| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| News of CIA's Secret Saudi Drone Base Leaks, Just in Time for Brennan's Confirmation Hearing |
| 2013-02-06 |
| In the past few weeks senators have been so focus on squabbling over the nomination of Chuck Hagel as secretary of Defense that it seemed like John Brennan would have a relatively easy time being confirmed as director of the CIA. However, following NBC News's release yesterday of a Justice Department white paper that outlines the administration's legal justification for conducting drone strikes against Americans suspected of terrorism, Brennan's nomination is quickly morphing into a showdown over the Obama administration's drone policy. Now the New York Times has added more fuel to the controversy, revealing that the United States has a secret CIA drone base in Saudi Arabia that's used to conduct strikes in neighboring Yemen. The Saudi base, which was constructed two years ago, was first used to launch the drones that killed American-born Al Qaeda preacher Anwar al-Awlaki. Though much of the debate has focused on the targeting of U.S. citizens, only four Americans have been killed U.S. airstrikes in Yemen since 2002. By comparison, at least 24 people have already been killed by U.S. drones in Yemen this year, and since the campaign started more than 3,000 militants and civilians have been killed in strikes in Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia. As the the White House's chief counterterrorism adviser, Brennan is the main coordinator of the terrorist "kill list" and oversees the drone strikes conducted by both the military and the CIA. Brennan was previously the CIA's station chief in Saudi Arabia, and urged the Obama administration to take the threat from Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the terrorist network's Yemen affiliate, more seriously. |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #43 Has he issued a determination for Yemen or Pakistan? Or is he still sending them money? |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2013-02-06 21:57 |
| #42 OK, we have authorizations for Afghanistan and Iraq. Anything for Pakistan or Yemen? From SJR 23, Sept 2001 - (a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons. Still in effect, hasn't been repealed. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2013-02-06 20:39 |
| #41 The issue isn't really what's been done today. They've probably only knocked off a few US citizens to date (and really maybe only one). The real issue is what a future president COULD decide to do with a drone. Why is a "US terrorist on American soil" any less dangerous in the eyes of the Gov't than a "US terrorist on foreign soil"? Answer ... he's not. He's potentially a lot more dangerous. There's nothing stopping them from using a drone to knock off suspects in Idaho, Montana, or Wyoming. Those geographical areas are "unreachable" - aren't they?? They sure look that way - if you're sitting in an office in Virginia or DC. |
| Posted by: Raider 2013-02-06 19:29 |
| #40 OH, and hi Joe. Nice to see the earthquake/waves didn't get you. |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2013-02-06 19:14 |
| #39 The reason I'm pointing this out is that I'm tired of the whole argument that The Conservatives are wrong, there are no real enemies, they're all racists, but... oh, we just have to kill the people on this list.... just because. |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2013-02-06 19:13 |
| #38 SSSSHHHHH ...CCCCCCCCC the Base is a Secret! Oh wait ... As per FOX NEWS this AM, many US States are demanding limits or restrictions to Drone recce + Drone-based info/data collections over their borders. WE MISSED THE MEMO THAT "BORDERS", NATIONAL OR STATE-LOCAL, WON'T EXIST ANYMORE AFTER THE US JOINS THE OWG + NAU 2015, DIDN'T WE??? * ION DEFENCE FORUM INDIA > INDIA PM'S DAUGHTER [Amrit Singh] BLOWS WHISTLE ON 54 NATIONS [+ Personages] THAT HELP US DETENTION. * RELATED SAME > REPORT [Study] ON CIA RENDITIONS REVEAL MASSIVE SEARCH OF EUROPEAN ASSISTANCE; + MORE THAN 50 COUNTRIES HELPED CIA OUTSOURCE TORTURE. Except FRANCE = LUXEMBOURG + NETHERLANDS. Iff the Islamist Hard Boyz are still going to be sent to GITMO, what Foreign Country(s) will Americans = Amerikans end up being sent to for interrogation + detention by the US Govt - you know, Foreign Govts as "observed" by the CIA??? |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2013-02-06 19:13 |
| #37 When was Yemen admitted to the Union? (Let me guess, November 2008?) |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2013-02-06 19:00 |
| #36 Au contraire Civil war rather trumps everything. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2013-02-06 18:56 |
| #35 "Anyone in a legally declared warzone has waived their rights to due process" Really? Did they have an opportunity to speak with a lawyer before they signed the dotted line? |
| Posted by: Muggsy Mussolini1226 2013-02-06 18:00 |
| #34 When Obamacare directors begin buying drones then I will know the Obama administration has gone too far. It comes down to trust and accountability; who decides and who is accountable if mistakes are made? |
| Posted by: Airandee 2013-02-06 17:48 |
| #33 Yet, these are the same people who've whined that there is no legal state of war because no formal document employing the clear words 'declaration of war' has been passed by the Legislative branch. Yes, I know 'authorization to use military force' has but it's about the mindset of those who trashed Bush for 8 long years on the point which included Donk members of the House and Senate. OK, we have authorizations for Afghanistan and Iraq. Anything for Pakistan or Yemen? |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2013-02-06 17:40 |
| #32 Au contraire. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2013-02-06 17:22 |
| #31 Just remember that from 1861-1865 a lot of Americans were killed without 'due process' A non-sequitur. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2013-02-06 17:12 |
| #30 Anyone in a legally declared warzone has waived their rights to due process Adam Smith? |
| Posted by: Pappy 2013-02-06 17:05 |
| #29 Lots of discussion about the First and Second; not so much YET about the Third. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2013-02-06 16:43 |
| #28 Just remember that from 1861-1865 a lot of Americans were killed without 'due process'. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2013-02-06 16:36 |
| #27 I second those comments of Broadhead6 and CrazyFool. IMO, it is the duty of the citizen to prevent the government from going tyrannical on us. Is there a good reason to trust our government without question? Some serve others and their country, while for others power and control is the ultimate aphrodisiac. It is good to question the motives and actions of men and women in government. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2013-02-06 16:25 |
| #26 Don't forget that the Homeland Security Department (along with the [in]Justice department) view returning Vets, and conservatives and 'teabaggers' in general as potential, if not actual, terrorists. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2013-02-06 16:05 |
| #25 I don't trust this admin, and I wouldn't trust any gov't admin w/this. The gov't needs to do more than "accuse". This is a slippery slope. We already have recorded drone flights conducting surveillance over private citizen residences in this country. Obamacare, bankster fraud, printing our way outta debt, immigration insanity, and gun grab 2013. Our Founders are repenting from heaven as Adams would say. |
| Posted by: Broadhead6 2013-02-06 15:58 |
| #24 The FBI crossed it. And they probably have drones already. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2013-02-06 15:25 |
| #23 During WW2 there were a number of US citizens that served the Axis. See the "Band of Brothers" miniseries for an example. The Japanese Armed Forces had large numbers of US citizens. Some served as Kamikazies. In all cases we simply treated them as enemy personnel. The one thing that drone targets have in common is that they are all self-professed jihadists in al Qaeda-infested zones. Some of the views here about drone targeting are analogous to the idea that if GI's can summarily execute armed Americans without trial while in combat zones (using sniper rifles, LAW's or grenade launchers), they can do the same to armed Americans at home. I think it's clear there's a line they haven't crossed for 200+ years, during which our forebears fought a score of conflicts. It wouldn't even be an issue if our electronic imaging skills weren't extremely well-developed - we'd be carpet-bombing entire al Qaeda-infested regions whether or not they were occupied by Americans. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2013-02-06 15:02 |
| #22 John QC: However, American citizens do have Constitutional rights and the Bill of Rights insures due process. Our country begins to get into dangerous areas when one man decides which American citizen lives or dies. I think this issue is a red herring. All these people rejected the United States, and were trying to kill Americans and destroy America. They were legitimate targets in the war on terror. During WW2 there were a number of US citizens that served the Axis. See the "Band of Brothers" miniseries for an example. The Japanese Armed Forces had large numbers of US citizens. Some served as Kamikazies. In all cases we simply treated them as enemy personnel. |
| Posted by: Frozen Al 2013-02-06 14:48 |
| #21 So long as it only targets bad guys, where is the problem? For Donks, that's anyone who doesn't agree with them. Anyone in a legally declared warzone has waived their rights to due process. Yet, these are the same people who've whined that there is no legal state of war because no formal document employing the clear words 'declaration of war' has been passed by the Legislative branch. Yes, I know 'authorization to use military force' has but it's about the mindset of those who trashed Bush for 8 long years on the point which included Donk members of the House and Senate. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2013-02-06 14:21 |
| #20 Its all about protecting the Saudi monarchy - a bunch of dictators who maintain their power through oppression and extremist islam. Its ironic that the "free" US is using its military to defend one of the most oppressive regimes on earth. While we'd rather have the Saudi royals attempt to tame the average troglodyte Saudi citizen, the reality is that they're not Allah and the Saudi citizen only worships Allah. The Shah's fall from power (and Khomeini's ascent to the throne) is a prime example of what happens when a ruler forget that in a Muslim state, anyone who flouts Islam's strictures runs afoul of the hoi polloi. And the idea that we're defending Saudi Arabia is a lot like the leftist charge that only the stated approval of American proconsuls kept right wing dictators standing, during the Cold War. The Saudi royals defend themselves fine - they've got plenty of oil money and can hire unlimited numbers of holy warriors from across the ummah to fight off an invasion. And when was the last time we intervened in a Saudi civil war? Does anyone really think the Saudi citizen thinks of American approval as a good thing? We're not defending Saudi Arabia - we're preventing the establishment of a unitary Islamic empire across the Middle East, under the rule of clerics bent on global conquest by any means necessary, incorporating attacks that would make 9/11 look like a pinprick. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2013-02-06 13:55 |
| #19 Anyone in a legally declared warzone has waived their rights to due process. Including children? |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2013-02-06 13:35 |
| #18 I missed the part where we declared war on Yemen. |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2013-02-06 13:22 |
| #17 Anyone in a legally declared warzone has waived their rights to due process. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2013-02-06 12:16 |
| #16 I've reached the point where I think if they don't want to acknowledge state sponsors, it's a criminal problem and they can send some NYPD detectives to the NWFP to arrest the miscreants. Maybe they can make sure all the sodas are under 16 ounces at the same time. |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2013-02-06 11:55 |
| #15 And all for the safety of the chickenshit tyrranical urban centers who would export every energy sector job _in_ this country to the state sponsors they say don't exist. |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2013-02-06 11:48 |
| #14 The alynskyite sons of bitches want to make us choose between neutering the army with traditional law enforcement limitations for the heat of battle and giving law enforcement the ability to shoot first and ask questions later. |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2013-02-06 11:45 |
| #13 If y'all don't recognize the state sponsors, then I'm gonna have to ask you, _what_ bad guys? |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2013-02-06 11:36 |
| #12 In a manner, that "walk" was exercised long ago at Waco. The FBI had a King Air orbiting the Koresh compound. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2013-02-06 11:23 |
| #11 JohnQC "It seems like a short walk to the point where someone decides to use drones on American citizens in the U.S. without due process." So long as it only targets bad guys, where is the problem? |
| Posted by: Yawn 2013-02-06 11:15 |
| #10 There is a pattern Yawn. There is definitely a pattern. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2013-02-06 11:13 |
| #9 Its all about protecting the Saudi monarchy - a bunch of dictators who maintain their power through oppression and extremist islam. Its ironic that the "free" US is using its military to defend one of the most oppressive regimes on earth. |
| Posted by: Yawn 2013-02-06 11:12 |
| #8 Here is the memo from DOJ. It has NBC written all over it but since it is a government document, it would seem that it is in the public domain. NBC does not own it. If the mods think this should not be posted, please feel free to take it down. It would seem that American citizens should be able to review such policy since it most likely affects their Constitutional rights. I don't have a problem drone-zapping our enemies. Such warfare has, at times, served us well in the past. However, American citizens do have Constitutional rights and the Bill of Rights insures due process. Our country begins to get into dangerous areas when one man decides which American citizen lives or dies. It seems like a short walk to the point where someone decides to use drones on American citizens in the U.S. without due process. The Patriot Act has already eroded many citizen rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Memo Link. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2013-02-06 10:29 |
| #7 Second para above: Insulated |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2013-02-06 09:49 |
| #6 Petreaus, Brennan, and the like are Obama's minefield "tramplers". Like the Soviet Penal Battalions [Shtrafbats] assigned to each Army Group during the Great Patriotic War, they are expendable and usually did not survive the assault. Employment of Shtrafbats [oftentimes unarmed] accomplished a number of goals. They caused the Germans to expend valuable ammunition. They insulted the pure troops of the Soviet Motherland from withering fire and snipers, and they provided an example for potential dissidents within the Soviet ranks. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2013-02-06 09:48 |
| #5 who is out to get Brennan? Far lefties, former co-workers in the CIA. Brennan served in the Clinton and W admin before the Obama admin. Brennan has held a half dozen important posts and had some key jobs where things didn't go right. E.G. he was CIA chief in Saudi A when the Khobar Towers were bombed. He coordinated a bizarre XMAS 2003 alert that seemed to be based on bad intel. He ticked off a lot of CIA desk jockeys along the way. The far left considers him the force behind the Obama era renditions, maximal drone strikes, etc. |
| Posted by: lord garth 2013-02-06 09:34 |
| #4 I'm wondering about the inside baseball here. Who leaked this? Who's out to get Brennan? |
| Posted by: Steve White 2013-02-06 09:06 |
| #3 But, but, but, we must help the KSA secure their borders! Infidel Yemeni infiltrators will destroy the economy and endanger the sacred monarchy. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2013-02-06 07:49 |
| #2 Here, hold this formerly secret drone memo. You can take it with you under the bus. It was your idea anyway. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2013-02-06 07:30 |
| #1 IMO, as a non-American, drone strikes are one thing the Obama admin has got right. Although Bush gets the credit for starting and ramping it up. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2013-02-06 07:13 |