Inside Obama's kill list

[Bilge_Rat]

Article in Der Spiegel on the NATO drone kill lists used in Afghanistan. This is based on an analysis of secret NATO documents.

A bit shocking to see that instead of being names of carefully investigated "terrorists" as the White House has often alluded to, the lists cast a very wide net.

being a deserter was enough to have a death sentence:

The case of an Afghan soldier named Hussein, number 3,341 on the list, shows how coldly NATO sometimes treated the lives of suspects. According to the documents, Hussein was suspected of involvement in an attack on ISAF forces in Helmand. A corporal in the Afghan army, he had allegedly deserted and was now on the run, presumably to join the Taliban.

NATO officials placed him on the list in the summer of 2010, as one of 669 individuals at the time. He was given the code name "Rumble" and assigned to priority level 2.

Just having the wrong phone could trigger a strike:

The documents suggest that sometimes locating a mobile phone was all it took to set the military machinery in motion. The search for the Taliban phone signals was "central to the success of operations," states a secret British report from October 2010.

As one document states, Predator drones and Eurofighter jets equipped with sensors were constantly searching for the radio signals from known telephone numbers tied to the Taliban. The hunt began as soon as the mobile phones were switched on.

civilian casualties were considered acceptable "collateral damage". Note also how the definition of "civilians" was deliberetaly curtailed.

When an operation could potentially result in civilian casualties, ISAF headquarters in Kabul had to be involved. "The rule of thumb was that when there was estimated collateral damage of up to 10 civilians, the ISAF commander in Kabul was to decide whether the risk was justifiable," says an ISAF officer who worked with the lists for years. If more potential civilian casualties were anticipated, the decision was left up to the relevant NATO headquarters office. Bodyguards, drivers and male attendants were viewed as enemy combatants, whether or not they actually were. Only women, children and the elderly were treated as civilians.

the procedure to "identify" a target was also a bit vague:

The document also reveals how vague the basis for deadly operations apparently was. In the voice recognition procedure, it was sufficient if a suspect identified himself by name once during the monitored conversation. Within the next 24 hours, this voice recognition was treated as "positive target identification" and, therefore, as legitimate grounds for an airstrike. This greatly increased the risk of civilian casualties.

Drug dealers, farmers and couriers were also considered to be legitimate targets, whether they had any connection or not to the Taliban:

According to the NSA document, in October 2008 the NATO defense ministers made the momentous decision that drug networks would now be "legitimate targets" for ISAF troops. "Narcotics traffickers were added to the Joint Prioritized Effects List (JPEL) list for the first time," the report reads.

In the opinion of American commanders like Bantz John Craddock, there was no need to prove that drug money was being funneled to the Taliban to declare farmers, couriers and dealers as legitimate targets of NATO strikes.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...a-1010358.html

[Jeff-Groves]

In before the normal GTA Downwards Spiral.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Jeff-Groves

In before the normal GTA Downwards Spiral.

Actually I think you just started it.

[Jeff-Groves]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Actually I think you just started it.

Bout time I'm first at something!!

[Skybird]

"Hussein was suspected of involvement in an attack on ISAF forces in Helmand."

No problem to go after him if that is true.

"Predator drones and Eurofighter jets equipped with sensors were constantly searching for the radio signals from known telephone numbers tied to the Taliban. The hunt began as soon as the mobile phones were switched on. "

Sure you do like that if the phone is associated by intel with a known enemy person, communication network, headquarter.

"When an operation could potentially result in civilian casualties, ISAF headquarters in Kabul had to be involved. "The rule of thumb was that when there was estimated collateral damage of up to 10 civilians, the ISAF commander in Kabul was to decide whether the risk was justifiable," says an ISAF officer who worked with the lists for years. If more potential civilian casualties were anticipated, the decision was left up to the relevant NATO headquarters office. Bodyguards, drivers and male attendants were viewed as enemy combatants, whether or not they actually were. Only women, children and the elderly were treated as civilians."

Bodyguards are hostile combatants for sure, drivers often , too. At one point you have to deice whether you try to fight the enemy wo win the war, or let the enemy win by taking more care for not doing anything wrong. War is dirty, and unfair. I said that often. I also said: let not come bystanders come between you and the killing of your target/enemy.

Even women could be combatants. Yesterday a female suicide bomber blew a Turkish police station into pieces. The Hamas sends children with explosive vests.

"The document also reveals how vague the basis for deadly operations apparently was. In the voice recognition procedure, it was sufficient if a suspect identified himself by name once during the monitored conversation. Within the next 24 hours, this voice recognition was treated as "positive target identification" and, therefore, as legitimate grounds for an airstrike. This greatly increased the risk of civilian casualties. "

As long as there is no well-founded doubt on the name given being wrong, it cannot be questioned in principle.

"Drug dealers, farmers and couriers were also considered valid targets."

Of course they are - their product is one of the basis for financing the Taliban, also, afghaniostan is one of the biggest drug producer worldwide, sending that stuff into your countries. In 2006 I had written a long essay on the background of farmers turning towards poppy cultivation again, so I am aware of some of the existential needs farmers may be driven by. And still - it is at our cost, and the lives of our consumers.

Make the Taliban/IS/AQ and other terrost factions accept and fight by the rules of the Hague land warfare convention so that they do not fight by intentionally melting into the civilian environment to provoke civilian casualties they could use for propaganda, and you might get a slioghtly less unfair, injust, dirty war. But fighting them as the law-less tgerrir7usts that they are, will need you either accepting to make your hands dirty, or fighting by their rules so that they will win.

Want a nicer war: make the enemy fighting it nicer, too. Reciprocity. Best it would be if the enemy could be convinced to line himself up against the wall so that he can be comfortably mowed down in a civilised manner. That way our victors also could be back at home right in time for dinner.

[Jeff-Groves]

Besides. It's not Obama's kill list. It's the Illuminates.

[Herr-Berbunch]

Anybody surprised at any of this?

I think the only certainty they check for (now) is - where is the nearest embassy?

[Bilge_Rat]

my point of view is as follows:

First, you have the hypocrisy of Democrats who bash on Republicans for the EIT program while they carry on a WW2 style terror bombing campaign against anyone loosely related to the Taliban.

Second, you have the outright lying about carrying on a hi-tech "James Bond" style targeting killing of "Bad Guys" when it turns out to be just a variation of a WW2 style terror bombing campaign married with the "kill ratio" concept from the Vietnam War.

Third, you have the insanity (or incompetence) of thinking that this sort of indiscriminate terror campaign will actually work when it never has in the past.

no wonder the Taliban is poised to regain power.

p.s. - no I am not surprised by any of this. I am sure the Israeli program is similar.

[Wolferz]

That which you hate the most you become.

Is there really any difference between a terrorist suicide bomber with a bomb strapped to his chest and a NATO Drone pilot other than the pilot goes home for dinner after setting off his explosives?

[Cybermat47]

Originally Posted by Wolferz

Is there really any difference between a terrorist suicide bomber with a bomb strapped to his chest and a NATO Drone pilot other than the pilot goes home for dinner after setting off his explosives?

The Drone pilot isn't targeting the civilians, rather the terrorists near them.

But I doubt that's much comfort to the civilians who end up as 'collateral damage'.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Wolferz

Is there really any difference between a terrorist suicide bomber with a bomb strapped to his chest and a NATO Drone pilot other than the pilot goes home for dinner after setting off his explosives?

Hard to believe I really just have read that.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Herr-Berbunch

Anybody surprised at any of this?

I think the only certainty they check for (now) is - where is the nearest embassy?

Yeah most likely

[Mr Quatro]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

Drug dealers, farmers and couriers were also considered to be legitimate targets, whether they had any connection or not to the Taliban:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...a-1010358.html

According to the NSA document, in October 2008 the NATO defense ministers made the momentous decision that drug networks would now be "legitimate targets" for ISAF troops. "Narcotics traffickers were added to the Joint Prioritized Effects List (JPEL) list for the first time," the report reads.

In the opinion of American commanders like Bantz John Craddock, there was no need to prove that drug money was being funneled to the Taliban to declare farmers, couriers and dealers as legitimate targets of NATO strikes.

Plenty of reasons to make them targets

http://www.drugfreeworld.org/drugfac...tatistics.html

• An estimated 13.5 million people in the world take opioids (opium-like substances), including 9.2 million who use heroin.

• In 2007, 93% of the world’s opium supply came from Afghanistan. (Opium is the raw material for heroin supply.) Its total export value was about $4 billion, of which almost three quarters went to traffickers. About a quarter went to Afghan opium farmers.

In other words the deadly drug dealers have twice the budget of the DEA's

http://www.dea.gov/docs/factsheet.pdf

Budget: DEA’s annual budget is $2.87 billion for FY 2014.

Domestic Offices: DEA has 222 offices organized in 21 divisions throughout the United States and works closely with state and local partners to investigate and prosecute violators of our drug laws and those who facilitate them.

International Presence: DEA has 86 offices in 67 coun-tries around the world. Among government
agencies, DEA has sole responsibility for coordinating and pursuing drug investigations abroad and works in
partnership with foreign law enforcement counterparts

.

[Wolferz]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Hard to believe I really just have read that.

Well, try increasing your grip on reality.

At the end of the day...
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

It's all symantics of the propaganda speaker after all.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Wolferz

Well, try increasing your grip on reality.

At the end of the day...
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

It's all symantics of the propaganda speaker after all.

Maybe I should wish you to become a victim of a brutal criminal and the police refusing to come to your rescue, to avoid being labelled as being criminal itself.

I think being a victim yourself will tremendously help you to see the difference between your attacker and the one willing to help and in the future protect you.