CIA Refuses to Confirm or Deny Drone Attacks Obama Brags About

[The Northerner]

The Central Intelligence Agency continues to refuse to confirm or deny the covert military use of drones to kill suspected terrorists overseas, despite President Barack Obama’s and even a former CIA director’s admission of the agency’s targeted killing program.

Despite numerous public comments on the CIA’s drone attacks in far-flung locales such as Yemen from various government officials, including former CIA Director Leon Panetta and President Obama, the CIA is taking the position in court that it would have to eliminate you with one of its drones if it acknowledged the program.

So on Wednesday, the American Civil Liberties Union asked a federal appeals court to expedite a hearing (.pdf) on its Freedom of Information Act request seeking details of the drone program. Hours later, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit set a September 20 oral argument. (.pdf)

The development comes as 26 members of Congress asked Obama, in a letter, to consider the consequences of drone killing and to explain the necessity of the program. The use of drones to shoot missiles from afar at vehicles and buildings that the nation’s intelligence agencies believe are being used by suspected terrorists began under the Bush administration and was widened by Obama to allow the targeting of American citizens. Drone strikes by the Pentagon and the CIA have sparked backlashes from foreign governments and populations, as the strikes often kill civilians, including women and children.

The FOIA litigation, meanwhile, dates to 2010, when the ACLU sued in federal court seeking records concerning the legal basis for carrying out targeted drone killings; any restrictions on those who may be targeted; any civilian casualties; any geographic limits on the program; the number of targeted killings that the agency has carried out; and the training, supervision, oversight, or discipline of drone operators.

Read more: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/06/cia-confirm-deny-drones/

[pnwmom]

1. How does "admission" turn into "brags about"?

[monmouth]

2. Typical of this poster..n/t

[kelly1mm]

4. That is the title of the linked article. Per DU rules, the title of the linked article goes in

as is.

[grantcart]

6. that's a rule for LBN only. In GD you write your own titles regardless of what you are linking.

If you felt compelled to include a verbatim title you could attach"" over any words you found questionable.

In any forum you can put a statement indicating that you find the article, headline or both objectionable.

[kelly1mm]

7. OK - thanks for the correction. However, I don't see a problem with a verbatim attachment

of the title of the linked artice, even in GD. This OP was alerted on and the jury agreed 4-2 to leave it.

[grantcart]

8. The jury didn't rule on the accuracy of the use of the words, only that they weren't rude or

disruptive.

The President wasn't bragging and the headline is patently wrong.

More to the point the idea that this man, one of the most civil to reach high office is arrogant and bragadocio is a right wing meme and in my mind fits the 'uppity negro' mantra of Fox News.

Disagree with his policy. Fine. Ascribe offensive charachteristics to him that are without foundation, racist in their roots.

[notadmblnd]

3. Brag? An admission is not a brag.

How do you get brag out of it?

[kelly1mm]

5. That is the title of the linked article, not the OP's editorial comment. nt