TYT: "Obama is a liar!" CIA Torture Whistleblower Gets 30 Months

[SA210]

Damn, Cenk Uyger on The Young Turks goes off on Obama, calls him out on his lies, for protecting Bush, and his attack on heroes/whistle-blowers.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hBoeUZ_3dc

[Soul_Patch]

http://reason.com/assets/mc/ekrayewski/2012_05/droneprez.jpg

[Blake]

Obama needs to drone up to his mistakes

[ChumpDumper]

Wow, nothing is going to change!

[LnGrrrR]

:lol most "transparent" administration ever

[boutons_deux]

what else do all y'all expect from Fox Repug Propaganda's fist-bumping, foreign-born, terrorist Muslim president?

[SA210]

what else do all y'all expect from Fox Repug Propaganda's fist-bumping, foreign-born, terrorist Muslim president?



In that same show, they also covered "Why Obama is Deeply Conservative"


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqmmZ_MwFMw

[ChumpDumper]

In that same show, they also covered "Why Obama is Deeply Conservative"Because he's an anticolonialist marxist fascist liberation theologist muslim.

Duh.

[SA210]

Great interview with the hero that Obama is imprisoning. Ever since he blew the whistle on torture in 2007 he has been investigated, and also audited by the IRS every year since.

Transparency/Hope/Change

Abby Martin talks to former CIA official, and torture whistleblower, John Kiriakou, about his prison sentence and Obama's war on whistleblowers. Wraps up the show with a discussion with Media Roots journalist, Robbie Martin, about the gradual deterioration of civil liberties in the US and its relevance to past times of war.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnceaDSI1TA




Damn, Cenk Uyger on The Young Turks goes off on Obama, calls him out on his lies, for protecting Bush, and his attack on heroes/whistle-blowers.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hBoeUZ_3dc

[Nbadan]

LOL SA210..


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkQxHlr2fXM&feature=player_embedded

[SA210]

LOL SA210..


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkQxHlr2fXM&feature=player_embedded



lol She forgot to mention imprisoning innocent whistleblowers, NDAA, protecting Wallstreet, protecting Bush/Cheney from war crimes, Americans murdered by drones without trial, child drone murders, expansion of illegal wars, NSA wiretapping, record pot busts, deportations, etc

[AussieFanKurt]

lol She forgot to mention imprisoning innocent whistleblowers, NDAA, protecting Wallstreet, protecting Bush/Cheney from war crimes, Americans murdered by drones without trial, child drone murders, expansion of illegal wars, NSA wiretapping, record pot busts, deportations, etc

cant forget to mention if didnt happen

[SA210]

cant forget to mention if didnt happen

Oh, but they did happen..and they are happening

[Nbadan]

Bradley Manning is an innocent whistleblower too....


imprisoning innocent whistleblowers

Oxymoron...

[Nbadan]

NDAA

Guessed SA210 missed this...


He signed it because if he didn’t, defense spending including benefits to veterans and their families would not have been authorized. The sections of NDAA that many people here seem to have a problem with are sections that were added into the document by primarily Republican legislators and which the President adamantly opposes but was powerless to stop. I’ll repeat that: the parts of this bill that many people here hate were included against the President’s wishes and in a way that he is powerless to stop. The only way he could have stopped these sections from being included would have been to try to veto the bill in its entirety, a move that would have been both political suicide as well as being futile, as Congress would simply have overridden him. He is explicit in his opposition to exactly the parts of the bill everyone here hates, going so far as to detail exactly which sections he opposes and why."

http://skepticalcubefarm.wordpress.com/2012/01/02/obama-and-the-ndaa/

[Nbadan]

protecting Wallstreet,

:lol

So much so that they donated to Romney by a wide margin



Sixty-seven New York City metro area financial-sector workers who donated at least once to Obama in 2008 have directed more than $147,000 in contributions to Romney’s campaign, the Capitol Hill newspaper reported.

Only three of the 67 have given to Obama this year, the Hill reported.

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/thetell/2011/08/22/obama-l...

[Nbadan]

protecting Bush/Cheney from war crimes

You want war crimes? Call your Senator.

[Nbadan]

Americans murdered by drones without trial

Don't give aid to extremists

[Nbadan]

record pot busts

:lol

[SA210]

Guessed SA210 missed this...



http://skepticalcubefarm.wordpress.com/2012/01/02/obama-and-the-ndaa/



Wow, Dan. I figured you wouldn't stoop to that level. I guess you missed where Chris Hedges won in Federal court to overturn that specific provision in NDAA on indefinite detention of US Citizens, and how OBAMA appealed that decision within 24 hours.


Obama administration has already appealed yesterday's historic court ruling. That court ruling found indefinite detention to be unconstitutional, and issued a permanent block of that provision.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/unbelievable-obama-administration-has-already-appealed-ndaa-ruling-2012-9#ixzz2JclDJLXo

[SA210]

Don't give aid to extremists

When did the 16 year old American boy from Colorado do that? Where is the charge or accusation that he did anything wrong?

[SA210]

:lol

So much so that they donated to Romney by a wide margin



http://blogs.marketwatch.com/thetell/2011/08/22/obama-l...



http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=208501

[SA210]

:lol

Well more raids than Bush, in half the time

[Nbadan]

Reported civilian deaths fell sharply in Pakistan in 2012, with Bureau data suggesting that a minimum of 2.5% of those reported killed were civilians – compared with more than 14% in 2011. This suggests the CIA is seeking to limit non-militant casualties, perhaps as a result of sustained criticism.

Drone strikes in Pakistan are now at their lowest level in five years, as Islamabad protests almost every attack. The CIA also appears to have abandoned ‘signature strikes’ on suspected militants fitting certain patterns of behaviour – at least for the present. Almost all attacks in recent months have been against named al Qaeda and other militant leaders.

http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2013/01/03/emerging-from-the-shadows-us-covert-drone-strikes-in-2012-2

[SA210]

Bradley Manning is an innocent whistleblower too....



Oxymoron...

So when did Bush types of crimes suddenly become ok, 2008? How convenient.

[SA210]

http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2013/01/03/emerging-from-the-shadows-us-covert-drone-strikes-in-2012-2

Is Pakistan the only place we are illegally bombing? Come on now. Somalia, Yemen, Lybia, etc. Not to mention civilian numbers seem lower now because Obama has now covered it up by calling anyone 18 and up as "militants", with no proof. Just because they are 18. that will lower the number wouldn't it?

Obama even tried covering up and lying about the 21 women and 14 children he killed in his first strike in Yemen.

Jeremy Scahill reported on this


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9Trh8iwNt8




Not to mention Obama ran on ending these types of policies..

[Nbadan]

OBAMA appealed that decision within 24 hours.

Because the entire premise of the decision was wrong and not well thought out...



As a preliminary matter, the decision’s entire premise is factually wrong. Judge Forrest simply ignores a wide body of D.C. Circuit case law that makes her conclusion untenable. This is not to say that she is bound by D.C. Circuit precedent. She isn’t. But what the D.C. Circuit has done in the detention space is an important piece of the factual landscape as to the state of the law she is interpreting. To ignore it—as she mostly does—and misstate it—as she does when she’s not ignoring it—creates a fundamental factual error regarding the change that Section 1021 of the NDAA actually brought about.

Judge Forrest’s basic argument is that the NDAA did not—as it purports—merely codify and reaffirm the detention authority in the AUMF but expanded it and expanded it in a fashion that is unconstitutionally vague as to mere supporters of enemy forces. Her evidence of this is differences in the statutory texts, which are real, and a purported reading of the NDAA’s legislative history. Having watched the NDAA’s legislative history as closely as anyone—indeed having played some role in it—I can say flatly that there is almost nothing true about her account of how and why this law developed. This is the kind of judicial legislative history, in fact, that makes one get in touch with one’s inner Scalia. But let’s put that issue aside. The far bigger problem is that she almost completely ignores the D.C. Circuit’s history of interpretation of the AUMF in the detention context. And the D.C. Circuit’s work is important because the AUMF that Congress was legislating against when it wrote the NDAA was not the plain text of the AUMF itself. It was the AUMF as interpreted by the D.C. Circuit in roughly a dozen habeas cases. And to put the matter simply, support of enemy forces has been part of this interpretation of the AUMF’s detention authority from the beginning.

Judge Forrest acknowledges at one point very late in the game (see pp. 106-107) that the D.C. Circuit in Al-Bihani seemed to allow detention on the basis of support. But she pretends that this is merely an interpretation of the Military Commissions Act, not the AUMF itself:

In Al-Bihani, the D.C. Circuit . . . found . . . that the 2006 and 2009 MCAs provided for military detention of those individuals who “purposefully and materially supported” enemy belligerents of the United States or its coalition partners (the MCAs are not, however, statutes authorizing the use of military force). At the August hearing in this action, the Government stated that the MCA plays no role in the case before this Court. This Court agrees: the phrase “materially supported” as used in Al-Bihani does not shed light on the interpretation of “substantial support,” as used in § 1021(b)(2). Moreover, even in the MCA there is a requirement that the “material support” be purposeful. Notably, § 1021(b)(2) does not require that the conduct which could subject an individual to detention be “knowing” or “purposeful.”

This is dead wrong. The D.C. Circuit’s invocation of the MCA in Al-Bihani occurs merely as a means of informing its interpretation of the AUMF, not as a standalone detention authority. Here’s what the D.C. Circuit actually said:

The AUMF authorizes the President 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.” AUMF § 2(a). The Supreme Court in Hamdi ruled that “necessary and appropriate force” includes the power to detain combatants subject to such force. 542 U.S. at 519. Congress, in the 2006 MCA, provided guidance on the class of persons subject to detention under the AUMF by defining “unlawful enemy combatants” who can be tried by military commission. 2006 MCA sec. 3, § 948a(1). The 2006 MCA authorized the trial of an individual who “engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces).” Id. § 948a(1)(A)(i). In 2009, Congress enacted a new version of the MCA with a new definition that authorized the trial of “unprivileged enemy belligerents,” a class of persons that includes those who “purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.” Military Commissions Act of 2009 (2009 MCA) sec. 1802, §§ 948a(7), 948b(a), 948c, Pub. L. No. 111-84, tit. XVIII, 123 Stat. 2190, 2575–76. The provisions of the 2006 and 2009 MCAs are illuminating in this case because the government’s detention authority logically covers a category of persons no narrower than is covered by its military commission authority. Detention authority in fact sweeps wider, also extending at least to traditional P.O.W.s, see id. § 948a(6), and arguably to other categories of persons. But for this case, it is enough to recognize that any person subject to a military commission trial is also subject to detention, and that category of persons includes those who are part of forces associated with Al Qaeda or the Taliban or those who purposefully and materially support such forces in hostilities against U.S. Coalition partners (emphasis added).

This interpretation received a fair bit of criticism, including from Steve, as the D.C. Circuit incorporated it into its later cases. But it received criticism as an interpretation of the AUMF–which it plainly was. So put simply, Judge Forrest’s entire opinion hinges on the idea that the NDAA expanded the AUMF detention authority, yet she never once states honestly the D.C. Circuit law extant at the time of its passage—law which unambiguously supports the government’s contention that the NDAA affected little or no substantive change in the AUMF detention power. (In fact, to the extent the NDAA brought about any change, it was a change limiting detention authority by clarifying that it is, in fact, subject to the laws of war, as Steve and Marty Lederman explained in this post. But that’s a story for another day.)

Second, Judge Forrest is also deeply confused about the applicability of the laws of war to detention authority under U.S. domestic law. She does actually does spend a great deal of time talking about Al-Bihani, just not about the part of it that really matters to the NDAA. She fixates instead on the panel majority’s determination that the laws of war do not govern detentions because they are not part of U.S. domestic law. Why exactly she thinks this point is relevant I’m not quite sure. She seems to think that the laws of war are vaguer and more permissive than the AUMF—precisely the opposite of the Al-Bihani panel’s assumption that the laws of war would impose additional constraints. But never mind. Someone needs to tell Judge Forrest that the D.C. Circuit, in its famous non-en-banc en-banc repudiated that aspect of the panel decision denying the applicability of the laws of war and has since assumed that the laws of war do inform detention authority under the AUMF. In other words, Judge Forrest ignores—indeed misrepresents—Al-Bihani on the key matter to which it is surpassingly relevant, and she fixates on an aspect of the opinion that is far less relevant and that, in any case, is no longer good law.

Having made these very basic errors—at very great length—Judge Forrest then issues her injunction. But for its text, we might treat her opinion as a form of comic performance art.

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2012/09/initial-thoughts-on-hedges/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

[Nbadan]

So when did Bush types of crimes suddenly become ok, 2008? How convenient.

When did Obama start proactive invasions and occupations?

[Nbadan]

Somalia

:lol 2 credible attacks

[Nbadan]

Is Pakistan the only place we are illegally bombing? Come on now. Somalia, Yemen, Lybia, etc. Not to mention civilian numbers seem lower now because Obama has now covered it up by calling anyone 18 and up as "militants", with no proof. Just because they are 18. that will lower the number wouldn't it?

Obama even tried covering up and lying about the 21 women and 14 children he killed in his first strike in Yemen.

Jeremy Scahill reported on this


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9Trh8iwNt8




Not to mention Obama ran on ending these types of policies..

HuffPo fails to show the Lt who confronted Scahills logic, he parralled it to FDRs killing French

...citizens on the lead up to D-Day...Scahill called FDR a murderer too..

The LT also said historically no other president has had to live up to the standards of the use of force Obama has been had to live up to.

Every president that has ever sent US troops into a conflict can be classified as a "murderer".

All Congresses that have appropriated funds for raising a military can be classified as "accessories to murder".

Anyone who has ever worn the uniform of the US military can be classified as "paid assassins'.

Every weapon manufactured, from the most basic bullet on up, are nothing more than "murder weapons".

Your tax dollars that pays for all of this stuff, well that makes us all guilty of "conspiracy to commit murder".

And most of all, the fact that we have an industry that facilitates all of this and a society that condones it makes America itself "the greatest mass murderer the world has ever known".

Why did Scahill he hold back when he was on a roll?

[SA210]

When did Obama start proactive invasions and occupations?

30,000 troop surge in Afghanistan, expansion of the illegal drone program, bombing 6 countries in only 4 years versus war criminal Bush bombing only 4 in 8 years. Bombing Lybia, all without any declaration of war. I respect you man, you are one of my favorite posters, honestly, but there is no way you can be this blind on Obama. Just because you are on the left (as am I), doesn't mean you have to defend him when he is clearly going above and beyond to do Bush's work. There is no question about it.

And on NDAA, Judge Forrest ruled it as Unconstitutional and that's exactly what it is. You can't have it both ways, on one end you say he had no choice in signing it (which he did), and then the judge strips the provision and he then appeals it and then you defend that too? lol Come on. You are going to really act like he isn't going after whistleblowers too? What difference is that than Bush and Plame-Gate on attacking heroes?

And you, like me, do not accept the "official" story of 9/11. Doesn't Obama have a responsibility to launch an investigation? Why not hold him accountable for finding out the truth? He's a part of the establishment. He doesn't give a damn about you, me or anyone except the powerful elite that put him there. MLK is rolling in his grave at Obama's murderous actions.

It's ok, you can admit a Democrat is an evil corrupt lying piece of shyt. I can admit it. And I'm still liberal.

[SA210]

And why do you keep ignoring that Obama promised to end all this shit?

[Nbadan]

30,000 troop surge in Afghanistan

and brought all combat troops home from Iraq...

[Nbadan]

And on NDAA, Judge Forrest ruled it as Unconstitutional and that's exactly what it is. You can't have it both ways, on one end you say he had no choice in signing it (which he did), and then the judge strips the provision and he then appeals it and then you defend that too? lol Come on. You are going to really act like he isn't going after whistleblowers too? What difference is that than Bush and Plame-Gate on attacking heroes?

Read what I posted, it was a bad ruling...NDAA did not expand anything which was not already authorized...

[Nbadan]

nd you, like me, do not accept the "official" story of 9/11. Doesn't Obama have a responsibility to launch an investigation? Why not hold him accountable for finding out the truth? He's a part of the establishment. He doesn't give a damn about you, me or anyone except the powerful elite that put him there. MLK is rolling in his grave at Obama's murderous actions.

I don't accept the official story of 911, but don't make the mistake of associating me with Alex Jones type crazy...I think the government was negligent in preventing 911 not the perpetrators of 911

[Clipper Nation]

It's ok, you can admit a Democrat is an evil corrupt lying piece of shyt. I can admit it. And I'm still liberal.

But I thought :cry all leftists are hypocrites :cry and you were a :cry real Libertarian leader? :cry

:lol

[Winehole23]

Read what I posted, it was a bad ruling...NDAA did not expand anything which was not already authorized...http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=188936&page=6&highlight=NDAA

[redzero]

I don't accept the official story of 911, but don't make the mistake of associating me with Alex Jones type crazy...I think the government was negligent in preventing 911 not the perpetrators of 911

Does the official story claim that the government wasn't negligent?

[Nbadan]

Does the official story claim that the government wasn't negligent?

Not to the extent that it became criminal....there was criminal negligence on the part of the Bush Administration...yet no one was ever prosecuted or even reprimanded much...many got promotions...

[Wild Cobra]

OK, this guy was jailed for releasing Valarie Plames name...

I'm sorry, not Valarie, but two other names he released who were undercover operatives...

[Nbadan]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=188936&page=6&highlight=NDAA

Come on Whinehole....Obama codified what Congress had long codified anyway....they had the votes to override his veto...why aren't these (mostly) GOP Senators and House members being held to the same fire many here hold Obama's too? It a Witch hunt that's why...

[Nbadan]

OK, this guy was jailed for releasing Valarie Plames name...

I'm sorry, not Valarie, but two other names he released who were undercover operatives...

That was nothing...Plame had the goods on the Bush Administration's WMD facade

"Mushroom clouds"

LOL She had to be outed...

[Wild Cobra]

That was nothing...Plame had the goods on the Bush Administration's WMD facade

"Mushroom clouds"

LOL She had to be outed...
If you say so. Thing is, nobody is claiming she was still undercover. Even the Young Turks say the two names this guy outed were undercover, and they didn't say it as in past tense.

That can get people killed...

That goes beyond whistle blowing. What he did was clearly criminal.

[redzero]

Not to the extent that it became criminal....there was criminal negligence on the part of the Bush Administration...yet no one was ever prosecuted or even reprimanded much...many got promotions...

The official story does defend The Bush Administration; it states what happened. You can draw your own conclusions from it. There is no need to "question" it if all you want to do is assign blame.

[ChumpDumper]

I don't accept the official story of 911, but don't make the mistake of associating me with Alex Jones type crazy...Well, what type of crazy are you?

Shall I bump your thread?

[Winehole23]

Come on Whinehole....Obama codified what Congress had long codified anyway....they had the votes to override his veto...why aren't these (mostly) GOP Senators and House members being held to the same fire many here hold Obama's too? It a Witch hunt that's why...Obama signed it. He could have vetoed it, but he didn't. I wonder why not.

[Winehole23]

Oh, and cite the codification, please.

[DMC]

thread tl;dr

If this is about unveiling a CIA operative, fuck him. These aren't hall monitors.

[Jacob1983]

Obama loves drones. Bush loved waterboarding.

[Blake]

Wow, Dan. I figured you wouldn't stoop to that level.

SA210 has his finger on the ignore button...

[Winehole23]

Oh, and cite the codification, please.waiting . . . are you talking about the AUMF, Dan?

[Nbadan]

waiting . . . are you talking about the AUMF, Dan?

The AUMF is part of it, but the GOP Congress ignored while the Bush administration continued rendition, water-boarding, torture and yes, imprisoning Jose Padilla without a trial or access to representation....with or without going through the process, mostly because they were chicken shit, they singled to the administration that it was OK...

[Nbadan]

Or did I miss where they called in Gonzales for questioning in front of Congress...hummm...must have missed that...

[Jacob1983]

I want some Obama lovers and supporters to defend their guy on drones and how they are huge hypocrites since they bashed the shit out of Bush for waterboarding and the war in Iraq yet most of them blindly support the drone war and the war in Afghanistan.

[ChumpDumper]

False equivalence tbh.

[Winehole23]

The AUMF is part of it, but the GOP Congress ignored while the Bush administration continued rendition, water-boarding, torture and yes, imprisoning Jose Padilla without a trial or access to representation....with or without going through the process, mostly because they were chicken shit, they singled to the administration that it was OK...Congress looked the other way during GWB's day, for Obama it passed the NDAA.

btw, thanks for admitting Obama and the US Congress has either continued or codified in law -- i.e., made legal -- the Bush era violations of liberty and rule of law.

[Nbadan]

Congress looked the other way during GWB's day, for Obama it passed the NDAA.

They passed a law to cover their war criminal butts...smh...

[Winehole23]

yeah, Obama did that, you love it, don't you?

[Winehole23]

you sure been defending it . . .

[SA210]

"John Brennan, President Barack Obama's nominee to head the CIA, had detailed, contemporaneous knowledge of the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" on captured terrorism suspects during an earlier stint as a top spy agency official, according to multiple sources familiar with official records."*

There's evidence that CIA Director nominee John Brennan had extensive knowledge of torture programs. Sure he allegedly "had reservations," but he didn't do anything about it.
Cenk Uygur breaks it down.


TYT: Obama CIA Nom Approves Torture?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VZdCPyWMbA

[boutons_deux]

Brennan's appearance today will be entertaining.

The Repugs will go after him on drones (aka, Beghazi-fake-outrage mode), but not touch him on Repug-approved dubya/dickhead's torture.

Of course, if Presidnet Bishop Gecko's drones were murdering planet-wide, the Repug and Fox would approve it vociferously.

[SA210]

Brennan's appearance today will be entertaining.

The Repugs will go after him on drones (aka, Beghazi-fake-outrage mode), but not touch him on Repug-approved dubya/dickhead's torture.

Of course, if Presidnet Bishop Gecko's drones were murdering planet-wide, the Repug and Fox would approve it vociferously.

.
Huffington Post: 10 Questions to Ask John Brennan at His CIA Confirmation Hearing


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/medea-benjamin/10-questions-to-ask-john-_b_2623693.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/medea-benjamin/10-questions-to-ask-john-_b_2623693.html)




John Brennan's confirmation hearing to become head of the CIA will take place at the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday, February 7. There is suddenly a flurry of attention around a white paper (http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/04/16843014-exclusive-justice-department-memo-reveals-legal-case-for-drone-strikes-on-americans?lite) that lays out the administration's legal justification for killing Americans with drones overseas, and some of the Senators are vowing (http://www.myfoxchicago.com/story/17798691/illinois-senators-mark-kirk-and-dick-durbin-vow-tough-questions-at-nuclear-forum) to ask Brennan "tough questions," since Brennan has been the mastermind of the lethal drone attacks. But why have the Senators, especially those on the Intelligence Committee who are supposed to exercise oversight of the CIA, waited until now to make public statements about their unease with the killing of Americans that took place back in September and October of 2011? For over a year human rights groups and activists have been trying, unsuccessfully, to get an answer as to why our government killed the 16-year-old American boy Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, and have had no help from the Senators' offices.

We look forward to hearing the Senators question Brennan about the legal justifications used by the Obama administration to kill three Americans (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/foreign-affairs-defense/al-qaeda-in-yemen/relatives-of-americans-killed-in-yemen-drone-strikes-file-suit-against-u-s/) in Yemen, as we are deeply concerned about their deaths and the precedent it sets for the rights of U.S. citizens.

But we are also concerned about the thousands of Pakistanis, Yeminis and Somalis who have been killed by remote control in nations with whom we are not at war. If CODEPINK had a chance to question John Brennan as his hearing on Thursday, here are some questions we would ask:



1. You have claimed (http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/world/asia/pakistan-us-drone-strikes) that due to the precision of drone strikes, there have been only a handful of civilian casualties. How many civilians deaths have you recorded, and in what countries? What proportion of total casualties do those figures represent? How do you regard the sources such as the Bureau of Investigative Journalism that estimates (http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/category/projects/drones/) that drone casualties in Pakistan alone range from 2,629-3,461,with as many as 891 reported to be civilians and 176 reported to be children? Have you reviewed the photographic evidence of death and injury presented by residents of the drone strike areas? If so, what is your response?

2. According to a report in the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0), Washington "counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants," unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent. Please tell us if this is indeed true, and if so, elaborate on the legal precedent for this categorization. In areas where the U.S. is using drones, fighters do not wear uniforms and regularly intermingle with civilians. How does the CIA distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate targets?

3. In a June 2011 report to Congress, the Obama administration explained (http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2011/06/koh_is_my_god_pilot.html) that drone attacks did not require congressional approval under the War Powers Resolution because drone attacks did not involve "sustained fighting," "active exchanges of fire," an involvement of U.S. casualties, or a "serious threat" of such casualties. Is it your understanding that the initiation of lethal force overseas does not require congressional approval?

4. If the legal basis for the use of lethal drones is the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), can this authorization be extended to any country through presidential authority? Are there any geographic limitations on the use of drone strikes? Does the intelligence community have the authority to carry out lethal drone strikes inside the United States? How do you respond to the charge that the U.S. thinks it can send drones anywhere it wants and kill anyone it wants, all on the basis of secret information?

5. Assassination targets are selected using (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/10/how-white-house-kill-list-became-white-house-disposition-matrix/58295/) a "disposition matrix." Please identify the criteria by which a person's name is entered into the matrix. News reports have mentioned that teenagers have been (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=all) included in this list. Is there an age criteria?

6. In Pakistan and perhaps elsewhere, the CIA has been authorized to conduct "signature strikes," killing people on the basis of suspicious activity. What are the criteria for authorizing a signature strike? Do you think the CIA should continue to have the right to conduct such strikes? Do you think the CIA should be involved in drone strikes at all, or should this program be turned over to the military? If you think the CIA should return to its original focus on intelligence gathering, why hasn't this happened? As Director of the CIA, will you discontinue the CIA's use of lethal drones?

7. Article 51 of the U.N. Charter, which the U.S. has implicitly invoked to justify strikes, requires (http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml) that "measures taken by Members in the exercise of [their] right to self-defense... be immediately reported to the Security Council." Please elaborate on why the United States uses Article 51 to justify drone strikes but ignores the clause demanding transparency.

8. The majority of prisoners incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay were found to be innocent and were released. These individuals landed in Guantanamo as victims of mistaken identity or as a result of bounties for their capture. How likely is it that the intelligence that gets a person killed by a drone strike may be as faulty as that which put innocent individuals in Guantanamo?

9. You have stated (http://blogs.cfr.org/zenko/2012/12/26/americas-failing-drone-war-in-yemen/) that there is little evidence drone strikes are causing widespread anti-American sentiment or recruits for extremist groups. Do you stand by this statement now, as we have seen an expansion of al Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula, possibly triple (http://www.npr.org/2012/11/27/165936280/the-last-refuge-yemen-al-qaida-and-the-u-s) the number that existed when the drone strikes began? Do you have concerns about the "blowback" caused by what General McChrystal has called (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/15/michael-boyle-visceral-ha_n_2480590.html) a "visceral hatred" of U.S. drones?

10. If a civilian is harmed by a drone strike in Afghanistan, the family is entitled to compensation from U.S. authorities. But this is not the case in other countries where the U.S. government is using lethal drones. Why is this the case? Do you think the U.S. government should help people who are innocent victims of our drone strikes and if so, why haven't you put a program in place to do this?

Stay tuned to www.c-span.org (http://www.c-span.org) at 2:30 p.m. on Thursday to hear the Senators' questions, Brennan's answers and the response from those of us in the audience who don't have many such occasions to express outrage at our government's policy of remote-controlled killing.

[boutons_deux]

John Brennan and John Kiriakou: how to get ahead in the CIA, and how not to

Kiriakou, who blew the whistle on CIA waterboarding, goes to prison, while Brennan, who approved it, is set to lead the agency

Kiriakou will soon start serving his 30-month prison sentence, but not for disclosing anything about waterboarding. He pled guilty to disclosing the name of a former CIA interrogator to a journalist, with information that the interrogator himself had posted to a publicly available website.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/07/john-brennan-john-kiriakou-cia (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/07/john-brennan-john-kiriakou-cia)

[SA210]

John Brennan and John Kiriakou: how to get ahead in the CIA, and how not to

Kiriakou, who blew the whistle on CIA waterboarding, goes to prison, while Brennan, who approved it, is set to lead the agency

Kiriakou will soon start serving his 30-month prison sentence, but not for disclosing anything about waterboarding. He pled guilty to disclosing the name of a former CIA interrogator to a journalist, with information that the interrogator himself

had posted to a publicly available website.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/07/john-brennan-john-kiriakou-cia (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/07/john-brennan-john-kiriakou-cia)

What a damn shame

[boutons_deux]

http://act.rootsaction.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=7352

[SA210]

http://act.rootsaction.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=7352

Thanks :tu

Submitting mine right now. Maybe it'll land me on the kill list, if I'm not already

[SA210]

.


Former Central Intelligence Agency officer John Kiriakou has been sentenced to 30 months behind bars for his role in blowing the whistle on the torture techniques imposed on detainees by the US government. On Thursday, dozens of human rights activist, journalists and friends congregated at a send-off banquet in Washington, DC one week before Kiriakou is expected to begin his sentence. RT Producer Rachel Kurzius joins us and explains what went down at the "Orange Ball" and what Kiriakou and his colleagues had to say about the war on whistleblowers and the current administration.



Whistleblower John Kiriakou prison send-off banquet, overlooking corrupt White House: Trashes Obama's appointee for CIA director


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ec8jcErfAe4

[Winehole23]

Submitting mine right now. Maybe it'll land me on the kill list, if I'm not alreadyyou're more the useful idiot type.

why would the government kill you when discredit your own cause continuously on bulletin boards?

[ChumpDumper]

When did Rachel Dratch start working for RT?

[Vladimir Lenin]

When did Rachel Dratch start working for RT?



RT a liberals best friend.

[ChumpDumper]

RT a liberals best friend.Not sure if serious or just terrible troll.

[SA210]

Brennan's appearance today will be entertaining.

The Repugs will go after him on drones (aka, Beghazi-fake-outrage mode), but not touch him on Repug-approved dubya/dickhead's torture.

Of course, if Presidnet Bishop Gecko's drones were murdering planet-wide, the Repug and Fox would approve it vociferously.

Rand Paul actively Filibustering Brennan right now.



CSPAN live feed: http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN2/

Rand Paul: "I Will Speak As Long As It Takes" To Stop Brennan Nomination

The Kentucky senator is filibustering John Brennan, the Obama administration's nominee to be CIA director, over the administration's drone policy.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/rand-paul-i-will-speak-as-long-as-it-takes-it-stop-brennan-n

[Blake]

Rand Paul: "I lied about doing it as long as it takes."

[SA210]

:cry:cry Still trying to sabotage different threads bc I'm still massively butthurt, this makes me a troll :cry:cry

[Blake]

I'm on topic. Don't whine about me being mean because your hero lied to you.

[SA210]

:cry:cry I'm so hurt that I keep following sa210 around, he's literally on my mind that much :cry:cry

[Blake]

Naw. Now you're a liar.

[SA210]

:cry:cry I love following sa210 around obsessively in different threads, he's literally on my mind that much. I am so angry for him exposing my cuckness, and my meltdown won't stop. If I had spent this much time with my wife as I do on sa210's nuts, she still might be around. Instead I'm just a cuck chasing men on the internets, it would make my bff proud :cry:cry

[Blake]

Naw. Now you're a liar.

[SA210]

:cry:cry I love following sa210 around obsessively in different threads, he's literally on my mind that much. I am so angry for him exposing my cuckness, and my meltdown won't stop. If I had spent this much time with my wife as I do on sa210's nuts, she still might be around. Instead I'm just a cuck chasing men on the internets, it would make my bff proud :cry:cry

[Winehole23]

^^^ broken record cutting and pasting. classic SA210.






( "king of the mountain" is not played by repeating the phrase "I am the king of the mountain," nor are basketball games won by saying "I win!")

[Winehole23]

this bulletin board being more or less pure logomachy (http://www.thedevilsdictionary.com/?L), it's clearly foreseeable this misunderstanding will arise from time to time, but that doesn't make it any less droll when it does.

[admiralsnackbar]

Is "droll" a synonym for "tiresome" now?

[Winehole23]

can be I suppose. matter of perspective.

[Spurtacular]

Chump and Blake hand and hand sperm shielding. Par.

[Winehole23]

Chump and Blake hand and hand sperm shielding. Par.Huh?

Are you SA210?

[Winehole23]

WTF are you talking about?