OMNI DRONE/ASSASSINATION NEWSLETTER #9. February
16, 2013. Compiled by Dick Bennett for a Culture of
Peace and Justice. (Newsletter #1, Dec. 29, 2010; #2 July 20, 2011; #3 Feb. 16, 2012; #4 May
3, 2012; #5 June 9, 2012; #6 Oct. 12, 2012; #7 Dec. 20, 2012; #8 Jan. 22, 2013.)
See Newsletters on ACLU, Air War, Assassinations,
CIA, Civil Liberties, Constitution and Drones, Democracy and Drones, Geneva
Conventions, International Law, Killing Civilians, Media and Drones, Obama , Pakistan
“Make World Less Violent, New UA Graduates
Told.” (ADG 12-16-12). If any
subject links these newsletters, it is violence, its
complexity, and how to reduce it.
My blog: War
Department/Peace Department
My Newsletters:
Index:
Peace, Justice, Ecology Birthdays
Visit OMNI’s Library.
“Act in such a way that the
principle according to which the action is performed can be accepted as a
universal law.” Immanuel Kant’s
Categorical Imperative.
DRONE
WATCH: MuckRock.com, a free, online data-base.
Nos. 5 & 6 at end
Contents of
#7 Dec. 20, 2012
Obama Assassination President
Public Discussion of Drones; Stanford/NYU
report
ACLU Sues CIA
Terrorizing Civilian Population
Rules
for Drone Warfare
Restricting Protest
US
Contents #8
Jan. 22, 2013
NOVA, “Rise of the Drones”
Greenwald, Stanford/NYU on Terrorized
Civilians, Living Under Drones
Cavallaro, Living Under Drones
Bailey, Assassination Drones
Sprusansky, Demand Truths of Drone War
Glaser, Drones, My Lai ,
Prosecution
Stauffer, UN to Investigate Drone Killings
Kucinich Holds Congressional Briefing
Contents #9 2013
New Medal for Drone Pilots
Yemen
Moyers and Co.: Drones vs. Democracy
Moyers and Co.: Innocents Murdered, Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize
a Mistake
Washington
PBS NOVA
Drone Report Underwritten by Lockheed Martin, Maker of Drones (see #8)
Dick’s Letter to PBS Ombudsman
Obama Creates Manual or “Playbook:” for the Killing Process
30,000 Drones Over US by 2020
Backlash against new US
Reuters | 12 hours ago
File
photo
The Pentagon concluded this week the answer is
“yes” — at least in extraordinary circumstances, and announced the creation of
the Distinguished Warfare Medal, outranking even the Bronze Star.
While supporters cheered America
Opponents say the new medal’s rank is too high
and sends a signal — inadvertently, perhaps — that the Pentagon does not
sufficiently value the sacrifices of front-line troops.
For Brian Jopek, whose 20-year-old son, Ryan,
earned a Bronze Star when he was killed by a roadside bomb in Iraq
“To me it’s just a slap in the face, not only
for my son, me, other members of my family,” Jopek, who also served in Iraq and is now a journalist in Wisconsin
“But for anyone who’s ever received (the
Bronze Star) for actions in combat.”
Jopek said he has written to President Barack
Obama and to his congressman, hoping the policy can be reversed.
The Veterans of Foreign Wars, which describes
itself as America
Peter Singer, an expert on the new
technologies in warfare at the Brookings Institution think tank, said it was an
inevitability, noting there are now 20,000 unmanned systems, or drones, in the
air or on the ground.
“The US Air Force now trains more unmanned
systems operators than it does manned fighter plane and bomber plane pilots
combined,” he said.
Juliet Beyler, the acting director of officer
and enlisted personnel management in the Pentagon, said candidates for the
medal could include a service member involved in a cyber attack on a specific
military target.
“This is for direct impacts,” she told the
Pentagon’s American Forces Press Service on Friday, adding the award was
retroactive to Sept 11, 2001.
No valour required
To put it in context, the Distinguished
Warfare Medal is the ninth highest medal awarded by the Pentagon, higher than
the Purple Heart for troops wounded in battle. . . . .
Valour, as defined by the military, involves
extraordinary acts of heroism “while engaged in direct combat with an enemy
with exposure to enemy hostilities and personal risk”.
The new medal is higher than the Bronze Star
with a “V” for valour. Only 2.5 per cent of the more than 160,000 Bronze Stars
awarded by the Army since Sept 11, 2001, have been for valour, according to
Pentagon data.
Medal of Honour recipient and Vietnam veteran Paul Bucha told Reuters the
decision could affect morale, and noted the significance of the Bronze Star in
the Iraq and Afghanistan
“Are you saying that guy in the Pentagon did
something I could not have done, even though I was running around in the
desert? Where people could shoot at me?,” Bucha said, summing up the views of
many veterans.
“People are going to be outraged.” FULL ARTICLE:
http://dawn.com/2013/02/16/backlash-against-new-us-medal-for-drone-pilots/
DRONE KILLINGS IN YEMEN
MOYERS AND CO. FEB. 10, 2013. Very briefly recounts a NYT story
of a drone attack that killed several al-Qaeda members in Yemen
MOYERS AND
CO, PBS,. FEBRUARY 3, 2013
CATEGORY: FULL EPISODES
Full Episode: Are Drones Destroying our Democracy?
This episode aired February 2, 2013.
In the fight against terrorism, the
American military's escalating drone program has become the face of our foreign
policy in Pakistan , Yemen and parts of Africa .
And while the use of un-manned drones indeed protects American soldiers, the
growing number of casualties -- which include civilians as well as suspected
terrorists -- has prompted a United
Nations investigation into both the legality and the deadly toll of these
strikes.
Bill explores the moral and legal
implications of using drones to target our enemies -- both foreign and American
-- as well as other intelligence issues with Vicki Divoll, a former general counsel to the Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence and former deputy legal adviser to the C.I.A.'s
Counterterrorism Center, and Vincent
Warren, Executive Director of the Center for Constitutional Rights.
[Also on the show, Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi on the
shocking lack of accountability for big bankers who continue to act
unethically, and in some cases, illegally.
Whether or not it was intentional, I see the two programs as closely
related: two lawless, unaccountable US
From: Just Foreign Policy <info@justforeignpolicy.org>
To: gladystiffany@yahoo.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 4:16 PM
Subject: WaPo: Ask the Public an Unbiased Question on Drone Strikes
To: gladystiffany@yahoo.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 4:16 PM
Subject: WaPo: Ask the Public an Unbiased Question on Drone Strikes
Dear Gladys,
Tell the Washington Post to conduct a new poll asking an
unbiased question on US drone strike policy.
Take Action
A key
reason many in Congress haven't spoken up against the drone strike policy is
that many believe the public overwhelmingly supports the policy. A key reason
many believe the public overwhelmingly supports the drone strike policy is that
the Washington Post said
so in February 2012.
But the question the Washington Post asked in its February 2012 poll, and the way the Post reported it, were highly misleading. And in the last year, a lot of criticism of the drone strike policy has appeared in mainstream press that hadn't appeared before.
As the Senate considers the nomination of John Brennan to head the CIA, where he will oversee CIA drone strikes, urge the Washington Post to ask the public an unbiased question on drone strikes.
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=zBKhJb9NbncrMyz5Gs3GnxXlQ5cKvoQZ
In February 2012, under the headline, "Poll finds broad support for Obama's counterterrorism policies," theWashington Post reported that "The Post-ABC News poll found that 83 percent of Americans approve of Obama’s drone policy." [1] This Post report had the effect of convincing many people that the drone strike policy was overwhelmingly popular. But here is the question that was actually asked: [2]
But the question the Washington Post asked in its February 2012 poll, and the way the Post reported it, were highly misleading. And in the last year, a lot of criticism of the drone strike policy has appeared in mainstream press that hadn't appeared before.
As the Senate considers the nomination of John Brennan to head the CIA, where he will oversee CIA drone strikes, urge the Washington Post to ask the public an unbiased question on drone strikes.
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=zBKhJb9NbncrMyz5Gs3GnxXlQ5cKvoQZ
In February 2012, under the headline, "Poll finds broad support for Obama's counterterrorism policies," theWashington Post reported that "The Post-ABC News poll found that 83 percent of Americans approve of Obama’s drone policy." [1] This Post report had the effect of convincing many people that the drone strike policy was overwhelmingly popular. But here is the question that was actually asked: [2]
"…
thinking about the following decisions of the Obama administration, please tell
me whether you strongly approve, somewhat approve, somewhat disapprove, or
strongly disapprove ... c. The use of unmanned, "drone" aircraft
against terrorist suspects overseas"
The Post assumed there was no meaningful
distinction between current policy and targeting "terrorist
suspects." That was the "official story" the Administration had
just put out.
On January 30, 2012, just before the Washington Post poll was conducted, in an unprecedented and widely reported public discussion of the policy, President Obama described the policy as "pinpoint strike on al Qaeda operatives." [3] But as the New York Times reported a few months later, [4]
On January 30, 2012, just before the Washington Post poll was conducted, in an unprecedented and widely reported public discussion of the policy, President Obama described the policy as "pinpoint strike on al Qaeda operatives." [3] But as the New York Times reported a few months later, [4]
In Pakistan
But some State Department officials have complained to the White House that the criteria used by the C.I.A. for identifying a terrorist "signature" were 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 official. Men loading a truck with fertilizer could be bombmakers — but they might also be farmers, skeptics argued.
But some State Department officials have complained to the White House that the criteria used by the C.I.A. for identifying a terrorist "signature" were 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 official. Men loading a truck with fertilizer could be bombmakers — but they might also be farmers, skeptics argued.
If
those State Department officials were right, then describing the policy as
targeted on "terrorist suspects" was misleading, and the Washington Post poll question and report were biased.
Urge the Washington Post to ask a poll question on drone strikes that takes account of the State Department officials' criticism that drone strikes have not been targeted on "terrorist suspects," as most people would understand that phrase.
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/wapo-drones-poll
Robert Naiman, Chelsea Mozen, Sarah Burns and Megan Iorio
Just Foreign Policy
Help us reach our January fundraising goal by donating today! With our small staff and minimal overhead, you know your contribution will go a long way.
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=k%2BI6llnjK4L7JfZQp808uxXlQ5cKvoQZ
References:
1. "Poll finds broad support for Obama’s counterterrorism policies," Scott Wilson and Jon Cohen, Washington Post, February 8, 2012 http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=rBuHXjQt8E93%2Bo0Q7fVtM8K1qGGdD8n3
2. "Washington Post-ABC News Poll, February 1 to 4, 2012" http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=z2nAnV1kpynt1lsggLCoThXlQ5cKvoQZ
3. "Obama's drone comment was no slip-up, official says," Dan Lothian and Reza Sayah, CNN, January 31, 2012, http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/31/politics/obama-pakistan/index.html
4. "Secret ‘Kill List’ Proves a Test of Obama’s Principles and Will," Jo Becker and Scott Shane, May 29, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html
Urge the Washington Post to ask a poll question on drone strikes that takes account of the State Department officials' criticism that drone strikes have not been targeted on "terrorist suspects," as most people would understand that phrase.
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/wapo-drones-poll
Robert Naiman, Chelsea Mozen, Sarah Burns and Megan Iorio
Just Foreign Policy
Help us reach our January fundraising goal by donating today! With our small staff and minimal overhead, you know your contribution will go a long way.
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=k%2BI6llnjK4L7JfZQp808uxXlQ5cKvoQZ
References:
1. "Poll finds broad support for Obama’s counterterrorism policies," Scott Wilson and Jon Cohen, Washington Post, February 8, 2012 http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=rBuHXjQt8E93%2Bo0Q7fVtM8K1qGGdD8n3
2. "Washington Post-ABC News Poll, February 1 to 4, 2012" http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=z2nAnV1kpynt1lsggLCoThXlQ5cKvoQZ
3. "Obama's drone comment was no slip-up, official says," Dan Lothian and Reza Sayah, CNN, January 31, 2012, http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/31/politics/obama-pakistan/index.html
4. "Secret ‘Kill List’ Proves a Test of Obama’s Principles and Will," Jo Becker and Scott Shane, May 29, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html
From FAIR (fair@fair.org)
PBS Drone Coverage Brought to You by Drone Makers
Lockheed's Nova sponsorship violates underwriting rules
Lockheed's Nova sponsorship violates underwriting rules
1/28/13
The PBS Nova broadcast "Rise of the Drones" was sponsored by
drone manufacturer Lockheed Martin--a clear violation of PBS's underwriting
guidelines.
As Kevin Gosztola reported (FireDogLake, 1/24/13), the January 23 broadcast was a mostly upbeat look
at surveillance and weaponized drones. "Discover the cutting edge technologies that are propelling
us toward a new chapter in aviation history,"PBS urged, promising to reveal "the
amazing technologies that make drones so powerful."
Some of
that technology, unbeknownst to viewers, was created by the company described
as giving Nova "additional funding" at the beginning of the
broadcast. Lockheed Martin, a major military contractor with $46 billion in
2011 sales, is the manufacturer of drones used in warfare and intelligence,
including the Desert Hawk, the Falcon, the Stalker and the Tracer. In December 2012, Lockheed bought AME Unmanned Air
Systems, maker of the Fury drone (New Times, 12/19/12).
Nova's history of unmanned flight
technology included comments from Abe Karem, dubbed the "father of the
Predator" drone. His current company, FireDogLake's Gosztola noted, has a business
relationship with Lockheed Martin.
The show did not entirely skirt the
controversies over
drones. A section of the broadcast dealt with drone pilots firing on targets in
countries like Afghanistan
or Pakistan
The show does not ignore the
question of civilian deaths--though it says "the facts are hard to come by" and
that "there are not fully reliable counts of civilian deaths. "Nova does mention that some estimates are
that 30 percent of those killed are civilians, and talks about one attack that
killed 23 civilians in Pakistan
But, in
keeping with the generally upbeat tone, Nova tells viewers that technology will
help turn things around. "Drones can strike with pinpoint precision,"
the programs explains, "but their visual sensors are limited in ways that
can lead pilots to make mistakes." Not to worry, though; "engineers
are working to create new sensors that can see more in greater detail than ever
before."
The program's
sponsorship tie to the drone industry were never mentioned--though there were opportunities to
disclose that relationship. In addition to Lockheed Martin's connection to one
of the interview subjects, the show discussed a
Though the
broadcast included an underwriting announcement at the beginning
("Additional funding from Lockheed Martin: Inspiring tomorrow's engineers
and technologists"), that credit was removed from the webcast, and the company
is not credited on the Nova website for the episode.
So can a
corporation really provide "additional funding" for public TV
journalism that discusses its own interests? PBS rules would seem to say no. The network has three tests that
"are applied to every proposed funding arrangement in order to determine
its acceptability":
* Editorial
Control Test: Has the underwriter exercised editorial control? Could it?
*
Perception Test: Might the public perceive that the underwriter has exercised
editorial control?
*
Commercialism Test: Might the public conclude the program is on PBSprincipally because it promotes the
underwriter’s products, services or other business interests?
On the
perception test, PBS explains:
When there
exists a clear and direct connection between the interests or products or
services of a proposed funder and the subject matter of the program, the
proposed funding will be deemed unacceptable regardless of the funder's actual
compliance with the editorial control provisions of this policy.
On
commercialism:
The policy
is intended to prohibit any funding arrangement where the primary emphasis of
the program is on products or services that are identical or similar to those
of the underwriter.
It is
difficult to see how PBS could argue that the Nova special does not violate
these rules. And PBS wants you to believe they take such matters seriously:
Should a
significant number of reasonable viewers conclude that PBS has sold its professionalism and
independence to its program funders, whether or not their conclusions are
justified, then the entire program service of public television will be suspect
and the goal of serving the public will be unachievable.
If PBS really believe these words, why did
they allow the Lockheed-funded "Rise of the Drones" to air?
ACTION:
Ask PBS ombud Michael Getler to investigate whether Nova's "Rise of the Drones" violates PBS underwriting guidelines.
Ask PBS ombud Michael Getler to investigate whether Nova's "Rise of the Drones" violates PBS underwriting guidelines.
Phone: 703
739 5290
DICK’S LETTER TO PBS OMBUDSMAN
Dear Mr.
Getler:
I have read
FAIR’s critique of “Rise of the Drones” with full support, for I wondered about
the propriety of Lockheed sponsorship when I was viewing the film. FAIR
doesn’t examine my greatest concern about drones. At least twice a speaker emphasized the
infancy of today’s drone technology, similar to the bi-plane at the beginning
of WWI, I recall someone saying. If the
drone can spy and kill so widely and efficiently with bi-plane tech, what will
be the condition of the privacy and safety of the people in the world a few
decades from now? I wish the
film-makers had spent more time considering future drone dangers.
National Security
CIA drone
strikes will get pass in counterterrorism ‘playbook,’ officials say By Greg Miller, Ellen Nakashima and Karen DeYoung,January
19, 2013
·
A counterterrorism manual
designed to establish rules for targeted drone… (/EUROPEAN PRESSPHOTO AGENCY )
The
Obama administration is nearing completion of a detailed counterterrorism
manual that is designed to establish clear rules for targeted-killing
operations but leaves open a major exemption for the CIA’s campaign of drone
strikes in Pakistan , U.S.
The
carve-out would allow the CIA to continue pounding al-Qaeda and Taliban targets
for a year or more before the agency is forced to comply with more stringent
rules spelled out in a classified document that officials have described as a
counterterrorism “playbook.”
The
document, which is expected to be submitted to President Obama for final
approval within weeks, marks the culmination of a year-long effort by the White
House to codify its counterterrorism policies and create a guide for lethal
operations through Obama’s second term.
A senior
U.S. U.S.
The adoption of a formal guide to
targeted killing marks a significant — and to some uncomfortable — milestone:
the institutionalization of a practice that would have seemed anathema to many
before the Sept. 11 , 2001, terrorist attacks.
Among
the subjects covered in the playbook are the process for adding names to kill
lists, the legal principles that govern when U.S.
citizens can be targeted overseas and the sequence of approvals required when
the CIA or U.S.
The
decision to allow the CIA strikes to continue was driven in part by concern
that the window for weakening al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Pakistan is beginning to close, with plans to
pull most U.S. troops out of
neighboring Afghanistan Afghanistan
“There’s
a sense that you put the pedal to the metal now, especially given the
impending” withdrawal, said a former U.S.
The
former official and other current and former officials interviewed for this
article spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were talking about
ongoing sensitive matters.
Obama’s
national security team agreed to the CIA compromise late last month during a
meeting of the “principals committee,” comprising top national security
officials, that was led by White House counterterrorism adviser John O.
Brennan, who has since been nominated to serve as CIA director.
White
House officials said the committee will review the document again before it is
presented to the president. They stressed that it will not be in force until
Obama has signed off on it. The CIA declined requests for comment.
[This is the first, uncritical
three-quarters of the article. Six more
paragraphs were printed in the Arkansas
Democrat-Gazette (1-20-13), two of which examine the Manual as institutionalizing “the CIA’s paramilitary
killing program” over the objections of the ACLU, and “permanent war.”--Dick]
Even a dead fish can go
with the flow. -- Jim Hightower
Help us out by throwing some cash
in the bucket:
Stay in the Loop
Sign up for monthly issue
announcements and breaking news:
In This Issue
Governments, corps, cops,
and criminals want them--privacy lovers left and right don't
The
drone-industrial complex wants 30,000 eyes in the sky spying on us Americans by
2020
ALSO
IN THIS ISSUE:
Do
Something!
Recent
Lowdowns
·
Wall Street, the Kochs, and Rove lost
to the people-- so let's make Washington govern for the people
Hightower Lowdownarchives by date...
Syndicate the Hightower Lowdown
Subscriber Features
Manage your account bylogging
in. Don't have an account? Get the Lowdown
in the mail every
month -- for the unbelievable, ridiculous, low, low price of $15 per year! Save
a tree and read it
online for just $10 per year!
Dig Deeper
Find more content in these topics: CORPORATE
GREED, MILITARY,POLITICAL
CORRUPTION
Search
February's
Lowdown
February 2013, Volume 15, Number 2
|
Governments, corps,
cops, and crims want them--privacy lovers left and right don't
The drone-industrial complex wants
30,000 eyes in the sky spying on us Americans by 2020
If you drive west from Marfa , Texas
toward El Paso
Officially called "Unmanned Aerial Vehicles"
(UAV's), some are very large, some tiny, some can fly sideways and backwards,
some can operate from eight miles up, some can hang motionless in the sky
("hover and stare" is the industry's spooky term for this
capability)--and all can silently surveill whatever is occurring beneath them
for miles around. The particular pilotless aircraft that I saw belonged to the Customs and Border Protection
agency, a Homeland Security division that presently has nine clones
of this drone technology "watching" for drug smugglers and immigrants
crossing illegally into our country from any spot along the 2,000-mile border
the US shares with Mexico. CBP agents, sitting at terminals in windowless
buildings as far away as North Dakota
No comments:
Post a Comment