Obama Admits Repeatedly Ordering Assassinations Of Innocent Civilians
The most detailed look ever into Obama’s assassination program and reveals the program has turned into a horrifying quagmire unjustified civilian slaughter.
Following the backlash over Obama’s recent appoint of John Brennan as a the first ever Assassination Czar new details have been ‘leaked’ to justify the program.
Recently I wrote an article on the appointment of the shady character known as John Brennan in a role I dubbed as America’s first ever Assassination Czar.
John Brennan, Obama’s chief counterterrorism advisor was a name that you did not see on the Mainstream media today as they continue to run stories that serve to distract the masses from stories that matter.
Most recently he publicly spoke about the drone program calling it moral and ethical and just.
According to reports from the Associated Press, John Brennan has now seized the lead in choosing who will be targeted for drone attacks and raids after Obama delegated him as the sole authority to designate people for assassination under the United States top-secret assassination program.
That immediately sent shock waves across social media networks as millions of people were soon made aware of the news using my coined phrase ‘Assassination Czar’.
The outage has apparently forced Obama’s hand in revealing long kept secrets about the program his administration has fought long and hard to keep as a top-secret matter of national insecurity.
The revelations come through a long NY Times article which provides the first and ever detailed look into how the program has works.
Not surprisingly, the article an attempt to do damage control which is done by presenting the program from the watered down non-critical perspective of beltway insiders.
Regardless of the attempt to mitigate the harsh realities of the program the revelations are so shocking that should have every single American unnerved and completely outraged.
For starters Obama has admitted that teenagers, including a 17 year-old girl, and several American citizens are on the secret assassination list.
According to the report President Obama has personally approves all drone strike conducted, including an admission that he authorized at least one strike knowing beforehand that innocent civilians including woman were present and would be killed.
Even worse, is the assassination was done not because the target posed a threat to the United States but just because another government wanted that person assassinated.
The article also admits that the CIA is conducting what is known as “signature strikes” which kill entire groups of innocent people when we don’t even know who we are killing.
Computer algorithms monitoring that have been taught using machine learning that certain behaviors or actions detected across a sophisticated network of high tech-surveillance equipment constitute probable terrorist activity are used to flag targets.
Such signatures include traveling in area were militants are known to travel or along paths militants are known to travel, conducting group exercise in public, walking in a small a group or as the article reveals “3 or more people doing jumping jacks” in an known area of militant activity.
Recently reported drone strikes tell of entire groups of innocent people, such as a group of farmers herding mules and cows, being assassinated by these signature strikes.
Perhaps even more alarming is such signature strikes are now being conducted by non-military US government agencies on this side of the Atlantic to identify and target drug traffickers.
The article then reveals that innocent people assassinated like this are merely labeled as enemy combatants by the government while the corporate media echoes the government’s claim without verifying the identities of those killed.
Meanwhile, the US government has implied in statements those who report that these casualties are innocent civilian casualties and not militant combatants, such as the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, are providing support to Al Qaeda.
In fact, in the recent court decision that temporarily revoked certain NDAA provision as being unconstitutional, the government could have had the case against them dismissed entirely if they would have assert to the courts the NDAA wouldn’t be used to target government critical journalists who are engaging in First amendment protected activities.
The government refused and instead chose to fight the case and lost – for the time being.
This is all unnerving as the US government is now arming drones operating at military bases inside the United States with missiles to help train for the deployment of 30,000 drones over U.S. skies.
At the same time tens of thousands of sophisticated discrete solar powered and other ground censors which are used to feed information to the drones, similar to those already deployed throughout Afghanistan and Pakistan, are being deployed inside of the United States as the NSA continues building a $2 billion dollar quantum computing data center.
Excerpts from the New York Times article with the blatant repeated propaganda and lies removed:
Secret ‘Kill List’ Proves a Test of Obama’s Principles and Will
WASHINGTON — This was the enemy, served up in the latest chart from the intelligence agencies: 15 Qaeda suspects in Yemen with Western ties. The mug shots and brief biographies resembled a high school yearbook layout. Several were Americans. Two were teenagers, including a girl who looked even younger than her 17 years.
President Obama, overseeing the regular Tuesday [...] meeting of two dozen security officials in the White House Situation Room, took a moment to study the faces.
“How old are these people?” he asked, according to two officials present. “If they are starting to use children,” he said of Al Qaeda, “we are moving into a whole different phase.”
It was not a theoretical question: Mr. Obama has placed himself at the helm of a top secret “nominations” process to designate [...] kill or capture, of which the capture part has become largely theoretical.
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,”
When a rare opportunity for a drone strike [...] arises — but his family is with him — it is the president who has reserved to himself the final moral calculation.
“He is determined that he will make these decisions about how far and wide these operations will go,” said Thomas E. Donilon, his national security adviser.
In interviews with The New York Times, three dozen of his current and former advisers described Mr. Obama’s evolution since taking on the role, without precedent in presidential history, of personally overseeing the shadow war [...]
They describe a paradoxical leader who shunned the legislative deal-making required to close the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba, but approves lethal action without hand-wringing. While he was adamant about narrowing the fight and improving relations with the Muslim world, he has followed the metastasizing enemy into new and dangerous lands
His first term has seen private warnings from top officials about a “Whac-A-Mole” approach [...]; the invention of a 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.
The administration’s failure to forge a clear detention policy has created the impression [...] of a take-no-prisoners policy. And Mr. Obama’s ambassador to Pakistan [...] has complained to colleagues that the C.I.A.’s strikes drive American policy [...] saying “he didn’t realize his main job was to kill people,” [...]
Beside the president at every step is [...] John O. Brennan, who is variously compared by colleagues to a dogged police detective [...]
But the strikes that have eviscerated [opposing forces] — just since April, there have been 14 in Yemen, and 6 in Pakistan —[...] Drones have replaced Guantánamo as the recruiting tool of choice [..]; in his 2010 guilty plea, Faisal Shahzad, 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.”
[Former director of national intelligence Dennis C. Blair] said that discussions inside the White House of long-term strategy [have been] sidelined by the intense focus on [drone] strikes. “The steady refrain in the White House was, ‘This is the only game in town’ — reminded me of body counts in Vietnam,” [...]
William M. Daley, Mr. Obama’s chief of staff in 2011, said the president and his advisers understood that they could not keep adding new names to a kill list, from ever lower on the totem pole. What remains unanswered is how much killing will be enough. “One guy gets knocked off, and the guy’s driver, who’s No. 21, becomes 20?” Mr. Daley said, describing the internal discussion. “At what point are you just filling the bucket with numbers?”
‘Maintain My Options’
[...] Mr. Obama on the second day of his presidency, providing martial cover as he signed several executive orders to make good on campaign pledges. Brutal interrogation techniques were banned, he declared. And the prison at Guantánamo Bay would be closed. What the new president did not say was that the orders contained a few subtle loopholes [...] carving out the maximum amount of maneuvering room [...]
It was a pattern that would be seen repeatedly, from his response to Republican complaints that he wanted to read [suspects] their rights, to his acceptance of the C.I.A.’s method for counting civilian casualties in drone strikes.
The day before the executive orders were issued, the C.I.A.’s top lawyer[...] called the White House in a panic. The order prohibited the agency from operating detention facilities, closing once and for all the secret overseas “black sites” where interrogators had brutalized terrorist suspects.
“The way this is written, you are going to take us out of the rendition business,” Mr. Rizzo told Gregory B. Craig, Mr. Obama’s White House counsel, referring to the much-criticized practice of grabbing a [...] suspect abroad and delivering him to another country for interrogation or trial [...]
Mr. Craig assured him that the new president had no intention of ending rendition — only its abuse, which could lead to American complicity in torture abroad. So a new definition of “detention facility” was inserted, excluding places used to hold people “on a short-term, transitory basis.” Problem solved — and no messy public explanation damped Mr. Obama’s celebration.
As for those who could not be transferred or tried but were judged too dangerous for release? Their “disposition” would be handled by “lawful means, consistent with the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and the interests of justice.”
A few sharp-eyed observers inside and outside the government understood what the public did not. Without showing his hand, Mr. Obama had preserved three major policies — rendition, military commissions and indefinite detention [...]
I love this part – removing the fluff from the article and you get because the republicans didn’t want to allow Obama to read people their rights and Obama refused to charge people without reading them their rights Obama decided he would just detain them indefinitely because he could do so without reading them their rights.
But a year later, with Congress trying to force him to try all terrorism suspects using revamped military commissions, he deployed his legal skills differently — to preserve trials in civilian courts.
Mr. Obama was taking a drubbing from Republicans over the government’s decision to read the suspect his rights, a prerequisite for bringing criminal charges against him in civilian court.
[...]F.B.I. agents had questioned Mr. Abdulmutallab for 50 minutes and gained valuable intelligence before giving him the warning. They had relied on a 1984 case called New York v. Quarles, in which the Supreme Court ruled that statements made by a suspect in response to urgent public safety questions — the case involved the location of a gun — could be introduced into evidence even if the suspect had not been advised of the right to remain silent.
Mr. Obama [...] got into a colloquy with the attorney general. How far, he asked, could [New York vs. ]Quarles be stretched? Mr. Holder felt that in terrorism cases, the court would allow indefinite questioning on a fairly broad range of subjects.
So Obama interpreted a 1984 Supreme Court ruling that allowed the FBI to detain a suspect for 50 Minutes before reading him his rights as authorization to jail a suspect forever without reading them their rights, charging them, or allowing them access to a lawyer. Now I am really worried about the secret interpretation of the Patriot Act US Senators have been warning about.
Satisfied with the edgy new interpretation, Mr. Obama gave his blessing [ to detain suspects indefinitely without reading them their rights, providing access to a lawyer or even charging them with a crime] , Mr. Holder recalled.
‘They Must All Be Militants’
That same mind-set would be brought to bear as the president intensified what would become a withering campaign to use unmanned aircraft to kill [...].
These next paragraphs are more B.S. to convince the reader Obama is running the assassination program while exercising the utmost degree of caution. The truth is the program has morphed from targeted strikes based on human verified intelligence into attacks on entire groups whose identity we don’t even know.
Just days after taking office, the president got word that the first strike under his administration had killed a number of innocent Pakistanis. “The president was very sharp on the thing, and said, ‘I want to know how this happened,’ “ a top White House adviser recounted.
In response to his concern, the C.I.A. downsized its munitions for more pinpoint strikes. In addition, the president tightened standards, aides say: If the agency did not have a “near certainty” that a strike would result in zero civilian deaths, Mr. Obama wanted to decide personally whether to go ahead.
The president’s directive reinforced the need for caution, [...] officials said, but did not significantly change the program
Here is the secret to their success “a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.”
It is also because Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that [...] in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants [...] unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.
[...] officials insist this approach is one of simple logic: people in an area of known terrorist activity, or found with a top Qaeda operative, are probably up to no good.
So unless someone proves an assassination victim was in no way a ‘terrorist’ they are counted as a ‘terrorist’.
President Obama caught on video deliberately spreading misinformation about murder being carried out on his orders to conduct targeted assassinations. ….