Charlie Savage, "Obama, in a Shift to Limit Targets of Drone Strikes," in The New York Times, May 23, 2013, at p. A1.
Mirza Shahzad Akbar, "Obama's Forgotten Victims," (Op-Ed) in The New York Times, May 23, 2013, at p. A31.
"The C.I.A.'s Part in Beghazi: Lost in the focus on the State Department are pressing questions about the C.I.A.'s role," (Editorial) in The New York Times, May 23, 2013, at p. A30.
President Obama's mild and, seemingly, obvious observation that America's "War Against Terror" must have an ending at some point in time has been greeted with outrage on the Right together with fears about whether the "job is done." ("Is Lindsey Graham an Enemy Combatant?")
A permanent war on terror sounds like an excuse for a never-ending National Security State in which citizens are subjected to monitoring, surveillance, control, censorship and maybe even drones used to KILL those refusing to be controlled.
Persons who have experienced attempts at the imposition of "control" may prefer death to slavery. I certainly do.
More persons have been killed by U.S. drones this week in Pakistan -- despite the president's speech -- than in any previous week this year. U.S. authorities also admit to spying on Americans using new drones being sold (or about to be sold) for a profit by private manufacturers allied to the Pentagon and intelligence agencies.
This development suggests that more drones will be used in the future -- whatever Mr. Obama says! -- since C.I.A. ex-operatives were among the officers and shareholders of the newly-created company selling drones to the government for a nice profit.
If prominent American "operatives" will make money each time a drone is used to kill "little brown persons," I am sure that many more little brown persons will be killed. Drone attacks may be expected in Yemen -- and even in Cuba, perhaps -- for $50,000 (or more) per drone.
Mr. Obama noted that the U.S. covert war is "legal" because: 1) it is directed against an international terrorist organization (Al Qaeda); and 2) use of drones is legitimate as a "last resort," in "self-defense," against "terrorists" posing an "imminent threat" to Americans.
This language in the president's speech echoed the U.S. statutory authorization for the use of force in an emergency and international law provisions governing military operations.
Pakistani lawyer Mirza Shahzad Akbar provides very specific information concerning the so-called "highly dangerous terrorists" posing a risk to Americans who are targeted by drones only after careful deliberations in the White House:
" ... a few days after [Mr. Obama's] inaugural address, a C.I.A.-operated drone dropped Hellfire missiles on Fahim Qureishi's home in North Waziristan, killing seven of his family members and severely injuring Fahim. He was just 13 years-old and left with only one eye, and sharpnel in his stomach."
Mr. Qureishi is NOT accused of terrorism. Among others posing an imminent threat to Americans are the following:
"Sadaullah Wazir was another victim of [drones.] His house in North Waziristan was targeted on September 7, 2009. The strike killed four members of his family: Sadaullah was 14 years-old when it happened. A few days after the attack, he woke up in a Peshawar hospital to the news that both of his legs had to be amputated and he would never be able to walk again."
Finally, there is 8 year-old Nabila:
"On October 24, [she] had just returned from school and was playing in a field outside her house with her siblings and cousins while her grandmother picked flowers. At 2:30 P.M., a Hellfire missile came out of the sky and struck right in front of Nabila. Her grandmother was badly burned and succumbed to her injuries; Nabila survived with severe burns and shrapnel wounds in her shoulder."
Thousands of similar incidents make it very clear that C.I.A. assessments are accurate that the agency has "no clear idea of who is being killed," or why they are killed in many of these strikes, nor do they particularly care about the identities of the victims. ("New Jersey's 'Ethical' Legal System" and "New Jersey's Office of Attorney Ethics.")
The injuries being suffered by children and old people may lead "militants" to conclude that the U.S. does not care about the loss of innocent life when it comes to non-Americans. ("Little Brown Men Are Only Objects For Us" and "John Rawls and Justice.")
"Irrational foreign persons," out of sheer evil motives, may be led to "act out" against good Americans whose government is responsible for the drone killings of thousands of innocent persons. ("Legal Ethics Today" and "American Doctors and Torture.")
Similarly, many computer hackers in China may be skeptical about claims that the U.S. government does not engage in cybercrime or hacking against individuals and other governments. ("Have you no shame, Mr. Rabner?" and "Censorship and Cruelty in New Jersey" then "How censorship works in America.")
Perhaps by creating peace and ending the murder of innocent civilians, Mr. Obama may create greater security for Americans, but this suggestion is regarded as "naive" by many of our Republican friends. ("Mr. Boehner's Disgrace" and "Cubanazos Pose a Threat to National Security" then "American Hypocrisy and Luis Posada Carriles.")
Likewise, a more ethical and well-respected legal system may be found in New Jersey when the Supreme Court and OAE in Trenton admits to its "peccadillos" and deals with important issues raised in these blogs. Do the right thing Chief Justice Rabner and Governor Christie. ("Is America's Legal Ethics a Lie?" and "Terry Tuchin, Diana Lisa Riccioli, and New Jersey's Agency of Torture.")
