Daily Beast - "Inside Obama's Killing Machine"

[Scotteq]

Firstly - Please, please read the whole article.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-...rview-on-predator-drones/?cid=topic:featured1



I've quoted a few select paragraphs, since this touches on some subject matter which has been *hotly* debated/contested, not to mention bitched, moaned, and screamed about:


To wit: The "Right~ness" of detaining and (harshly) interrogating terror suspects. Started under GW Bush -

Spoiler

who is the mother of all criminal cock sucking bastards, may he die a lingering death from an interbred virus derived from syphillis and ebola

- and which we have stopped doing due to the outcry (mostly) from the Left.



Versus



Blowing them to smithereens with no warning by remote control from the air, as a result of some bureaucratic process, rather than any direct contact or direct investigation. Let alone a "Trial". A process which was originally an option when an individual was out of reach, but has now hugely expanded under President Obama -

Spoiler

Long May The Legendary Heroes Of Mythology Pale In Comparison To His Kind Courage, Strength, Fortitude, and Wisdom

- and become "The Way The United States Does Business" with overseas terrorists.



In other words: Is it better to detain and aggressively interrogate individuals? Or is it better simply to kill them?

How CIA staffers determine whether to target someone for lethal operations is a relatively straightforward, and yet largely unknown, story. The president does not review the individual names of people; Rizzo explains that he was the one who signed off. People in Washington talk about a "target list," as former undersecretary of state Richard Armitage described the process at a recent event in Washington. In truth, there is probably no official CIA roster of those who are slated to die. "I never saw a list," says a State Department official who has been involved in discussions about lethal operations, speaking without attribution because of the nature of the subject. Officials at the CIA select targets for "neutralization," he explains. "There were individuals we were searching for, and we thought, it's better now to neutralize that threat," he says.

The military and the CIA often pursue the same targets—Osama bin Laden, for example—but handle different regions of the world. Sometimes they team up—or even exchange jobs. When former CIA officer Henry A. Crumpton was in Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks, he and Gen. Stanley McChrystal—the former head of Joint Special Operations Command, a secretive military unit—worked closely together, and so did their subordinates. "Some of the people I knew and who worked for me went to work for him—and vice versa," recalls Crumpton. Some counterterrorism experts say that President Obama and his advisers favor a more aggressive approach because it seems more practical—that administration officials prefer to eliminate terrorism suspects rather than detain them. "Since the U.S. political and legal situation has made aggressive interrogation a questionable activity anyway, there is less reason to seek to capture rather than kill," wrote American University's Kenneth Anderson, author of an essay on the subject that was read widely by Obama White House officials. "And if one intends to kill, the incentive is to do so from a standoff position because it removes potentially messy questions of surrender."

and

The hub of activity for the targeted killings is the CIA's Counterterrorist Center, where lawyers—there are roughly 10 of them, says Rizzo—write a cable asserting that an individual poses a grave threat to the U.S. The CIA cables are legalistic and carefully argued, often running up to five pages. Michael Scheuer, who used to be in charge of the CIA's Osama bin Laden unit, describes "a dossier," or a "two-page document," along with "an appendix with supporting information, if anybody wanted to read all of it." The dossier, he says, "would go to the lawyers, and they would decide. They were very picky." Sometimes, Scheuer says, the hurdles may have been too high. "Very often this caused a missed opportunity. The whole idea that people got shot because someone has a hunch—I only wish that was true. If it were, there would be a lot more bad guys dead."

Sometimes, as Rizzo recalls, the evidence against an individual would be thin, and high-level lawyers would tell their subordinates, "You guys did not make a case." "Sometimes the justification would be that the person was thought to be at a meeting," Rizzo explains. "It was too squishy." The memo would get kicked back downstairs.

The cables that were "ready for prime time," as Rizzo puts it, concluded with the following words: "Therefore we request approval for targeting for lethal operation." There was a space provided for the signature of the general counsel, along with the word "concurred." Rizzo says he saw about one cable each month, and at any given time there were roughly 30 individuals who were targeted. Many of them ended up dead, but not all: "No. 1 and No. 2 on the hit parade are still out there," Rizzo says, referring to "you-know-who and [Ayman al-] Zawahiri," a top Qaeda leader.

As administration critics have pointed out, government officials have to go through a more extensive process in order to obtain permission to wiretap someone in this country than to make someone the target of a lethal operation overseas.

Rizzo seems bitter that he and other CIA officials have been criticized for authorizing harsh interrogations under Bush, and yet there has been little outcry over the faster pace of lethal operations under Obama. (From 2004 to 2008, Bush authorized 42 drone strikes, according to the New America Foundation. The number has more than quadrupled under President Obama—to 180 at last count.)

The detainees, by and large, survived, Rizzo observes; today, high-level terrorism suspects often do not.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

I will never understand why people are so sympathetic towards our enemies. They are enemy combatants; it's just the same as finding an enemy general in a building a couple miles from the battlefield and shelling it with artillery.

 

[ichy]

The people who we're blowing up are not criminal defendants in the United States. They have no right to a trial or due process.

 

[PeshakJang]

The people who we're blowing up are not criminal defendants in the United States. They have no right to a trial or due process.

Most liberals here would argue that our constitution and all rights granted to US citizens apply to all individuals on this Earth.

 

[Scotteq]

The people who we're blowing up are not criminal defendants in the United States. They have no right to a trial or due process.

Most liberals here would argue that our constitution and all rights granted to US citizens apply to all individuals on this Earth.

Not to mention that these other countries have their own laws, their own sovereignity, and their own version of Due Process.


I understand the reasons why, but I'm curious why it's apparently not OK to take prisoners. But it *is* OK to quadruple the assassination rates.

 

[jonks]

OP, there is a difference between how you treat someone in custody vs someone not in custody. Legally, morally and practically. Cops can shoot a suspect while trying to capture him, they may not shoot him once he has been captured. Targetted killing of enemy soldiers has no relevance or relationship with regard to the propriety of torturing a captive for information. This doesn't seem like a fine line to me.

 

[Scotteq]

OP, there is a difference between how you treat someone in custody vs someone not in custody. Legally, morally and practically. Cops can shoot a suspect while trying to capture him, they may not shoot him once he has been captured. Targetted killing of enemy soldiers has no relevance or relationship with regard to the propriety of torturing a captive for information. This doesn't seem like a fine line to me.

I'm interested in your rationale: So you're saying it's OK for a policeman to go into the criminal's house - which said policeman has no jurisdiction over - and murder him with no warning or recourse. But that same policeman has to treat the prisoner "properly" in the event he actually chooses to make an arrest?

 

[trenchfoot]

Most liberals here would argue that our constitution and all rights granted to US citizens apply to all individuals on this Earth.

I know you didn't mean it, but some in here would see your comment as being accusatory, presumptive and diversionary, all in one sentence, or a rather skillful manuever on your part.

 

[ichy]

Not to mention that these other countries have their own laws, their own sovereignity, and their own version of Due Process.

Sorry, but if the governments in Pakistan or Afghanistan have no effective control over large swaths of their countries then their claims of "sovereignty" mean nothing.

 

[Scotteq]

Sorry, but if the governments in Pakistan or Afghanistan have no effective control over large swaths of their countries then their claims of "sovereignty" mean nothing.

And therefore it's OK to hugely increase the rate at which we murder their citizens, rather than make arrests?

 

[ichy]

And therefore it's OK to hugely increase the rate at which we murder their citizens, rather than make arrests?

Yes.

 

[Scotteq]

Yes.

Interesting world you live in.

 

[werepossum]

I'm interested in your rationale: So you're saying it's OK for a policeman to go into the criminal's house - which said policeman has no jurisdiction over - and murder him with no warning or recourse. But that same policeman has to treat the prisoner "properly" in the event he actually chooses to make an arrest?

A policeman, no. A soldier, yes. Soldiers are allowed to kill using a variety of means, but once a captive is taken he cannot be tortured. Certain types of captives under some circumstances can be summarily shot once taken, but none can be tortured.

It's not that it's not okay to take captives, it's that taking captives entails a substantial risk to the takers. If you know you'll have to treat a captive as an American citizen arrested for a civil offense and your only recourse is to give him a speedy civilian trial using civilian rules of evidence, the vastly greater chance is that you'll be risking people to take a captive from which you'll receive no useful intelligence, probably won't be able to detain long term, and may actually suffer from the propaganda he will distribute to a willing and eager left wing press (SOP is to claim you were tortured and your Koran was disrespected.) On the other hand, if you simply kill him, your risk is much lower and you remove him permanently. Although it might seem counter intuitive, it actually makes perfect sense if you think it through.

As far as "Obama's killing machine" goes, this approach is a valid as was Bush's. There are no kinder, gentler ways to fight a war except to surrender.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

And therefore it's OK to hugely increase the rate at which we murder their citizens, rather than make arrests?

The CIA is involved in a war, not policing the streets. It's likely that we would lose a lot of our own agents and soldiers in trying to arrest these men. Smashing them to pieces just makes more sense - they don't give orders anymore, we don't put our people at risk.

 

[Scotteq]

A policeman, no. A soldier, yes. Soldiers are allowed to kill using a variety of means, but once a captive is taken he cannot be tortured. Certain types of captives under some circumstances can be summarily shot once taken, but none can be tortured.

<snip>

As far as "Obama's killing machine" goes, this approach is a valid as was Bush's. There are no kinder, gentler ways to fight a war except to surrender.

The CIA is involved in a war, not policing the streets. It's likely that we would lose a lot of our own agents and soldiers in trying to arrest these men. Smashing them to pieces just makes more sense - they don't give orders anymore, we don't put our people at risk.

I do understand the reasons why. Flat out - It's far far less messy and complicated just to Snuff Them For Being Naughty In Our Sight. And, in general, I do support the Govenment's (well intentioned, IMHO) efforts to protect it's citizens; if not necessarily the metholodgy.

Mostly, I just find it curious that the last guy was vilified for the international equivalent of making arrests and (admittedly very aggressive) interrogations; while the current administration has greatly increased the assassination rates, yet we hardly hear a peep about it.


I would have thought that many would prefer the choice of making an international equivalent of Arrest and Imprisonment to a simple assassination. With the first choice, the offender is still alive, a result which is more consistent with our stance as a Nation on capital punishment.

 

[Darwin333]

OP, there is a difference between how you treat someone in custody vs someone not in custody. Legally, morally and practically. Cops can shoot a suspect while trying to capture him, they may not shoot him once he has been captured. Targetted killing of enemy soldiers has no relevance or relationship with regard to the propriety of torturing a captive for information. This doesn't seem like a fine line to me.

Wrong.

Cops can shoot a suspect (or anyone really) anytime the cop thinks the suspect is an immediate threat to the cop or others, it doesn't matter if he is in custody or not. Furthermore, the same standards apply to a cop shooting someone they are trying to capture, they can't shoot a suspect because they are attempting to capture him. Basically if you make a cop reasonably "fear for his life or the life of other" (and the word reasonably is used real lose when it comes to cops) he can shoot you, all other factors are generally irrelevant.

 

[OCGuy]

I applaud these strikes by the CIA/Obama.

 

[Darwin333]

And therefore it's OK to hugely increase the rate at which we murder their citizens, rather than make arrests?

We didn't send the police over there, we sent the US military. That is what the military does, especially when "making arrests" infinitely increases risk to your own mens lives and the potential gain (versus death from above) is almost nothing.

If you know that you will get little or no intel out of them there is no military advantage to risking lives to capture them when someone sitting in an air conditioned room in the states can push a button and make him go away for good.

 

[chucky2]

I do understand the reasons why. Flat out - It's far far less messy and complicated just to Snuff Them For Being Naughty In Our Sight. And, in general, I do support the Govenment's (well intentioned, IMHO) efforts to protect it's citizens; if not necessarily the metholodgy.

Mostly, I just find it curious that the last guy was vilified for the international equivalent of making arrests and (admittedly very aggressive) interrogations; while the current administration has greatly increased the assassination rates, yet we hardly hear a peep about it.


I would have thought that many would prefer the choice of making an international equivalent of Arrest and Imprisonment to a simple assassination. With the first choice, the offender is still alive, a result which is more consistent with our stance as a Nation on capital punishment.

It's because internal to the US, the last guy spoke with a southern dialect, doesn't speak well in front of cameras, was elected over their choice for POTUS, twice, and didn't care if they didn't like his decisions because they'd just whine about something else anyways.

It's because external to the US, the last guy spoke with a southern dialect, doesn't speak well in front of cameras, and didn't care if they didn't like his decisions because their country is largely useless.

That's essentially what it boils down to when looking at the majority of the complaints about the last guy.

Chuck

 

[Craig234]

The CIA is involved in a war, not policing the streets. It's likely that we would lose a lot of our own agents and soldiers in trying to arrest these men. Smashing them to pieces just makes more sense - they don't give orders anymore, we don't put our people at risk.

It's not war, it's empire. It's a license to kill nationalists and patriots for opposing occupying/placing a dictator/influencing elections/other meddling in their nation.

It has more to do with US agencies justifying their budgets by always pursuing more 'threats to our power' and finding more 'enemies' than defending the US itself.

And if the people there fight us even more, maybe even arrange a terrorist attack here - more justification for more funding of the machine.

 

[Craig234]

It's because internal to the US, the last guy spoke with a southern dialect, doesn't speak well in front of cameras, was elected over their choice for POTUS, twice, and didn't care if they didn't like his decisions because they'd just whine about something else anyways.

Chuck

95% of what's said about liberals here is wrong or lies, I can't remember the other 5%.

http://www.amazon.com/Bush-Haters-Ha.../dp/1560255692

 

[werepossum]

I do understand the reasons why. Flat out - It's far far less messy and complicated just to Snuff Them For Being Naughty In Our Sight. And, in general, I do support the Govenment's (well intentioned, IMHO) efforts to protect it's citizens; if not necessarily the metholodgy.

Mostly, I just find it curious that the last guy was vilified for the international equivalent of making arrests and (admittedly very aggressive) interrogations; while the current administration has greatly increased the assassination rates, yet we hardly hear a peep about it.


I would have thought that many would prefer the choice of making an international equivalent of Arrest and Imprisonment to a simple assassination. With the first choice, the offender is still alive, a result which is more consistent with our stance as a Nation on capital punishment.

Agreed, it is curious. Lots of people don't have the logic skills to see the predictable outcome of their demands, and lots just ignore what they wish to ignore. And as Chucky says, it has something to do with the POTUS as well.

 

[umbrella39]

I know you didn't mean it, but some in here would see your comment as being accusatory, presumptive and diversionary, all in one sentence, or a rather skillful manuever on your part.

.. or an option you didn't list... as being made by a shillhack.

 

[Generator]

The official is right, there has been little outcry over assassination compared to torture. It likely has to do with the Republican image of having a fetish for torture. The right wing revels in these foul war crimes with glee. The thing about Americans is that we are a phony lot, but once we see just horrid these acts are and how it gives people pleasure it disgusts us.

As for this assassination business its obviously a disaster. Deciding who lives or dies by a council of lawyers is appalling. The only thing that will come from this is a perpetual business of killing and terrorism. Especially the drone variant of this crap.

If this War on Terror will ever end it will come with noble police work.

 

[chucky2]

95% of what's said about liberals here is wrong or lies, I can't remember the other 5%.

http://www.amazon.com/Bush-Haters-Ha.../dp/1560255692

Let me guess, without clicking on your link, it's a BDS link, amirite?

TheUsualPartisanHackPostFrom95%Socialist234.txt

Chuck