Thread: ALERT: Uncovered Military Document Proof Of Barack Obama’s Domestic Drone Program?

ALERT: Uncovered Military Document Proof Of Barack Obama’s Domestic Drone Program?

by Ulsterman on June 5, 2012
22 Comments

A recently uncovered United States military document appears to outline an already underway comprehensive drone program within the United States that includes sections on “Target Training” and “Force Protection”.

PLEASE REVIEW THE PDF FILE ATTACHED. GIVE PARTICULAR ATTENTION TO SECTIONS 9.6, 10, AND 11.2.

OBAMA DOMESTIC DRONE PROGRAM
_______________

WHITE HOUSE INSIDER: Barack Obama’s High Tech Snuff Films…


WHI: …Obama loves them drones. He has made them a personal priority above all else. The question that is also the answer to so much of this then – is WHY?

…So having Obama so oddly focused…not just focused…he gets excited…visually…the guy gets off on it and he ain’t even hiding that fact anymore. And some are repulsed by it. They’ve done video reviews you know…of the missions. The drones. The kills.

UM: The president you mean? He watches videos of the drone attacks?

WHI: Yeah – like it was…like it was porn. I can’t emphasize…I don’t think I’m painting a clear enough picture here for you of how this thing has people really freaking out inside the administration. It’s good on one hand because it’s got more of them willing to talk…but…the fact it’s gotten this bad…these drones…an American president who has the video sent up to his personal study so he can watch them over and over again…like I said – sh-t ain’t right. And more and more people are figuring that out – and that is what has Jarrett concerned. But even she…Obama won’t listen to her on this one. Those drones are the one thing he really feels he has control over…all the rest…he’s been told what to say and where to go…when to wake…when to sleep…but the drones. The drones are all his – and he ain’t given those up. For nobody…

WHITE HOUSE INSIDER: Barack Obama’s High Tech Snuff Films…

http://theulstermanreport.com/2012/0...drone-program/

Related:
« Obama Schedule – Return With Jarrett To Meet With Jarrett…

Is This Barack Obama’s Pre-Convention Seance Ritual? (WHI RELATED) »

The 6 Most Disturbing Revelations About Obama’s Drone Strikes (Part 1)


Friday, June 8, 2012 at 10:17 am by Nick Sibilla

President Barack Obama has greatly expanded the power to target suspected terrorists with drone strikes. As part of its global war on terror, the United States now launches armed drones into Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen. But thanks to investigative reporting by the Associated Press, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and many others, unsettling details have been leaked about this controversial program. Like…


#6. Targets are guilty until proven innocent
Supporters of Obama’s drone strikes point argue that drones are acceptable because they can minimize civilian casualties. In a recent speech, Obama’s chief counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, defended drones as “ethical and just,” since collateral damage has been “exceedingly rare.” More impressively, a senior administration official recently boasted that civilians killed in Pakistan by drones during Obama’s presidency numbered in the “single digits.”


But in a groundbreaking piece published by the New York Times last week, it turns out there was a more sinister reason for why the official death civilian toll was so low:

Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. 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.
Counterterrorism officials insist this approach is one of simple logic: people in an area of known terrorist activity, or found with a top Qaeda operative, are probably up to no good.

Militant.

In other words, males in Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan are guilty until proven innocent. Not only does this contradict centuries of Western jurisprudence, it allows the administration to justify attacking civilian areas. Last week, four “militants” were killed while shopping for groceries at a bakery in northwest Pakistan. Meanwhile, dozens have been killed at funerals or trying to rescue victims.


Even if they seemed like they were “up to no good,” does mere suspicion justify summary death? As Philadelphia Daily News writer Will Bunch notes, George Zimmerman used precisely the same rationalization when he chased down and killed Trayvon Martin. Thank God Zimmerman didn’t have drones, huh?


#5. Drone strikes have killed hundreds of civilians
But even before re-defining “militant” was made public, independent journalists and scholars had already reported on the drone strikes’ high body count. As I wrote in an earlier post,

according to analysis by the New America Foundation, approximately 11 to 17 percent of all those killed by drone strikes in Pakistan have been civilians. Meanwhile, the London-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism found that since President Obama took office in January 2009, anywhere from 282-535 civilians have been killed by drone strikes, including more than 60 children.

In July 2009, Brookings Institution Senior Fellow Daniel Byman estimated “for every militant killed, 10 or so civilians also died” in Pakistan. Considering the remoteness of the drone strike locations and how elastic the Obama administration defines “militant,” the exact death toll of civilians may never be known.


#4. The Pentagon can launch strikes, even if they don’t who they’re targeting
Back in April, the Washington Post reported:

The CIA is seeking authority to expand its covert drone campaign in Yemen by launching strikes against terrorism suspects even when it does not know the identities of those who could be killed, U.S. officials said.

Two months later, buried on page 7 in the New York Times article, was this incredible find: “Today, the Defense Department can target suspects in Yemen whose names they do not know.” Assassinating unknown targets is a direct result of a change in policy. For years, the modus operandi for drone operations was ”personality” strikes (i.e. attacking high-value targets). Hence the vetting for the kill list.


But recently, CIA and Pentagon officials have shifted to “signature” strikes, or targeting groups of people with traits that are associated with “terrorist” or “militant” activity. Unfortunately, these signature strikes have become ludicrously broad:

But some State Department officials have complained to the White House that the criteria used by the C.I.A. for identifying a terrorist “signature” were too lax. The joke was that when the C.I.A. sees “three guys doing jumping jacks,” the agency thinks it is a terrorist training camp, said one senior official. Men loading a truck with fertilizer could be bombmakers — but they might also be farmers, skeptics argued.

One official even told the Associated Press he was worried “how easy it has become to kill someone.” No kidding. So to re-iterate, here are some of the criteria that could get you killed by drone strike:


Plot to attack the United States of America
Exercise in public
Be next to a suspected “militant”
Shop at the same bakery visited by a suspected “militant”
Attempt to rescue someone who’s been attacked by a drone
Attend a funeral for a drone strike victim
Load fertilizer onto a truck
Another militant.


This is the first in a two-part series. Check back tomorrow, June 9, 2012, for the top 3 most disturbing revelations about Obama’s drone strikes in Part 2.

People's Blog for the Constitution » The 6 Most Disturbing Revelations About Obama’s Drone Strikes (Part 1)

Just a Matter of Time before our children get the NWO fun filled excitement here

Related: War Cost - Drone | Agriculture Defense Coalition

missile balloons for car

U.N. Investigator: Obama’s Drones Violate Human Rights

June 20, 2012 by Sam Rolley

AF.MIL

A U.N. investigator wants to know more about America’s drone policy.

A U.N. investigator wants some answers regarding President Barack Obama’s penchant for carrying out targeted drone attacks overseas that routinely result in civilian casualties.

The United States uses military drones to carry out attacks in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen and Somalia. In a 28-page report addressed to the U.N. Human Rights Council, Christof Heyns, special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, said that Washington must clarify the legal basis for the policy of killing suspected al-Qaida and Taliban leaders and associates rather than trying to capture them.

“The government should clarify the procedures in place to ensure that any targeted killing complies with international humanitarian law and human rights and indicate the measures or strategies applied to prevent casualties, as well as the measures in place to provide prompt, thorough, effective and independent public investigation of alleged violations,” the report says.

Details about the effectiveness of and collateral damage that comes with the United States’ continual use of drone strikes are sketchy by most accounts. In his report, Heyns cites figures from the Pakistan Human Rights Commission that claim American drone strikes killed at least 957 people in Pakistan in 2010 alone. The report also states that since 2004, roughly 20 percent of the thousands of people killed by drones overseas have been civilians.

Heyns says that international humanitarian law mandates that every effort be made to arrest a suspect and any use of force “comply with the principles of necessity and proportionality.” Washington, he says, has failed to respond satisfactorily to concerns voiced by others, including his predecessor, that have raised questions about U.S. drone policy.

“The Special Rapporteur again requests the Government to clarify the rules that it considers to cover targeted killings … [and] reiterates his predecessor’s recommendation that the government specify the bases for decisions to kill rather than capture ‘human targets’ and whether the State in which the killing takes places has given consent,” Heyns said.

The report, according to Reuters, was issued overnight Monday to the United Nations Human Rights Council. The 47-member Geneva forum was to discuss the matter on Tuesday.

The call for an evaluation of whether the United States is in violation of international law with its drone attacks comes on the heels of heavy news coverage in the Nation concerning President Barack Obama’s hawkish use of military drones. The New York Times recently pointed out that the Obama Administration routinely pads the numbers of possible civilian casualties associated with the strikes by describing “all military-age males in a strike zone” as combatants.

U.N. Investigator: Obama

Related: http://www.alipac.us/f19/president-b...-video-260596/