The Obama Doctrine: kill, don't detain

Similarities between the work of Obama's legal hawks and those of Bush analyzed by the UK Guardian's Asim Qureshi Sunday.

Article provided by Aletho News

Asim Qureshi guardian.co.uk 11 April 2010

Excerpt: Harold Koh, the legal adviser to the US state department, explained the justifications behind unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) when addressing the American Society of International Law’s annual meeting on 25 March 2010:

“[I]t is the considered view of this administration … that targeting practices, including lethal operations conducted with the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), comply with all applicable law, including the laws of war … As recent events have shown, al-Qaida has not abandoned its intent to attack the United States, and indeed continues to attack us. Thus, in this ongoing armed conflict, the United States has the authority under international law, and the responsibility to its citizens, to use force, including lethal force, to defend itself, including by targeting persons such as high-level al Qaeda leaders who are planning attacks … [T]his administration has carefully reviewed the rules governing targeting operations to ensure that these operations are conducted consistently with law of war principles …
“[S]ome have argued that the use of lethal force against specific individuals fails to provide adequate process and thus constitutes unlawful extrajudicial killing. But a state that is engaged in armed conflict or in legitimate self-defense is not required to provide targets with legal process before the state may use lethal force. Our procedures and practices for identifying lawful targets are extremely robust, and advanced technologies have helped to make our targeting even more precise. In my experience, the principles of distinction and proportionality that the United States applies are not just recited at meeting. They are implemented rigorously throughout the planning and execution of lethal operations to ensure that such operations are conducted in accordance with all applicable law.”

The legal justifications put forward by Koh are reminiscent of the arguments that were used by John Yoo and others in their bid to lend legitimacy to unlawful practices such as rendition, arbitrary detention and torture. The main cause for concern from Koh’s statements is the implication that protective jurisdiction to which the US feels it is entitled in order to carry out operations anywhere in the world still continues under Obama. The laws of war do not allow for the targeting of individuals outside of the conflict zone, and yet we now find that extrajudicial killings are taking place in countries as far apart as Yemen, the Horn of Africa and Pakistan. From a legal and moral perspective, the rationale provided by the State Department is bankrupt and only reinforces the stereotype that the US has very little concern for its own principles.

BBC: Pakistan 'army air strike kills dozens of civilians'

Editor's comment (followed by BBC News story):

The Pakistani army offensive following a summit with the U.S. state department rages on. As the veil lifts, we are seeing a campaign that targets militants with heavy weaponry, killing a large number of civilians. To think Pakistan's military is operating on a directive from Islamabad not influenced by United States interests is beyond naive. For context, may I please suggest this is like people from Washington D.C. giving orders to carpet bomb the Ozarks because an armed band of abortion clinic bombers lives there.

Furthermore, this might turn out to be Obama and Clinton's answer to the controversy plaguing the CIA armed unmanned drone campaign across the Afghan border: if Pakistan's military murder non-combatant Pakistani citizens ("tribal" citizens, whatever that is intended to mean as we read it over and over), no hearings and probably no investigation. Problem solved! Meanwhile, a new story emerges of another case of an ordinary Pakistani villager joining the Taliban and training to bring explosives to New York. Now are we talking about a resident of the "tribal areas?" The rhetoric reads, no--this one is a militant. I repeat, U.S. efforts in the Middle East are NOT breeding hatred and providing fresh terror campaigns on U.S. soil. So nice that we're clear on this. God is Great ... or rather, ... Bless America!

Tuesday, 13 April 2010 14:37 UK
At least 73 civilians were killed when an army jet bombed a remote village in Pakistan's tribal region of Khyber, a local official has told the BBC.

He said the incident took place on Saturday but news was slow in being reported because of the inaccessibility of the region.

The jet was involved in operations against Taliban militants in the nearby Orakzai tribal region.

Many people have died in air strikes in the area over the past 18 months.

The military insists most of them are militants, but independent sources say many civilians have also been killed.

Villagers say another strike - by a US drone missile - killed 13 people on Monday.

NY Times takes Pakistani army's word for it: 38 Taliban fighters dead

38 Taliban Fighters Said Killed in Pakistan Battle

By SALMAN MASOOD
Published: April 12, 2010
excerpt of first 6 graphs appears below.

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — At least 38 Taliban fighters and two Pakistani paramilitary soldiers were killed in a gun battle on Monday in northwest Pakistan, military and security officials said.

The firefight occurred when a checkpoint in the Orakzai tribal region came under attack from more than a hundred militants using rockets and mortars, the officials said.

“The clashes started at midnight and continued until early Monday morning,” said Lt. Col. Nadeem Anwar, a spokesperson for the Pakistani Army in Peshawar, the provincial capital. The checkpoint is located in the Shireen Darra area of Orakzai.

“Two F.C. soldiers died,” Colonel Anwar said, referring to the Frontier Corps, the paramilitary force. The militants eventually retreated, he said, adding, “The situation has calmed down and is under control.”

Also Monday, at least five people were killed in violent clashes in Abottabad District over the renaming of North-West Frontier Province.

The police fired tear gas to quell the unrest, which has paralyzed the district in recent days. Last week, a suicide bomber killed 42 people at a ceremony being held to celebrate the renaming.

The cover-ups that exploded: Alexander Cockburn on Truthout

Truthout.org posted Counterpunch editor Alex Cockburn's piece on the Afghanistan raid that killed pregnant women at a birth ceremony and attempted cover-up and also the helicopter attack on Iraqi civilians and two employees of Reuters News Service in Baghdad in 2007.

Truthout.org article by Counterpunch's Alexander Cockburn

See also the Steven Soldz Znet.org piece, an April 8 post on this site.

From April 7: Pakistan: A new wave of attacks?

Pakistan: A new wave of attacks?

This Al Jazeera story refers to events of last Monday April 5. The story is dated April 7 and is complete with video.

The fascinating part, and this is coming from a news source in Qatar where Middle East events are a little closer to home ...

"Observers have speculated that the attacks could be in revenge for US drone bombings targeting Taliban fighters in the Swat valley. The unmanned planes that drop bombs and have been criticized for killing civilians. Is Pakistan paying the price for battles waged by the US in the region?"

'Scores dead' in Pakistan air raids

Al Jazeera story on April 10 Pakistan military air strike in Orazkai and Khyber

Media analyst's note: Take a look at the difference in language between the CNN story, which is basically the same story, and the Al Jazeera story. Look for what you might call "certainties" in CNN's story and what you might call "uncertainties" in Al Jazeera. Sure, some Americans think Al Jazeera is the voice of political Islam, but as a news outlet which do you prefer? Journalists who accept there are things that can't be known for sure until investigated further or those who take the liberty to leave the facts at what the official source told them?

67 militants killed in Pakistani airstrikes

From CNN ...

67 militants killed in Pakistani airstrikes

Sixty-seven militants were killed Saturday in separate airstrikes in two areas of Pakistan's tribal region, officials tell CNN.

Two Pakistan intelligence officials said about 50 militants were killed in the valley of Tirah of Khyber Agency, one of the seven districts of Pakistan's tribal region bordering Afghanistan.

Officials say a meeting of the militants was under way when shelling from helicopters started. Officials say they received intelligence and then destroyed six militant hideouts.

Officials further informed CNN that in a second wave of air strikes on the hideouts of the militants in Orakzai Agency, 17 militants were killed and three hideouts were destroyed. The officials asked not to be identified because they were not authorized to talk to the media.

This strikes came as the Pakistan military continues its push into tribal areas where both al Qaeda and Taliban operatives are believed to be hiding.
– From journalist Nasir Habib

Afghanistan, public consent and propaganda

Glenn Greenwald writes for Salon.com Monday April 5 how murderous operations in Afghanistan complete with Pentagon-cleared cover-up attempts are perpetuated by U.S. and NATO official efforts to intimidate journalists and prevent accurate reporting to the world's media.

How Americans Are Propagandized About Afghanistan
Published on Monday, April 5, 2010 by Salon.com
How Americans Are Propagandized About Afghanistan
by Glenn Greenwald

The original content of this article has been removed from Salon.com as of 3 pm EDT Saturday, April 10.

Excerpt--"Starkey describes the some of the understandable reasons so many reporters do nothing more than regurgitate officials claims: resource constraints, organizations limits, dangers of traveling around, and the 'embed culture.' But he also recounts how NATO tries to intimidate, censor and punish any reporters like him who report adversely on official claims. Illustratively, in response to Starkey's March 13 article detailing what really happened at Paktia and the cover-up that ensued, NATO issued a formal statement naming him and insisting that this article was 'categorically false.' As recently as mid-March, NATO was still claiming -- falsely -- that the women in Paktia were killed prior to the arrival of American troops.

There are some very courageous and intrepid reporters in Afghanistan, including some who work for American media outlets. It was, for instance, a superb and brave investigative report by the NYT's Carlotta Gall in Afghanistan that uncovered what really happened in that air attack Azizabad and documented the Pentagon's false claims. But far more often, Americans are completely misled about events in Afghanistan by the combination of false official claims and mindless stenographic American 'journalism.' And no matter how many times this process is exposed -- from Jessica Lynch's heroic firefight to Pat Tillman's death by Al Qeada -- this propaganda process never diminishes at all."

Bush Sr.'s "No New Vietnam" apparently no promise

The killing of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan continues to come more vividly to light--as cold-blooded, routine and indifferent murder.

When are we going to stop asking why we went to the countries and start answering the right questions for the new decade: why on earth are we still there and when do we leave?

US Military Covering Up Civilian Killings in Iraq and Afghanistan

ZNet analysis
By Stephen Soldz

Documented human rights abuses of Pakistan's populace by Pakistani military

Human rights report threatens aid to Pakistan

By Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Foreign Service
Reporting from Islamabad, Pakistan
Tuesday, April 6, 2010

A comment:

Yesterday in these pages, I mentioned the notion of civil war in Pakistan. The term basically describes the situation in Afghanistan of the last nine years with a conspicuous imperial presence armed to the teeth, claiming continuous and impending threat to its homeland and hauling the rest of the international military community (Nato, the UK and a few other national armies) along. Efforts in the pages of mainstream media continue to propagandize the affected area as "AfPak" as though no legal or diplomatic implications exist for U.S. military operations in Pakistan.

If the houses of government in Pakistan--the executive, parliament, the courts--issue military orders to suppress an element in the population that holds some influence over that population, the resulting combat would, or should be, called civil war. When this became an issue in Iraq prior to President Bush's now famous troop surge, the Iraq war lost a great deal of support from the U.S. population.

Previous to the Hillary Clinton meeting with Pakistan's foreign minister and the pledge for billions more in military aid, the U.S. was considering diplomatic talks with the Taliban in Afghanistan. See "A Deal with the Taliban?" New York Review of Books Feb. 25, 2010; piece by Ahmed Rashid, pages 36-9. This refers to an entity separate from but intricately influenced by the Taliban in Pakistan. Both can be dissuaded from affinity with Al Qaeda, a much smaller group that leverages against state governments in Kabul and Islamabad for religious political influence within the Taliban and the larger populations.

It is arguable that negotiations that were a looming possibility in February may be rendered impossible or pushed back many months by the backlash of recent moves by Departments of State and Defense with leadership in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

See also:
Karzai Threatens to Join the Taliban, as U.S. Involvement in Afghanistan Hits a New Low

The most recent news from Afghanistan shows how deadly and dysfunctional the U.S. mission there is.
Alternet story by Liliana Segura
April 5, 2010

U.S. Consulate in Pakistan bombed

Voice of America reported a breaking story Monday after explosions rocked the U.S. Consulate in Peshawar, Pakistan.

Point of concern: no by-line here, typical fashion of late-breaking news reporting, and what we see is information available about the group claiming responsibility for the attack: the Pakistani Taliban, not a very specific group but a sprawling cross section of Pakistan's population. Taken with recent reports of Pakistan's military mounting a successful campaign against Islamic militants within its borders, the situation is coming closer to what could be (and possibly ought to be) described as civil war. This would be a civil war in which the United States and its military and spy operatives are taking a clear side. Where is the civic deliberation in this matter? If somewhere in DC, then where (hopefully on Capitol Hill before Langley) What's the democratic aspect of fanning the flames of civil war in Pakistan in attempts to bring democracy to Afghanistan?

US Condemns Attack on Consulate in Pakistan

The United States has condemned an Islamic militant attack on the U.S. consulate in the Pakistani city of Peshawar Monday.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said the White House is greatly concerned by attack that left at least three people dead and several others wounded.

Pakistani Taliban militants have claimed responsibility for the attack. Security officials say militants detonated car bombs outside the consulate and fired grenades and other weapons as they tried to enter the building. Police quickly closed off the area.

A statement from the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad says at least two Pakistani security officers were killed. There are no reports that any U.S. citizens were among those wounded or killed in the attack.

Earlier Monday, authorities say a suspected suicide bomber killed at least 41 people and wounded scores of others at a political rally in the Lower Dir district.

The Awami National Party (ANP), which heads the ruling coalition in North West Frontier Province, was meeting to discuss a name change for the province.

The ANP has supported military operations against the Taliban and Islamist militants in the country.

The Case for the Impeachment of Barack Obama (and his CIA drones, too)

In 2006, Dave Lindorff wrote a book about the impeachable crimes of the previous administration. As it turns out on down the line, the new crew is in the same boat when it comes to obeying the law. Maybe Ambrose Bierce's Devil's Dictionary definition of impeachment would have been, "When members of your own political party and peer group decide, regarding one particular set of circumstances, that as head of state you ought to obey the law."

From Aletho News April 2 ...

Same Crimes, Same Misdemeanors

Oh, and guess which violation Lindorff starts off with? Guess, guess! You guessed it, the CIA armed unmanned drone attacks and all the civilians they've killed in a nation state where what's called "war" ... has yet to be "declared."

excerpt ... [Sadly, it is time to say, just 14 months into the current term of this new president, that yes, this president, and some of his subordinates, are also guilty of impeachable crimes–including many of the same ones committed by Bush and Cheney.

Let’s start with the war in Afghanistan, which Obama has taken full ownership of with an escalation that will bring the number of US troops in that country (not counting mercenaries hired by the Pentagon and CIA) to 100,000 by this August.

The president has authorized the use of Predator drone aircraft for a program of bombing conducted against Pakistan which has illegally expanded the Afghan War into another country without any authorization from Congress. These pilotless drones are known to kill far more innocent bystanders than enemy targets, making them fundamentally illegal on principle as weapons. Furthermore, this wave of attacks in Pakistan is a war of aggression against another nation if the word “war” is to have any meaning at all, and as such it is illegal under the UN Charter. Indeed initiating a war of aggression against a country which does not pose an immediate threat to the invader is described in the Charter and in the Nuremberg Tribunal Charter as the gravest of all war crimes.]

More from ACLU, State Department on legality of CIA drone attacks

Thanks, radioactivegavin, for pointing out this March 27 Raw Story article further detailing the U.S. State Department's current legal position on this classified, secretive program of killing civilians while out hunting "high profile targets."

Responding to lawsuit, US justifies Predator drone program as ’self defense’

Lawyers at ACLU would like to know more.

excerpt ... [We're encouraged that Koh has articulated the legal rationale for the program," said Jonathan Manes, a legal fellow at the ACLU. But he added that he hoped the administration would provide a more detailed account of its legal justification.

"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, in a media advisory released after the group's lawsuit was filed. "The Obama administration should disclose basic information about the program, including its legal basis and limits, and the civilian casualty toll thus far."

The group added: "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."]

Militarization of Haiti not helping build infrastructure

From an Inter Press Service article March 31 written by Ansel Herz ...

commondreams.org

{In Potay, a neighbourhood near downtown Port-Au-Prince, a dozen U.S. soldiers toting automatic weapons walked past men drinking beer on a stoop.

Wearing jeans and a black vest, Brital, one of Haiti's most well-known rappers with the Barikad Crew, watched them go past his collapsed home.

"I don't think we need soldiers with guns. We need engineers the most," he said. "I'd prefer to see soldiers who could educate instead of those with guns. Soldiers that can come and build roads, bridges, universities and hospitals."

U.S. Senator Chris Dodd proposed Monday placing Haiti under a trusteeship system and broadening the U.N. mission in the country. He wrote in the Miami Herald that Haiti should not be occupied by foreign powers, but that the country is incapable of leading its own reconstruction.}

Israel, Lebanon and potential eruption of the Middle East

A report from the pages of Counterpunch, ominous in light of John Pilger's observations about a U.S. military build-up in response to Iran. What happens if the Middle East turns into one giant war front for the United States?

Israel Threatens Lebanon ... Again A New Middle East War? By CONN HALLINAN

[EXCERPT] "The Sunday Times (London) reports, 'According to well-placed sources, Israel is speeding up preparations for a possible attack on Iran’s nuclear sites.' The Israeli daily Haaretz says that the Netanyahu government is asking the Obama administration to supply Israel with GBU-28 'bunker buster' bombs and refueling tanker aircraft, both which would be essential for a strike at Iran ...

Maybe this is all saber rattling aimed at getting the U.S. to step up the pressure on Iran, Syria and Lebanon. Maybe, as Eilam charges, it is all about the [Israeli Defense Forces] getting 'a bigger budget.' Maybe it is a diversion from the charges that Israel committed war crimes in its invasion of Gaza, its settlement building on the West Bank, and the diplomatic storm it has reaped from its assassination of a Hamas official in Dubai.

But ramping up the rhetoric of war in a volatile region can lead to a misstep—by accident or design—and once the dogs of war are off their leash, it will be hard to bring them to heel."

British journalist John Pilger contextualizes U.S. military presence in the Middle East

This March 28 story is derived from the investigation that contributed to Pilger's last two books. His work on the colonial outpost on the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean is ominous. This is not only a major launching site for U.S. military campaigns and broader initiatives in the Middle East, but also a known notorious "black site" used for extraordinary rendition (will post the reference to a New York Review of Books article published in 2009 soon).

If Pilger is right, Somalia and Yemen may more urgently require attention of the reading public than Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Have a Nice World War, Folks
by John Pilger

Wired Magazine: Drone Attacks Are Legit Self-Defense, Says State Dept. Lawyer

An attorney in Obama's State Department, a legal adviser by the name of Harold Koh, has stated attacks on suspected militants in Pakistani territory including lethal attacks, “comply with all applicable law, including the laws of war.”

Wired magazine's Danger Room

Complaints of recent aimed at Washington include those that claim the Bush administration has managed to call the tune to which Obama and his staff are dancing in many areas of government so far. A State department legal adviser providing law professor-style analysis as official policy smacks of John Yoo, David Addington, Alberto Gonzales and other slippery Bush henchmen clearly stating where they were doing the least worst (or most wrong) permitted by the most closely held interpretation of the law.

It would seem from recent dismay over the wars and health care reform that Obama's supporters expected something different.

Analysis: U.S.-Pakistan plan announced just as 61 unconfirmed militants are killed by Pakistani forces

What was shown here Thursday was simultaneous appearance of an Associated Press story that tells us of an attack in Pakistan, by Pakistan that took out a significantly high 61 militants without one confirmation of identity by local authorities, AND the announcement, within the same hour, of an aid deal the State Department has been working on with Pakistan's foreign minister.



[Blogger's note: I have started to use the "comments" section in order to add commentary to stories without taking them down from the top of the front page. On second assessment, this seems a little unorthodox or unprofessional or some combination of those to the effect I'm not going to do it again. Thanks for being patient through the process with the inchoate online project.]

From the previously referenced article appearing in the Washington Post Thursday, "Pakistan says it is 'satisfied' with U.S. pledges on aid delivery" by Karen De Young ...

"It really has been extraordinary, in my view, seeing what Pakistan has done over the last, really, more than a year," Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said of Pakistan's counterinsurgency efforts targeting Taliban havens in the mountainous region along the Afghanistan border. Gates spoke Wednesday at a separate congressional budget hearing, along with Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

--So what we've got here is Pakistan's foreign minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi visiting D.C. while back home in Pakistan a new offensive is launched by the tormented Pakistani military to the tune of an extraordinary number of dead militants in one strike: 61.

Okay, what's the problem? Pakistan's own military is starting not only to arrest its problem of being shredded by insurgency groups, but also doing the work the U.S. military can't seem to do without crossing the border into Pakistan.

Let's take a look at this AP story about the Pakistani military's air strike: "Alongside the religious seminary, a mosque and a school were targeted, local official Samiullah Orakzai said.

Two intelligence officials said the seminary was a main center for Tableeghi Jamaat, a non-violent Islamic missionary group. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to reporters.

The center was targeted because a group of Taliban leaders were believed to be meeting there in the afternoon. Some four dozen people died in the air strikes in and around the seminary, while 13 others were killed in morning strikes at the two other sites.

The officials said all 61 were suspected militants. Independent confirmation of the death toll or the victims' identities was nearly impossible because access to the tribal region is restricted."

--Officials said all 61 were suspected militants? First, that's a huge number compared even with U.S. strikes in recent months. Second, confirmation of the death toll or victims' identities was nearly impossible? And news of this attack broke nearly simultaneously to the announcement of $71 million in U.S. aid ...

Let's not rule out the possibility all of these think tanks' advice has finally reached the Joint Chiefs of Staff: the murder of Pakistani civilians should be left to the Pakistanis.

Pakistani Forces and Militants Clash at Border

nytimes.com

By ISMAIL KHAN
Published: March 26, 2010
PESHAWAR, Pakistan — Taliban militants battled Pakistani security forces for control of a security outpost in a tribal region near the Afghan border, leaving five Pakistani security officials and dozens of Taliban fighters dead, Pakistani authorities said Friday.

Is Pakistan at risk of entering a two-front war? India will surely exploit the compromise of Pakistan's official decision to fight the Taliban within its borders, unless Hillary Clinton's State Department intervenes with some sort of dialogue with India. India is a close ally of the United States, as demonstrated by George W. Bush's favoritism in nuclear policy when he rewarded India to punish Ahmedinejad's Iran. But a sloppy handling of the emerging situation negates nuclear accords between the United States and Russia: the working nuclear relationship on the ground is between India and Pakistan. The peace between those countries has continually been the centerpiece of stability in Asia. The powderkeg, thought to be in Iraq, could turn out to be on the border of India and Pakistan, which continues to be China's geopolitical back yard.

Pakistan: Airstrikes kill 61 suspected militants; US closes aid deal with Pakistan

The Associated Press By HUSSAIN AFZAL (AP) just before 10:30 EDT Thursday, March 25

PARACHINAR, Pakistan — Pakistani military airstrikes killed 61 suspected militants in an area near the Afghan border Thursday, including dozens at a seminary where Taliban commanders were believed to be meeting, officials said.

And minutes before the AP story posted ...

Pakistan says it is satisfied with U.S. pledges on aid delivery