Home / terrorism / Killer Drone Program: “We Won’t Say,” Says Obama
Print Friendly and PDF

Killer Drone Program: “We Won’t Say,” Says Obama

Written by Gary North on June 25, 2012

Is there a program to use drones to kill terrorists? Yes. It has been deployed.

What are the details? Obama won’t say. You have to have a need to know. You don’t have such a need.

The Obama administration has sought to block the release of documents related to its use of robot drones to strike suspected terrorists overseas, claiming that it can still not admit that the secretive programme of targeted killing exists.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the New York Times have both submitted freedom of information requests to the department of justice, the CIA and the Pentagon seeking information about the programme. They have now gone to court to try and force the government to answer those requests and release details of its activities.

However, in a motion filed just before midnight ET on Wednesday, the government asked for the cases to be dismissed, saying that to release information would hurt national security, even while still insisting it cannot admit any such programme of targeted killing exists.

“Whether or not the CIA has the authority to be, or is in fact, directly involved in targeted lethal operations remains classified,” the government said in a court filing.

Do terrorists know about this program? Of course. They are the targets.

Then why withhold information from Americans? They don’t have a need to know.

There have also been extensive leaks to the press, notably the New York Times, which recently ran a highly detailed story about a “kill list” that the Obama administration maintains. . . .

US drone strikes have been credited by the administration with having badly damaged al-Qaida in places like Pakistan and Yemen, but are widely criticised by rights groups over the secrecy that makes it impossible to determine casualty figures, whether they are military or civilians, or on what legal basis the attacks occur.

Particular points of contention have been the New York Times’ revelation that the administration considers any male of military age in a strike zone when a drone hits to be a militant and thus a legitimate target.

The deaths via drone attacks of American-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki and his 16-year-old son – who was also an American citizen – have likewise earned condemnation from many human rights and civil liberties organisations.

The London-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which runs a drone-monitoring project, estimates that the US has used drones against targets in Pakistan up to 332 times in the past eight years, with a huge jump in activity under Obama. The Bureau believes up to 800 civilians may have been killed in the attacks. It has also monitored scores of drone attacks in Yemen and Somalia.

Think of Obama as Droneman.

Obama himself referenced the programme when asked about it in January. The president said the programme used only “precise, precision strikes against al-Qaida and their affiliates.”

The use of drones is increasing. They are cheaper to keep in the skies than manned aircraft. Costs are coming down as production rises.

Drones are being deployed inside the USA for domestic law enforcement to employ.

Continue Reading on www.guardian.co.uk

Print Friendly and PDF

Posting Policy:
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.

17 thoughts on “Killer Drone Program: “We Won’t Say,” Says Obama

  1. Well the ACLU supported all the mania which brought this evil regime about. Now they too must deal with it. How did those rose colored glasses work out for all of ya.


  3. snakearbusto says:

    So theocracy is the way to go? Like in Iran? Doggone.. maybe so! I'll talk to my savior about it and get back to you.

  4. IF we had a Real American as President, I would object to relasing info that would be helpful for the enemy to know. Since the enemy is in the White House and Congress, there isn't much difference if we do or don't.

  5. LeRoy pfaff says:

    What does Obama consider as a Terrorists. In his mind we are Terrorists., the Western Empire, the USA. I hope Obama does not get his wishes. Could this Drone be for his (Obama) protection. Most of his security is out in the play ground.

  6. Bill McCroskey says:

    There is no real problem in getting this. Simply have the "CORRECT" reporter from the New York Times ask for it. If you can get and publish state secrets, this information should be a piece of cake.

  7. operational control will be turned over to the new black panthers, caire, and the black muslims on election day for local testing

  8. I can't stomach Obama, he has done so much damage to this country and the constitution. BUT the one and only positive thing he has done in three and a half years is to take the fight to the terrorists, through the use of drones.

    We are fighting an enemy that wears no uniform, fights under no country,s flag and hides like a bunch of cowards within the civilian population of sovereign countries. I am certain that there is collateral damage and civilian casualties as a result of drone attacks, however I must ask if the civilians in the vicinity of the attacks where aware of the company they kept.

    You can bet your ass the civilians knew who the terrorists in their midst were, as such have no sympathy. You choose to hang with alQuida you ain't a civilian in my book. Obama has demonstrated that these cowards can not hide behind civilians in sovereign countries we are not at war with. For that I must commend him.


  10. involuntarycashcow says:

    I don't believe the gentleman in any way was mandating a theocracy. Since when did someone reminding people to heed God's word become mandating for an American theocracy other than to a non-believer? There are those with eyes to see and ears to hear, obviously you're not one of them and I personally find your remark in poor taste.

  11. involuntarycashcow says:

    Wow, I guess Ron Paul's foreign policy fell on deaf ears both inside and outside of Washington. No matter, what goes around comes around sooner or later.

  12. snakearbusto says:

    I didn't mean to offend anyone. It is the style, not the content of my remark that may be in poor taste. The content was meant to convey the idea that religion and politics are a dangerous mixture. No political figure has a monopoly on good
    or is the personification of evil. To say that the Christ would support one political candidate over another is to mix politics and religion, and to some it might even be seen as bordering on blasphemy.

    By saying that I would talk to my Savior, I was trying to show that one's relationship with the Christ must be personal, and that one must not try to impose one's beliefs on others.

    By saying that I am "not one of them," you are closing your heart and excluding me from God's grace. That is not up to you or anyone but God to do. I assure you that I do have eyes to see and ears to hear, and having read history and God's word I see and hear the signs of danger. To go to war for money is abomination, but so is going to war for a religious belief. Remember that belief is a creation of man, not of God. God alone is the creator of life and the ordainer of death.

  13. God supported many different wars against countries that saw Israel as its enemy and those that worshipped idols. He would support any war that protects Israel and his people (Christians) from the likes of Muslims and other idolators. When there is nothing worth fighting a war over, there is nothing you feel strongly about including your belief in God. Enemies of Christians are enemies of God. That is not to say I consider non-believers to be enemies, I pray they come to Christ. But those who openly blaspheme Him and openly hate Him are my enemies. Plain and simple. America has turned its back on God and he is warning us to clean up our act or else he will withhold his hedge of protection. It started being lifted with 9/11…as a warning. We had better heed that one and others and repent and return to Him. That doesn't mean I support a theocracy either. I surely believe, however, that those who do not heed God's word will wind up in a place not fit for anyone to enjoy eternity.

  14. Politics MUST mix with religion if we are to have Godly leadership in this country. The place where we headed off in the wrong direction was when pastors were intimidated into silence by our tax laws. It has never been enforced, but fear keeps many pastors silent. Without pastors to let their parishioners know what the Bible says about their government and leadership as well as the pastors encouraging involvement in the political process, the non-believers will elect the leaders and that is not good for the country or any Christians living here.

  15. Hot damn, those killer bees have morphed into a new improved "Killer Drones" – how about that! Let me see now… the new Hitler has his hit list and now he has a ever so convenient method of carrying out the hits. Where is the American Communist Legal Usurpers on this one – nowhere, afterall, the left loves their dictators. Our dictator is having his Muslim Brotherhood dictator invited to the "Outhouse." Everthing is falling into place for the great deceiver. They are laughing at the stupidity of the American sheeple who are about to be sheared. He probably can't believe it's happening as easy as it is! Baa… baa Obaa-ma, he's our man!

  16. snakearbusto says:

    God does not "support war." God does not have enemies. Wars and enemies and religion are human inventions.

    I agree that America has turned its back on God. It turned its back on God when it began expanding its empire in the 19th century, and using God as an excuse for its wars of conquest. That is the real blasphemy.

    Please do not harden your heart.