Top US counterterrorism official: drone critics are Al Qaeda enablers

[Cali_Democrat]

Top official: drone critics are Al Qaeda enablers
By Glenn Greenwald

The New York Times‘ Scott Shane reported this morning on the Bureau of Investigative Journalism study I wrote about yesterday, detailing that the U.S. drone program, as the NYT put it, “repeatedly targeted rescuers who responded to the scene of a strike, as well as mourners at subsequent funerals.” Shane’s article contains this paragraph:

A senior American counterterrorism official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, questioned the report’s findings, saying “targeting decisions are the product of intensive intelligence collection and observation.” The official added: “One must wonder why an effort that has so carefully gone after terrorists who plot to kill civilians has been subjected to so much misinformation. Let’s be under no illusions — there are a number of elements who would like nothing more than to malign these efforts and help Al Qaeda succeed.”

Note that the “senior counterrorism official” did not deny the findings, at least not in the quotes provided, but there are two lessons to take from this paragraph. First, at least according to some “senior” Obama official, those who report critically on the civilian-killing, rescuer-and-funeral-targeting American drone attacks (i.e., those who “malign these efforts”) are either supporters of or useful idiots for Al Qaeda; it sure is a good thing the Bush era is over when those who questioned the President’s national security policies were accused of helping the Terrorists. Second, if you’re a cowardly senior government official who wants to smear critics as Al Qaeda enablers or supporters, The New York Times will grant you anonymity to do it, all while violating multiple provisions of its own policy on anonymity adopted after its historically shameful performance in the run-up to the Iraq War:

Read more: http://www.salon.com/2012/02/06/top_official_drone_critics_are_al_qaeda_enablers/singleton/

[Fumesucker]

1. Why can't they just come out and say it like the Bush administration did..

Critics of the administration are objectively pro-Al Qaeda.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

2. Anyone who protests the Vietnam war is unAmerican.

Same old shit, different time.

Anyone who was against that war was obviously pro-Hanoi, pro-Ho Chi Minh, pro-Communist.

Anyone who is against the drone attacks is obviously pro-AlQaeda, pro-Taliban.

[libodem]

3. Is that what it comes down to now?

%&*%$#@

[Major Hogwash]

4. Consider the source -- Greenwald!!!!

You guys should know by now that Greenwald has as much crediblity as Matt Drudge and spare yourselves the embarrassment!!

[DisgustipatedinCA]

5. Greenwald is quoting the New York Times. Do you have anything other than irrational hatred?

I ask, because your post is baseless, unless of course you're saying that Greenwald misquoted the New York Times. In that case, we'll need to get to the bottom of this in a hurry. What have you got?

[gratuitous]

9. The source of the offending paragraph is the New York Times

Greenwald is merely highlighting what the senior administration official was quoted as saying. If you'd care to explain how that impugns Greenwald's credibility, pray proceed. Otherwise, the line to shoot the messenger forms to the right; please wait your turn.

[Cali_Democrat]

10. Actually, the source is not Greenwald

Did you read the article? The source is the NY Times quoting a counterterrorism official.

[bullwinkle428]

6. DU poster : Top counter-terrorism official is a Fleisher-esque jackwagon.

[DCKit]

7. Is it admitting defeat when they start slinging "Unamerican!" at their critics?

Sure seems like it.

[TheKentuckian]

8. I strongly favor said unnamed dumpsterfire be shitcanned like yesterday.

[Blue_Tires]

11. sooooo 2003....

[indepat]

12. The First Amendment does not protect speech that gives aid and comfort to the enemy.

Since speech questioning anything big brother gives aid and comfort to the enemy, questioning anything big brother does is treasonous. See, it's so simple, even a fool can see that free speech doesn't include questioning anything big brother does.

[woo me with science]

13. Disgusting. Absolutely disgusting.

And also alarming as hell, given the ongoing assaults on our civil liberties; attempts to increase government control over the internet; and recent labeling of both protesters and those who seek privacy on the internet through proxies as "potential terrorists."

Occupy now, because our increasingly bought-and-paid-for government sees us as a threat, and they are rushing structures into place to prevent occupation later.

Kicked and recommended.

[PufPuf23]

14. The "Drone Program" creates future terrorists and ill-will towards the USA IMO.

The "senior counterterrorism official has his head where the sun doesn't shine and shouldn't be catapulting BS propoganda.

[Boojatta]

15. Were rescuers targeted because they were rescuers?

Were mourners targeted because they were mourners?

Consider who might be mourning at a funeral. If the deceased was a public figure, and concealed his or her terrorist activities, then a mourner might be an ordinary person who has been impressed by effective PR.

However, if the deceased wasn't a public figure, and was a terrorist, then would it be surprising if intensive intelligence collection and observation reveals that the mourner is involved in terrorist activities?