Obama: Drones Used on Americans Identified as National Security Threat

Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
May 24, 2013

President Obama spoke at the National Defense University wherein he defended his use of targeted killings of American citizens using drones. When an American citizen is identified as a national security threat, Obama said his citizenship “should no more serve as a shield” than a sniper who would use a small child for protection against a SWAT team.
Prior to Obama’s speech, Attorney General Eric Holder pointed out : “Based on generations-old legal principles and Supreme Court decisions handed down during World War II, as well as during the current conflict, it is clear and logical that United States citizenship alone does not make such individuals immune from being targeted.”

The speech was marketed as a clarification on the Obama administration’s new foreign policy. He mentioned that he supports the freedom of the press.

Obama said : “Neither I, nor any president, can promise the total defeat of terror. What we can do – what we must do – is dismantle networks that pose a direct danger, and make it less likely for new groups to gain a foothold, all while maintaining the freedoms and ideals that we defend.”

The president claimed that the US is safer because of the efforts of his administration. Obama asserted: “From our use of drones to the detention of terrorist suspects, the decisions we are making will define the type of nation and world that we leave to our children. So America is at a crossroads. We must define the nature and scope of this struggle, or else it will define us.”

Initially, Obama was expected to declare more limitations on drone use; however he emphasized that targeted assassinations of Americans who were deemed a significant threat was legal and warranted.

Obama pointed out that this new national defense strategy could create “new enemies” which would “lead a president and his team to view drone strikes as a cure-all for terrorism.”

Potential targets for Obama’s new drone program could be “those who want to kill us” or “terrorists who pose a continuing and imminent threat” to “all potential terrorist targets.”

Christopher Swift, legal expert of national security at Georgetown University explained: “The standard for the use of force appears to be narrowing because they’ve introduced the standard of imminent and continuing. Imminent means that the threat poses clear, credible and immediate risk of violence.”

Jay Carney, press secretary for the Obama administration, commented before the speech that “it is [Obama’s] belief that there need to be structures in place that remain in place for successive administrations.”

Carney explained that the counter-terrorism policy is “conducted in a way that ensures that we’re keeping with our traditions and our laws.”

Obama signed a presidential policy guidance that empowered the Department of Defense (DoD) to oversee drone use while removing that position from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

Imbuing a higher standard of authorization for targeted killings using aerial unmanned vehicles are now a military operation. This would necessitate the development of a secret court to approve drone strikes.

Effectively, done strikes in America will be limited to al-Qaeda linked or associated groups who are defined as targets; while respecting state sovereignty. The argument in the mainstream media (MSM) is that the change in drone strike policy stems from the use of the word “imminent” as opposed to “significant” when it comes to justification for targeted assassinations.

Should the terrorist prove unable to be apprehended, the DoD would be legally allowed to launch a strike using drones to eliminate the target.

Ahead of Obama’s speech, a White House official said: “This war, like all American wars, must come to an end. He rejects the notion of a global war on terrorism, which is an amorphous definition that applies to a tactic,” the official added. “Rather than fighting a global war on terrorism, [Obama is] focused effort against a very specific network of violent extremists that threaten the United States.”

Use of drone strikes against extremists in Middle Eastern countries has increased, drawing attention from human rights groups and activists.

Dixson Osburn, director of Human Rights First (HRF) commented : “On its own, it is not clear that taking things away from the CIA makes a difference – the special operations command at the Pentagon is also secret – but at least the military are schooled in the rules of war. It looks like Obama is trying to return his counter-terrorism strategy to something that operates within the law. We want to know what that legal framework is though.”

Obama called upon Congress to lift restrictions on the transfer of terrorist suspects detained at Guantanamo. The DoD would be directed to hold military tribunals to try and convict these detainees to justify their detainment.

Obama said: “Today, I once again call on Congress to lift the restrictions on detainee transfers from GTMO. I have asked the Department of Defense to designate a site in the United States where we can hold military commissions. I am appointing a new, senior envoy at the State Department and Defense Department whose sole responsibility will be to achieve the transfer of detainees to third countries. I am lifting the moratorium on detainee transfers to Yemen, so we can review them on a case by case basis. To the greatest extent possible, we will transfer detainees who have been cleared to go to other countries. Where appropriate, we will bring terrorists to justice in our courts and military justice system. And we will insist that judicial review be available for every detainee.”

http://www.occupycorporatism.com/obama-drones-used-on-americans-ide...