Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCIA Refuses to Confirm or Deny Drone Attacks Obama Brags About
The Central Intelligence Agency continues to refuse to confirm or deny the covert military use of drones to kill suspected terrorists overseas, despite President Barack Obamas and even a former CIA directors admission of the agencys targeted killing program.
Despite numerous public comments on the CIAs drone attacks in far-flung locales such as Yemen from various government officials, including former CIA Director Leon Panetta and President Obama, the CIA is taking the position in court that it would have to eliminate you with one of its drones if it acknowledged the program.
So on Wednesday, the American Civil Liberties Union asked a federal appeals court to expedite a hearing (.pdf) on its Freedom of Information Act request seeking details of the drone program. Hours later, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit set a September 20 oral argument. (.pdf)
The development comes as 26 members of Congress asked Obama, in a letter, to consider the consequences of drone killing and to explain the necessity of the program. The use of drones to shoot missiles from afar at vehicles and buildings that the nations intelligence agencies believe are being used by suspected terrorists began under the Bush administration and was widened by Obama to allow the targeting of American citizens. Drone strikes by the Pentagon and the CIA have sparked backlashes from foreign governments and populations, as the strikes often kill civilians, including women and children.
The FOIA litigation, meanwhile, dates to 2010, when the ACLU sued in federal court seeking records concerning the legal basis for carrying out targeted drone killings; any restrictions on those who may be targeted; any civilian casualties; any geographic limits on the program; the number of targeted killings that the agency has carried out; and the training, supervision, oversight, or discipline of drone operators.
Read more: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/06/cia-confirm-deny-drones/
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
8 replies, 1530 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (1)
ReplyReply to this post
8 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
CIA Refuses to Confirm or Deny Drone Attacks Obama Brags About (Original Post)
The Northerner
Jun 2012
OP
That is the title of the linked article. Per DU rules, the title of the linked article goes in
kelly1mm
Jun 2012
#4
that's a rule for LBN only. In GD you write your own titles regardless of what you are linking.
grantcart
Jun 2012
#6
OK - thanks for the correction. However, I don't see a problem with a verbatim attachment
kelly1mm
Jun 2012
#7
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)1. How does "admission" turn into "brags about"?
monmouth
(21,078 posts)2. Typical of this poster..n/t
kelly1mm
(4,732 posts)4. That is the title of the linked article. Per DU rules, the title of the linked article goes in
as is.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)6. that's a rule for LBN only. In GD you write your own titles regardless of what you are linking.
If you felt compelled to include a verbatim title you could attach"" over any words you found questionable.
In any forum you can put a statement indicating that you find the article, headline or both objectionable.
kelly1mm
(4,732 posts)7. OK - thanks for the correction. However, I don't see a problem with a verbatim attachment
of the title of the linked artice, even in GD. This OP was alerted on and the jury agreed 4-2 to leave it.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)8. The jury didn't rule on the accuracy of the use of the words, only that they weren't rude or
disruptive.
The President wasn't bragging and the headline is patently wrong.
More to the point the idea that this man, one of the most civil to reach high office is arrogant and bragadocio is a right wing meme and in my mind fits the 'uppity negro' mantra of Fox News.
Disagree with his policy. Fine. Ascribe offensive charachteristics to him that are without foundation, racist in their roots.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)3. Brag? An admission is not a brag.
How do you get brag out of it?
kelly1mm
(4,732 posts)5. That is the title of the linked article, not the OP's editorial comment. nt