President Barack Obama outlined plans on Thursday to limit the use of U.S. drone strikes against extremists abroad and took steps aimed at breaking a deadlock on closing the Guantanamo Bay military prison.
In a major foreign policy speech after two weeks of fending off domestic scandals, Obama limited the scope of what his predecessor, George W. Bush, had called a global war on terror after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
"Our nation is still threatened by terrorists," Obama said at Washington's National Defense University. "We must recognize however, that the threat has shifted and evolved from the one that came to our shores on 9/11."
Faced with criticism about the morality of using unmanned aerial vehicles to wage war in distant lands, Obama said the United States will only use drone strikes when a threat is imminent, a nuanced change from the previous policy of launching strikes against a significant threat.
"To say a military tactic is legal, or even effective, is not to say it is wise or moral in every instance," Obama said.
Under a new presidential guidance signed on Wednesday, Obama said the Defense Department will take the lead in launching drones, as opposed to the current practice of the CIA taking charge.
Any drone strike will only be launched when a terrorism suspect cannot be captured. The United States will respect state sovereignty and will limit strikes to al Qaida or associated targets, he said.
"And before any strike is taken, there must be near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured - the highest standard we can set," said Obama.
The use by the United States of armed drone aircraft to attack extremists has increased tensions with countries such as Pakistan and drawn criticism from human rights activists. Obama acted in line with a promise to be more open about the issue.
GREATER SCRUTINY
Obama has faced pressure from both supporters and opponents to allow greater scrutiny of the secretive decision-making process guiding drone use. He said earlier this year he wanted to be more open about the issue.
His policy shift came after the Obama administration acknowledged on Wednesday that four Americans abroad had been killed in drone strikes since 2009 in counter-terrorism operations in Yemen and Pakistan, including militant cleric Anwar al-Awlaki.
Obama defended those operations, saying when a U.S. citizen goes abroad to wage war against the United States, his citizenship should not be a shield.
But in recognition of a debate within Congress about whether strikes could be launched within the United States, Obama said it would not be constitutional to do so.
Faced with congressional opposition, Obama has been frustrated by his inability to carry out a 2008 campaign pledge to close the prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. A hunger strike by 103 of the 166 detainees has put pressure on him to take action.
"There is no justification beyond politics for Congress to prevent us from closing a facility that should never have been opened," Obama said.
While he cannot close it on his own, he did announce some steps aimed at getting some prisoners out. He lifted a moratorium on detainee transfers to Yemen out of respect for that country's reforming government.
He called on Congress to lift restrictions on the transfer of terrorism suspects from Guantanamo and directed the Defense Department to identify a site to hold military tribunals for Guantanamo detainees.
"Where appropriate, we will bring terrorists to justice in our courts and military justice system," he said.
He said he would pick a senior U.S. envoy to handle detainee transfers, a position that has vacant since January.
The speech offered Obama a chance to change the subject after dealing with controversies about his handling of attacks in Benghazi, Libya, where four Americans were killed, Internal Revenue Service scrutiny of conservative groups, and government targeting of journalists in leak probes.
The only believable part of that speech was Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin yelling at him about drones. She got in a lot of licks til they were able to pull her out the door.
It saddens me to no end that Code Pink, a very small group of dedicated women is the sole voice for peace in the US.
Adele Edisen Wrote:People should rationally decide whether their heckling, because that's what it was, would produce any good results. The President was very deferential to Medea Benjamin. and very respectful towards her. But this was a public address delivered by the President of the United States, and it was rude and disrespectful to interrupt him. Remember when that idiot. a member of the House of Reprsentatives in the audience burst out with "You lie!" in the middle of one of his speeches? It does not matter what the subject matter is, it was a disrespectful act to interrupt him, causing him to lose his momentum in making a point he wanted to get across. I happen to agree with Ms.Benamin and her views, but not with her method of delivery. She should have more respect for herself and for her views.
Emotional outbursts only produce bad reflections on the maker. There are better and more effective ways of making ones views known, IMO..
Adele
I so disagree. He pretended to be respectful. What was he going to do? And what method COULD she use to get her views across? It's not like MSM covers all the good work done by Code Pink. So they have to resort to this kind of behavior to make their point count.
Thanks Peter for the Democracy Now post, but man they are so lame.
I did not see your post before I made mine about "the only good thing about the speech".
Endless war. It has been the plan well before 9-11. And the sheeple still love him.
Dawn
I'm going to agree with you on this.I'm getting a little tired of Code Pinks tactics.In the beginning they may have been somewhat productive,but now?And,Obummer, playing along with her game,made her look stupid anyhow.
But,it will garner a headline somewhere.....
I was furious when some self-styled comedian smacked Rupert Murdoch with a custard pie during a Parliamentary Committee hearing.
I loathe Murdoch & the insidious culture of his media empire. However, he'd performed absymally in that public session and the headlines immediately moved from Murdoch as sinner to Murdoch as sinned against.
Counter-productive rubbish.
Good point Jan. And Keith. I guess I feel mixed about it. Helpless really. And I deal with so many otherwise intelligent people who love Obomber. So seeing someone lambast him on tv was a moment. But it probably did backfire. Basically, we're fucked.
Memorial Day weekend. Makes me ill. Here's to all the idiots who "faught the good fight".
Really has there ever been a "good" war?
Dawn
Quote:Memorial Day weekend. Makes me ill. Here's to all the idiots who "faught the good fight".
Dawn
What are you saying?Please,do not call those who have fought and died idiots!These people could have been your father,uncle,or good friends.And,If that was the case,I would guarranty,you would not be calling them idiots,you would be laying flowers at their grave today.....
Peace Out..
"You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.â€
Buckminster Fuller
25-05-2013, 07:38 PM (This post was last modified: 25-05-2013, 08:03 PM by Jim Hackett II.)
Keith Millea Wrote:
Quote:Memorial Day weekend. Makes me ill. Here's to all the idiots who "faught the good fight".
Dawn
What are you saying?Please,do not call those who have fought and died idiots!These people could have been your father,uncle,or good friends.And,If that was the case,I would guarranty,you would not be calling them idiots,you would be laying flowers at their grave today.....
Peace Out..
Stopping Fascism was the right g*d damned thing to do.
Some of America's better people threw their own lives in the bet as the ante to fight that mess.
If not your male fore-fathers, then mine.
Or the Mothers and wives and Fathers and brothers of those men working to build the weapons to defeat Hitler and Hirohito in the hands of their family members in UNIFORM.
They paid a huge price too all the while worried and praying daily for the safety of their family members and friends.
Gold Star Mothers used to mean something.
They still do to me.
Their sons didn't come home.
I'll not be part of dishonoring Memorial Day in any fashion.
I'll be decorating a few graves of vets that I knew tomorrow.
Decoration Day is the original name if anyone bothers to recall.
I'll hold my silence and remove my ever present baseball cap when "Taps" is played tomorrow.
Then I'll celebrate my freedom protected and preserved by others by cooking some burgers and drink a couple of Guinness while I listen to the Indy 500.....
and remember what the day is about.
To Remember....
Read not to contradict and confute;
nor to believe and take for granted;
nor to find talk and discourse;
but to weigh and consider.
FRANCIS BACON
The Real Reason For US Drone Attacks
Editorial By The Crescent
Drone attacks kill innocents and create enemies. This is precisely what the American war industry wants: endless supply of enemies for endless war.
May 25, 2013 "Information Clearing House" -"The Crescent" - Debate within the US about the use of killer drones has obfuscated the real purpose of such attacks. Using fancy expressions like "playbook" for authorizing drone strikes that kill people suspected by the US of being militants has added to the fog of confusion. Amid all the verbal gymnastics, one point that has seldom if ever been raised is the real reason for drone strikes: to stoke anti-American sentiment that creates more militants thereby justifying the never-ending war on terror. After all, it is impossible to continue to wage war without identifiable enemies. Drone attacks are "helpful" from the US point of view because they kill innocent people in remote areas, especially the tribal areas of Pakistan that increase people's resentment and anti-American feelings. This is precisely what the Washington warlords want. Endless war requires an endless list of enemies. If they do not exist, create them. Enter the killer drones.
Estimates about the number of people killed by drone strikes carried out by the CIA vary. The Washington-based New America Foundation report has said there have been 350 US drone strikes since 2004, most of them during Barack Obama's presidency. The foundation has put the death toll at between 1,963 and 3,293, with 261 to 305 civilians killed. The London-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism estimates the death toll at between 2,627 and 3,457 in Pakistan since 2004. These include 475 to 900 civilians. The US Republican Senator Lindsay Graham said on February 20, 2013 that 4,700 people had been killed in drone strikes. He was unapologetic about the killings. "Sometimes you hit innocent people, and I hate that, but we're at war, and we've taken out some very senior members of al-Qaeda," Graham added, without naming which al-Qaeda members had been eliminated.
Washington uses assassination drones in several countries Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen and Somalia claiming that they target "terrorists." According to witnesses, however, the attacks have mostly led to civilian casualties. Jennifer Gibson, a staff lawyer with the British-based charity Reprieve asked: "how do you prove you're innocent after they have killed you?" The "excellent intelligence" the US cites for carrying out drone strikes is based on dubious information. Often, local informants that are given locator (targeting) chips to put near militants actually put them near the wall of the homes of those with whom they have family feuds. Sarah Holewinski, executive director of the Washington-based Center for Civilians in Conflict, has confirmed this in an interview. American officials as well as the CIA stubbornly deny any civilian casualties.
The Stanford Law School and New York University School of Law's comprehensive report on Pakistan, "Living Under Drones" has listed scores of family members of civilians killed in drone strikes. The UN Special Rapporteur Ben Emmerson, a British barrister, has launched an investigation into 25 cases of drone strikes and targeted killings. Emmerson's investigtion includes US, Israeli and British drone strikes in Pakistan, Gaza and Afghanistan. In March, Emmerson issued a damning report about extraordinary renditions, waterboarding and other forms of torture by US forces and called for war crimes trial of those officials responsible for authorizing such practices. In the case of drone strikes, Emmerson will examine Washington's "double tap" policy that attacks a target a second time, while rescuers and paramedics are working to save survivors. Such strikes deliberately target civilians and are categorized as murders.
Whether the US would be deterred by UN censure is debatable. After all, American officials know full well that they are involved in a murderous campaign in which killing civilians is part of a deliberate policy. Civilian casualties are not collateral damage, even though making such claims may mollify some Americans; they are an essential part of keeping the war going endlessly.
My curiosity got the better of me. I had to find out what the Crescent publication was: Wikipedis to the rescue: FYI
Quote:The Crescent (newspaper)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Crescent newspaper was re-launched in 2012 as an electronic web based newspaper initially published monthly for the pilot and subsequent issues and this was reduced to weekly every Friday thereafter . The tabloid 12 page format launched in 2003 failed due to the massive overheads of printing and distributing community based paper, it was decided to take advantage of the latest developments in e-publishing and re-launch the paper as an electronic web based publication.
The Crescent newspaper is an independent community based publication and encourages and promotes independent editorial comment and news content. It draws on communal journalistic resources in a broader sense if the definition from across the British Isles and Eire, but is not confined by the perceived definition of Community Journalism.
Contents
[hide] 1 History
2 2012 to present
3 Regular content and features
4 Sections
5 Target readership
6 Online presence
7 Ownership
8 Political allegiance
9 External links
10 The Crescent archives 1893-1908
11 References & Notes
History [edit]
1893 to 1908
The Crescent 1st edition
14 January 1893 vol. 1 no.1
The Crescent vol. 16 no.420
30 January 1901
The Crescent - a weekly record of Islam in England[1] was originally published weekly in Liverpool from 1893. As such, it can claim to be oldest and first regular publication reflecting and serving the early Convert[2] and Muslim community with in the British Isles, although it's readership quickly grew via subscription to a global community. The first edition was published on the 14th of January 1893 from 32 Elizabeth Street,[3] Liverpool, shortly before moving to Brougham Terrace. It was edited by W.H. Abdullah Quilliam and represented Muslims in England and growing convert community between 1893 and 1908.
A statement in The Crescent to its advertisers[4] declared that "in addition to the thousands of copies in circulation within the British Isles, in addition to which thousands of copies of the Paper are sent regularly abroad to subscribers in France, Spain, Switzerland, Constantinople, Smyrna, Syria, Turkey in Asia, Russia, Morocco, Tunis, Algeria, Malta, Egypt, Persia, Beluchistan, Ceylon, Arabia, the Cape Colony, the Transvaal, Zanzibar, Lagos, Gambia, Sierra Leone, the west Coast of Africa, Afghanistan, Penang, Singapore, China, British Guiana, Trinidad, Canada, the United States of America, and many parts of India, this forming a capital advertising medium". The advertising rate was stated as being 2s. 6d.[5] per inch per insertion.
After outgrowing the Muslim prayer hall established by Quilliam in Mount Vernon, Liverpool, in 1888 he rented 8 Brougham Terrace and also acquired the neighbouring properties, numbers 10 and 12 in 1889, and in the basement a Printing Press was established to produce the monthly editions of The Islamic World,[6] which was subscribed to globally. In 1893, it evolved into the weekly publication The Crescent - a weekly record of Islam in England.
Plans were announced for a purpose built mosque to be built to the design of J.H. McGovern[7] on the site of 10 and 12 Brougham Terrace, but did not materialise, any more that did those of 1902, for a mosque in the communities new centre at Geneva Road, Elm Park, Liverpool where The Crescent continued to be published until May 1908.
The Crescent newspaper is a fascinating social history of a growing Muslim Convert community. Such names appear regularly in the editorial as Yahya McQuinn, T. Omar Byrne, Fatima Cates, Yahya Nasser Parkinson, Nasrullah Warren, J. Bokhari Jeffery, Omar Roberts.
2012 to present [edit]
It was relaunched in the month of Shawwaal[8] 1433 (August/September 2012) by British Muslim converts residing in the UK as an on-line newspaper with the title 'The Crescent newspaper'.It is planned to publish the paper weekly on Friday's from the first Friday of the Muslim New Year in Muharrem[9] 1334 (Friday the 16th of November 2012)
Obama transforms mission as military struggles to remake itself
By Tom Curry, National Affairs Writer, NBC News
In two major speeches, President Obama sent strong signals this week about what he envisions for the military in a post-Sept. 11 era, a new path which can be described in a word: downsized.
President Barack Obama congratulates a graduate as another one celebrates at the United States Naval Academy graduation ceremony in Annapolis, Md., Friday, May 24, 2013.
The president said the United States will have stricter limits on drone attacks overseas and telegraphed a new emphasis on fighting terrorism, based more on focusing on targeted, isolated threats and less on an over-arching projection of force.
Just as the government's mission is changing, so is that of the U.S. military.
Both are shrinking in scale.
During Obama's four and a half years in White House, military spending has declined and the military active duty force has shrunk by about 29,000. American soldiers and Marines are no longer engaged in combat in Iraq and in Afghanistan their presence will soon dwindle to a residual force. "A perpetual war -- through drones or Special Forces or troop deployments -- will prove self-defeating," the president said in a speech Thursday at the National Defense University in Washington.
This weekend some who died in those conflicts will be commemorated at Arlington National Cemetery and other cemeteries across the nation.
While saying that "our nation is still threatened by terrorists," Obama contended that "we have to recognize that the scale of this threat closely resembles the types of attacks we faced before 9/11."
As Obama has shown by his aversion to any involvement in the Syrian civil war and by his tightly calibrated "lead from behind" strategy to support the overthrow of Moammar Gaddafi in Libya, he's determined to not be the president that leads America into another traditional ground combat war.
Saying America has reached a "crossroads," President Obama laid out clearer, more narrow guidelines for deadly drone strikes. NBC's Peter Alexander reports.
In his speech Thursday he warned that "putting boots on the ground" in Syria or elsewhere would lead to "more U.S. deaths, more Black Hawks down… and an inevitable mission creep in support of such raids that could easily escalate into new wars."
Obama's risk aversion contrasts with a leading Democrat of the Clinton administration, Madeleine Albright. In 1993 Albright, then the U.S. envoy to the United Nations, urged intervention in the Balkans war, challenging the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (and Vietnam War veteran) Gen. Colin Powell: ''What's the point of having this superb military you're always talking about if we can't use it?''
Obama reminds Americans of the costs of war especially measured in the things that military outlays might have purchased -- lamenting that the dollars spent in Iraq and Afghanistan limited "our ability to nation-build here at home. "
He cautioned Thursday that "unless we discipline our thinking, our definitions, our actions, we may be drawn into more wars we don't need to fight…."
Yet in some ways, while some of the threats to the nation are new, the U.S. military in the Obama era remains much as it was in the Bush or Clinton eras. In an era of lone-wolf terrorists and suicidal jihadists, the United States is still equipped for an old-style war against nation-states on sea or on land.
Even with the sequester cutting about 8 percent in available funds for the Pentagon this year, military outlays will amount to about 18 percent of all federal outlays.
According to the London-based think tank the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), the U.S. defense budget "still equals that of the next 14 nations combined."
While he is looking forward to an era when American soldiers won't be in combat, Obama still committed to expensive investments in weapons and hardware.
In his speech to the class of 2013 at the Naval Academy Friday, Obama promised "a shipbuilding plan that puts us on track to achieve a 300-ship fleet" over the next 30 years, "with capabilities that exceed the power of the next dozen navies combined."
In his commencement address at the United States Naval Academy, President Obama touched upon the growing military sexual assault cases, telling graduates, "We have to be determined to stop these crimes. They've got no place in the greatest military on earth."
And then there's the cost of the hardware purchased over the past ten years.
One telling example of maintenance cost was supplied at a hearing Wednesday of the Senate Appropriations Committee's subcommittee on defense.
The MRAP is a heavy Army vehicle developed in a crash program in 2007 to help prevent the deaths and mayhem caused by improvised explosive devices in Iraq. Each MRAP costs up to $1 million.
Army Chief of Staff Gen. Raymond Odierno told the Senate subcommittee that "we have 21,000 MRAPs today in our inventory," but only 4,000 will be deployed with active Army units. Another 4,000 will be held reserve "in case we need them for other contingencies." That leaves an excess of 13,000 vehicles.
"We can't afford to sustain 21,000 MRAPs because it would be in addition to all the other equipment that we have to sustain," Odierno told the senators. "We think by keeping 8,000 of them, we can fund that, we can sustain that."
At the same time as taxpayers pay for maintaining MRAPS and building ships, Obama presides over the military health care and retirement system, one of the largest social welfare organizations in the world.
As long ago as 2008, then Secretary of Defense Robert Gates warned Congress that "health care is eating us alive. Our health care budget in 2001 was $19 billion; our request this year is for almost $43 billion." And Gates noted in that testimony that in a few years, nearly two-thirds of Pentagon health care expenditures would be for military retirees, not for the active or reserve force.
The cost pressure comes not just from health care: the Congressional Budget Office recently reported that spending for military retirement pay and survivors' annuities will rise by more than 30 percent over the next decade even though the number of military retirees and their survivors will remain flat over that period. Most of the growth will occur because benefits are adjusted for inflation.
Even without "perpetual war," there will be long-term costs to maintaining a large military.
Quote:Memorial Day weekend. Makes me ill. Here's to all the idiots who "faught the good fight".
Dawn
What are you saying?Please,do not call those who have fought and died idiots!These people could have been your father,uncle,or good friends.And,If that was the case,I would guarranty,you would not be calling them idiots,you would be laying flowers at their grave today.....
Peace Out..
Sorry that is not a nice word and of course I have sympathy for them. My father was in World War two for MANY years and it destroyed his life. I have represented many former Viet Nam vets, all were a mess. Homeless drugged out and suffering from severe PTSD.
I am sorry but I have strong feelings against war and have had these views all my life. I have a hard time understanding how they convince people to go fight wars that are never about what the boys are told.
Anyone remember the folk singer Michael Clooney (I think that was his name, about 1968) who did a great anti war song about the bankers and business men going into the army.
