Half-Cocked Harry

First two weeks, two fiascos of incompetence: Muslim ban at airports, raid in Yemen.

The US military has launched an investigation into the scale of civilian casualties in a botched special forces raid against a suspected al-Qaida base in Yemen, the first such mission to be approved by Donald Trump, as questions mount over the operation.

[...]

The Pentagon has said a US Navy Seal, chief petty officer William Owens, and 14 militants were killed in the raid in al Bayda province. Medics at the scene said about 30 people, including 10 women and children, were killed. Three US special forces were wounded.

[...]

The mission was approved over dinner five days after the presidential inauguration by Trump and his closest advisers, including his son-in-law Jared Kushner and his special adviser and former Breitbart executive Stephen Bannon, as well as defence secretary General Jim Mattis.

Both the New York Times and Reuters carried quotes from unnamed military officials that seemed to shift blame for the mission to Trump and his inner team. It would be an extraordinary development for a president, who is commander-in-chief, to be briefed against in such detail.

[...]

The special forces, apparently lacking full intelligence, were confronted by heavily-fortified positions, including landmines, and faced heavy gunfire from buildings all around during the 50-minute firefight.

  Guardian

I think we all know who's lacking full intelligence.

The civilian dead included an eight-year-old girl, Nawar al-Awlaki, according to her family, who may have been an US citizen. Her father was al-Qaida propagandist and US citizen Anwar al-Awlaki, who was killed in a September 2011 US drone strike in Yemen.

And whose 16-year-old American brother was killed by Obama in a drone attack some years ago.

US military officials told Reuters that Trump approved his first covert counterterrorism operation without sufficient intelligence, ground support or adequate backup preparations.

So, at least when he gets them in hot water, they're not going to cover for him.

Some military officials are going to have to be FIRED! 

And this is going to be his Twitter response:

The mission had been prepared under the Obama administration but it had not been approved.

It was Obama's fault.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Great News for ISIS

Her name was Nawaar Bint Anwar Awlaki.

Or, as Reuters headlines it:

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

The Drone Operator You Will Not See on American Media

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30483010

Enlightening and Informative Interview of Jeremy Scahill

With lots of good information on Anwar al Awlaki.

http://www.democracynow.org/2015/1/12/jeremy_scahill_on_paris_attacks_the

You can also read Jeremy Scahill's Intercept article on who the Paris gunmen were or weren't in terms of global terrorism, with this inclusion:

[Update: On Wednesday, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula officially claimed responsibility for the Charlie Hebdo attack in a statement issued by its media arm. The statement declared that the attack was in retaliation for the magazine’s depictions of the prophet Mohammed in its cartoons. It called the simultaneous assault on the Kosher grocery story by Amedy Coulibaly a coincidence because of the men’s relationships with each other and said it was not the result of AQAP’s coordination with rival group Islamic State.]

  Jeremy Scahill

Apparently CNN Wants to Be the New Fox News

Following previous post...

No doubt Awlaki encouraged attacks and inspired them. No doubt he met underwear bomber. But what you reported is not true.

When AQAP asked bin Laden to approve Awlaki as leader of AQAP, bin Laden shot it down and said he wasn't a proven entity.

Hassan clearly adored Awlaki and was inspired by him. Awlaki praised the attack. But that's different from Awlaki directing it.

Awlaki is big figure to the West b/c he spoke English, encouraged lone wolf attacks.

The *actual* leaders of AQAP have directed & coordinated many many deadly attacks US ignores b/c the targets are not Western.

  Jeremy Scahill Twitter account

If I could not get access to the Twitter accounts of the likes of Jeremy Scahill and Glenn Greenwald through my web browser, I would be forced to sign up for a Twitter account myself. There's too much that gets bantered about and discussed there that doesn't always make it to the regular media.

Appeal Denied - USG Ordered to Release Secret Memo

A federal appeals court has ordered the release of a secret government memo that authorized the killings of Americans overseas. The American Civil Liberties Union and The New York Times had filed a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act seeking the legal basis for drone strikes. The lawsuit came after the United States killed the American-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, his 16-year-old son Abdulrahman, and Samir Khan in Yemen, despite having never charged any of them with a crime. In a unanimous ruling, a three-judge panel on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the release of the memo and other related documents. In a statement, the ACLU said the ruling marks a "resounding rejection of the government’s effort to use secrecy and selective disclosure to manipulate public opinion about the targeted killing program."

  Democracy Now

So, will the government pony up?  Or take the matter to the Supreme Court "activist" judges, where they always win.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Something You Won't Hear About on the Convention Stage

A local TV reporter in Cincinnati, Ben Swann, interviewed President Obama today and -- unlike virtually all national reporters -- decided to challenge him on how it is that he believes he has the right to order even American citizens assassinated without due process, and specifically asked him about the killing of the American teeanger Abdulrahman Awlaki in Yemen. Obama's response, needless to say, was to refuse to answer on the ground that it is all a big secret, but the imperiousness of this refusal can only be appreciated by watching the video:
  Glenn Greenwald

Go to the link, the video is embedded.

Recall that "three dozen" -- that's "three dozen" -- current and former Obama aides ran to the New York Times in May to heap praise on Obama's supposedly judicious though resolute use of drones to vanquish America's enemies. Recall, too, that he feels free openly to tell jokes about his use of drones to kill people.

But the minute he is confronted with real questions, he retreats -- just like he does when his conduct is challenged in court -- to claiming that it is all just too secret to permit any discussion of it whatsoever.

Still Trying

The ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights this morning filed a lawsuit in federal court against several Obama officials, including Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and CIA Director David Petraeus. The suit is brought on behalf of the survivors of three American citizens killed in Yemen by the U.S. Government — killed specifically by the CIA and the Pentagon’s Joint Special Operations Command — with no due process and far from any battlefield: Anwar Awlaki and Samir Khan (killed together in a drone strike) and Awlaki’s teenaged son Abdulrahman (killed two weeks later).

The suit alleges that the killing of these Americans violates their Constitutional rights (including their Fifth Amendment right to due process) because “the United States was not engaged in an armed conflict with or within Yemen” and “these killings rely on vague legal standards, a closed executive process, and evidence never presented to the courts.” While there is substantial dispute over the role, if any, that the senior Awlaki played in Al Qaeda plots (the Complaint alleges that he “was not then directly participating in hostilities within the meaning of the law of war”), nobody — not even the U.S. Government — claims that Khan or the American teenager were combatants of any kind. None of the three had ever been indicted, let alone convicted, by the U.S. Government.

[...]

So if — or, rather, when — the Obama DOJ comes into court in response to this new lawsuit and demands that it be instantly dismissed (rather than defending the legality of its acts on the merits), shouldn’t critics and supporters of the Obama assassination program alike jointly and strongly condemn that? After all, shouldn’t proponents of this assassination power — those, such as Andrew Sullivan, who believe it is legal and Constitutional for Obama to do this — want more than anyone else for courts to adjudicate its legality?

  Glenn Greenwald

Say the plaintiffs:

"We filed a case two years ago related to the contemplated killing of Anwar al-Awlaki. This case is different because that killing has taken place. It's not an injunctive case. It's not seeking an injunction for something that might happen in the future, but accountability for something that has happened already.

"The main reason we're bringing the case," Jaffer continued, "is to get some kind of accountability, in the most basic sense of the word. The government has killed three of its citizens and we think the government has to account for its actions, first to acknowledge, then to explain.

"We believe that if you accept that the government has the authority to kill its own citizens without acknowledging its actions, you have set up an authority that will one day be abused. Once you create this power, this power will sit around available to every single future president.

"It is a wrongful death lawsuit, which means that it is a damages lawsuit. In U.S. courts, there are two vehicles: one is injunctive, the other is for damages. We've already filed an injunctive lawsuit. This is for damages.

  Tom Junod

Good for you, but you won't win.

And...”one day” the authority will be abused? I think it already has been. That's why you're filing the lawsuit.

Here's Your Explanation

Why the Obama Administration won't even acknowledge certain killings: they've made a deal with whatever country they're killing in not to acknowledge it so that the leader of that country doesn't have to look like the puppet he is. So that's okay then.

...and hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Watch Out Amnesty

With MEK set to be taken off the US terrorist list, there'll be space available. And don't forget: we have drones.

“In the absence of further clarification from the US authorities, the killing of Osama bin Laden would appear to have been unlawful,” [Amnesty International said in its annual report.]

[...]

“The US administration made clear that the operation had been conducted under the USA’s theory of a global armed conflict between the USA and Al-Qaeda in which the USA does not recognize the applicability of international human rights law.”

[...]

Amnesty said a request for clarification over an apparent US drone strike in Yemen last September that killed US-born radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaqi, his Al-Qaeda co-conspirator Samir Khan and at least two others had also gone unanswered.

[...]

The global rights monitor also criticized Canada for failing to arrest Bush when he visited in October, “despite clear evidence that he was responsible for crimes under international law, including torture.”

  Raw Story

That would have been so good for us. And the world.

And Here It Is...

[AG Eric Holder] outlined a three-part test for determining when a targeted killing against a US citizen is legal. He said the government must determine after careful review that the citizen poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the US, capture is not feasible and the killing would be consistent with laws of war.

The Obama administration has refused to release the justice department legal opinion on al-Awlaki's killing under the Freedom of Information Act and is in court opposing efforts to have it made public.

Responding to criticism from civil libertarians, Holder flatly rejected the suggestion that the constitution's due process protections require the president to get permission from a federal court before taking lethal action.

[...]

"When such individuals take up arms against this country and join al-Qaida in plotting attacks designed to kill their fellow Americans there may be only one realistic and appropriate response," the attorney general continued. "We must take steps to stop them in full accordance with the constitution. In this hour of danger, we simply cannot afford to wait until deadly plans are carried out – and we will not."

  UK Guardian

Had Anwar al Awlaki taken up arms against the US? I mus have missed that.

Al-Awlaki's killing in a joint CIA-US military drone strike on a convoy in Yemen sparked a public debate over whether the president should have the authority to kill an American citizen without a conviction and despite an executive order banning assassinations – which Holder called a "loaded term" that doesn't apply in this case.

Assassination – a loaded term. Perhaps he would prefer the other appropriate term: murder.

"The American people can be – and deserve to be – assured that actions taken in their defense are consistent with their values and their laws."

Happy now? I suppose you want to see the actual laws we have authorizing assassinations - er, murders, huh? You are so particular.

It Must Be Campaign Season

The Obama administration on Monday plans to outline how U.S. laws empower the government to kill Americans overseas who engage in terrorism against their home country, a source familiar with the matter said, months after a drone strike killed a U.S.-born cleric who plotted attacks from Yemen.

  Raw Story

Well, well. Apparently their “legal justification” is no longer a bulwark against the onslaught of terrorists, and we can now know the secret.