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
Drone strikes: US government's broad definition of a threat
For the first time, the Obama administration admits US drone strikes killed civilians – but what's the distinction between a civilian and terrorist?
In remarks on Monday, US counterterrorism adviser John Brennan admitted for the first time that US drones have killed civilians. "It is exceedingly rare, but it has happened", he said.
With his sources in the intelligence community, Brennan no doubt has more information about the number and identity of individuals killed than do journalists and lawyers who in the last year have documented hundreds of what they call "civilian deaths". But the discrepancy between Brennan's view and theirs is not about the facts, it is about definitions: Brennan would call "terrorist" many of the people whom the journalists and lawyers would say are civilians.
"Terrorists", whom the Obama administration may go after with lethal force, are not just people linked to the September 11 attacks, or active members of al-Qaida. According to Brennan, most of them are already dead: "Al-Qaida has been left with just a handful of capable leaders and operatives", he said.
Yet there are "thousands" of individuals the US can lawfully target in drone strikes, according to Brennan. Under the hugely expansive definition he described yesterday, the US can kill individuals across the globe – Brennan named potential targets not just in Pakistan and Yemen, but in Somalia, Nigeria and west Africa. The Obama war may include groups like al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb, which Brennan described as attempting to "destabilize regional governments", and Boko Haram, a group that "appears to be aligning itself" with al-Qaida and is "increasingly looking to attack Western interests in Nigeria".
In remarks on Monday, US counterterrorism adviser John Brennan admitted for the first time that US drones have killed civilians. "It is exceedingly rare, but it has happened", he said.
With his sources in the intelligence community, Brennan no doubt has more information about the number and identity of individuals killed than do journalists and lawyers who in the last year have documented hundreds of what they call "civilian deaths". But the discrepancy between Brennan's view and theirs is not about the facts, it is about definitions: Brennan would call "terrorist" many of the people whom the journalists and lawyers would say are civilians.
"Terrorists", whom the Obama administration may go after with lethal force, are not just people linked to the September 11 attacks, or active members of al-Qaida. According to Brennan, most of them are already dead: "Al-Qaida has been left with just a handful of capable leaders and operatives", he said.
Yet there are "thousands" of individuals the US can lawfully target in drone strikes, according to Brennan. Under the hugely expansive definition he described yesterday, the US can kill individuals across the globe – Brennan named potential targets not just in Pakistan and Yemen, but in Somalia, Nigeria and west Africa. The Obama war may include groups like al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb, which Brennan described as attempting to "destabilize regional governments", and Boko Haram, a group that "appears to be aligning itself" with al-Qaida and is "increasingly looking to attack Western interests in Nigeria".
Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/02/unmanned-drones-usa
I wonder if that broad definition of what constitutes a "terrorist" includes people simply suspected of being one and thus justifies their extra-judicial slaughter by drone strike(s).