Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
... Drones kill fewer civilians, as a percentage of total fatalities, than any other military weapon. Theyre the worst form of warfare in the history of the world, except for all the others.
Start with that U.N. report. Afghan civilian casualties caused by the United States and its allies didnt go up last year. They fell 46 percent. Specifically, civilian casualties from aerial attacks fell 42 percent. Why? Look at the incident featured in the U.N. report (Page 31) as an example of sloppy targeting. I heard the bombing at approximately 4:00 am, says an eyewitness. After we found the dead and injured girls, the jet planes attacked us with heavy machine guns and another woman was killed.
It was the most unambiguous point that the White House has made on the matter of using drone strikes in the United States against U.S. citizens not posing an imminent threat to the country after weeks of questioning from Paul. Paul was filibustering the confirmation of Obamas nomination of John Brennan to run the Central Intelligence Agency. Attorney General Eric Holder sent a letter responding to Pauls question that Carney read from the podium to reporters on Thursday.
A reporter asked Carney, Does the president have an opinion on whether or not he has the constitutional authority to use drones against American citizens on U.S. soil, and under which circumstances? Im going to read directly from the attorney generals letter today, Carney said. He has sent a letter responding to this question. It was transmitted to Sen. Paul within the last half hour or so. From the letter: Does the president have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil? The answer is no. That is a letter that is signed by the attorney general sent to Sen. Paul and his office. Drone strikes have struck terrorists abroad, including a U.S.-born terrorist fighting for the Taliban.
Carney stressed that the president is limited by the Constitution, and that regardless of new technology, it does not change what he can do under the law. The president has not and would not use drone strikes against American citizens on American soil, Carney said. On the broader question, the legal authority that exists to use lethal force are bound and constrained by the laws and the Constitution. The issue here isnt the technology. The method doesnt change the law. The president swore an oath to uphold the Constitution and is bound by the law, whether the lethal force in question is a drone strike or a gun shot, the law and the Constitution apply in the same way, Carney continued. Thats why I think there has been a great deal of confusion about the technology here. Technology is irrelevant to what the law and the Constitution say, and the president is bound by the Constitution, bound by the laws and is sworn to uphold them, he added.
WH: Obama Won't Use Drones to Kill Americans in America | CNS News
"At a time when controversy over the Obama administrations drone program seems to be cresting, the CIA is close to taking a major step toward getting out of the targeted killing business. Three senior U.S. officials tell The Daily Beast that the White House is poised to sign off on a plan to shift the CIAs lethal targeting program to the Defense Department.
The move could potentially toughen the criteria for drone strikes, strengthen the programs accountability, and increase transparency. Currently, the government maintains parallel drone programs, one housed in the CIA and the other run by the Department of Defense. The proposed plan would unify the command and control structure of targeted killings and create a uniform set of rules and procedures. The CIA would maintain a role, but the military would have operational control over targeting. Lethal missions would take place under Title 10 of the U.S. Code, which governs military operations, rather than Title 50, which sets out the legal authorities for intelligence activities and covert operations. This is a big deal, says one senior administration official who has been briefed on the plan. It would be a pretty strong statement.
