Help us, Osama Bin Ladin, you're our only hope!

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29842
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Help us, Osama Bin Ladin, you're our only hope!

Post by MKSheppard »

Link
CIA director says secret attacks in Pakistan have hobbled al-Qaeda

By Joby Warrick and Peter Finn
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, March 18, 2010; A01



Aggressive attacks against al-Qaeda in Pakistan's tribal region have driven Osama bin Laden and his top deputies deeper into hiding and disrupted their ability to plan sophisticated operations, CIA Director Leon Panetta said Wednesday.

So profound is al-Qaeda's disarray that one of its lieutenants, in a recently intercepted message, pleaded with bin Laden to come to the group's rescue and provide some leadership, Panetta said. He credited improved coordination with Pakistan's government and what he called "the most aggressive operation that CIA has been involved in in our history," offering a near-acknowledgment of what is officially a secret war.

"Those operations are seriously disrupting al-Qaeda," Panetta said. "It's pretty clear from all the intelligence we are getting that they are having a very difficult time putting together any kind of command and control, that they are scrambling. And that we really do have them on the run."

Panetta is one of several senior officials who have stepped forward to argue that the administration is making gains against extremists, in part to rebut Republican criticism that President Obama has weakened national security. He is not the first CIA director to point to progress in the war against al-Qaeda, claims that sometimes prove too ambitious. "I have an excellent idea of where [bin Laden] is," then-CIA Director Porter J. Goss told an interviewer in 2005.

Senior Obama administration officials this week have given sharply different views on how bin Laden would be dealt with if he fell into U.S. hands. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, said Wednesday that the military would "certainly" try to capture bin Laden alive and "bring him to justice."

A day earlier, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. told a congressional panel that bin Laden would never go on trial in the United States because the chances of him being caught alive are "infinitesimal." He predicted flatly that bin Laden will be killed -- either by U.S. forces or by al-Qaeda operatives determined to prevent him from being captured.

Panetta said the agency has a plan in the event that a top al-Qaeda leader is captured. "The most likely scenario is you bring them to a military facility, and we would then do the questioning" there, he said.

A steady toll on al-Qaeda

Reflecting on his 13 months at the helm of the CIA, Panetta made no prediction about the fate of the man who has eluded a worldwide manhunt for nine years. But he said the combined U.S.-Pakistani campaign is taking a steady toll in terms of al-Qaeda leaders killed and captured, and is undercutting the group's ability to coordinate attacks outside its base along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

To illustrate that progress, U.S. intelligence officials revealed new details of a March 8 killing of a top al-Qaeda commander in the militant stronghold of Miram Shah in North Waziristan, in Pakistan's autonomous tribal region. The al-Qaeda official died in what local news reports described as a missile strike by an unmanned aerial vehicle. In keeping with long-standing practice, the officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because the CIA formally declines to acknowledge U.S. participation in attacks inside Pakistani territory.

Hussein al-Yemeni, the man killed in the attack, was identified by one intelligence official as among al-Qaeda's top 20 leaders and a participant in the planning for a Dec. 30 suicide bombing at a CIA base in the province of Khost in eastern Afghanistan. The bombing, in which a Jordanian double agent gained access to the CIA base and killed seven officers and contractors, was the deadliest single blow against the agency in a quarter-century.

Panetta's upbeat remarks contrasted with recent intelligence assessments of continuing terrorist threats against the U.S. homeland. But he also said al-Qaeda will continue to look for ways to strike inside the United States, and he noted that the organization is seeking to recruit people who lack criminal records or known ties to terrorist groups.

He cited the recent examples of Najibullah Zazi, an Afghan immigrant who targeted the New York subway system and pleaded guilty to terrorism charges, and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a Nigerian charged with attempting to detonate explosives on a commercial flight about to land in Detroit.

"How many other Zazis are there -- the people who have a clean record who suddenly, for some crazy reason, decide to get involved with jihad?" Panetta said. "The bomber in Detroit -- this person suddenly goes off, has a U.S. visa, and within 30 days he's recruited to strap a bomb on and come to this country. What we are seeing is that they are now looking for those kind of clean credentials."

Such threats make it all the more necessary to strike al-Qaeda in its home base, Panetta said. "The president gave us the mission to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaeda and their military allies, and I think that's what we are trying to do."

Secret strikes

Counting the March 8 operation, the CIA is believed to have mounted 22 such strikes this year, putting the agency on course to exceed last year's roughly 53 strikes, a record. The March 8 event is believed to have been the first to occur in an urban area; a U.S. intelligence official familiar with the operation said the building that was targeted housed "a large number of al-Qaeda" fighters who were developing explosives. There were no other casualties, the official said.

Panetta, while declining to comment on the strike itself, said the death of the al-Qaeda commander sent a "very important signal that they are not going to be able to hide in urban areas."

He also cited recent arrests of top Taliban figures -- most notably Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, captured in Karachi in early February -- as tangible evidence of improving ties with Pakistan's intelligence service. He said that Pakistan has given the CIA access to Baradar since his capture and added that "we're getting intelligence" from the interrogation.

A senior intelligence official revealed that Baradar was tracked down as part of a joint operation with Pakistan that targeted members of a Taliban leadership council known as the Quetta Shura. A breakthrough came when the intelligence agencies obtained a list of Taliban phone numbers, one of which led them directly to Baradar, the official said.

Panetta said coordination between the CIA and its Pakistani counterparts had improved over the past year, despite occasional "friction based on past history."

"Generally we've had much better relationships," he said. "We do a lot more operations together. That's how Baradar was captured as well as others. . . . They have been much more tolerant of the operations we have there."

Where is bin Laden?

Panetta said the agency does not know precisely where bin Laden and his top deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, are hiding, but he said agency officials believe the two are inside Pakistan, "either in the northern tribal areas or in North Waziristan, or somewhere in that vicinity."

While there have been no confirmed sightings of either man since 2003, the continued pressure increases the opportunities for catching one or both, Panetta said. "We thought that the increased pressure would do one of two things: that it would either bring them out to try to exert some leadership in what is an organization in real trouble, or that they would go deeper into hiding," he said. "And so far we think they are going deeper into hiding."

Inside the door of Panetta's office is a color-coded map of the tribal areas in Pakistan, the only map on a wall decorated with photographs of Panetta's long career in Washington.

"You can bet there is going to be a conversation in this office during the day that involves something on that map," he said.
..........

Of course, the awesome effectiveness of this killing machine is going questioned......by the ACLU's John Adam's Project

Link
U.S. Civil Liberties Group Questions 'Legal Basis' Of Using Drones To Kill
Updated: Tuesday, 16 Mar 2010, 8:55 PM CDT
Published : Tuesday, 16 Mar 2010, 8:55 PM CDT

(NewsCore) - The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit Tuesday demanding that the government disclose the legal basis for its use of unmanned drones to conduct targeted killings overseas.

In particular, the lawsuit asks for information on when, where and against whom drone strikes can be authorized, the number and rate of civilian casualties and other basic information essential for assessing the wisdom and legality of using armed drones to conduct targeted killings.

"The public has a right to know whether the targeted killings being carried out in its name are consistent with international law and with the country's interests and values," said Jonathan Manes, a legal fellow with the ACLU National Security Project.

"The Obama administration should disclose basic information about the program, including its legal basis and limits, and the civilian casualty toll thus far."

The CIA and the military have used unmanned drones to target and kill individuals not only in Afghanistan and Iraq but also in Pakistan and, in at least one case in 2002, Yemen.

The technology allows U.S. personnel to observe targeted individuals in real time and launch missiles intended to kill them from control centers located thousands of miles away.

Recent reports, including public statements from the director of national intelligence, indicate that U.S. citizens have been placed on the list of targets who can be hunted and killed with drones.

The ACLU made an initial FOIA request for information on the drone program in January.

Tuesday's lawsuit against the Defense Department, the State Department and the Justice Department seeks to enforce that request.

None of the three agencies have provided any documents in response to the request, nor have they given any reason for withholding documents.
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
Samuel
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4750
Joined: 2008-10-23 11:36am

Re: Help us, Osama Bin Ladin, you're our only hope!

Post by Samuel »

Is there any real difference in using drones than using missiles in terms of the number of civilians that get killed?
User avatar
Bakustra
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2822
Joined: 2005-05-12 07:56pm
Location: Neptune Violon Tide!

Re: Help us, Osama Bin Ladin, you're our only hope!

Post by Bakustra »

Wow, somebody demanding accountability out of government? On a military-related charge? Next thing you know they'll be introducing pansy pacifistic ideas like "rules of engagement" and "war crimes" and a "code of military justice" to our ultramanly American Armed Forces, unfettered by pathetic concepts like "laws" and "rules". :roll:

Oh wait, I must have forgotten what was so bad about people wanting to know what criteria are used to select targets, if only to make sure they are more strenuous than "well he kinda looks like a terrorist maybe". Please, do enlighten.
Invited by the new age, the elegant Sailor Neptune!
I mean, how often am I to enter a game of riddles with the author, where they challenge me with some strange and confusing and distracting device, and I'm supposed to unravel it and go "I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE" and take great personal satisfaction and pride in our mutual cleverness?
- The Handle, from the TVTropes Forums
User avatar
Molyneux
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7186
Joined: 2005-03-04 08:47am
Location: Long Island

Re: Help us, Osama Bin Ladin, you're our only hope!

Post by Molyneux »

One question, MKSheppard:
How many innocent people have been killed by drone attacks since we started doing this?
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
User avatar
The Duchess of Zeon
Gözde
Posts: 14566
Joined: 2002-09-18 01:06am
Location: Exiled in the Pale of Settlement.

Re: Help us, Osama Bin Ladin, you're our only hope!

Post by The Duchess of Zeon »

Two orders of magnitude less than we killed by napalm-bombing Japan, so it's no big deal when we're effectively decapitating our enemies by doing so.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.

In 1966 the Soviets find something on the dark side of the Moon. In 2104 they come back. -- Red Banner / White Star, a nBSG continuation story. Updated to Chapter 4.0 -- 14 January 2013.
User avatar
Gil Hamilton
Tipsy Space Birdie
Posts: 12962
Joined: 2002-07-04 05:47pm
Contact:

Re: Help us, Osama Bin Ladin, you're our only hope!

Post by Gil Hamilton »

Out of curiousity, how the hell is Osama Bin Laden still alive? I don't mean "why haven't we shoved a rocket up his ass while humming the Star Spangled Banner already", but rather that the man is NOT in good health. He needs a dialysis machine already and has spent the better part of the last decade tooling around in the assiest crackiest parts of the asscrack of Afghanistan and Pakistan, places that are both in general pretty deep in the asscrack of the planet as a whole. That SHOULD have killed him a while ago.
"Show me an angel and I will paint you one." - Gustav Courbet

"Quetzalcoatl, plumed serpent of the Aztecs... you are a pussy." - Stephen Colbert

"Really, I'm jealous of how much smarter than me he is. I'm not an expert on anything and he's an expert on things he knows nothing about." - Me, concerning a bullshitter
User avatar
The Duchess of Zeon
Gözde
Posts: 14566
Joined: 2002-09-18 01:06am
Location: Exiled in the Pale of Settlement.

Re: Help us, Osama Bin Ladin, you're our only hope!

Post by The Duchess of Zeon »

Gil Hamilton wrote:Out of curiousity, how the hell is Osama Bin Laden still alive? I don't mean "why haven't we shoved a rocket up his ass while humming the Star Spangled Banner already", but rather that the man is NOT in good health. He needs a dialysis machine already and has spent the better part of the last decade tooling around in the assiest crackiest parts of the asscrack of Afghanistan and Pakistan, places that are both in general pretty deep in the asscrack of the planet as a whole. That SHOULD have killed him a while ago.
The dialysis machine was almost certainly a rumour.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.

In 1966 the Soviets find something on the dark side of the Moon. In 2104 they come back. -- Red Banner / White Star, a nBSG continuation story. Updated to Chapter 4.0 -- 14 January 2013.
User avatar
Illuminatus Primus
All Seeing Eye
Posts: 15774
Joined: 2002-10-12 02:52pm
Location: Gainesville, Florida, USA
Contact:

Re: Help us, Osama Bin Ladin, you're our only hope!

Post by Illuminatus Primus »

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:Two orders of magnitude less than we killed by napalm-bombing Japan, so it's no big deal when we're effectively decapitating our enemies by doing so.
Its a hundred times less bad than what is arguably a terrible war crime, and most assuredly would be regarded so today? You don't have to account for killing innocents if you can establish higher benchmarks for your barbarism? What kind of reasoning is this.
"You know what the problem with Hollywood is. They make shit. Unbelievable. Unremarkable. Shit." - Gabriel Shear, Swordfish

"This statement, in its utterly clueless hubristic stupidity, cannot be improved upon. I merely quote it in admiration of its perfection." - Garibaldi in reply to an incredibly stupid post.

The Fifth Illuminatus Primus | Warsie | Skeptical Empiricist | Florida Gator | Sustainability Advocate | Libertarian Socialist |
Image
User avatar
The Duchess of Zeon
Gözde
Posts: 14566
Joined: 2002-09-18 01:06am
Location: Exiled in the Pale of Settlement.

Re: Help us, Osama Bin Ladin, you're our only hope!

Post by The Duchess of Zeon »

Illuminatus Primus wrote:
The Duchess of Zeon wrote:Two orders of magnitude less than we killed by napalm-bombing Japan, so it's no big deal when we're effectively decapitating our enemies by doing so.
Its a hundred times less bad than what is arguably a terrible war crime, and most assuredly would be regarded so today? You don't have to account for killing innocents if you can establish higher benchmarks for your barbarism? What kind of reasoning is this.
Per the Geneva conventions, war aims must be met with the minimum amount of collateral damage possible. Reducing collateral damage by two orders of magnitude while breaking the will of an enemy to fight, in the course of only 60 years--to me is an impressive technological achievement. Yes, today, the bombing of Japan would be a war crime, no question about it... Because today we could use smart bombs to do the same damage with massively fewer Japanese civilian casualties. And it's that improvement, which makes such levels of collateral damage unethical by all the standards of the world and justly so, which is the incredible thing. Thanks to our improvements in technology we'll never have to level a city again.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.

In 1966 the Soviets find something on the dark side of the Moon. In 2104 they come back. -- Red Banner / White Star, a nBSG continuation story. Updated to Chapter 4.0 -- 14 January 2013.
User avatar
Stark
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 36169
Joined: 2002-07-03 09:56pm
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: Help us, Osama Bin Ladin, you're our only hope!

Post by Stark »

So how is it comparable when the firebombing didn't decapitate Japan and I don't believe this was even an aim? It's fascinating you've switched from 'hurr hurr less than killing doze japs' to 'well it's so cool we have smartbombs'. People are talking about necessity, responsibility and accountability, not war trivia.

Amusingly the US pioneered the concept of actually analysing results of war methods to increase effectiveness, reduce waste, reduce civilian casualties where undesirable, etc.
User avatar
The Duchess of Zeon
Gözde
Posts: 14566
Joined: 2002-09-18 01:06am
Location: Exiled in the Pale of Settlement.

Re: Help us, Osama Bin Ladin, you're our only hope!

Post by The Duchess of Zeon »

Stark wrote:So how is it comparable when the firebombing didn't decapitate Japan and I don't believe this was even an aim? It's fascinating you've switched from 'hurr hurr less than killing doze japs' to 'well it's so cool we have smartbombs'. People are talking about necessity, responsibility and accountability, not war trivia.

Amusingly the US pioneered the concept of actually analysing results of war methods to increase effectiveness, reduce waste, reduce civilian casualties where undesirable, etc.
I don't see any switch in what we're saying. The point that the attacks are being prosecuted to end a conflict decisively, though, remains in both cases. Not like there's ever a point in arguing with you, so just believe/claim whatever you want.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.

In 1966 the Soviets find something on the dark side of the Moon. In 2104 they come back. -- Red Banner / White Star, a nBSG continuation story. Updated to Chapter 4.0 -- 14 January 2013.
User avatar
Molyneux
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7186
Joined: 2005-03-04 08:47am
Location: Long Island

Re: Help us, Osama Bin Ladin, you're our only hope!

Post by Molyneux »

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:Two orders of magnitude less than we killed by napalm-bombing Japan, so it's no big deal when we're effectively decapitating our enemies by doing so.
Of, for the love of...
We were at war with Japan. We're allied with Pakistan.

How would you feel about drone attacks against terrorist suspects on US soil with the same level of collateral damage?
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
User avatar
The Duchess of Zeon
Gözde
Posts: 14566
Joined: 2002-09-18 01:06am
Location: Exiled in the Pale of Settlement.

Re: Help us, Osama Bin Ladin, you're our only hope!

Post by The Duchess of Zeon »

Molyneux wrote: How would you feel about drone attacks against terrorist suspects on US soil with the same level of collateral damage?
No problems whatsoever . You seriously think I'm going to consider American citizens worth more than foreign citizens? You can criticize the ethics of accepting collateral damage, fine, but I'm sure as hell not a racist or national supremacist.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.

In 1966 the Soviets find something on the dark side of the Moon. In 2104 they come back. -- Red Banner / White Star, a nBSG continuation story. Updated to Chapter 4.0 -- 14 January 2013.
User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29842
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Re: Help us, Osama Bin Ladin, you're our only hope!

Post by MKSheppard »

Leon Panetta is now more Catholic than the Pope

Under Panetta, a more aggressive CIA

By Peter Finn and Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 21, 2010; A01



The plan was a standard one in the CIA's war against extremists in Pakistan: The agency was using a Predator drone to monitor a residential compound; a Taliban leader was expected to arrive shortly; a CIA missile would kill him.

On the morning of Aug. 5, CIA Director Leon Panetta was informed that Baitullah Mehsud was about to reach his father-in-law's home. Mehsud would be in the open, minimizing the risk that civilians would be injured or killed. Panetta authorized the strike, according to a senior intelligence official who described the sequence of events.

Some hours later, officials at CIA headquarters in Langley identified Mehsud on a feed from the Predator's camera. He was seen resting on the roof of the house, hooked up to a drip to palliate a kidney problem. He was not alone.

Panetta was pulled out of a White House meeting and told that Mehsud's wife was also on the rooftop, giving her husband a massage. Mehsud, implicated in suicide bombings and the assassination of former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto, was a major target. Panetta told his officers to take the shot. Mehsud and his wife were killed.

Panetta, an earthy former congressman with exquisitely honed Washington smarts, was President Obama's surprise choice to head the CIA. During his 13 months in the job, Panetta has led a relentless assault on al-Qaeda and Taliban operatives in Pakistan, delivering on Obama's promise to target them more aggressively than his predecessor.

Apart from a brief stint as a military intelligence officer in the 1960s, little in Panetta's résumé appeared to merit his nomination to become the 19th director of the CIA, but his willingness to use force has won over skeptics inside the agency and on Capitol Hill. Said one former senior intelligence official: "I've never sensed him shirking from it."

The stepped-up drone strikes, Panetta's opposition to the release of information about CIA interrogation practices, and his resistance to greater oversight of the agency by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) have prompted criticism that he is a thrall of the agency's old guard. In the meantime, the strikes have begun to draw greater scrutiny, with watchdog groups demanding to know more about how they are carried out and the legal reasoning behind the killings.

In an interview Wednesday at CIA headquarters, Panetta refused to directly address the matter of Predator strikes, in keeping with the agency's long-standing practice of shielding its actions in Pakistan from public view. But he said that U.S. counterterrorism policies in the country are legal and highly effective, and that he is acutely aware of the gravity of some of the decisions thrust upon him.

"Any time you make decisions on life and death, I don't take that lightly. That's a serious decision," he said. "And yet, I also feel very comfortable with making those decisions because I know I'm dealing with people who threaten the safety of this country and are prepared to attack us at any moment."

Mehsud's followers and their al-Qaeda allies vowed to avenge his death, and within months they put into motion a plan that culminated in a Dec. 30 suicide bombing that killed seven CIA officers and contractors at a base in eastern Afghanistan.

On the Monday after the bombing, the regular 8:30 a.m. meeting of senior staff members at CIA began with a minute of silence. Then the director spoke.

"We're in a war," Panetta said, according to one participant. "We cannot afford to be hesitant. . . . The fact is we're doing the right thing. My approach is going to be to work that much harder . . . that we beat these sons of bitches."

Drone strikes scrutinized

At the end of the George W. Bush administration, the CIA could keep seven Predators in the air round-the-clock, but the number will double by the end of this year, according to the senior intelligence official. Like other current and former officials interviewed for this report, this source spoke on the condition of anonymity because the agency does not acknowledge its actions in Pakistan.

Since 2009, as many as 666 terrorism suspects, including at least 20 senior figures, have been killed by missiles fired from unmanned aircraft flying over Pakistan, according to figures compiled by the New America Foundation as of mid-March. From 2004 to 2008, the number was 230. According to the foundation, 177 civilians may also have been killed in the airstrikes since 2009. Intelligence officials say their count of noncombatants killed is much lower and noted that on Aug. 5 only Mehsud and his wife were killed, despite reports that other family members and bodyguards died in the attack.

Panetta authorizes every strike, sometimes reversing his decision or reauthorizing a target if the situation on the ground changes, according to current and former senior intelligence officials. "He asks a lot of questions about the target, the intelligence picture, potential collateral damage, women and children in the vicinity," said the senior intelligence official.

Killing by drone has drawn increased scrutiny from human rights activists, who say such strikes raise legal questions when used outside the traditional battlefield. Some critics worry that the antiseptic quality of drone attacks, in which targets are identified on a video screen and killed with the press of a button, is anesthetizing policymakers and the public to the costs of war. The ACLU sued the government this month to compel the disclosure of the legal basis for its use of unmanned aircraft overseas.

"The government's use of drones to conduct targeted killings raises complicated questions -- not only legal questions, but policy and moral questions as well," said Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU's National Security Project. "These kinds of questions ought to be discussed and debated publicly, not resolved secretly behind closed doors."

After weathering a number of storms on Capitol Hill, including a face-off with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi after the California Democrat accused the CIA of lying, Panetta has studiously cultivated his old colleagues, holding informal get-togethers with the Senate and House intelligence committees.

"It's Krispy Kremes and coffee," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), chairman of the Senate intelligence committee. "People are relaxed, the conversation is free-flow, and I think that is very useful. "

Last summer, Panetta shut down a still-embryonic Bush-era plan to create an assassination team that would target terrorism suspects and was irritated that Congress had never been informed of the plan. "He found it offensive," said the former senior intelligence official, recalling that it was one of the few times he had seen Panetta visibly angry.

Panetta has impressed the ranking Republican on the Senate intelligence committee. "I'm from the Show-Me State. He's done a pretty good job of showing me," said Sen. Christopher S. Bond (Mo.), an early doubter of Panetta's ability to lead the CIA. "I think the CIA knows . . . at least their director is supporting them even though other elements of the administration [are] causing them pain and grief."

Another former senior intelligence official, who served under Bush, commends Panetta for his aggression but noted that the current successes are built upon agreements made with Pakistan in the final year of the previous administration. The Obama administration has "been operating along the same continuum," the former official said.

Retired CIA officer Henry Crumpton, who pioneered the use of armed Predator drones in Afghanistan and was a top counterterrorism official at the State Department under Bush, said the number of strikes tells only part of the story.

"You have to know where to put the bird to begin with," Crumpton said. "It's a dynamic process. . . . Once you have a strike, you have disruptions and you have more intelligence to collect. It's a wonderful cycle that involves all-source collection and analysis, and the Predator is only part of it."

Advocate for his agency

Expectations were low when Panetta arrived at CIA headquarters in February 2009. One recently retired officer recalled that some of his colleagues were initially angered by the appointment of a liberal politician who lacked extensive experience in the intelligence world and had publicly equated waterboarding with torture.

But almost from the first week, Panetta positioned himself as a strong advocate for the CIA, even when it put him at odds with the White House and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Panetta lobbied fiercely against the release of Justice Department memos that spelled out how the Bush administration had authorized the use of waterboarding and other coercive interrogation measures. He famously unleashed an epithet-laden tirade at a White House meeting over Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.'s decision to investigate CIA officers who participated in the interrogations.

Panetta has refused to yield to the ODNI over the CIA's independence and preeminence in overseas intelligence-gathering. The long-simmering conflict came to a head last spring when Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair asserted that his agency should directly oversee the CIA's covert operations, while also deciding who would serve as the chief U.S. intelligence officer in overseas locations. Traditionally, the top CIA officer in each country automatically assumed that title.

Vice President Biden, Panetta's longtime friend, was summoned to referee the dispute, which was resolved mostly in the CIA's favor: The CIA station chief would continue to be the top intelligence officer, and the agency would be required only to consult with the ODNI about its covert missions.

"Panetta was not only standing up for the agency, but he was seen as a guy who could just go and talk to the president," the recently retired officer said. "He doesn't have to bow 18 times. It's really valuable for the CIA to have someone who can do that."

Since becoming director, Panetta has visited more than 20 CIA stations worldwide, where he holds all-hands meetings and works the room with his easy charm, according to insiders. "Morale is good, especially downrange" in forward areas, Crumpton said.

Critics worry that Panetta has become a captive of the agency he leads.

"To survive in the CIA, he had to become more Catholic than the pope," said Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the ACLU. "He opposed important public disclosure of past use of torture and abuse, and has worked to limit the scope of criminal investigations into any crimes committed by CIA officials."

In the worst of times

On Dec. 30, a couple of hours before dawn, Panetta was awakened by his security detail at his home in California and informed that something had gone wrong at a CIA base in eastern Afghanistan. By about 8 a.m., Panetta was told that nine people had been killed there: seven CIA officers and contractors, including the base chief, one of the agency's leading al-Qaeda experts; a Jordanian intelligence officer; and an Afghan driver. The attack also wounded several others.

Panetta has launched an internal review of the episode, in which, Feinstein said, "clearly tradecraft wasn't followed." A report is expected next month.

In the interview, Panetta said he recognized that the administration's strategy entailed risk. "You can't just conduct the kind of aggressive operations we are conducting against the enemy and not expect that they are not going to try to retaliate," he said.

Panetta has led the mourning at the CIA, holding a service at headquarters attended by more than 1,000 people, including the president. The tenor John McDermott sang the wistful ballad "Danny Boy."

"The workforce takes a shot like this in the stomach, it takes the wind out of them," said John O. Brennan, Obama's principal counterterrorism adviser. "Leon showed his leadership by engaging the workforce from the very beginning and overseeing the mourning that goes on."

On Feb. 3, at a snow-blanketed Arlington National Cemetery, Panetta attended the funeral of the base chief, a 45-year-old mother of three. Just before the playing of taps, he handed a folded American flag to the family and later watched one of the woman's young sons carry it away from the grave.

As Panetta took his seat in his car after the service, an aide said, he exhaled deeply.
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
User avatar
Molyneux
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7186
Joined: 2005-03-04 08:47am
Location: Long Island

Re: Help us, Osama Bin Ladin, you're our only hope!

Post by Molyneux »

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
Molyneux wrote: How would you feel about drone attacks against terrorist suspects on US soil with the same level of collateral damage?
No problems whatsoever . You seriously think I'm going to consider American citizens worth more than foreign citizens? You can criticize the ethics of accepting collateral damage, fine, but I'm sure as hell not a racist or national supremacist.
I love how you completely ignored the deflation of your analogy with the napalming of Japan.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
User avatar
The Duchess of Zeon
Gözde
Posts: 14566
Joined: 2002-09-18 01:06am
Location: Exiled in the Pale of Settlement.

Re: Help us, Osama Bin Ladin, you're our only hope!

Post by The Duchess of Zeon »

Molyneux wrote:
The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
Molyneux wrote: How would you feel about drone attacks against terrorist suspects on US soil with the same level of collateral damage?
No problems whatsoever . You seriously think I'm going to consider American citizens worth more than foreign citizens? You can criticize the ethics of accepting collateral damage, fine, but I'm sure as hell not a racist or national supremacist.
I love how you completely ignored the deflation of your analogy with the napalming of Japan.
We're allied with Pakistan, not the Emir of Waziristan, so no deflation took place. To call the little medieval statelets of the Northwest Frontier Territories part of Pakistan is absurd in the extreme, and frankly disrespectful. Were the Cherokee part of the USA the moment we claimed their territory when they had their own government, language, and territorial boundaries? Or did we have to force them to recognize that at gunpoint? Quite the later, and the same is true with Waziristan, the hotbed of Islamic fundamentalism... It's legally and nominally part of Pakistan but in practice is an independent tribal state which has never been under direct government control. The innocent civilians there, while still innocent civilians, are nonetheless the subjects of an enemy power, even if we do not recognize it as such, in reality that is the case. Even so, my answer was succinct enough. I'd set off nukes on US soil if it was needed to preserve the independence of the country.

The magnitude of the threat is substantially less, so what's acceptable is proportionally also much less, but if drone strikes that killed a couple of people in collateral damage within the United States were necessary to wage war against our enemies then I would not object. What ethical constraint could possbily make collateral damage to foreigners acceptable but collateral damage to Americans unacceptable? Only chauvinism, and I am not chauvinist.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.

In 1966 the Soviets find something on the dark side of the Moon. In 2104 they come back. -- Red Banner / White Star, a nBSG continuation story. Updated to Chapter 4.0 -- 14 January 2013.
User avatar
Alyeska
Federation Ambassador
Posts: 17496
Joined: 2002-08-11 07:28pm
Location: Montana, USA

Re: Help us, Osama Bin Ladin, you're our only hope!

Post by Alyeska »

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
Molyneux wrote: How would you feel about drone attacks against terrorist suspects on US soil with the same level of collateral damage?
No problems whatsoever . You seriously think I'm going to consider American citizens worth more than foreign citizens? You can criticize the ethics of accepting collateral damage, fine, but I'm sure as hell not a racist or national supremacist.
Killing foreign citizens is an act of war. We should be in a state of war with Afghanistan. The only reason we are not is because they need us. If another country were to do this in the US, they would get bombed to shit and back. Its a double standard and you damned well know it.
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."

"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
User avatar
K. A. Pital
Glamorous Commie
Posts: 20813
Joined: 2003-02-26 11:39am
Location: Elysium

Re: Help us, Osama Bin Ladin, you're our only hope!

Post by K. A. Pital »

Alyeska wrote:If another country were to do this in the US...
And with good reason - the United States as a government, and some of it's citizens as well, sponsored terrorists across the world.

So would people be cool about a Cuban MRBM taking out the house of the terrorists the USA is covering? ;) Heh.
Lì ci sono chiese, macerie, moschee e questure, lì frontiere, prezzi inaccessibile e freddure
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...

...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
Assalti Frontali
User avatar
The Duchess of Zeon
Gözde
Posts: 14566
Joined: 2002-09-18 01:06am
Location: Exiled in the Pale of Settlement.

Re: Help us, Osama Bin Ladin, you're our only hope!

Post by The Duchess of Zeon »

Alyeska wrote:
The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
Molyneux wrote: How would you feel about drone attacks against terrorist suspects on US soil with the same level of collateral damage?
No problems whatsoever . You seriously think I'm going to consider American citizens worth more than foreign citizens? You can criticize the ethics of accepting collateral damage, fine, but I'm sure as hell not a racist or national supremacist.
Killing foreign citizens is an act of war. We should be in a state of war with Afghanistan. The only reason we are not is because they need us. If another country were to do this in the US, they would get bombed to shit and back. Its a double standard and you damned well know it.
I was answering in context of the US doing it to its own territory and citizens. Your objection is only relevant insomuch as it means whichever tribal chief is in charge of Waziristan should issue a formal declaration of war against the US... Which he's already done, IIRC. The Afghanistanis maybe, in principle, should refuse to let us and declare war on us... But who really cares? That's immaterial to the point that a limited number of civilian casualties are acceptable collateral damage in war regardless of where the war is being waged, as long as every possible effort is taken to minimize said civilian casualties.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.

In 1966 the Soviets find something on the dark side of the Moon. In 2104 they come back. -- Red Banner / White Star, a nBSG continuation story. Updated to Chapter 4.0 -- 14 January 2013.
User avatar
Illuminatus Primus
All Seeing Eye
Posts: 15774
Joined: 2002-10-12 02:52pm
Location: Gainesville, Florida, USA
Contact:

Re: Help us, Osama Bin Ladin, you're our only hope!

Post by Illuminatus Primus »

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
Illuminatus Primus wrote:
The Duchess of Zeon wrote:Two orders of magnitude less than we killed by napalm-bombing Japan, so it's no big deal when we're effectively decapitating our enemies by doing so.
Its a hundred times less bad than what is arguably a terrible war crime, and most assuredly would be regarded so today? You don't have to account for killing innocents if you can establish higher benchmarks for your barbarism? What kind of reasoning is this.
Per the Geneva conventions,
Appeal to authority. While this establishes norms of international behavior and law, it does not establish moral bounds.
The Duchess of Zeon wrote:war aims must be met with the minimum amount of collateral damage possible.
This is an assassination campaign, possibly extralegal, undeclared within the territory of another sovereign state. One must attenuate "war aims" beyond credibility to include this. Would it be legitimate for Cuban socialists to target members of the CIA and State Department for extrajudicial killings on U.S. soil? Even if they were not directly involved but were associated with an organization which had repeatedly given aid, comfort, planning, logistical support, arms, and even manpower to terrorist attacks upon your country?
The Duchess of Zeon wrote:Reducing collateral damage by two orders of magnitude while breaking the will of an enemy to fight, in the course of only 60 years--to me is an impressive technological achievement.
This of course is not including the overall "collateral" death tolls in our most recent round of imperial wars.
The Duchess of Zeon wrote:Yes, today, the bombing of Japan would be a war crime, no question about it... Because today we could use smart bombs to do the same damage with massively fewer Japanese civilian casualties.
That implies that the firebombings actually meaningfully accomplished war aims toward unconditional surrender, when it in reality appears the Japanese society rapidly acclimatized to them, and it only the overwhelming unitary power of the atomic bomb that pushed their societal threshold for bloodletting. It also implies that in war one is free to set war aims as arbitrarily high as they please, and demand anything necessary to achieve what may be absurdly excessive war aims is justified.
The Duchess of Zeon wrote:And it's that improvement, which makes such levels of collateral damage unethical by all the standards of the world and justly so, which is the incredible thing. Thanks to our improvements in technology we'll never have to level a city again.
There's some Indochinese who'd probably disagree, if they weren't dead.

These sort of arguments are only tenable in the face that might equals right, that Nazi reasoning is sound, that the United States is peerless and no converses can be accepted for comparison.
"You know what the problem with Hollywood is. They make shit. Unbelievable. Unremarkable. Shit." - Gabriel Shear, Swordfish

"This statement, in its utterly clueless hubristic stupidity, cannot be improved upon. I merely quote it in admiration of its perfection." - Garibaldi in reply to an incredibly stupid post.

The Fifth Illuminatus Primus | Warsie | Skeptical Empiricist | Florida Gator | Sustainability Advocate | Libertarian Socialist |
Image
User avatar
Highlord Laan
Jedi Master
Posts: 1394
Joined: 2009-11-08 02:36pm
Location: Christo-fundie Theofascist Dominion of Nebraskistan

Re: Help us, Osama Bin Ladin, you're our only hope!

Post by Highlord Laan »

"The government's use of drones to conduct targeted killings raises complicated questions -- not only legal questions, but policy and moral questions as well," said Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU's National Security Project. "These kinds of questions ought to be discussed and debated publicly, not resolved secretly behind closed doors."
It's open goddamed warfare, you twit. Morality gets left at the door.
Never underestimate the ingenuity and cruelty of the Irish.
User avatar
wolveraptor
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4042
Joined: 2004-12-18 06:09pm

Re: Help us, Osama Bin Ladin, you're our only hope!

Post by wolveraptor »

Highlord Laan wrote:It's open goddamed warfare, you twit. Morality gets left at the door.
How far do you take that sentiment? Do you think condemning things like war rape or genocide is prudent? If so, on what basis, since morality apparently doesn't apply to warfare.
"If one needed proof that a guitar was more than wood and string, that a song was more than notes and words, and that a man could be more than a name and a few faded pictures, then Robert Johnson’s recordings were all one could ask for."

- Herb Bowie, Reason to Rock
User avatar
Highlord Laan
Jedi Master
Posts: 1394
Joined: 2009-11-08 02:36pm
Location: Christo-fundie Theofascist Dominion of Nebraskistan

Re: Help us, Osama Bin Ladin, you're our only hope!

Post by Highlord Laan »

wolveraptor wrote:
Highlord Laan wrote:It's open goddamed warfare, you twit. Morality gets left at the door.
How far do you take that sentiment? Do you think condemning things like war rape or genocide is prudent? If so, on what basis, since morality apparently doesn't apply to warfare.
Yes, I think condemning rape and genocide, and the wholesale targeting of noncombatants is prudent. However, war is probably the most immoral activity one nation can take on another, so attempting to hold any high ground on how one force goes about killing people and breaking things over another is as hypocritical as it gets.

Yes, the CIA is essentially assassinating our enemies. Cry me a river. I can say with total certainty that they'd do the same to us, which puts us on the same level in the same mud pit. No point in trying to play nice. REally, the only difference between them and us is that we can do it faster, harder, and more accurately.

Applying moralistic codes to flying lead is pointless. Kill the enemy in the most efficient and effective manner possible, call it good, and go home. Rinse and repeat as needed.

There is no moral high ground in war. The laws, on the other hand, are meant to be followed. Now, if the Predator strikes are deemed illegal, I hope they stop. If they're declared legally sound, then ramp them up. I'm trying to avoid the endless debate of law vs morality. I try to keep them separate. Good and evil don't work either, as both are pretty dammed subjective.

My morals are obviously worlds different from the ACLU's in this case, which is why I say they're wasting their time, and they'd likely call me a monster.
Never underestimate the ingenuity and cruelty of the Irish.
User avatar
K. A. Pital
Glamorous Commie
Posts: 20813
Joined: 2003-02-26 11:39am
Location: Elysium

Re: Help us, Osama Bin Ladin, you're our only hope!

Post by K. A. Pital »

Highlord Laan wrote:However, war is probably the most immoral activity one nation can take on another, so attempting to hold any high ground on how one force goes about killing people and breaking things over another is as hypocritical as it gets.
So killing dozens of millions of civilians, like Nazi Germany or IJA, is perfectly acceptable because you're in a war? This concept is a slippery slope.
Highlord Laan wrote:There is no moral high ground in war.
Really? If you (1) defend your nation (2) the other nation tries to wipe you out, doesn't it give you a moral high ground?

I'm not sure you fully understand the implications of your position. It is effectively "everything is allowed in a war". Up to totally killing the civilian population of the enemy nation.
Lì ci sono chiese, macerie, moschee e questure, lì frontiere, prezzi inaccessibile e freddure
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...

...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
Assalti Frontali
User avatar
The Duchess of Zeon
Gözde
Posts: 14566
Joined: 2002-09-18 01:06am
Location: Exiled in the Pale of Settlement.

Re: Help us, Osama Bin Ladin, you're our only hope!

Post by The Duchess of Zeon »

I'm stepping away from this thread because after Highlord's comments I don't think any serious discussion of the ethical issues can really be conducted here.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.

In 1966 the Soviets find something on the dark side of the Moon. In 2104 they come back. -- Red Banner / White Star, a nBSG continuation story. Updated to Chapter 4.0 -- 14 January 2013.
Post Reply