E MAIL YOUR SENATORS & REPRESENTATIVE (I DID), TELL THEM TO VOTE NO ON AMERICAN WAR IN SYRIA

MY e mails to Sen Tim Kaine D VA, Sen Mark Warner D VA and Rep Gerry Connolly D VA against any and all American military action in Syria. You can e mail your Senators here http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm  and your Representative here http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/  We can stop this war before it starts, our best chances are with the U.S. House but we can't give up on the Senate. My e mails are below.....
To Sen Kaine
I am extremely disgusted with your vote in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to authorize American military action in Syria. We are not wanted there. The Syrians don't want our military involvement, nobody in the Middle East does, most in the Arab and Islamic world don't and even our allies (except France) are not backing American military action in Syria. We do not need another Middle East war. Americans are still being killed in Afghanistan, we do not need to add to the tally of American military lives sacrificed for lost causes. The president's plan doesn't pass the Powell Doctrine test, and unilateral American military action in Syria will be a violation of international law. Approval of Pres. Obama's request and subsequent American military action will result in all who vote to grant authority for U.S. military action in Syria becoming war criminals under international law.This is a Syrian and Arab world problem, they need to deal with it. The most we should do is continue providing humanitarian aid for the Syrian refugees and working with our allies and the U.N. for a diplomatic solution to this tragic civil war. 
Remember the Powell doctrine? Elaborated by Colin Powell back in 1990, during his tenure as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, it consisted of a series of questions identifying the conditions that should be met before committing U.S. military forces to battle. The questions were:
1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?
2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?
3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
4. Have all other nonviolent policy means been fully exhausted?
5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
7. Is the action supported by the American people?
8. Do we have genuine broad international support?

For Powell, each question had to be answered in the affirmative before a decision to use military force was made. If these conditions were met, however, Powell (and other military officers of his generation) believed that the United States should then use sufficient force to achieve decisive victory. 
To Sen Warner and Rep Connolly
I am opposed to Pres Obama's request for authorization for American military action in Syria. We are not wanted there. The Syrians don't want our military involvement, nobody in the Middle East does, most in the Arab and Islamic world don't and even our allies (except France) are not backing American military action in Syria. We do not need another Middle East war. Americans are still being killed in Afghanistan, we do not need to add to the tally of American military lives sacrificed for lost causes. The president's plan doesn't pass the Powell Doctrine test, and unilateral American military action in Syria will be a violation of international law. Approval of Pres. Obama's request and subsequent American military action will result in all who vote to grant authority for U.S. military action in Syria becoming war criminals under international law. This is a Syrian and Arab world problem, they need to deal with it. The most we should do is continue providing humanitarian aid for the Syrian refugees and working with our allies and the U.N. for a diplomatic solution to this tragic civil war.
Remember the Powell doctrine? Elaborated by Colin Powell back in 1990, during his tenure as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, it consisted of a series of questions identifying the conditions that should be met before committing U.S. military forces to battle. The questions were:
1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?
2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?
3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
4. Have all other nonviolent policy means been fully exhausted?
5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
7. Is the action supported by the American people?
8. Do we have genuine broad international support?

For Powell, each question had to be answered in the affirmative before a decision to use military force was made. If these conditions were met, however, Powell (and other military officers of his generation) believed that the United States should then use sufficient force to achieve decisive victory. 

Report: These 54 Foreign Governments Helped the CIA Torture, Detain, and Transport Suspects After 9/11 & Globalizing Torture: CIA Secret Detention and Extraordinary Rendition 5FEB13

THIS is the kind of activity by our government that we should all be ashamed of. It is morally disgusting and shows the rest of the world we have lost our way and that our government is no longer qualified to pass judgement on the human rights record of any other nation. It is especially disturbing that Pres Obama's administration is committed to continue these policies when he campaigned against them. From Mother Jones and Open Society Foundation.....

—By Asawin Suebsaeng

| Tue Feb. 5, 2013 3:01 PM PST

36

Alexander Smulskiy/Shutterstock

On Tuesday, the Open Society Justice Initiative released a 212-page report that details international assistance to US covert action related to controversial Bush-era anti-terror policy. The report (PDF), titled "Globalizing Torture: CIA Secret Detention and Extraordinary Rendition," identifies 136 people who were captured or transferred by the Central Intelligence Agency, and lists available information about the detainees—both the Islamist operatives and the completely innocent.

"Globalizing Torture" also provides an annotated list of the dozens of foreign governments that played roles in the CIA's secret program in the years following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. These governments provided crucial support in facilitating the CIA and Bush administration's war on Al Qaeda by, according to the report:

[H]osting CIA prisons on their territories; detaining, interrogating, torturing, and abusing individuals; assisting in the capture and transport of detainees; permitting the use of domestic airspace and airports for secret flights transporting detainees; providing intelligence leading to the secret detention and extraordinary rendition of individuals; and interrogating individuals who were secretly being held in the custody of other governments. Foreign governments also failed to protect detainees from secret detention and extraordinary rendition on their territories and to conduct effective investigations into agencies and officials who participated in these operations.

Here are the 54 listed, in alphabetical order:

• Afghanistan
• Albania
• Algeria
• Australia
• Austria
• Azerbaijan
• Belgium
• Bosnia-Herzegovina
• Canada
• Croatia
• Cyprus
• The Czech Republic
• Denmark
• Djibouti
• Egypt
• Ethiopia
• Finland
• Gambia
• Georgia
• Germany
• Greece
• Hong Kong
• Iceland
• Indonesia
• Iran
• Ireland
• Italy
• Jordan
• Kenya
• Libya
• Lithuania
• Macedonia
• Malawi
• Malaysia
• Mauritania
• Morocco
• Pakistan
• Poland
• Portugal
• Romania
• Saudi Arabia
• Somalia
• South Africa
• Spain
• Sri Lanka
• Sweden
• Syria
• Thailand
• Turkey
• United Arab Emirates
• United Kingdom
• Uzbekistan
• Yemen
• Zimbabwe
• http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/reports/globalizing-torture-cia-secret-detention-and-extraordinary-rendition

Globalizing Torture: CIA Secret Detention and Extraordinary Rendition

February 2013   Open Society Justice Initiative

Globalizing Torture: CIA Secret Detention and Extraordinary Rendition

Download Files

Globalizing Torture: CIA Secret Detention and Extraordinary Rendition

Download the 216-page report.

1.08 MB PDF

Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Central Intelligence Agency embarked on a highly classified program of secret detention and extraordinary rendition of terrorist suspects. The program was designed to place detainee interrogations beyond the reach of law. Suspected terrorists were seized and secretly flown across national borders to be interrogated by foreign governments that used torture, or by the CIA itself in clandestine “black sites” using torture techniques.

Globalizing Torture is the most comprehensive account yet assembled of the human rights abuses associated with CIA secret detention and extraordinary rendition operations. It details for the first time what was done to the 136 known victims, and lists the 54 foreign governments that participated in these operations. It shows that responsibility for the abuses lies not only with the United States but with dozens of foreign governments that were complicit.

More than 10 years after the 2001 attacks, Globalizing Torture makes it unequivocally clear that the time has come for the United States and its partners to definitively repudiate these illegal practices and secure accountability for the associated human rights abuses.

Learn More:

Rights & Justice, Africa, Europe, Latin America & the Caribbean, Middle East, United States,National Security & Counterterrorism

http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/reports/globalizing-torture-cia-secret-detention-and-extraordinary-rendition

Interactive Writing Fellow

Asawin Suebsaeng is an interactive writing fellow at the Washington, DC, bureau of Mother Jones. For more of his stories, click here. You can also follow him on Twitter. Email tips, insights, and anger to asuebsaeng [at] motherjones [dot] com. RSS | TWITTER

• Obama's CIA Pick to Face Questions on Torture

  Two top senators—one Republican and one Dem—have promised to question John Brennan on CIA detention and interrogation practices.

• Gitmo Judge Says 9/11 Defendants Can't Discuss Torture in Court

  Torture is a secret, unless Hollywood is making a movie about it.

• WATCH: MoJo Reporter Nick Baumann Explains American Rendition on Democracy Now

• CIA Black Site in Romania: Hidden in Plain Sight

  From the outside, the former top-secret prison in Bucharest looks like a rundown DMV.

5 Crucial Questions Senators Failed to Ask During Brennan Hearings & Brennan Welcomes 'Discussion' About Drones, Defends Policy on Strikes 7&8FEB13

john brennan reflects the sorry state of affairs in the Obama administration concerning civil liberties, the US Constitution, torture, extraordinary rendition, war powers, international law, human rights, gitmo, drones and the cia. Unfortunately he will be approved by the Senate because there aren't enough of them with the morality to challenge the President on brennan. A very good read from AlterNet follwed by a PBS NewsHour report on brennan's confirmation hearings on 7FEB13. You may also be interested in On Civil Liberties, A Tale Of Two Obamas 6FEB13 http://bucknacktssordidtawdryblog.blogspot.com/2013/02/on-civil-liberties-tale-of-two-obamas.html
and Exploring Technology, Effectiveness, Consequences of Drone Warfare & VIDEO: RISE OF THE DRONES 23JAN13 http://bucknacktssordidtawdryblog.blogspot.com/2013/01/exploring-technology-effectiveness.html

The Senate Intelligence Committee completely skirted the questions that the American people need answered.

February 8, 2013  |  

 

 

 

During John Brennan’s confirmation hearing for CIA director, the architect of Obama’s drone program unapologetically defended targeted assassinations—even of American citizens. Given his adamant defense of the program, there’s still a lot the America people deserve to know.

But the Senate Intelligence Committee failed us. Rather than asking the tough questions, senators battled Code Pink protestors, kissed a lot of ass, and even told a waterboarding joke. 

Several journalists andbloggers listed important questions for Mr. Brennan prior to his hearing. Most went unasked and unanswered. Here are some questions for Brennan that we still don’t have answers to:

1. Will You Please Recite the Fifth Amendment?

Brennan and Sen. Diane Feinstein engaged in a lengthy exchange over Anwar al-Awlaki, the American-born cleric who was killed by way of drone strike in 2011. The U.S. citizen, accused of aiding and abetting Al Qaeda, did not get a chance to stand trial before the Obama administration pulled the trigger. Yet, Feinstein fed Brennan everything he needed to defend the administration’s complete disregard for due process, guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. If al-Awkali was such a “bad guy,” as Feinstein repeated over and over, why couldn’t we indict him? Writer Jeremy Scahill put it best in a tweet: “The faux trial that Feinstein & Brennan gave Anwar Awlaki today (with no evidence) was the only trial they gave him--and it was posthumous.”  

2. Why Did the President Kill an American Teenager?

While we heard Anwar al-Awlaki’s name numerous times through the hearing, another drone target of the Obama administration didn’t get a single mention: al-Awlaki’s son, 16-year-old Abdulrahman al-Awlaki. The Denver-born teenager waskilled in an airstrike two weeks after his father died. We know hardly anything about his death, and the administration has not been eager to give answers.

3. Are there ANY Qualifications for Authorizing Death Sentences?

Mr. Brennan described waterboarding as “reprehensible” and “something that should not be done,” but refused on multiple occasions to call it torture. Why? Because, as Brennan reminded us over and over, he is “not a lawyer.” While Senator Carl Levin, pressed him on torture, no one took the opportunity to question the drone architect on the broad language used to justify targeting U.S. citizens, as revealed by a leaked DOJ white paper this week. The memo made headlines. In particular, civil liberties advocates took issue with a section detailing how “informed, high-level officials” get to decide if a target poses “an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States.”

Blogger Marcy Wheeler notes the absurdity of Brennan appealing to legal ignorance to deflect on torture, while claiming the authority to give out death sentences: “In other words, according to the guy who has been acting as judge and jury for the last four years, the guy who has been acting as judge and jury is completely incompetent to act as judge and jury.”

4. Why did the Obama administration wait until election season to codify rules for assassinating people?

The New York Review of Books’ David Cole raised this excellent question before Brennan’s hearing took place. While committee members did grill Brennan on transparency with the drone program, we didn’t get a clear picture on why “Terror Tuesdays” went on for so long without some set rules. As Cole put it, “Don’t you think there should have been clear rules and fair procedures in place before the Obama administration ordered the killing of hundreds of human beings?” Furthermore, Cole adds that any rules that are adopted won’t apply to Pakistan.

5. Don't you see a problem with “signature strikes?”

Committee members failed to ask why the Obama administration should have the power to kill people under the doctrine of “signature strikes.” As the New York Times puts it:

Originally that term was used to suggest the specific ‘signature’ of a known high-level terrorist, such as his vehicle parked at a meeting place. But the word evolved to mean the “signature” of militants in general — for instance, young men toting arms in an area controlled by extremist groups.

In other words, Obama can order drone strikes on people who look suspicious in the wrong place at the wrong time. As The Nation’s George Zornick points out, the “vast majority” of drone targets aren’t senior-ranking Al Qaeda terrorists, but “low-level militants.”

Of course, this list could go on. As Brennan gets inevitably sworn in, Americans should keep these questions on their minds, and lawmakers need to make sure the new CIA Director is at least held accountable to the few answers they got from him yesterday.

Steven Hsieh is an editorial assistant at AlterNet and writer based in Brooklyn. Follow him on Twitter @stevenjhsieh.

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/5-crucial-questions-senators-failed-ask-during-brennan-hearings?paging=off

Brennan Welcomes 'Discussion' About Drones, Defends Policy on Strikes

BY: TERENCE BURLIJ AND CHRISTINA BELLANTONI

Protesters hold signs as John Brennan arrives to testify at his confirmation hearing Thursday. Photo by Jewel Samad/AFP/Getty Images.

As President Obama's choice to be the next director of the CIA, John Brennan faced tough questions Thursday at his confirmation hearing from members of the Senate Intelligence Committee frustrated with the administration's approach to fighting terrorism.

And lawmakers weren't the only ones troubled by aspects of the administration's terror-fighting strategy. Brennan was repeatedly interrupted during his opening statement by protesters voicing their displeasure with the administration's targeted killing of American citizens abroad suspected of joining al-Qaida.

Brennan said he supported "public discussion" of the administration's efforts, but at the same time he gave a staunch defense of the use of drone strikes.

"We only take such actions as a last resort to save lives when there is no other alternative to taking an action that's going to mitigate that threat," Brennan said. "So we need to make sure that there's an understanding. And the people that were standing up here today, I think they really have a misunderstanding of what we do as a government and the care that we take and the agony that we go through to make sure that we do not have any collateral injuries or deaths."

Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., asked Brennan to square comments he made in 2007 that harsh interrogation methods had "saved lives" with other statements that the CIA should not be in the "detention business."

"I clearly had the impression, as you said, when I was quoted in 2007 that there was valuable intelligence that came out from those interrogation sessions. That's why I did say that they saved lives," Brennan responded.

But Brennan added that a recently completed intelligence committee report that found enhanced interrogation techniques were not effective "raises serious questions about the information that I was given at the time and the impression I had at that time."

"Now I have to determine what -- based on that information as well as what CIA says what the truth is. And at this point, senator, I do not know what the truth is," Brennan said.

Senators also pressed Brennan on issues such as waterboarding and national security leaks. NewsHour congressional correspondent Kwame Holman reported on the hearing Thursday. You can watch the segment here or below:

As of Thursday Brennan's confirmation appeared likely, despite the close examination of his record and administration policies. If installed as director, the tough questions will most certainly continue for Brennan, as lawmakers continue their push for greater oversight of the administration's terror-fighting practices.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2013/02/brennan-welcomes-discussion-about-drones-defends-targeted-strikes.html

JEFFREY BROWN: The man picked by President Obama to lead the Central Intelligence Agency was called today to defend his positions in the war on terror.

John Brennan's Senate confirmation hearing revolved around several hotly debated policies.

ARTICLE TOOLS

Print

Email

• Share

NewsHour congressional correspondent Kwame Holman has our report.

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, D-Calif.: It will stop again.

KWAME HOLMAN: Even before the hearing got truly under way, protesters from CODEPINK disrupted John Brennan's opening statement, signaling that passions were running high on the targeted killing of terror suspects.

WOMAN: They won't even tell Congress what countries we are killing children.

" title="Read Margaret Warner's recent post, "Brennan Beyond Drones" here."/>

Read Margaret Warner's recent post, "Brennan Beyond Drones" here.

KWAME HOLMAN: The interruptions continued, and the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, California Democrat Dianne Feinstein, ordered the room temporarily cleared.

DIANNE FEINSTEIN: We're going to halt the hearing. I am going to ask that the room be cleared and that the CODEPINK associates not be permitted to come back in.

KWAME HOLMAN: Once the hearing resumed, Brennan defended U.S. actions in the war on terror, but he acknowledged the CIA is not immune from scrutiny.

JOHN BRENNAN, CIA Director Nominee: I have publicly acknowledged that our fight against al-Qaida and associated forces has sometimes involved the use of lethal force outside the hot battlefield of Afghanistan.

Accordingly, it is understandable that there is great interest in the legal basis, as well as the thresholds, criteria, processes, procedures, approvals and reviews of such actions. I have strongly promoted such public discussion with the Congress and with the American people, as I believe that our system of government and our commitment to transparency demand nothing less.

KWAME HOLMAN: Late Wednesday, Mr. Obama directed that members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees be shown a classified memo on drone strikes abroad.

It lays out the legal rationale for targeting American terror suspects. Mr. Brennan helped manage the program. Oregon Democrat Ron Wyden had pressed for release of the memo. He went directly to the issue during his first pass at questioning Brennan.

SEN. RON WYDEN, D-Ore.: What should be done next to ensure that public conversation about drones, so that the American people are brought into debate and have a full understanding of what rules the government is going to observe when it conducts targeted killings?

JOHN BRENNAN: I think there is a misimpression on part of some American people who believe that we take strikes to punish terrorists for past transgressions. Nothing could be further from the truth. We only take such actions as a last resort to save lives when there is no other alternative to taking an action that's going to mitigate that threat.

So we need to make sure that there's an understanding. And the people that were standing up here today, I think they really have a misunderstanding of what we do as a government and the care that we take and the agony that we go through to make sure that we do not have any collateral injuries or deaths.

KWAME HOLMAN: Brennan is a 25-year veteran of the CIA, and now the president's counterterror adviser. His name first surfaced as a candidate for director in 2008, but he withdrew amid questions about his past statements on enhanced interrogation, especially water-boarding.

Michigan Democrat Carl Levin took up that issue today.

SEN. CARL LEVIN, D-Mich.: My question is this. In your opinion, does water-boarding constitute torture?

JOHN BRENNAN: The attorney general has referred to water-boarding as torture. Many people have referred to it as torture.

And, as you well know and as we have had the discussion, Senator, the term torture has a lot of legal and political implications. It is something that should have been banned long ago. It never should have taken place, in my view. And, therefore, if I were to go to CIA, it would never in fact be brought back.

KWAME HOLMAN: But Republican Saxby Chambliss of Georgia wanted to know if Brennan stood by previous comments he had made asserting harsh interrogation methods produced results.

SEN. SAXBY CHAMBLISS, R-Ga.: In a Nov. 2007 interview, you said that info from the interrogation techniques -- quote -- "saved lives" -- close quote. But you also say that CIA should be out of the detention business.

Your view seems to be that even if we could save American lives by detaining more terrorists using only traditional techniques, it would be better to kill them with a drone or let them go free, rather than detain them. Can you explain the logic in that argument?

JOHN BRENNAN: I respectfully disagree with, Senator. I never believe it's better to kill a terrorist than to detain him. We want to detain as many terrorists as possible so we can elicit the intelligence from them in the appropriate manner so that we can disrupt follow-on terrorist attacks.

I clearly had the impression, as you said, when I was quoted in 2007 that there was valuable intelligence that came out from those interrogation sessions. That's why I did say that they saved lives.

I must tell you, Senator, that reading this report from the committee raises serious questions about the information that I was given at the time and the impression I had at that time. Now I have to determine what -- based on that information as well as what CIA says what the truth is. And at this point, Senator, I do not know what the truth is.

KWAME HOLMAN: North Carolina Republican Richard Burr zeroed in on CIA leaks, pressing Brennan for his position on publicly sharing covert operations.

SEN. RICHARD BURR, R-N.C.: Do you think that there is any situation where it's legal to disclose to the media or the public these tales of covert action programs?

JOHN BRENNAN: I do not think it is ever appropriate to improperly disclose classified information to anybody who doesn't have legitimate access to it and has the clearances for it.

RICHARD BURR: Could you provide to the committee any times that you were given the authority to release classified information?

JOHN BRENNAN: I have never provided classified information to reporters. I engage in discussions with reporters about classified issues that they might have had access to because of unfortunate leaks of classified information.

And I frequently work with reporters, if not editors of newspapers to keep out of the public domain some of this country's most important secrets. And so I engage with them on those issues. But after working in the intelligence profession for 30 years and being at CIA for 25 years, I know the importance of keeping those secrets secret.

KWAME HOLMAN: There was no indication that the security of administration policies has hurt Brennan's chances. He's still expected to win confirmation by the Intelligence panel and the full Senate.

RAY SUAREZ: Online, find Margaret Warner's blog post about the impact Brennan has had on the nation's counterterrorism policy. 

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/world/jan-june13/brennan_02-07.html

Exploring Technology, Effectiveness, Consequences of Drone Warfare & VIDEO: RISE OF THE DRONES 23JAN13

HERE are a couple of reports on drones, their use by the US military and the cia, the controversy over targeted killings, national security, terrorism, collateral damage, national sovereignty, international law and the potential abuse by our government of the scariest technology that is already in use by our government, technology that can end any concept of privacy we think we have and destroy our civil liberties. First from the PBS NewsHour, followed by the video Rise Of The Drones, from PBS NOVA. If you have ever seen the TV show Person of Interest on CBS you know it is based on a machine created by the government that can watch and track people, there are scenes from the machines view showing people, cars, planes, all in little boxes, identified by code, being watched and tracked. One of the drones our government has can do the same thing, you will see an example of the capabilities of this drone in the video, click the link below to watch the entire broadcast. For anyone who values their privacy and civil liberties this should give you chills...

SUMMARY

PBS's NOVA explores the pros, cons and controversies of drone warfare, as well as the technology behind drone strikes. Jeffrey Brown discusses with Seth Jones of RAND Corporation and Chris Anders from the American Civil Liberties Union.

7 Comments

Listen: MP3

Transcript

JEFFREY BROWN: And now to our second story about the military: the turn to drone warfare in the hunt for terrorists.

Tonight's edition of "NOVA" explores this sophisticated technology, its uses and the controversy it's stirred.

ARTICLE TOOLS

Print

Email

• Share

This excerpt shows a U.S. military training exercise for those charged with directing drones to track and hit their targets.

NARRATOR: The training mission offers a rare glimpse into the mechanics of how the U.S. uses drones to support troops and prosecute its war on terror. The goal is to make it as realistic as possible, so pilots can avoid mistakes when in battle.

MAN: They should be checking in here probably in the next 20 minutes or so.

MAN: It's going to be an MQ-9 Reaper.

READ MORE: A Council on Foreign Relations primer on "Targeted Killings"

MAN: Check. Check.

MAN: If they're at 25,000 feet, which they generally work, we're not going to be able to see them at all.

NARRATOR: It takes about half-an-hour to reach the mock village. Drones like the Reaper can fly on their own using autopilot and preset GPS locations. But the Air Force still keeps human hands on the controls at all times.

PETER SINGER, Brookings Institution: People have this concept of either it's a manned plane and the pilot's doing everything on, or it's an unmanned plane and it's something out of the "Terminator" movies. The reality is, it's in the middle right now for both the manned and the unmanned planes. Our mind tries to put it terms of, robot or human? But the reality is a mix.

NARRATOR: As Chad pilots the Reaper, his sensor operator, Jay, controls the cameras and lasers. On the ground, the fake insurgents enter the village as the Reaper hovers miles above.

MAN: Say status.

MAN: We have eyes on the target.

NARRATOR: Chad gets direction from the soldier, whose handheld receiver and computer allow him to see what Chad sees. Chad's call sign is Bones. The soldier goes by Rally.

MAN: Rally, Bones, we have two tanks moving around inside the northwest corner of the compound.

NARRATOR: The soldier directs Chad and Jay to follow an HVI, or high-value individual, dressed in black.

MAN: Rally from Bones 3-4, it looks like the one individual wearing black is now getting on the motorcycle and departing the group.

NARRATOR: Depending on the situation, the decision to kill comes from an intelligence officer who could be anywhere, a battle commander on the ground, or sometimes the pilot.

JEFFREY BROWN: Since the Obama administration came to power four years ago, the United States has vastly increased the number of drone strikes against suspected terrorists.

Just today, Reuters reported that six suspected al-Qaida militants were killed in Yemen. But their use has been highly controversial, on a number of levels.

And we move to that debate now, with Seth Jones, who worked for the commander of U.S. special forces in Afghanistan from 2009 to 2011 and is now a senior political scientist at the RAND Corporation, and Chris Anders, senior legislative counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU has filed lawsuits against the government challenging the legal basis for the drone program.

Welcome to both of you.

I want to start, Seth, with the effectiveness question. How effective are drones strikes? What have they achieved?

SETH JONES, RAND Corporation: Well, I think on the one hand, drones have been effective in taking off the battlefield several individuals that have been actively involved in plotting attacks against the U.S. homeland, Abu Ubaida al-Masri, Ilyas Kashmiri, Rashid Rauf, all of them plotting active attacks.

And the drone strikes severely disrupted those attacks. I would also say, though, that they are not sufficient. Strikes in and of themselves don't hold territory. They don't deal with the root causes of terrorism. So one should never argue -- or it would be incorrect to argue that they are sufficient to ending how terrorist groups operate or ending terrorism.

JEFFREY BROWN: OK. But as to their -- do you dispute the effectiveness in taking out some of the top leaders?

CHRIS ANDERS, American Civil Liberties Union: Well, the truth is that no one really knows exactly what's going on with their effectiveness or not, because this is a program that has been wrapped in secrecy. Every aspect of this program is secret, so secret, in fact, that even members of the Senate Intelligence Committee that are supposed to be overseeing this program are not able to see even the legal justification for the program.

But what we do know is that there have been over 300 strikes. There have been -- drone strikes. There are over 3,000 people who have died. Most of those are far from any traditional battlefield. So we could point out -- point to some people that the administration has selectively leaked as successes, but what we don't know are the failures.

JEFFREY BROWN: And one of the questions among those killed, of course, has been the number of civilians, the unintended casualties. How much do we know about that?

SETH JONES: Well, the data is not really that good on civilian casualties.

It would be helpful to get a more transparent assessment of civilian approaches. I have talked to a range of human rights organizations in Pakistan's tribal areas who have argued, though, that from their perspective on the ground, civilian casualties are rather minimal.

But other than some sporadic conversations I have had with people in the tribal areas, I think the data that we have publicly is limited.

JEFFREY BROWN: What does your data show or people you talk to show?

CHRIS ANDERS: Well, two things.

One is, tomorrow, the United Nations is going to announce it's appointing a special investigator into civilian deaths by drones, and through this targeted killing program. So we should be able to get some of the real facts through this U.N. investigation.

It's ridiculous that the United States itself hasn't conducted this kind of investigation or disclosed its results. But that investigation will be done by the U.N. The second thing, is General McChrystal just earlier this month talked about the drone program and how -- how the attacks on civilians and the civilian casualties are causing what he calls a visceral reaction of hatred in the affected countries, the very people we're trying to win over to our side.

JEFFREY BROWN: That's been one of the issues, of course, is, are we making more enemies than killing enemies by doing this?

SETH JONES: Well, my experience in particular in Pakistan, where most of these have happened, is that most Pakistanis are upset not that drones are being used, but more upset that the Pakistan government isn't using them.

They're upset that the U.S. is doing them in Pakistan territory. That, I think, is often more issue than the drones themselves.

JEFFREY BROWN: But you don't see us as creating, you know, unintended blowback because of -- I think that's the argument, is that these drone attacks create kind of unintended consequences of more people angry at us.

SETH JONES: Well, I think there always is a danger of overusing them. Again, I think there have been several cases, ones that I'm aware of, which have disrupted people actively involved in plotting.

But I would also say why Pakistanis, for example, are unhappy with the Americans, it's complicated. There are a range of factors. It's not just drones. There have been a range of issues, including the raid against bin Laden,that did so.

JEFFREY BROWN: Is there evidence of more direct of -- more direct evidence that there is that kind of blowback that you think is happening?

CHRIS ANDERS: Well, look, I spend a lot of time lobbying Congress and members of the House and Senate Armed Services Committee. There is a lot of worry there, particularly about the CIA program, about -- and about the military and about the possibility of repercussions and reprisals against American soldiers in these parts of the world, and also the CIA in particular pulling the United States into conflicts that will be very difficult to get out of.

And that's why, especially as you start looking into places like North Africa, to Mali, to Mauritania, some other places that are now being discussed as possible other places for drones to be used, there's a lot of worry in the military about whether -- whether we get sucked into that through drones and kind of this kind of easy, addictive tool, whether it's going to end up costing the United States a possible, you know, years-long, decade-long conflict there.

JEFFREY BROWN: What's the -- moving to the legal -- legally, what is the nut of the legal issue, the legal case against the use of drones?

CHRIS ANDERS: Well, the question -- every country has a right to defend itself and defend itself against imminent, concrete, specific attacks that could cause death, even if those are away from the battlefield.

But what we don't know here is exactly how these rules are being applied. Now, we know that The Washington Post just reported over the weekend that there's a secret playbook that's being developed by the Obama administration. But from that playbook, the CIA program in Pakistan, which is the biggest player in this whole thing, is entirely exempt.

So you have a secret playbook on what the rules are, but the rules don't apply to the biggest player. So, to say we follow the rule of law, but we don't even know what the rules are, and then the rules don't apply to the biggest player is a little bit of a joke, I guess.

JEFFREY BROWN: What do you think about the legal issue here?

SETH JONES: Well, the legal issue in part hinges on the 2001 authorization of the use of military force, or AUMF.

It's worth noting that both Republican and Democrat attorneys general since the Bush administration into the Obama administration have argued that it is legal in terms of self-defense purposes to target individuals actively threatening the United States.

JEFFREY BROWN: In other countries?

SETH JONES: In other countries.

JEFFREY BROWN: Without declared wars?

SETH JONES: Yes. Well, that's part of the issue here is we have an ongoing conflict with a terrorist organization that has declared jihad or war against the United States.

CHRIS ANDERS: Well, what we don't know is, we don't even know to what extent this administration is relying on the 2001 AUMF, or are they relying on self-defense or some combination or nothing at all, right?

The legal opinion that was drafted by the Justice Department now a couple of years ago has been so tightly held, that even Senator Wyden, the number three ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is supposed to have oversight, is not allowed to see the opinion.

So, this is -- it means -- and then the courts themselves are not applying due process. They have declined to take the cases, the challenges to the program. So it means that this is a completely -- the checks and balances that should be applying don't apply here. We don't have the courts having oversight, and we basically have the committees that are supposed to have oversight over this program be denied the basic information on what the law is.

JEFFREY BROWN: And let me just ask you briefly here, because the other question that always comes up is what happens as other countries get this technology and use it against our allies or potentially against us and try to make the same legal case?

SETH JONES: Well, look, I think, as we saw with nuclear proliferation, that at some point, the U.S. has to spearhead an effort to begin to establish legal norms for the use of this, like the Non-Proliferation Treaty that dealt with nuclear weapons.

So, at some point, sooner rather than later, the Europeans have capabilities, the Indians, the Chinese. At some point, we have got to get a better handle on legal -- international legal limitations to this.

JEFFREY BROWN: All right, Seth Jones, Chris Anders, thank you both very much.

CHRIS ANDERS: Thank you.

SETH JONES: Thank you.

JEFFREY BROWN: And there's more on this on our Web site, where you can read a background report from the Council on Foreign Relations on drones and targeted killings. 

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/jan-june13/drones_01-23.htm

NOVA  Rise of the Drones

Meet a new breed of flying robots, from tiny swarming vehicles to giant unmanned planes. Details 

Funding for NOVA is provided by David H. Koch, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Lockheed Martin Corporation, and PBS viewers. 

Did you know? Viewers like you are our largest single source of support.Donate Now

Learn more

http://video.pbs.org/video/2326108547

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/military/rise-of-the-drones.html

Rise of the Drones

Meet a new breed of flying robots, from tiny swarming vehicles to giant unmanned planes. Aired January 23, 2013 on PBS

Program Description

Drones. These unmanned flying robots–some as large as jumbo jets, others as small as birds–do things straight out of science fiction. Much of what it takes to get these robotic airplanes to fly, sense, and kill has remained secret. But now, with rare access to drone engineers and those who fly them for the U.S. military, NOVA reveals the amazing technologies that make drones so powerful as we see how a remotely-piloted drone strike looks and feels from inside the command center. From cameras that can capture every detail of an entire city at a glance to swarming robots that can make decisions on their own to giant air frames that can stay aloft for days on end, drones are changing our relationship to war, surveillance, and each other. And it's just the beginning. Discover the cutting edge technologies that are propelling us toward a new chapter in aviation history as NOVA gets ready for "Rise of the Drones."