Secret panel can put Americans on "kill list'

Secret panel can put Americans on "kill list'

www.msnbc.msn.com

American militants like Anwar al-Awlaki are placed on a kill or capture list by a secretive panel of senior government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions, according to officials.

There is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel, which is a subset of the White House's National Security Council, several current and former officials said. Neither is there any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Well this is interesting, I had heard of this before, but didn't have these sorts of details. The article goes on to say that's it's quite ironic that Obama criticized Bush for his practices with over reach of military executive power:

In an ironic turn, Obama, who ran for president denouncing predecessor George W. Bush's expansive use of executive power in his "war on terrorism," is being attacked in some quarters for using similar tactics. They include secret legal justifications and undisclosed intelligence assessments.

Thoughts?

www.msnbc.msn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

iirc we simply followed a path which Israel began in the 90s or early 2000's where the government would publicize sanctioned contracts on "terrorist" figureheads.

Targeting, and limiting collateral damage When the Israeli prime minister approves a target, frequently the Palestinian Authority is notified, to first give it an opportunity to arrest the target. If the target is not arrested, he is assigned a file, which contains instructions on when and where he can be killed. Specialists mark up maps–green lines for open roads where killings minimize civilian risk, red lines for congested areas to be avoided. An operation can take 200 people, and thousands of man-hours. The target's name is transferred from a short list, and typed on a laminated card. Commanders carry the cards in their pockets.

In determining the location of its targets, Israel cross-checks a combination of sources, including wiretapping experts, spy drone technicians, and Palestinian informants. Engineers run computer analyses of any targeted building, assessing its cement, its structure, and the size of its rooms, so as to be effective while at the same time limiting collateral damage.

Elyezer Shkedy, former Israeli Air Force (IAF) commander, said IAF operations only comprised 5% of targeted killings in 2003–04, while in 2007–08, IAF strikes comprised 50–70% of targeted killing operations. "Bystander fatalities" decreased from 50-of-100 Palestinians killed (1:1 ratio), to 1-in-25 (24:1 ratio). In the final months of 2007, 98 terrorists were killed with a single bystander fatality (98:1 ratio).

While the IAF does not provide detailed data of its operations, the communication director for the Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem (the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories), Sarit Michaeli, acknowledged improvements in IAF accuracy.[75] B'Tselem estimated that 339 Palestinians were killed in targeted killing operations from 2000–06, 210 of whom were targets, while the rest were bystanders.

Source: Targeted killing - Wikipedia

aha how do i sign up?

Why do people insist on putting the word "terrorist" in quotations. Its a noun, not a quote.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Secret panels who decide life or death for another human being with no public disclosure of any kind is just the new witch hunt, so much for justice and transparency.

People are surprised at this ?

I would imagine this has been going on for a long time, just now its become public. Governments are very dark and if only we knew half the stuff they did.

Sometimes I am glad I don't not know the full extent of what goes on behind closed doors.

Not saying its right what they do , just saying its not a new thing.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
Well this is interesting, I had heard of this before

I heard of it before, too.

In this thread...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

If our government had clearly defined our goals and objectives in fighting radial islamists and other threats, meaning we officially declared war, then I would have no problem with the assassination or even black bagging these guys regardless of where they were. I'd prefer military tribunals at least, but that's not always an option.

In these wishy washy times, however, with a relatively unclear political stance and doublespeak, I can't support this kind of action unless it's done with actionable intel that is to prevent a specific attack in progress.

Why can't we simply get over this "moral highground" we like to pretend we are on and get down and dirty with these people.

nothing new there.. only difference is they're admitting to doing it now..

If someone is known to be involved in planning or carrying out murderous attacks against innocent people, then by all means capture them, or if that's not possible, kill them.

The problem nowadays though is that the police and other official agencies carry out so much wilful abuse and misinterpretation of anti-terror laws that just about any of us could find ourselves being labelled a terrorist, despite the fact that most of us pose no threat to anyone at all.

A couple of years ago here in England, a middle aged woman was arrested under terror laws for walking with her bike along a cycle path instead of riding it. And yet we have plenty of terrorist sympathisers who remain quite free to continue to spout their bile.

How can we trust the authorities to look after our safety and freedoms when they are posing a much bigger threat to our liberties than the real terrorists?!

Terrorists declared war on America long ago - they chose to wage war on us and we must respond to the challenge by destroying them every chance we get. The terrorists waging war against America that are American citizens are a greater danger to America than most other terrorists because of their access to every target in America. Killing terrorists ensures that no Americans will be held hostage by terrorist groups hoping to free a captured terrorist - any American citizen that joins the terrorist groups is a traitor to America and deserves nothing better than to be shot down like a dog. To keep it simple - the best way to keep America safe from terrorism is to kill all the terrorists.
The downside is the panel and how they choose who is on the list. If you disagree with Government; what keeps them from putting any one of us on the list? ATS could be a target rich environment.

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
Why do people insist on putting the word "terrorist" in quotations. Its a noun, not a quote.

because the definition of that "noun" varies depending on who you talk to and the current political narrative.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Terrorism is not war and no one should be above or below the law. All should entitled to the due course of law...
This is wrong... It sounds like something out of nazi germany... What the hell is going on with the USA....

reply to post by tothetenthpower


So basically they can do what they want when they want and there is nothing you can do about it.

Many in this criminal gobernment may find themselves on a similar list maintained by We the People.

this is all starting to come to light due to the killing of the so called American citizen terrorist.... He was also a citizen of Yemen, and published Al qaeda's newsletter.... which praised the killing of American troops...

That's enough justification for me, as he has had his hand far enough in the cookie jar to justify his enemy combatant status....


The one thing I believe is this... AFTER the target is taken out, the decision, and any notes regarding this decision should be made public.... If the public believes at this point that the decision is wrong, then an investigation could take place....

Obviously democracy is too slow to move at the speed of counter-terrorism, so thats the best way I can think to make it work...

I will gladly take the lesser of the two evils, given the choice.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Let's see....

1. preemptive military strikes

2. Patriot Act

3. loss of Habeus corpus

And now we have a secret high official panel to decide who's a terrorist and if they should be killed. Is it too much a stretch of my imagination, that we're next? Can't the same secret panel decide that certain home-grown terrorists should be snuffed and send out a goon squad on their whim?? What has happened to our country in the name of freedom and the protection of it ? Where is the rule of law and the common sense practice of it?

reply to post by tothetenthpower


According to CBS investigative correspondent Sharyl Atkisson, Senior White House and DoJ spokespeople have berated and cursed her for her reporting on the Obama administration and the DoJ.

They asserted that the refusal to support Barack Obama in her reportage was not "reasonable."
www.huffingtonpost.com...

dailycaller.com...

What are the consequences in this administration for "unreasonable" behavior that challenges Obama?
Does that make you a "domestic terrorist?"

Is being a domestic terorist sufficient to qualify for a spot on "the list?"

How many stars and flags does it take?

jw

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
If our government had clearly defined our goals and objectives in fighting radial islamists and other threats, meaning we officially declared war, then I would have no problem with the assassination or even black bagging these guys regardless of where they were.

You can't declare war on non-state actors. The closest thing you can do is pass a bill authorizing the use of force. Which we did, in 2001. Unless you think we should have declared war on Yemen, Pakistan, et al...?