President Criticizes U.S. Drone Strike that Killed Pakistani Taliban Leader (CNN, 11-4-13)

Drone Kills Taliban Chief Hakimullah Mehsud; Pakistan Accuses U.S. of Derailing Peace Talks (Washington Post, 11-1-13)

Pakistani Political Leader Says NATO Supply Routes Will be Cut if US Drone Strikes Continue (Washington Post, 10-31-13)

Meet the One-Man Legal Machine Pursuing Justice for Pakistani Drone Strike Victims (Alternet, 10-28-13)

Pakistan to Take US Drone Strikes to UN (Press TV, 9-10-13)

No, Says State Dept., Drone Attacks in Pakistan Will Not be Ending 'Very, Very Soon' (Common Dreams, 8-2-13)

Leaked Pakistani Report Confirms High Civilian Death Toll in CIA Drone Strikes (Common Dreams, 7-22-13)

Obama Won't End the Drone War, But Pakistan Might (Al Jazeera, 7-3-13)

 

YEMEN

Drone Attacks Must End, Yemen's Parliaments Says (CNN, 12-15-13)

Drone Attacks in Yemen Hit Mostly Civilians (Al Jazeera, 7-17-13)

New Report Documents the Human Cost of U.S. Drone Strikes in Yemen (Rolling Stone, 7-3-13)

Blowback: In Yemen, US Drone Attacks Backfiring (Common Dreams, 5-30-12)