home

White House Defends Use of Drones

By Jeralyn, Section War on Terror
Posted on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 06:07:25 PM EST
Tags: drones (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Speaking at the Woodrow Wilson International Center, White House counterterrorism official John Brennan today defended the use of drones against al Qaeda.

“Yes, in order to prevent terrorist attacks on the United States and to save American lives, the United States government conducts targeted strikes against specific al-Qaida terrorists, sometimes using remotely piloted aircraft, often referred to publicly as drones,” Brennan said.

He defended targeted strikes and the use of drones as "ethical." You can watch some of his statement here.

< More Court Documents Released in George Zimmerman Case | DNA Testing Clears Colorado Man After Serving 18 Years >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    White House Defends Use of Drones | 38 comments (38 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Life in a vacuum (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Dadler on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 06:49:58 PM EST
    One could argue that in the end drones serve exactly the opposite purpose, especially with their increasing use by law enforcement at home.  The proliferation of spy tools, logically, leads to decreased freedom, not increased.    

    Well, isn't this special (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Zorba on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 07:02:59 PM EST
    Not.  Thank you, ACLU, for speaking out against this.  Link.  I'm sending them an additional donation (on top of the money I give them yearly).  

    It is ironic that a president (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Slado on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 07:13:31 PM EST
    that was elected because of his anti war stance has not only continued the war on terror, kept Gitmo and when it comes to drones even managed to turn it up a notch.

    Add on top of that he is now bragging about killing another human being in campaign adds and well....ironic

    He was never anti this war... (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Addison on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 08:28:33 PM EST
    ...I can't believe we're still making this basic error or memory (and that's charitable, I think people are choosing to forget) 3 years later.

    Parent
    The anti-war (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by lentinel on Tue May 01, 2012 at 04:37:08 AM EST
    stance that you mention is a fiction.

    People should recall that Obama stumped for Lieberman against Lamont in 2006. That was a pivotal moment when citizens were given a chance to vote against the war - and they did. And Obama stumped for the pro-war candidate.

    That was just one of many red flags.

    When he was a candidate, Obama, like McCain, called for a bigger war in Afghanistan.

    Parent

    I meant the war on terror (none / 0) (#20)
    by Slado on Tue May 01, 2012 at 06:22:22 AM EST
    He campaigned on harsh techniques and his answer was to kill terrorists with drones,  no need to interview them lets just act as judge and jury from 20,000 feet.

    Parent
    You may (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by lentinel on Tue May 01, 2012 at 07:27:41 AM EST
    be right about Obama campaigning against harsh techniques, (torture), but I don't recall it -I specifically don't recall him calling out Bush or Cheney as the torturers they are. He still doesn't.

    In any case, for anyone to have believed that he represented any kind of change - except for the packaging - astounded and confounded me.

    And it still does.

    Parent

    John Brennan may be one of the (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Anne on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 07:15:24 PM EST
    last people whose definition of "ethical" would bear any resemblance to mine.

    And I hate to say this, but Obama's not exactly been a paragon of ethical behavior on this issue, either.

    Here's Glenn:

    Then there's the question of what legal authority exists for Obama to order the targeting of Yemenis who very well may have nothing to do even with the "Al Qaeda" group in Yemen: one which itself did not even exist as of the time the 2001 AUMF was enacted. As Yale Professor Bruce Ackerman argued this weekend in The Washington Post, Obama, by approving of these strikes, is "breaking the legal barrier that Congress erected to prevent the White House from waging an endless war on terrorism." That's because Congress, even in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, refused to write the President a blank check to attack Terrorists of any kind. Instead, they authorized force only against those who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks and "require[d] the president to return to Congress, and the American people, for another round of express support for military campaigns against other terrorist threats." But as Obama demonstrated conclusively when he continued to wage the war in Libya even once Congress voted against its authorization, legal and Constitutional constraints are no more important to him than moral and strategic ones when it comes to waging more war.

    As usual, to the extent that most Democrats mention any of this, it will be to celebrate its political value: how it proves that Obama is so very Tough and Strong on national security. Because nothing exudes Strength -- or the values of the Nobel Peace Prize -- like continuously escalating secret wars and targeting people for death via remote-controlled aircraft from thousands of miles away without even knowing their names. The innocent corpses, the trampling on accountability and transparency, the ongoing fueling of Endless War, must not be permitted to interfere with the President's re-election, so all of this is just best ignored, again. Dead Yemenis will be kept out of sight and out of mind, and on those rare occasions when we hear about them, we'll just tell ourselves that the President is a Good, Magnanimous Man who just wants to Keep us Safe.

    As we "celebrate" the one-year anniversary of the bin Laden killing, the airwaves are filled with a combination of the media not even bothering to disguise their fawning, and dire warnings of our vulnerability.  

    It just makes me sick.