-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger
In a 2007 report, entitled Underlying Reasons for Success and Failure of Terrorist Attacks (pdf) and prepared for Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Directorate by Homeland Security Institute (and recently scrubbed from their web site, here) notes: “a favorite tactic of Hamas, the “double tap;” a device is set off, and when police and other first responders arrive, a second, larger device is set off to inflict more casualties and spread panic.”
It has been documented that this terrorist tactic has been embraced by President Obama.
Obama has adopted the “double tap” tactic by using second drone attacks to kill the first responders to the first drone attacks. Funerals for the victims of the first drone attack have also been the target of second drone attacks. These second attacks have caused the deaths of between 282 and 535 civilians, and at least 60 children.
In a comment that could have come out of the Bush/Cheney/Rove administration, a senior American counterterrorism official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said:
Let’s be under no illusions — there are a number of elements who would like nothing more than to malign these efforts and help Al Qaeda succeed.
This Obama administration official has committed the irrelevant conclusion (ignoratio elenchi) fallacy. The conclusion that there are those who would help Al Qaeda is not relevant to the question of accuracy of the documentation.
Obama’s “double tap” policy is nothing short of despicable. Obama has brought dishonor to America and to our founding principles. When America commits the same actions that we condemn when used by terrorists, we become terrorists. The liberals’ silence on this issue is shameful. If George W. Bush had adopted this tactic, the cries of protest would have been deafening.
We wanted change and we got it, from bad to worse.
H/T: Glenn Greenwald, Tom Engelhardt, Scott Shane, Juan Cole, Chris Bertram, Justin Elliott, Glenn Greenwald.
But the big brains in the Obama administration know all about this sordid history and wouldn’t dream of stupidly recapitulating it for years on end. .
Sure, previous American administrations watched the French get their asses handed to them in Vietnam and then stupidly followed the French example themselves. And, sure, previous American administrations watched the Soviets get their asses handed to them in Afghanistan and then stupidly followed the Soviet example themselves. But no way would the Obama administration … uh … wait a minute … this has suddenly gotten all confusing and stuff …
Really.
I haven’t had my daily fix of Obama-body-count from the Obama-free-fire- zone yet, but as soon as I do I’ll know which anonymous bearded Muslim to fear today until another one comes along to scare me shit-less tomorrow. Honest, I keep up with the names and hierarchical rank of these devils as they keep whizzing past, just as every other American does. Really.
From the Glenn Greenwald link:
In Obama-speak a noncombatant could be a “militant.” If Bush had tried this, he would have been appropriately mocked.
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/11/07/363107/drone-attack-victim-suing-cia/
On Oct. 27, a 16-year-old Pakistani named Tariq Aziz traveled to Islamabad from his home in North Waziristan to attend a “Waziristan Grand Jirga,” an official meeting the following day to discuss the impact of drone strikes on local communities in Pakistan. According to Pratap Chatterjee at the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, Aziz “had come after he received a phone call from a lawyer in Islamabad offering him an opportunity to learn basic photography to help document these strikes.” Three days later, Aziz and his cousin were killed, Chatterjee reports:
The next day, Tariq and the other Waziris returned to their homes, eight hours drive away.
On Monday, October 31, Tariq took his cousin Waheed Khan to pick up his newly wed aunt, to take her back to Norak. When the two boys were just 200 yards from the house, two missiles slammed into their car, killing them both instantly.
‘I don’t see the logic and reasoning in killing two young boys,’ [Human rights lawyer] Shahzad Akbar told the Bureau. ‘We wanted to work with the youth, to include them in the search for accountability.’
Akbar is suing the CIA for killing innocent civilians through drone attacks in Pakistan. And Tariq’s father is reportedly in discussions to join the lawsuit. Akbar wondered why the CIA didn’t apprehend Tariq while he was in Islamabad. “If they were terrorists, why weren’t they arrested in Islamabad, interrogated, charged or tried?” he asked. Writing for the Guardian today, Chatterjee, who photographed and videotaped Tariq Aziz at the meeting in Islamabad, had a similar question:
The question I would pose to the jury is this: would a terrorist suspect come to a public meeting and converse openly with foreign lawyers and reporters, and allow himself to be photographed and interviewed? More importantly, since he was so easily available, why could Tariq not have been detained in Islamabad, when we spent 48 hours together? Neither Tariq Aziz nor the lawyers attending this meeting had a highly trained private security detail that could have put up resistance.
The CIA’s drone campaign has expanded significantly during the Obama administration. U.S. government officials say 1,500 suspected militants have been killed since President Obama took office while the Bureau of Investigative Journalism has examined every recorded drone attack in Pakistan and said at least 175 civilians have been killed.
mespo: is this the same Taliban we are trying to negotiate with in Afghanistan/Iraq? If not, how do we know? It seems there may be some good Talibans and bad Talibans. Can the CIA tell the difference from thousands of feet in the air even with high powered scopes? We did see them kill Reuters photographers, school children (oh, so sorry) and innocent allies
Thanks, Michael Murray for clarification. The intimidation seems to be working on all fronts. Wikileaks backs off of Bank of America. Whistleblowers in government service are prosecuted instead of rewarded.
I wonder how the program for whistlblower protections (and monetary rewards) involving the Financial Sector in the Dodd Frank bill will go……..hmmmmm
“So basically, Obama is guilty of the same crime as Julian Assange & Wikileaks. Except his motive could be political instead of investigative.” — Shano
Not exactly. Motive aside, publishing information received from government sources does not constitute a crime under U. S. law, as I understand it. So I don’t see where on earth the U.S. Government thinks that it has a case against a foreign national, Julian Assange or his organization, Wikileaks, for publishing information supplied to them anonymously by someone else.
On the other hand, government officials like President Obama and his staff — all the way down to the lowly Private Bradley Manning — can run afoul of U. S. laws against disclosing “classified” (i.e., “embarrassing”) information, which means pretty much anything and everything the American people have a need and right to know about the operation of their government. Therefore, although the U. S. Government cannot formally allege a crime against Julian Assange or Wikileaks, it can formally allege a crime against President Obama and/or Private Bradley Manning.
As I believe Glenn Greenwald and many others have pointed out, President Obama and the U. S. Government cannot legally prosecute freedom of speech and of the press, which the Constitution guarantees, but they can intimidate government employees and American citizens generally from exercising their freedom of speech and of the press when President Obama and his minions do not find the exercise of these freedoms to their liking. The obvious policy: Punishing scapegoats while rewarding sycophants, just to set an example for those who might think that they can criticize U. S. Government policy instead of obsequiously serving its propaganda purposes.
I agree that if rescuers who are also noncombatants are being targeted the policy is wrong and wrong-headed, but I went through the sources cited by BIJ and I don’t really see that:
1. Bureau of Investigative Journalism (BIJ): “But as rescuers clambered through the demolished house the drones struck again. Two missiles slammed into the rubble, killing many more. At least 29 people died in total.
‘We lost very trained and sincere friends‘, a local Taliban commander told The News, a Pakistani newspaper. ‘Some of them were very senior Taliban commanders and had taken part in successful actions in Afghanistan. Bodies of most of them were beyond recognition.”
[Senior Taliban commanders seem like a valid targets to me}
2. New York Times:”According to residents in the area, in an initial strike, two missiles hit the compound, killing one person. When people rushed to the scene to rescue the wounded, two more missiles struck, killing eight, the residents said. The intelligence official, who like the fighter spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that four other people had died. One of the dead, the intelligence official said, was a nephew of Mr. Mohammed.
A Pakistani government official reached in Wana said that the Taliban had cordoned off the area of the strike and were still recovering bodies from the debris.”
[It’s not clear but it appears to me that the Taliban were the ones rescuing their fellows from the targeted terrorist base. If not, it may support the argument against the policy]
3.CNN: “The first strike occurred in North Waziristan, one of seven districts in Pakistan’s volatile tribal region bordering Afghanistan, where unmanned aircraft missiles targeting militants have spiked in recent weeks.
The drones fired two missiles on a militant hideout in the area of Ghulam Khan, two Pakistani intelligence officials told CNN. Later, a suspected drone circled around the blast site and fired two more missiles. Six suspected militants were killed.The second attack was on an alleged militant vehicle in the same area, killing four more alleged militants.”
[No mention of rescuers being hit]
4. AP: “The first attack occurred at about 9 p.m. and targeted a house in Lataka village, killing four militants, said the intelligence officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the media.
Minutes later, a drone attacked a vehicle nearby, killing two foreign militants, said the officials. A second vehicle was attacked about 15 minutes later, killing three militants, including one foreigner, they said.
The final attack targeted militants collecting bodies from the house destroyed in the first strike, killing two of them, said the officials.”
[No mention of rescuers being targeted or killed only militants.]
5. Al Jazeera: “Some officials have claimed that as many as 12 opposition fighters were among those dead.
The first drone attack hit a mud fort in Datta Khel region of the tribal district, with the second missile striking as people were searching in the rubble more than an hour later.
Kamal Hyder, Al Jazeera’s correspondent in the capital Islamabad, said it was hard to say whether those who died were opposition fighters or citizens.”
[Not exactly conclusive on the issue of whether rescuers or opposition fighters were hit]
6. ABC News: Could not retrieve.
So based on the articles cited in BIJ we have one episode of arguable wrongful death of civilian rescuers, one undetermined second attack, and three attacks where only militants were targeted and killed.
Did BIJ overreact or is this conclusive proof of a policy decision to double strike with the express purpose of killing innocent rescuers?
Are we limited to one drone attack on the militants per area per day? Can we strike them while they are trying to rescue fellow militants from the rubble?
anon: “In February, the Times’ Scott Shane controversially granted anonymity to a “senior” Obama official to smear as al-Qaida sympathizers the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, after the BIJ documented the significant under-counting by Obama officials of civilian deaths from drone strikes as well as the Obama administration’s horrifying and possibly criminal practice of targeting rescuers and funerals with drone attacks. It was Shane, along with Jo Becker, who was then provided with the scoop about Obama’s “kill list”.
So basically, Obama is guilty of the same crime as Julian Assange & Wikileaks. Except his motive could be political instead of investigative.
One has been under house arrest for over a year with no charges against him, the other is in the White House.
.
BigFatMike, that is spot on. I remember before Corey came down with charges against Zimmerman, many people on the blogs were being accused of CONVICTING Zimmerman without a fair trial. We were accused of LYNCHING him, depriving him of DUE PROCESS, etc. etc. What we were saying was: Investigate the situation properly and draw charges for criminal conduct, when the evidence that something was done wrong is obvious, and whether there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt comes LATER in the process. This is exactly what must happen. INVESTIGATE this NOW because if it is happening, it has to be stopped.
Notice that the anti-Obama politicians are not jumping on it — yet it MUST be jumped on. Personally I believe that Obama has played to the image of the POTUS-EXECUTIONER to make himself more likely to gain votes that won’t vote for him simply to vote AGAINST the Repugnicans. So he has probably even ramped UP his international bloodthirstiness, to enhance that image.
” Execute all adult men
Transport all women to a concentration camp
Gather the children suitable for Germanisation, then place them in SS families in the Reich and bring the rest of the children up in other ways
Burn down the village and level it entirely”
Brad De Long reminds us of an earlier counterproductive tactic. The Germans may have lost the war in any case. But their tactics turned entire populations against them and, one has to believe, hastened their defeat.
The question has been asked, so yes, the accusation is exactly and precisely that the US is likely attacking non combatant populations when it targets rescuers and mourners. We may not have proof beyond a reasonable doubt. But we certainly have credible evidence to pose the question and demand an investigation.
Lets be clear about this. Attacking non combatant populations is a war crime.
We are not talking about mis fire. We are not talking about aiming at a terrorist and missing, or the round falling short.
We are talking about a policy that intentionally targets groups where it is clear that non combatants would gather.
I was browsing this thread because I have a friend who is a Yemeni-American analyst/journalist and I wanted to see what was here for him to comment on (to me, off line) and all of a sudden I see Anon calls me out and I don’t even understand his references. Did the feminists (or perhaps custodial mothers) initiate this drone stuff? Was it a pantie-waving anti-civilian female warmonger? What’s up, can somebody tell me?
(Anon won’t because he has announced as of 4:56 p.m. today, on another thread, that he is not “responding” to me any more. Now if I weren’t very upset about how difficult it is to get men to “respond,” I would ignore the provocation but…)
So he said:
“I have two daughters, one mother, three aunts, three nieces, two grandmothers, two cousins in my life, all women. Of course I support and love women and care about women’s issues. [not stating which ones]
“Disagreement with the priority of specific women’s issues, disagreement that certain women’s issues are real, disappointment that some voters vote exclusively on women’s issues, frustration that many women’s issues voters trivialize and ignore very real boys’ and men’s issues does not make me a women’s issues hater. Nor does it make me a misogynist. [OK he thinks that feminists should also take on other issues, other than those that they choose to deal with, is that it?]
“One aspect of feminism apparently, is to lie about and misrepresent people that disagree with you (nb: current Malisha silliness) and other them and dehumanize them and cast them out and portray them as monsters and demand fealty from everyone around you.”
OK, that was the part that confused me. Feminists have apparently lied about Anon, because he disagreed with them? I don’t know the meaning of the abbreviation “nb” — what particular “current Malisha silliness” are we talking about here?
So somebody is dehumanized? Is anyone other than Dr. Omar Amin “kicked out” and was he kicked out by the feminists or by Barnes & Noble? Did I portray Anon as a monster or did he present himself as a disdainful, contemptuous, resentful, and crude sexist with a lingerie fetish?
About demanding fealty, I had to look that one up. I find that “fealty” is the oath of loyalty and submission that is given from a feudal subject to a feudal lord. So the most I could understand from that is that Anon, at least, believes that people with vaginas demand that he basically worships them. Is that correct?
Well, since he’s not responding to me, I don’t want to address him. He probably won’t give me my well deserved fealty anyway. I’ll have to look elsewhere, boo hoo.
Now, about the drones…
DonS: “and those who advocate too loudly for peace are in danger of being called either flakes or traitors, roughly.”
That and they lose all that sweet campaign cash, that is then lost to the Muti-media conglomerates who stop sending their campaign cash, and are now BFF with the secret Corporate media buyers for political advertisement, etc etc.
In a wide circle jerk of campaign cash stoppages, we all know the candidate with the least cash will lose 97% of the time.
Drone and conventional, now that is a good question. Does morality have any value?
We should all fight with robots. Lets sell the other side some war robots and fight that way. Think of the jobs that could create!
Or have leaders of nations go rounds of mud wrestling on PPV instead. Think of the advertising money generated! Boon times all around.
@shano: “Too bad we do not have a ‘Peace Department’. ”
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Oh, my gosh, that’s such a good one I can’t stop laughing.
But, you’re right, it would be infinitely more cost effective, IMO, than our war department. Even if it didn’t accomplish anything , it could hardly be less cost effective than our war department. I don’t know how old you are, but I’m here to tell you there was once upon a time, in my actual adulthood, something like a viable peace movement, with a surging (relatively) importance, including serious curriculum at colleges and universities. Now, it seems, the concept of peace is a sad joke from our esteemed leaders, and those who advocate too loudly for peace are in danger of being called either flakes or traitors, roughly.
I don’t know why you use the subjunctive “would be” to describe the boon to weapons manufacturers; that is already the case. Actually, I would be curious to know the C/B ratio — all other things being equal — between drone warfare and the old style invasions.
The Obama Administration repeatedly tells courts of law that it can neither confirm nor deny the existence of any drone program because any public statements regarding what we cannot discuss would irreparably harm national security.
On the other hand, when politically opportune, we have things like this:
One would hate to think that all these drone strikes are meant to prop up the Military Industrial Congressional Complex, our very own ‘jobs’ program.
A never ending war caused by ‘blow back’ in the Middle East would be a boon to weapons manufacturers. And no one else. Our Congress, and any POTUS in office, have been captured by these Multinational industries.
Too bad we do not have a ‘Peace Department’. I can think of thousands of things we could spend our ‘war’ money on to create goodwill all around the Earth.
Many of them would create prosperity instead of destruction, would create more jobs here in the US and abroad, would create healthy societies and heal the environmental problems created by depleted uranium, cluster bombs, land mines. etc et al.
Elaine,
Some people are just so self-contradictory they must surely be petarded. 😉
“You said above that you are a feminist. Then you said you “believe in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes, and it’s a human tragedy that feminists do not.””
That’s true, what I meant to say was:
I believe in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes, and it’s a human tragedy that modern feminists do not.
There’s some interesting schisms between 2nd wavers and 3rd wavers, and often some very famous 2nd wavers will state that they are appalled with 3rd wave views towards custody issues and the like.
Sadly when the ERA wasn’t passed, feminism made a huge shift for the bizarre and that’s really when all the panty waving victimization politics took over.
These days modern feminism stands mostly for nothing since you can get three modern feminists together and have five opinions. But mostly they all seem to agree that some invisible being patriarchy has been oppressing them all for thousands of years and so teh menz are evil.
You said above that you are a feminist. Then you said you “believe in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes, and it’s a human tragedy that feminists do not.”
Nal: “Obama’s “double tap” policy is nothing short of despicable. Obama has brought dishonor to America and to our founding principles.”
**
Jill: “The US is using collective punishment, to include the killing of civilians, to coerce compliance from another nation. This is a govt. completely out of control both internally and externally. ”
———-
Agree. well said.
Elaine,
Head for teh googles and the feminist blogs and discover for yourself what happens when anyone asks the question, why isn’t it called humanism or equalism or something like that and see how many modern feminists demand it be called feminism and how they rationalize that and how all men should be honored to be join a movement called feminism that they demand wants equality even though they diminish the problems of men every way they can.
They rationalize that because: vagina.