This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/may/31/unmanned-drones-obama-administration
The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 3 | Version 4 |
|---|---|
| Obama's 'kill list': commentary and analysis from around the web | Obama's 'kill list': commentary and analysis from around the web |
| (1 day later) | |
| According to the New York Times, President Barack Obama has stepped to the helm of the administration's secret efforts in selecting terrorists for its 'kill list.' The story describes Obama leading weekly meetings in which administration officials review suspected terrorists' bios on what an official described as the equivalent of "baseball cards". Since Obama took office, he has escalated the use of unmanned drones to kill suspected al-Qaida terrorists abroad in countries like Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan. The president has also continued the Bush administration's policies on rendition, military commissions and indefinite detentions, angering those who expected the president to honor his early ambitions to close Gitmo. | According to the New York Times, President Barack Obama has stepped to the helm of the administration's secret efforts in selecting terrorists for its 'kill list.' The story describes Obama leading weekly meetings in which administration officials review suspected terrorists' bios on what an official described as the equivalent of "baseball cards". Since Obama took office, he has escalated the use of unmanned drones to kill suspected al-Qaida terrorists abroad in countries like Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan. The president has also continued the Bush administration's policies on rendition, military commissions and indefinite detentions, angering those who expected the president to honor his early ambitions to close Gitmo. |
| We are collecting commentary from those weighing in on the commander-in-chief's unprecedented role in the United States' counterterrorism efforts – from reporters, readers, and experts. Tweet your recommendation using #smarttakes, or add your analysis in the comments below. The Guardian's reporting on the United States' use of unmanned drones can be found here. | We are collecting commentary from those weighing in on the commander-in-chief's unprecedented role in the United States' counterterrorism efforts – from reporters, readers, and experts. Tweet your recommendation using #smarttakes, or add your analysis in the comments below. The Guardian's reporting on the United States' use of unmanned drones can be found here. |
| June 7, 2012 | |
| Chris McGreal, Guardian US | |
| McCain has accused the White House of "an intentional breach" intended to "paint a portrait of the president of the United States as a strong leader on national security issues" in the run up to November's election. He said the revelations endanger American lives. | |
| Michael Calderone, Huffington Post | |
| Dean Baquet, managing editor of The New York Times, defended his paper's national security coverage after members of Congress called for an investigation into the leaking of classified information for recent stories focusing on President Barack Obama's terrorist "kill list" and the United States' use of cyberattacks against Iran. "Both the rise and use of drones, and the increased use of cyberwarfare, are the kinds of issues that we have a public service mission to surface so they can be part of a national debate," Baquet said Thursday in an interview with The Huffington Post. | |
| June 6, 2012 | |
| Jameel Jaffer and Nathan Wessler, Guardian US | Jameel Jaffer and Nathan Wessler, Guardian US |
| Another problem, and perhaps an even deeper one, is in the government's approach towards individuals who are not targeted – not in the conventional sense of the word, anyway. According to the New York Times, the government "counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants … unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent". If this is true, it is astounding. The government has an obligation under international law to distinguish combatants from noncombatants – and, as far as reasonably possible, to avoid causing noncombatants harm. | Another problem, and perhaps an even deeper one, is in the government's approach towards individuals who are not targeted – not in the conventional sense of the word, anyway. According to the New York Times, the government "counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants … unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent". If this is true, it is astounding. The government has an obligation under international law to distinguish combatants from noncombatants – and, as far as reasonably possible, to avoid causing noncombatants harm. |
| May 31, 2012 | May 31, 2012 |
| Scott Horton, Harper's Magazine | Scott Horton, Harper's Magazine |
| The article also tackles the underpinnings of the CIA's claims that there have been no, or at least very few, civilian deaths owing to drone strikes recently: "Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties. . . . 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." We learn that this approach has been controversial within the administration, with some advisers noting that it seems close to a conclusive presumption of guilt. | The article also tackles the underpinnings of the CIA's claims that there have been no, or at least very few, civilian deaths owing to drone strikes recently: "Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties. . . . 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." We learn that this approach has been controversial within the administration, with some advisers noting that it seems close to a conclusive presumption of guilt. |
| Ta-Nehisi Coates, The Atlantic | Ta-Nehisi Coates, The Atlantic |
| The Obama administration considers any military-age male in the vicinity of a bombing to be a combatant. That is an amazing standard that shares an ugly synergy with the sort of broad-swath logic that we see employed in Stop and Frisk, with NYPD national spy network, with the killer of Trayvon Martin. | The Obama administration considers any military-age male in the vicinity of a bombing to be a combatant. That is an amazing standard that shares an ugly synergy with the sort of broad-swath logic that we see employed in Stop and Frisk, with NYPD national spy network, with the killer of Trayvon Martin. |
| Amy Davidson, The New Yorker | Amy Davidson, The New Yorker |
| Brennan and other officials interviewed by the Times and Newsweek said that Obama had enormous faith in himself. It would be more responsible, though, if he had less – if he thought that he was no better than any other President we've had or ever will. The point isn't just the task, or burden, he takes on, but the machine he has built for his successors to use. | Brennan and other officials interviewed by the Times and Newsweek said that Obama had enormous faith in himself. It would be more responsible, though, if he had less – if he thought that he was no better than any other President we've had or ever will. The point isn't just the task, or burden, he takes on, but the machine he has built for his successors to use. |
| Editorial, the New York Times | Editorial, the New York Times |
| It is too easy to say that this is a natural power of a commander in chief. The United States cannot be in a perpetual war on terror that allows lethal force against anyone, anywhere, for any perceived threat. That power is too great, and too easily abused, as those who lived through the George W. Bush administration will remember. | It is too easy to say that this is a natural power of a commander in chief. The United States cannot be in a perpetual war on terror that allows lethal force against anyone, anywhere, for any perceived threat. That power is too great, and too easily abused, as those who lived through the George W. Bush administration will remember. |
| Micah Zenko and Emma Welch, Foreign Policy | Micah Zenko and Emma Welch, Foreign Policy |
| But Obama's policy of killing by remote control is by no means new. Over the last decade, America's overseas use of drones has expanded exponentially in scope, location, and frequency. Beyond their use across the battlefields of Afghanistan, Libya, and Iraq, US drones have been used to target suspected militants and terrorists in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia, as well as to conduct surveillance missions over Colombia, Haiti, Iran, Mexico, North Korea, the Philippines, Turkey, and beyond. | But Obama's policy of killing by remote control is by no means new. Over the last decade, America's overseas use of drones has expanded exponentially in scope, location, and frequency. Beyond their use across the battlefields of Afghanistan, Libya, and Iraq, US drones have been used to target suspected militants and terrorists in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia, as well as to conduct surveillance missions over Colombia, Haiti, Iran, Mexico, North Korea, the Philippines, Turkey, and beyond. |
| William Saletan, Slate | William Saletan, Slate |
| It's [New York Times's 'Secret 'Kill List' Proves a Test of Obama's Principles and Will'] a flattering portrait. But at its margins, you can spot hints at what the official narrative leaves out. Obama has been using two enormous loopholes to evade the program's rules for selecting targets and sparing civilians. | It's [New York Times's 'Secret 'Kill List' Proves a Test of Obama's Principles and Will'] a flattering portrait. But at its margins, you can spot hints at what the official narrative leaves out. Obama has been using two enormous loopholes to evade the program's rules for selecting targets and sparing civilians. |
| Charles Pierce, Esquire | Charles Pierce, Esquire |
| Let's get the easiest stuff out of the way first. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that allows the president to make private war on individuals. Any historical precedent you can cite is rooted not in that document, but in the steady historical draining of the war powers from the Congress, where the Founders anchored them, to the Executive branch, all the way back to Thomas Jefferson and the Barbary Pirates, when Jefferson circumvented the requirements by sending a fleet off to Africa and not telling Congress until it was too late to recall it. | Let's get the easiest stuff out of the way first. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that allows the president to make private war on individuals. Any historical precedent you can cite is rooted not in that document, but in the steady historical draining of the war powers from the Congress, where the Founders anchored them, to the Executive branch, all the way back to Thomas Jefferson and the Barbary Pirates, when Jefferson circumvented the requirements by sending a fleet off to Africa and not telling Congress until it was too late to recall it. |
| Glenn Greenwald, Salon | Glenn Greenwald, Salon |
| Once something is repeated enough by government officials, we become numb to its extremism. Even in the immediate wake of 9/11 – when national fear and hysteria were intense – things like the Patriot Act, military commissions, and indefinite detention were viewed as radical departures from American political tradition; now, they just endure and are constantly renewed without notice, because they've just become normalized fixtures of American political life. Here we have the Obama administration asserting what I genuinely believe, without hyperbole, is the most extremist government interpretation of the Bill of Rights I've heard in my lifetime – that the Fifth Amendment's guarantee that the State cannot deprive you of your life without "due process of law" is fulfilled by completely secret, oversight-free "internal deliberations by the executive branch" – and it's now barely something anyone (including me) even notices when The New York Times reports it | Once something is repeated enough by government officials, we become numb to its extremism. Even in the immediate wake of 9/11 – when national fear and hysteria were intense – things like the Patriot Act, military commissions, and indefinite detention were viewed as radical departures from American political tradition; now, they just endure and are constantly renewed without notice, because they've just become normalized fixtures of American political life. Here we have the Obama administration asserting what I genuinely believe, without hyperbole, is the most extremist government interpretation of the Bill of Rights I've heard in my lifetime – that the Fifth Amendment's guarantee that the State cannot deprive you of your life without "due process of law" is fulfilled by completely secret, oversight-free "internal deliberations by the executive branch" – and it's now barely something anyone (including me) even notices when The New York Times reports it |
| Michael Crowley, Time Swampland | Michael Crowley, Time Swampland |
| The story provoked dismay from some usual suspects on the left, but little outrage overall. That's worth contemplating. Not only is Barack Obama asserting extraordinary executive power in ways that would have made Bush-era Democrats howl, fueling a dozen interminable Keith Olbermann "special comments," but he is also overseeing a very strange transformation of his office. While Presidents have always made grand life-and-death decisions about war and peace – the commander-in-chief role – the job has recently evolved. Now we have something like an executioner-in-chief. | The story provoked dismay from some usual suspects on the left, but little outrage overall. That's worth contemplating. Not only is Barack Obama asserting extraordinary executive power in ways that would have made Bush-era Democrats howl, fueling a dozen interminable Keith Olbermann "special comments," but he is also overseeing a very strange transformation of his office. While Presidents have always made grand life-and-death decisions about war and peace – the commander-in-chief role – the job has recently evolved. Now we have something like an executioner-in-chief. |