Obama the Executioner

[Doc]

Wrong yet again Zack Morris, wrong so often and so profoundly.

Rendition of the truth is more like it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordin ... th_century

The first well-known rendition case involved the Achille Lauro hijackers in 1985: after they were given a plane and were en route in international air space, they were forced by United States Navy fighter planes to land at the Naval Air Station Sigonella, an Italian military base in Sicily used by the US Navy and NATO. The US was trying to get them within judicial reach of United States government representatives for transport to and trial in the United States.[26]

In September 1987, during the Reagan administration, the United States executed an extraordinary rendition, code named "Goldenrod," in a joint FBI-CIA operation. Agents lured Fawaz Yunis, who was wanted in the U.S. courts for his role in the hijacking of a Jordanian airliner that had American citizens on board, onto a boat off the coast of Cyprus and taken to international waters, where he was arrested.

"The Reagan administration did not undertake this kidnapping lightly. Then-FBI Director William Webster had opposed an earlier bid to snatch Yunis, arguing that the United States should not adopt the tactics of Israel, which had abducted Adolf Eichmann on a residential street in Buenos Aires, Argentina, in 1960... In 1984 and 1986, during a wave of terrorist attacks, Congress passed laws making air piracy and attacks on Americans abroad federal crimes. Ronald Reagan added teeth to these laws by signing a secret covert-action directive in 1986 that authorized the CIA to kidnap, anywhere abroad, foreigners wanted for terrorism. A new word entered the dictionary of U.S. foreign relations: rendition."[27]

The American Civil Liberties Union alleges that extraordinary rendition was developed during the Clinton administration. CIA officials in the mid-1990s were trying to track down and dismantle militant Islamic organizations in the Middle East, particularly Al Qaeda.[6]

According to Clinton administration official Richard Clarke:
“ 'extraordinary renditions', were operations to apprehend terrorists abroad, usually without the knowledge of and almost always without public acknowledgment of the host government.... The first time I proposed a snatch, in 1993, the White House Counsel, Lloyd Cutler, demanded a meeting with the President to explain how it violated international law. Clinton had seemed to be siding with Cutler until Al Gore belatedly joined the meeting, having just flown overnight from South Africa. Clinton recapped the arguments on both sides for Gore: "Lloyd says this. Dick says that. Gore laughed and said, 'That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass.'"[28] ”

Gee if only Bush hadn't stolen the 2000 election. Al Gore would have handled the GWOT so differently.

Both the Reagan and Clinton cases involved apprehending known terrorists abroad, by covert means if necessary. The Bush administration expanded the policy after the 9/11 attacks.

In a New Yorker interview with CIA veteran Michael Scheuer, an author of the rendition program under the Clinton administration, writer Jane Mayer noted,

"In 1995, American agents proposed the rendition program to Egypt, making clear that it had the resources to track, capture, and transport terrorist suspects globally—including access to a small fleet of aircraft. Egypt embraced the idea... 'What was clever was that some of the senior people in Al Qaeda were Egyptian,' Scheuer said. 'It served American purposes to get these people arrested, and Egyptian purposes to get these people back, where they could be interrogated.' Technically, U.S. law requires the CIA to seek 'assurances' from foreign governments that rendered suspects won’t be tortured. Scheuer told me that this was done, but he was 'not sure' if any documents confirming the arrangement were signed."[29]

Scheuer testified in 2007 before Congress that no such assurances were received.[30] He acknowledged that treatment of prisoners may not have been "up to U.S. standards." He stated,

This is a matter of no concern as the Rendition Program’s goal was to protect America, and the rendered fighters delivered to Middle Eastern governments are now either dead or in places from which they cannot harm America. Mission accomplished, as the saying goes.[31]

Thereafter, with the approval of President Clinton and a presidential directive (PDD 39), the CIA elected to send suspects to Egypt, where they were turned over to the Egyptian Mukhabarat.

Clinton era intelligence officials marveled at how fast they got intelligence from torture. They really liked it. This is all well known and in the public domain.

I'm for the Milo Doctrine, which requires no torture and settles the issue. Have been for the Milo Doctrine for years and years an years, yet can't bring around neocons like Zack Morris or say Tinker.

[Endovelico]

Assassination Court: Senators Mull Pre-Execution Trials
By Jason Ditz On February 8, 2013

With drones suddenly a part of the conversation during the Brennan confirmation hearings, senators are said to be considering an idea to create a secret “assassination court” on the model of the FISA courts that rubber-stamp wiretapping, only this court would be charged with deciding if “suspects” can be assassinated by US drone strikes.

The idea has some support, though officials say it is unlikely any such proposals will be acted on any time soon. The notion of a secretive court deciding who gets killed by robots looming overhead anywhere on the planet strikes some as somewhat morbid.

On the other hand, the drones are already looming overhead and killing people by the thousands worldwide as it is, and the change would just be some nominal court oversight to the whole process of killing people en masse, which at present is entirely up to President Obama. That is a power he is unlikely to be willing to give up.

John Brennan expressed some skepticism about the idea, saying he would consider it but that it would have to be a different type of court from anything in existence. He argued that drone strikes aren’t about guilt for past actions but rather are aimed at preventing a future action, adding that this is an “inherently Executive Branch” function.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D – CA), the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, is spearheading the effort, seeking some method of regulating the killings and hoping to translate the FISA model more or less directly.

Sen. Angus King (I – ME) suggested even that might be a bridge too far, and that he believes such a court should be limited only to considering the execution of American citizens, while the executions of everybody else would never see the inside of a court, secret or not.

On the other hand Sen. King did express concern about the killings of Americans, saying that making the president “prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner all in one is very contrary” to US tradition. That apparently did not apply to foreigners.

I'm afraid the US government is fast becoming a mafia or a drug cartel type of organization, where orders are routinely given to kill opponents. I'm baffled at the passivity of most Americans in the face of such developments. For a supposedly moral nation such passivity is unbelievable. What's happening in the US today makes me finally understand how it was possible for Germans to slowly accept nazi practices in the 30's. Are gas chambers to be soon introduced in the US?...

[Mr. Perfect]

Yes Endovelico, just like Germany, Cuba, China, Russia, America has been infected with leftism and gas chambers, rail cars, etc are in our near future, as eventually happens with every left wing enterprise.

I found it very upsetting for a while but now I'm starting to look forward to it.

[Enki]

I would point out that this isn't a 10,000 ninjas policy. that idea rests on a foundation of military disengagement worldwide.

[Doc]

John Brennan and the “So-Called” Americans
Posted by Amy Davidson

brennan-cia-hearings-close-read.jpg

“One of the problems is, once the drone program is so public, and one American is caught up, people don’t know much about this one ‘American citizen’—so called,” said Senator Dianne Feinstein, in her questioning of John Brennan, President Obama’s nominee for C.I.A. director, on Thursday. (John Cassidy has more on the hearing.) She was referring to Anwar al-Awlaki, who was killed by a drone strike in Yemen, in 2011, and was a “so-called” American because he was an American, born in New Mexico. “They don’t know what he’s been doing,” Feinstein continued. “They don’t know the incitement he has stirred up. I wonder if you could tell us a little bit about Mr. Awlaki and what he’s been doing.”

Brennan demurred at first, since the question was about an “operation.” Feinstein jumped in:

See, that’s the problem. When people hear “American,” they think someone who’s upstanding. And this man was not upstanding by a long shot.

BRENNAN: Yes.

FEINSTEIN: And maybe you cannot discuss it here, but I’ve read enough to know that he was a real problem.

Brennan agreed, saying that al-Awlaki “was intimately involved in activities that were designed to kill innocent men, women, and children, mostly Americans. He was not just a propagandist.” (He neglected to mention that al-Awlaki’s American teen-age son was also killed, in a separate strike.) Feinstein then led him through a number of incidents; in some cases, Brennan agreed that al-Awlaki was an organizer, and in others he spoke obliquely about “inspiring” and “inciting individuals.” Feinstein summed up the exchange with what may have been the most disturbing line in the three-hour hearing, worse, even, than the waterboarding joke that Senator Burr told a few minutes later:

“And, so, Mr. Awlaki is not an American citizen by where anyone in America would be proud.”

“Proud,” “upstanding,” “so-called American”—is this the basis on which the Senate is judging fundamental questions of American rights and due process? Before the hearing, I wondered what picture of Americans we were supposed to have when we heard about the executive giving itself the power to kill them. Feinstein could hardly have given a less reassuring answer. When and on what basis will any of us get a “so-called” in front of our nationality? That there may have been a good deal of evidence against al-Awlaki is why his case should have gone before a court, not why it shouldn’t have. What happened to the idea that it is precisely when we are the most enraged, and the least popular, that we need to be the most careful?

The Obama Administration, as far as we’ve seen in a leaked Department of Justice white paper, is making a contradictory case: it claims that it is deliberate and careful, acting only when it must to say lives. But, when challenged, it descends into emotion and an abandonment of law. Angus King, the new Independent Senator from Maine—a white mustachioed, affable, Sandra Day O’Connor-quoting figure—asked why there couldn’t be something like a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court that reviewed evidence before a strike. (Otherwise, what’s to stop the President from acting on, or making, unfounded accusations?) Brennan said that he’d be interested in talking about it, but then made a comment that goes to the heart of what’s so troubling about the Administration’s targeted-killing policies:

None of those actions are to determine past guilt for those actions that they took. The decisions that they made are to take actions to prevent a future action—to protect American lives. And that is an inherently executive function.

So the President gets to make guesses, perhaps about someone who has not done anything that wasn’t upstanding? It got more confusing when Ron Wyden, of Oregon, asked Brennan whether American citizens on a “kill list” should be given an opportunity to surrender. Brennan said that anyone who was in Al Qaeda “should know well that they, in fact, are part of an enemy against us”—suggesting that past associations are enough. The white paper seconds this, with a notion of people who are “continually planning” and, as has been much noted, has a definition of “imminence” and preventing “future actions” that is elastic to the point of meaninglessness. Nor does the white paper limit killing power to Al Qaeda—it includes vaguely defined “associated forces.”

If the hearing accomplished one thing, it was to make it very clear that the level of transparency and oversight have been insufficient. Brennan demonstrated this himself, in the course of dodging questions about what torture had yielded and cost us; he said that a classified Senate Intelligence Committee report had been “disturbing,” and had made him question much of what he thought he knew. (He mentioned “inaccurate information that was put forward.”) If someone in Brennan’s position can say that, the public needs to read the report before being asked to acquiesce the next time. It was also striking that the White House let the Senators but not their staffs see the legal memos that were the basis of the white paper.

Is Brennan angry about getting bad information about torture? Throughout the hearing, he offered his own passions as justifications—“I go to bed worrying that I didn’t do enough,” he said. (The passions were then justified with jokes about how he was from New Jersey.) Americans don’t understand, he said, “the agony we go through” to make sure that there aren’t collateral deaths in drone strikes. He may do so, but his internal pain is ultimately less interesting than the precedents he is crafting and the way that future Presidents—whether dispassionate or vindictive or caught up in a crisis—might use them. As Senator Jay Rockefeller said, “the drones are going to grow.”

There was, however, one point in which Brennan put his feelings aside. He was asked by Carl Levin if waterboarding was torture. Brennan said that, though in a personal sense he thought it was “reprehensible,” he couldn’t answer the question: “I’m not a lawyer.”

Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/c ... icans.html

[Doc]

[Heracleum Persicum]

.



Arrest me if you dare



5rXPrfnU3G0





.

[Ibrahim]

I would point out that this isn't a 10,000 ninjas policy. that idea rests on a foundation of military disengagement worldwide.

They are actually two separate issues. I.e. you could preemptively murder people with last-gen military technology. The issue of the legality/desirability of "kill lists" and the government secretly murdering whoever/whenever/whoever is nearby vs. how they should do it aren't connected.

The preference for small actions and quick interventions are already obvious. Nobody is advocating Bush II-era occupations anymore, except for the friends of the administration that directly profited, and locals in Baghdad and Kabul who managed to funnel the same monies to themselves. And maybe a few die-hard GWB fans.

[Mr. Perfect]

Actually barack obama has advocated Bush ii occupations all by hisself.

[Mr. Perfect]

I would point out that this isn't a 10,000 ninjas policy. that idea rests on a foundation of military disengagement worldwide.

Military disengagement means you don't send out any ninjas.

[cincinnatus]

I had a fun argument with a "civil servant" GS-14 in the Pentagon last week about this issue. He's a typical 30-year career beltway employee who thinks he's better and smarter than the hicks beyond I-495 and he scolded me for pointing out an Onion article saying "Americans undecided on allowing the government to kill them." The man with the "Obama/Biden '08" sticker on his bumper argued it was practical to allow the President to declare a U.S. citizen a terrorist and to order their death because "once you join a terrorist group, you're technically not a citizen anymore; sort of like a German-American in the 1940s signing up for the Wermacht." Only the military officers in the room professed any misgivings with the policy, whereas two other "civil servants" mocked us with "fine...are you going to go into Yemen to arrest them?"

Sometimes I feel like the character in the Matrix who just wants to forget the reality and re-enter the Matrix to eat a digital steak. I was far less cynical six years ago before falling into reading facts and cogent opinions from the various posters here and at places like Zerohedge (minus their fixation on da Joos and 9/11 inside job). To my shame, six years ago I probably would have agreed with their logic and not thought through the implications of star chambers declaring someone a terrorist with no oversight.

edit: not sure why the fixation is on the CINC...didn't the NDAA pass with overwhelming R support in the Senate? Sad truth is there is nowhere to go politically in the U.S. duopoly with these issues.

[Ibrahim]

I had a fun argument with a "civil servant" GS-14 in the Pentagon last week about this issue. He's a typical 30-year career beltway employee who thinks he's better and smarter than the hicks beyond I-495 and he scolded me for pointing out an Onion article saying "Americans undecided on allowing the government to kill them." The man with the "Obama/Biden '08" sticker on his bumper argued it was practical to allow the President to declare a U.S. citizen a terrorist and to order their death because "once you join a terrorist group, you're technically not a citizen anymore; sort of like a German-American in the 1940s signing up for the Wermacht." Only the military officers in the room professed any misgivings with the policy, whereas two other "civil servants" mocked us with "fine...are you going to go into Yemen to arrest them?"

Sometimes I feel like the character in the Matrix who just wants to forget the reality and re-enter the Matrix to eat a digital steak. I was far less cynical six years ago before falling into reading facts and cogent opinions from the various posters here and at places like Zerohedge (minus their fixation on da Joos and 9/11 inside job). To my shame, six years ago I probably would have agreed with their logic and not thought through the implications of star chambers declaring someone a terrorist with no oversight.

edit: not sure why the fixation is on the CINC...didn't the NDAA pass with overwhelming R support in the Senate? Sad truth is there is nowhere to go politically in the U.S. duopoly with these issues.

Party politics is a red herring in all of this, as is the military/civilian distinction within the defense and intelligence organs of the US government. This is, at the moment, a problem for America as a whole, both as perpetrators and potential victims, and the divisions are only a distraction.


The weirdest thing to me is the lack of debate on whether or not these methods even work. The legal issues about the powers of government to do these things, or the secret military methodology of choosing and hitting targets are also worthwhile things to discuss, but if the entire project only makes the world more dangerous, and places the US in greater danger while diminishing prestige, then there would be no reason to do this in the first place.

Based on what I have read about the situations in Yemen and Pakistan the entire project is counterproductive. That would mean the US is shredding its own laws in order to pursue a self-destructive policy, even before I start all my parochial bleeding-heart complaining about murdering women and children.

[Apollonius]

Ibrahim,


I agree with a good part of your critique.


However, you have picked bad examples to back it up. There is NOTHING the U.S. could do to improve its standing in Pakistan or Yemen. From everything I've ever read, the people there hate everyone, especially each other.

[Mr. Perfect]

Party politics is a red herring in all of this,

No one was saying that when the other party was in power. Quite the opposite.

as is the military/civilian distinction within the defense and intelligence organs of the US government. This is, at the moment, a problem for America as a whole, both as perpetrators and potential victims, and the divisions are only a distraction.


The weirdest thing to me is the lack of debate on whether or not these methods even work.

When you take party politics out of it this is often the result.

The legal issues about the powers of government to do these things, or the secret military methodology of choosing and hitting targets are also worthwhile things to discuss, but if the entire project only makes the world more dangerous, and places the US in greater danger while diminishing prestige, then there would be no reason to do this in the first place.

You think people want a different outcome. They don't. This was the plan for Obama from day 1.

Based on what I have read about the situations in Yemen and Pakistan the entire project is counterproductive. That would mean the US is shredding its own laws in order to pursue a self-destructive policy, even before I start all my parochial bleeding-heart complaining about murdering women and children.

Counterproductive for what? Obama is very happy with his production as are his minions. As are you when it suits your objectives (Libya). You have no problem murdering women and children when it suits you.

[Ibrahim]

Ibrahim,


I agree with a good part of your critique.


However, you have picked bad examples to back it up. There is NOTHING the U.S. could do to improve its standing in Pakistan or Yemen. From everything I've ever read, the people there hate everyone, especially each other.

There is a difference between hating the US and devoting your life to trying to attack the US.

If we look at Yemen as an example, there was an initial wave of Bin Laden-era "Afghan Arabs" that started AQAP in that country and started staging attacks, then they were mostly wiped out in 2001-2002 by the aggressive US response to 9/11. Except that those who were peripherally involved in extremist circles were jailed/tortured by the government at US request, and in those prisons they formed relationship and organized a second wave of AQAP membership that resumed making attacks on the Yemeni regime, and plots attacks on the US. And their ranks are swelled by the relatives of people (innocent or not) killed by US drones.

So since 9/11 the US policy towards Yemen has increased the number of extremists in that country, given them new motivation and recruiting tools, and allowed them to network. How is that a strategy worth pursuing?

If you want a good introductory background of the Yemen situation try this book:
http://www.amazon.ca/The-Last-Refuge-Gr ... 277&sr=8-1

[Typhoon]

I had a fun argument with a "civil servant" GS-14 in the Pentagon last week about this issue. He's a typical 30-year career beltway employee who thinks he's better and smarter than the hicks beyond I-495 and he scolded me for pointing out an Onion article saying "Americans undecided on allowing the government to kill them."

All too typical of those who spend their time in a highly insular environment, be it government, academia, or industry.

The phrase "the best and the brightest" as used by Halberstam comes to mind.

The man with the "Obama/Biden '08" sticker on his bumper argued it was practical to allow the President to declare a U.S. citizen a terrorist and to order their death because "once you join a terrorist group, you're technically not a citizen anymore; sort of like a German-American in the 1940s signing up for the Wermacht."

The irony that this is no different than a fatwa against an apostate probably escaped him.

Only the military officers in the room professed any misgivings with the policy, whereas two other "civil servants" mocked us with "fine...are you going to go into Yemen to arrest them?"

Good to read that post-modern moral relativism and situational ethics are not the norm for at least some in the officer corp.
That some, unlike most boomers, are still capable of introspection and reflection.

Sometimes I feel like the character in the Matrix who just wants to forget the reality and re-enter the Matrix to eat a digital steak. I was far less cynical six years ago before falling into reading facts and cogent opinions from the various posters here and at places like Zerohedge (minus their fixation on da Joos and 9/11 inside job).
. . .

And I would add their fixation on physical metals as opposed to fiat money. ZH is a fun site as long as one is careful to avoid their investment advice.

ZH and similar sites is to the financial world what Stephen King is to the literary world. Both write scary stories that may be entertaining (SK's stories certainly are),
but which are purely fictitious and have no relationship to reality.

The only difference is that SK has never claimed his stories have any basis in reality, while ZH makes this claim all the time.

Of course, I've been banned from ZH. In my case for pointing out and providing evidence that people were not dying in droves in Tokyo due to Fukushima Daiichi as the self-appointed experts at ZH claimed.

_____ Footnote ____

About ZeroHedge:

2. Daniel Ivandjiiski

86. Daniel Ivandjiiski (“Ivandjiiski”) is thirty-three year old individual residing in
New York, New York.

87. Ivandjiiski is a native of Bulgaria, and graduated from the American College in
Sofia Bulgaria in 1997. After graduating Ivandjiiski moved to the United States and from
November 2001 through January 2007 worked with three different FINRA registered broker
dealers. His brief career in the financial services industry ended when he was terminated from
Miller Buckfire & Co. for insider trading. Specifically, in March of 2006, Ivandjiiski obtained
confidential documents from his former employer Imperial Capital, LLC concerning an
impending deal between the holding company of Hawaiian Airlines and its creditors. Based on
this nonpublic information, he purchased shares in the company for his own benefit, which he
later sold at a profit. After an investigation, in September 2008, FINRA found that Ivandjiiski’s
conduct constituted illegal insider trading in violation § 10(B) of the Securities and Exchange
Act of 1934, SEC Rule 10B-5, and NASD Rules 2110 and 2120, and permanently barred
Ivandjiiski from working in the securities industry. Ivandjiiski did not challenge his disbarment.

88. After his disbarment, Ivandjiiski founded the website, zerohedge.com, on which
he posts under the pseudonym, Tyler Durden. Ivandjiiski is also a registered contributor on the
investment information website seekingalpha.com, on which Dalrymple Finance is also a
registered contributor. Ivandjiiski does not appear to have any other kind of regular employment
or legitimate source of income.

89. A search of the Whois database reveals that zerohedge.com is registered to ABC
Media, Ltd. at P.O. Box 814 Sofia, Bulgaria, and lists technical and administrative contacts for
site at the same address.

90. The same address, P.O. Box 814 Sofia, Bulgaria, is also listed as the
correspondence address for Ivandjiiski’s father, Krassimir Ivandjiiski, on the website,
http://www.strogosekretno.com/. The site makes available information concerning the elder
Ivandjiiski’s Bulgarian-language tabloid, Bulgaria Confidential, as well as his consulting
business Krassimir Ivandjiiski & Partners.

91. According to the site, the Krassimir Ivandjiiski & Partners “are the only official
entities, offering economic, political, journalistic, and social consultancy for Bulgaria and the
[sic] entire Eastern-European region.” Among the services offered are. acting as foreign clients’
“official contacts for any and every business venture” and “assisting [them] with the by-pass of
local bureaucratic red-tape.” Krassimir Ivandjiiski & Partners also claims to be “the people you
should contact for help with trade to and from the region, advice in coordinating business plan
[sic] activites, marketing, quick and effective realization of your business [sic] planes,
distribution oriented communication with local and foreign privatization candidates.” The elder
Ivandjiiski’s profile page on the site states that during the Soviet era “was a special envoy
during the wars in Afghanistan, Angola, Mozambique, Somalia, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Uganda,
Sudan, Namibia, South Yemen,” during which period he was also a “military journalist,”
employed by the Bulgarian Ministry of Foreign Trade and the head of various foreign offices of
the Bulgarian government.

92. Zerohedge.com and the younger Ivandjiiski have been described as residing in
the “dark and cowardly corners of the blogosphere," from whence they publish almost
exclusively negative information about publically traded companies, always pseudonymously
authored.

93. The site and Ivandjiiski, however, gained significant attention in the spring of
2009 when it broke a story, authored by Ivandjiiski, about Goldman Sachs use of flash trading
to reap illegal profits. Since release of that story, the readership of zerohedge.com, as well as its
stature, have increased substantially, and it now ranks among the most visited investor blogs.

94. The stature and reach of zerohedge.com made it a perfect vehicle for distribution
by Defendants and their co-conspirators of the Dalrymple GFC Report. As noted above, while
no other report by Dalrymple appears to have been publically available, on the morning of the
Dalrymple GFC Report’s publication, Defendants or their co-conspirators provided the report to
Dalrymple’s fellow seekingalpha.com contributor and native Bulgarian Ivandjiiski, who per
previous agreement with Defendants, dutifully published the report the same morning, in its
entirety. Ivandjiiski’s blog entry, which was titled “Allegations Of ‘Shell Game’ Fraud
Involving Gerova Financial Group (GFC),” also provided a link from which readers could
download the report, a summary of its contents, and advice to readers to short the Company’s
stock.

Extract from Gross Law | NOBLE INVESTMENT FUND LIMITED, a Gibraltar limited liability company Plaintiff, v. KEITH DALRYMPLE, an individual; VICTORIA DALRYMPLE, an individual; DALRYMPLE FINANCE, a Florida limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100 Defendant [pdf]