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
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)How the NSA Helps the US Assassinate (Greenwald / Scahill) [View all]

Greenwald/Scahill: How the NSA Helps the US Assassinate
In their first piece written for their new media venture, journalist duo reveal shocking interplay between digital surveillance and Obama's assassination program
- Jon Queally, staff writer
Published on Monday, February 10, 2014 by Common Dreams
In the first investigative piece co-written for their new media venture, journalists Glenn Greenwald and Jeremy Scahill on Monday published a much-anticipated storybased on eye-witness accounts and leaked documents from whistleblower Edward Snowdendescribing how the National Security Agency uses its digital surveillance capabilities to assist the CIA and Pentagon as they carrying out controversial overseas assassinations ordered by President Obama.
Published under the masthead of 'The Intercept' at their new First Look website, Greenwald and Scahill report:
The National Security Agency is using complex analysis of electronic surveillance, rather than human intelligence, as the primary method to locate targets for lethal drone strikes an unreliable tactic that results in the deaths of innocent or unidentified people.
According to a former drone operator for the militarys Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) who also worked with the NSA, the agency often identifies targets based on controversial metadata analysis and cell-phone tracking technologies. Rather than confirming a targets identity with operatives or informants on the ground, the CIA or the U.S. military then orders a strike based on the activity and location of the mobile phone a person is believed to be using.
The drone operator, who agreed to discuss the top-secret programs on the condition of anonymity, was a member of JSOCs High Value Targeting task force, which is charged with identifying, capturing or killing terrorist suspects in Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan and elsewhere.
His account is bolstered by top-secret NSA documents previously provided by whistleblower Edward Snowden. It is also supported by a former drone sensor operator with the U.S. Air Force, Brandon Bryant, who has become an outspoken critic of the lethal operations in which he was directly involved in Iraq, Afghanistan and Yemen.
The explosive story about the relationship between the NSA, CIA, JSOC, and the White Houes which executes individuals abroadincluding American citizenswas first mentioned by Scahill in Septembt of last year when he announced discussions between himself, Greenwald, and eBay co-founder Pierre Omidyar to launch their own journalistic enterprise.
Appearing to fulfill their goal of providing a more adversarial form of journalism than their mainstream counterparts, the NSA refused to respond to questions posed by Scahill and Greenwald for their investigation. However, Caitlin Hayden, a spokesperson for the National Security Council, did release a statement explaining the government's position that the type of operational detail that" upon which their questions were based "in our view, should not be published.
Read the entire First Look story here.
Strikingly, on the same day as the Scahill/Greenwald article was published, an Associated Press storyciting numerous "unnamed" U.S. officialsposited as a dilemma the White House's pending decision to possibly assassinate an American citizen living overseas who the government accuses of being a member of al-Qaeda.
In contrast to not speaking with Greenwald and Scahill, the government officialshiding behind provided anonymityseemed very willing to give away lots of potentially telling information about the alleged U.S. target.
According to AP:
Four U.S. officials said the American suspected terrorist is in a country that refuses U.S. military action on its soil and that has proved unable to go after him. And President Barack Obama's new policy says American suspected terrorists overseas can only be killed by the military, not the CIA, creating a policy conundrum for the White House.
Two of the officials described the man as an al-Qaida facilitator who has been directly responsible for deadly attacks against U.S. citizens overseas and who continues to plan attacks against them that would use improvised explosive devices.
But one U.S. official said the Defense Department was divided over whether the man is dangerous enough to merit the potential domestic fallout of killing an American without charging him with a crime or trying him, and the potential international fallout of such an operation in a country that has been resistant to U.S. action.
Another of the U.S. officials said the Pentagon did ultimately decide to recommend lethal action.
The officials said the suspected terrorist is well-guarded and in a fairly remote location, so any unilateral attempt by U.S. troops to capture him would be risky and even more politically explosive than a U.S. missile strike.
Under new guidelines Obama addressed in a speech last year to calm anger overseas at the extent of the U.S. drone campaign, lethal force must only be used "to prevent or stop attacks against U.S. persons, and even then, only when capture is not feasible and no other reasonable alternatives exist to address the threat effectively." The target must also pose "a continuing, imminent threat to U.S. persons" the legal definition of catching someone in the act of plotting a lethal attack.
The Associated Press has agreed to the government's request to withhold the name of the country where the suspected terrorist is believed to be because officials said publishing it could interrupt ongoing counterterror operations.
The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the classified drone targeting program publicly.
SOURCE w/more links: http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2014/02/10-0
Dear Forum Hosts: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
304 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Did some folks really not know that intelligence efforts help direct military action when it occurs?
stevenleser
Feb 2014
#1
If you're going to call war "assassination", that happened back when the party was founded
ConservativeDemocrat
Feb 2014
#92
Is the drones program secret? I think its one of the most heavily debated policy items.
stevenleser
Feb 2014
#10
Don't tell me, let me guess. You would have been in favor of letting the NAZIs do whatever they want
ConservativeDemocrat
Feb 2014
#93
There's a new book, just published, with all kinds of details about Operation Paperclip
Electric Monk
Feb 2014
#121
So "ridiculous" you can't manage to explain why they are not identical situations...
ConservativeDemocrat
Feb 2014
#179
Isn't it interesting that some people around here tell us metadata isn't really an invasion...
stillwaiting
Feb 2014
#206
It really isn't about terrorism at all. Other than the terror carried out during the strikes.
reusrename
Feb 2014
#219
Thanks to real journalists, like Jeremy Scahill it is no longer a secret. They sure worked hard to
sabrina 1
Feb 2014
#31
It was never a secret. No supposed journalistic superheroes were necessary. nt
stevenleser
Feb 2014
#47
For the doubters about the reason behind the phone call records, here they can read
Thinkingabout
Feb 2014
#83
The goal of wholesale surveillance, as Arendt wrote in ''The Origins of Totalitarianism''...
Octafish
Feb 2014
#128
This what these writers have written, do we ignore what Greenwald has now stated?
Thinkingabout
Feb 2014
#160
We're not supposed to notice hypocrisy like that from Greenwald, and I'm sure they will consider you
stevenleser
Feb 2014
#279
You may be right, nothing new, known much befire 2013 but some just seem to be learning
Thinkingabout
Feb 2014
#238
Thanks to world renowned and respected Journalists, like Jeremy Schahill, the Secret Drone program
sabrina 1
Feb 2014
#85
NY Times mentioned Combat drone use in Afghanistan in October 2001 WAY before Scahill
stevenleser
Feb 2014
#283
It's sad that supposed Democrats would condone drone murders. We are not at war. But some
rhett o rick
Feb 2014
#186
No, we didnt. There have been tons of NY Times articles on the subject since 2001.
stevenleser
Feb 2014
#284
It may not be secret but it certainly is not one of the most heavily debated policy items
cali
Feb 2014
#58
Its obvious that it is. All one has to do is put the word "Drones" in a google search. 11.7 million
stevenleser
Feb 2014
#262
LINCOLN WAS SHOT IN A THEATRE! BY AN ASSASSIN! Should fit in good with your show.
Autumn
Feb 2014
#6
Did people know that the Military has replaced Due Process regarding killing American Citizens,
sabrina 1
Feb 2014
#22
It's lovely that you want to give your opinion on something else, but that is not what I asked.
stevenleser
Feb 2014
#24
Lol, well if you can give your opinion I don't see why you would object to getting a response to
sabrina 1
Feb 2014
#35
If everyone did that, there would be no point to trying to discuss anything. That is why hijacking
stevenleser
Feb 2014
#42
Amazing, isn't it? Whenever someone reduces themselves to name calling, I have always
sabrina 1
Feb 2014
#91
The topic of my thread was, "Did people not know that the military and intel work together to...
stevenleser
Feb 2014
#263
Yes, as soon as I responded, I started a thread. An OP is not the same thing as a thread. nt
stevenleser
Feb 2014
#281
You hijacked the OP, and than tried to accuse others who brought the topic BACK on topic
sabrina 1
Feb 2014
#294
Yes, I know, threadjacking is funny when you support the goals of the threadjacker.
stevenleser
Feb 2014
#264
The issue is not that the military works with the intelligence community when it plans its strikes.
Maedhros
Feb 2014
#94
Yes, actually, that is the entire point of the OP. This is supposedly a big reveal.
stevenleser
Feb 2014
#268
Do you know what it's called when someone tries to lead an argument using questions? Look
rhett o rick
Feb 2014
#187
You're right but c'mon...let them at least think you didn't thoroughly debunk that point.
great white snark
Feb 2014
#300
Then you should probably avoid commenting and continue asking questions instead.
reusrename
Feb 2014
#233
It's not intelligence when you kill civilians and create more terrorists, duh.
grahamhgreen
Feb 2014
#148
ODS is defending these egregious violation of our Constitution that all these elected officials
sabrina 1
Feb 2014
#25
Well, thank you. But one only needs to be a first grader to, and I know a few, to understand the
sabrina 1
Feb 2014
#161
At least one of our DU attorneys has weighed in and said that this is already congressionally
stevenleser
Feb 2014
#11
right you are, the backers of these policies arent going to skimp on procedure
reddread
Feb 2014
#115
So, if it's OK for NSA to disregard Bill of Rights, it's OK for the president to kill who he wants.
Octafish
Feb 2014
#16
Those terms and amendments and rights have specific meanings judged by appellate courts and the
stevenleser
Feb 2014
#20
So your attempt at a point is that because an appellate court or the SCOTUS has made mistakes
stevenleser
Feb 2014
#40
Not really. Arecent court questioned the constitutionality of NSA surveillance programs and SCOTUS
Vattel
Feb 2014
#191
I'm still waiting for Sanders, Warren, or heck..even Paul to submit a repeal of the AUMF of 9/18/01.
msanthrope
Feb 2014
#67
Sigh....let me explain this...again. The constitutional basis for drones derives from the AUMF of
msanthrope
Feb 2014
#78
PA primarily, 3rd circuit. Am barred in other jurisdictions that I do not currently
msanthrope
Feb 2014
#109
You haven't studied or practiced law. That's why it doesnt make sense to you.
stevenleser
Feb 2014
#267
I have several. IT and Journalism are just two. You still aren't a lawyer. nt
stevenleser
Feb 2014
#272
That isn't really the case at all, is it. The AUMF is about the twin towers. Right?
reusrename
Feb 2014
#201
No...it really is the case. The AUMF of 9/18/01 empowered the President to pursue those
msanthrope
Feb 2014
#207
Um, no. And why would persons contemplated under the AUMF be charged in an Article III court while
msanthrope
Feb 2014
#229
You are saying that we are only killing folks who have already been identified.
reusrename
Feb 2014
#234
Um, no. I'm saying we are targeting people already identified. As for how the
msanthrope
Feb 2014
#235
I think we are talking at cross purposes here...why not ask me specific questions about specific
msanthrope
Feb 2014
#239
The specific people that the authorization specifically authorized for killing...
reusrename
Feb 2014
#240
Wait...are you suggesting that a specific person must be targeted by an AUMF? That's a crapload
msanthrope
Feb 2014
#243
AlQaeda and it's affiliates. Thus, we had a seperate AUMF for Iraq. Currently,
msanthrope
Feb 2014
#301
Yes. You are correct. All three branches of government have confirmed that persons
msanthrope
Feb 2014
#304
So you supported all of Bush's policies, then. All of them were Congressionally authorized. Thanks,
sabrina 1
Feb 2014
#26
Iraq war conditions were not met, torture was not approved, warrantless wiretapping, etc.
stevenleser
Feb 2014
#44
Really? Then why has no one been prosecuted for what, if they eg, lied us into war, would be major
sabrina 1
Feb 2014
#55
How about some lawyers who actually know what they are talking about re the US Constitution:
sabrina 1
Feb 2014
#163
You can ask the person who posted that directly. They are the attorney. nt
stevenleser
Feb 2014
#261
I don't ask for facts from internet 'experts'. We have plenty of actual experts
sabrina 1
Feb 2014
#270
I know msanthrope in real life. She is an attorney, and you have no right to slander her. nt
stevenleser
Feb 2014
#273
I don't know either of you in RL so to me you are merely strangers on the internet and you have some
sabrina 1
Feb 2014
#302
What happens when a cop sees someone pointing a gun at someone and has no recourse but to shoot?
randome
Feb 2014
#29
Apparently with Ibrahaim Al- Banna, the strike target. Although reports vary...it seems the strike
msanthrope
Feb 2014
#69
Which Droned US Citizen was sending Mushroom Clouds our way? And how many bystanders do cops
sabrina 1
Feb 2014
#50
I don't base my opinions on 'what ifs', I base them on facts. 'Supposing there really were
sabrina 1
Feb 2014
#95
I didn't create much of a scenario. It's entirely plausible based on the guidelines in place.
randome
Feb 2014
#101
Well, you just stated the problem right there. We KNOW there are dead people, bodies, men, women and
sabrina 1
Feb 2014
#169
False dichotomy fail. How bout we leave them alone and stop creating terror and horror.
grahamhgreen
Feb 2014
#154
Boots on the ground? Why would we have 'boots anywhere' unless we are being invaded with actual
sabrina 1
Feb 2014
#220
I would think many of the operations prevented have not been directed at the U.S.
randome
Feb 2014
#111
Our assumption that we are the world's police force, and that we can bust in anyone's door
Maedhros
Feb 2014
#117
War is very profitable for a select group of 'contractors'. To justify war we need an 'enemy'.
sabrina 1
Feb 2014
#222
Agree. But when it happens by accident, do we condemn the person who pulled the trigger?
randome
Feb 2014
#89
If the trigger was pulled on purpose, and the target was unclear, and there may be innocents
grahamhgreen
Feb 2014
#141
Nobody is able to adequately explain how the people we are blowing up with drones
Maedhros
Feb 2014
#97
I doubt that killing a few hundred people will do ANYTHING for corporate profit.
randome
Feb 2014
#104
Unless they are activists interfering with say, privatizing nationalized oil.
grahamhgreen
Feb 2014
#205
Remember "US persons" means US corporations! So a threat to corporate interests might get you the
grahamhgreen
Feb 2014
#204
Pro government assassin shills will now proceed to place Jeremy Scahill under the bus.
L0oniX
Feb 2014
#30
Things have changed here for the worse but in the outside real world, most folks are becoming more
xiamiam
Feb 2014
#147
So, some dudes in a cave in Afghanistan caused all this and 9/11 too???
blkmusclmachine
Feb 2014
#32
Amazing, wot? Here's the guy that's really made out like a bandit. Heh heh heh.
Octafish
Feb 2014
#166
for the public record, link to WSWS on Democratic support for Bush spy powers
grasswire
Feb 2014
#236
You know who got the Military Industrial Complex started down the counter-terrorism road?
Octafish
Feb 2014
#79
As you know, there is ample reason to believe the NSA's data collection is illegal.
Maedhros
Feb 2014
#173
The NSA is evidence that the terrorists have won ...and some people are fine with that.
L0oniX
Feb 2014
#194
LOL! Is that why you announced: "Bureau of Investigative Journalism wrote about it a week ago."
ProSense
Feb 2014
#132
When you post so much that's irrelevant, it's easy to miss the most important part.
Octafish
Feb 2014
#137
Obama didn't kill any people in Pakistan for a whole month?! Give that man a peace prize.
DesMoinesDem
Feb 2014
#108
You made me follow a link to your post which linked to your post which had no link to the source.
DesMoinesDem
Feb 2014
#118
That's your reply? You're right, I should just ignore your links and quotes like everyone else.
DesMoinesDem
Feb 2014
#133
Guess this is news to some but more proof the use of phone call records are being used for
Thinkingabout
Feb 2014
#113
The goal of wholesale surveillance to have info ready when time to arrest a certain population.
Octafish
Feb 2014
#153
This may have been written as a goal except Greenwald has furnished more information
Thinkingabout
Feb 2014
#159
No. They locate phones that may or may not be in the possession of a terrorist.
Luminous Animal
Feb 2014
#175
a story on RT claims the Obama admin is now contemplating the murder of another US citizen...
wildbilln864
Feb 2014
#152
Anyone who thinks this is a big reveal has really exposed themselves as one of two things...
stevenleser
Feb 2014
#271