SF Bay Area Indymedia indymedia
About Contact Subscribe Calendar Publish Print Donate

International | U.S. | Anti-War | Police State and Prisons

Obama's 5 self-defined "rules" for covert drone strikes
by DLi
Saturday Sep 8th, 2012 6:56 PM
In a recent on-camera interview with CNN White House correspondent Jessica Yellin, the White House Occupier Barack revealed 5 generalized "rules" that the U.S. government supposedly uses to determine whom(US citizens included) it would target and kill. Aside from being rhetorically-benign statements that are meant to justify global killings of "suspects" via remote-controlled drone strikes, all of those "rules" cited by POTUS 44 amount to, "Just trust us, we are trying to protect American citizens, and we try to be very careful..."
Rules #1-3 claim that a target has to be, "authorized by our laws"; a threat has to be "serious and not speculative"; it has to be a "situation in which we can't capture the individual before they move forward on some sort of operational plot against the U.S." #4 claims,"...we are very careful about avoiding civilian casualties." But the real doozer is #5, "That while there is a legal justification for us to stop /_even American citizens_/ from carrying out plots...they are subject to the protections of the consitution and due process."

While Obama skillfully sprinkles "good-intention" platitudes around the long-distance assassinations that have killed "signature suspects"(which include family members, scoial gatherings such as wedding parties, and even rescue personnel--as reported by Pakistani reports with surviving witnesses), both Mr. Obama and the DoJ(Dept. of Justice)have steadfastly refused to provide actual evidence on those strikes y claiming "national secuirty" grounds. Most pointedly, POTUS did not comment at all about the killing of a 16-year old son of Anwar al-Waki, 2 weeks after a US drone strike killed his father in Yemen, agian without revealing any factual evidence of his alleged "crime."

In addition, DoJ chief Eric Holder also re-defined the concept of "due process" for Gitmo detainees, by claiming that while the detainees are afforded "due process," that is not the same as a legal process! Talk about hair-splitting to avoid following the law by the attorney-general of these United States!