
The Drone Papers - yuvadam
https://theintercept.com/drone-papers/the-assassination-complex/
======
bambax
This phrasing is incorrect:

> _[there are x persons] President Obama ha[s] authorized U.S. special
> operations forces to assassinate_

US special ops are the President's weapon. It doesn't make sense to say
"yesterday I authorized my gun to kill a man"; what you want to say is
"yesterday I killed a man".

President Obama didn't "authorize targeted killings" or whatever you want to
call those.

He (and Bush before him) assassinated people, assassinates them without trial
or due process, while smiling and holding babies and making jokes at the White
House correspondents dinner, and complaining about the gun culture and mass
killings.

The same day of the Umpqua College shooting (10 dead), US drones in
Afghanistan targeted a hospital and killed 22 people (12 staff, 10 patients
including 3 children).

If Obama really wants Americans to get rid of their guns, maybe he should
start with his own.

But of course he won't, so forgive me for not listening to whatever he has to
say.

~~~
rhino369
The huge false equivalence you are making is Obama is waging a war against a
truly evil organization. But the college shootings are senseless violence
purposely used on innocent people.

You can throw in the hospital attack. But that attack obviously wasn't
purposeful. It also wasn't a drone. It was ground support strike, something
Obama wouldn't be involved in.

You can blame Obama for keeping us in the war. In that respect he is
responsible. But the hospital was bombed during a major battle against the
Taliban, who were attempting to take the 5th largest city in Afghanistan.

Obama is trying to kill people to make the world better. People like the
Umpqua shooter are killing good people to make the world worse, on purpose.

~~~
DominikR
Why is it obvious that the attack on the hospital wasn't purposeful?

This article by associated press indicates that they attacked the hospital on
purpose.

[http://bigstory.ap.org/urn:publicid:ap.org:5e20fcd92aee49e69...](http://bigstory.ap.org/urn:publicid:ap.org:5e20fcd92aee49e699149aef93595e49)

> Obama is trying to kill people to make the world better...

I have no words for this. How a person can even entertain such thoughts is
beyond me.

~~~
rhino369
>Why is it obvious that the attack on the hospital wasn't purposeful?

Because there is no motive.

From the story you quote "It's unclear whether commanders who unleashed the
AC-130 gunship on the hospital — killing at least 22 patients and hospital
staff — were aware that the site was a hospital or knew about the allegations
of possible enemy activity."

What is more likely. The US suddenly decided to murder a bunch of universally
beloved Doctors or they fucked up bigtime?

>I have no words for this. How a person can even entertain such thoughts is
beyond me.

I find it hard to believe that you can't understand why I'd think killing a
bunch of Talibani is great for the world.

~~~
themgt
The motive is actually obvious. MSF treats all patients regardless of what
"side" they are on in a conflict. The Afghans/US felt/believed that MSF were
treating wounded Taliban and decided to destroy the hospital as an act of
reprisal/total war.

~~~
knowaveragejoe
Wow, I guess people out there really do think reality is as predictable and
simple as a movie plot.

------
yuvadam
There are a few interesting anecdotes about this huge story -

This is the same leak that Glenn Greenwald describes to Edward Snowden in
Moscow (-> -> -> -> POTUS), meaning this story has been in the making for at
least 1.5 years.

Second, this quality and quantity of leaks is incredible and can only be
attributed to a news organization that takes security as a paramount
consideration, setting up proper secure channels to enable technically apt
whistle-blowers to approach them with confidence.

Props to The Intercept for some fine journalist work.

~~~
dombili
Oh, so that's what that scene was about! I re-watched it now and it really is
incredible. Screenshots of some of Greenwald's notes (they don't say much):

1- [http://i.imgur.com/Xk3tefg.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/Xk3tefg.jpg)

2- [http://i.imgur.com/3C7sdIA.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/3C7sdIA.jpg)

3- [http://i.imgur.com/8FNhVfE.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/8FNhVfE.jpg)

~~~
AUmrysh
"There are 1.2 m people on various stages of their watch list" :-O

That's absolutely terrifying. I wonder how many of those are American
citizens.

~~~
RevRal
My gut says a majority, I believe that the war is truly inward. A flagging
system wouldn't be too difficult. You could even flag people who aren't dead
and yet haven't raised a flag in some time-frame (Unibomber). Statistical
analysis, the data's all there. Set up keys that resemble the analyses's
output. Find what you're looking for. Unfortunately, those keys are
controllable. You'll always find people who fit a certain profile, you will
always find who you're looking for. Unfortunately, you'll require some
vagueness to ensure that the net you've cast doesn't have holes too large.

------
gortok
There are lots of important points in this set of articles, but a few stand
point:

\- Congress has not defined what "assassination" means; and since they haven't
defined it, the Executive Order 12333 is effectively meaningless.
[https://theintercept.com/drone-papers/the-assassination-
comp...](https://theintercept.com/drone-papers/the-assassination-complex/)

\- IMEIs are used to track targets. Can IMEIs be spoofed?

\- Military Aged Males are considered enemy combatants. Effectively that means
all males ages 18-49 are considered enemy combatants. Since you're guilty by
association, your age makes you a target.

~~~
rhino369
>Military Aged Males are considered enemy combatants. Effectively that means
all males ages 18-49 are considered enemy combatants. Since you're guilty by
association, your age makes you a target.

You are conflating what the US considers enemies before targeting and after a
strike. The US doesn't just bomb any random male 18-49.

But when the US does target what it thinks is a legitimate target, it counts
any unknown males killed in the strike as enemy. It doesn't use that
assumption to do the strike. Only to count the enemy v. civilian kill total.

And it's a pretty reasonable assumption, depending on the circumstance. If the
US drone strikes a Taliban hide out, the unknown males there were very likely
foot-soldiers of the Taliban. If you accidentally blow up a wedding, then
counting all the men is essentially lying.

But your sex and age don't make you a target. You being near a target doesn't
really make you a target either. It makes you a tragic accident.

Unless the Taliban want to line up like 18th century foot soldiers, there are
going to be people killed who aren't involved. Sending in ground troops would
only make it worse.

And it's not like the Taliban aren't a real threat to Afghanistan. They just
took over the 5th largest city in Afghanistan two weeks ago.

~~~
korisnik
> _it counts any unknown males killed in the strike as enemy. It doesn 't use
> that assumption to do the strike._

Imagine for a moment that someone (be it some foreign agency, US police, army
or whoever) did the same in America, _to American citizens_. Would you be
outraged by your explanation?

"Hey, it's not like they're targetting them specifically. They're just
_deciding that they were all enemy combatants post-factum_."

~~~
rhino369
If someone was bombing America, the way they were tallying the enemy
combatants wouldn't really be a huge concern, to be honest.

Let's say the Michigan Militias sack Windsor, Canada. And Canada drops a bomb
on their clubhouse. And a bunch of redneck young men are killed. You gotta
assume they were part of the militia.

~~~
ozten
> And a bunch of redneck young men are killed.

The lack of empathy around such a serious topic, is sad.

------
sabertoothed
Currently, there is a special inquiry going on in the German Bundestag
(Federal Parliament). An ex-drone pilot is reporting about the work he did in
the US miltary base in Ramstein Germany.

It is utterly shocking and disgusting.

I fail to see why this is not murder. According to press articles reporting
about this inquiry, boys from the age of 12 were cleared to be killed by
drones.

In my little happy world, there is only one reason when you are allowed to use
violence - and that is self-defense (to protect you or others). And according
to German law and probably the law of many other countries, your self-defense
is only justified if the attack on you is (1) unlawful, (2) happening right
now (has started or is immediately impending) and (3) if the means to counter
the attack are within reason.

The killing via drones makes me feel very, very uncomfortable. I don't think
it is compatible with human rights or any reasonable constitution.

EDIT: The following is a quote from the inquiry - quoted by the German
Bundestag [1].

"In diesen Einsatzgebieten hätten alle männlichen Personen im Alter von über
zwölf Jahren als legitime Ziele gegolten. Wenn ein Opfer jünger gewesen sei,
sei das aber auch nicht besonders tragisch genommen worden. Man müsse das Gras
mähen, bevor es wachse, habe es dann geheißen. Mit anderen Worten: Aus Kindern
wären später ohnehin Terroristen geworden."

My clumsy translation: "In these areas of operation, all male persons above
the age of 12 were considered legitimate targets. If a victim was younger,
however, it was not regarded as a big deal. You have to mow the grass, before
it grows, it was said. In other words: Children would have become terrorists
later anyways."

This is revolting.

[1]
[http://www.bundestag.de/dokumente/textarchiv/2015/kw42_pa_ns...](http://www.bundestag.de/dokumente/textarchiv/2015/kw42_pa_nsa/390984)

------
uptown
The full searchable PDFs of the Drone Papers are available here:

[https://www.documentcloud.org/public/search/%22Project%20ID%...](https://www.documentcloud.org/public/search/%22Project%20ID%22:%20%2222876-the-
drone-papers%22)

------
mcphilip
Logically, if the U.S. feels justified in targeted drone strikes against
legitimate threats to national security, what's to stop China or Russia from
doing the same? Arent there some legitimate scenarios where U.S. and Chinese
national security interests are in opposition?

Who has the "moral high ground", if such a thing exists, in such cases?

~~~
dragonwriter
> Logically, if the U.S. feels justified in targeted drone strikes against
> legitimate threats to national security, what's to stop China or Russia from
> doing the same?

Um, nations have been using military force of whatever kind they have
available -- and doing so in whatever ways minimize what they have at risk for
what they stand to achieve -- for a very long time, longer than the US has
been around.

Its not like Russia or China would _refrain_ from using drones, where
available, just because the US hadn't done it first.

> Who has the "moral high ground", if such a thing exists, in such cases?

The moral high ground is highly subjective, and generally perceived as being
strongly linked to the validity of the justification.

Not that the moral high ground matters all that much in practice if the
outrage level isn't tied to groups with both the capacity and the will to do
something about it which influences the national interest calculation.

------
snake_plissken
For me the most grave offense of our current president was taking out Anwar
al-Awlaki in 2011. I understand he was not a good individual, by any means,
but he was an American citizen which entitled him to all of the protections
afforded under The Constitution.

Programs like these are what undermines any legitimacy our country has left.

~~~
merpnderp
What should the US have done instead? He was planning and committing terrorist
attacks and there was no way to simply arrest him. Why should the US be
obligated to allow Americans to commit war crimes when they are unreachable by
law enforcement?

~~~
ionised
Because if the US isn't going to follow the law why the fuck should anybody
else?

~~~
merpnderp
What law did the US break? The guy was a member of Al Queda. Congress
explicitly initiated a war against Al Queda. The guy wasn't in a place where
US law enforcement could reach him. Which is kind of the definition of being
at war.

------
csommers
Kind of eerie:
[http://chj.tbe.taleo.net/chj05/ats/careers/requisition.jsp?o...](http://chj.tbe.taleo.net/chj05/ats/careers/requisition.jsp?org=PLURIBUSINTERNATIONAL&cws=1&rid=207)

Quick Google search for the key-term "GILGAMESH"...

~~~
csommers
Another interesting one ... a resume:
[http://docslide.us/documents/fredrickdaliry-
chronologicorder...](http://docslide.us/documents/fredrickdaliry-
chronologicorder20141120.html)

Quite a few of the keywords (programs) don't show up in Google results, so I'm
guessing they are yet to be unveiled by any leaked docs so far.

------
kushti
I don't see this in CNN top yet, BBC is also silent(though UK citizen was
killed by an US drone). However, RT and other media independent of western
governments already have this on main page. Let's think why dear HNers.

~~~
Satchelmouth
You have a point however I just wanted to point out that RT is a very poor
example to use.

~~~
kushti
Well, I guess Al-Jazeera is also a "very poor example" for you? Could you
provide a good example then?

~~~
Satchelmouth
Well, I don't personally have a problem with Al-Jazeera. In the "editorial
interference from the government" tables, Al-Jazeera makes an appearance but
it is far, far below RT.

------
praptak
Hm. So what stops US from targeted killings in China? Russia? Europe? Only the
probable retaliation?

~~~
rhino369
Motive is the big reason. It's not like America is killing people for fun or
some petty economic gain. America is killing people that American believes
they are at war with. Hell, America is killing people who believe themselves
to be at war with America.

But drones only work when you have total air supremacy. Any halfway decent
airforce can protect against the huge drones America fires missiles from.

~~~
bediger4000
_It 's not like America is killing people for fun or some petty economic
gain._

How do we know this, again? The folks who have said this are legally bound
_not_ to say anything else. So they're not particularly believable. The
Snowden revelations about PetroBras hacking somewhat (but not totally,
admittedly) makes me very suspicious that network penetration goes on for
petty economic gain. Why wouldn't that leak into drone strikes?

~~~
rhino369
Because we are talking about the known drone strikes. We know, generally,
where they occur and who they target. People in the tribal Pashtun-Pakistan
area, Al Qaeta in Yemen, and Somalia.

If America is waging some secret economic war, it's been covered up extremely
well. Spying is easily covered up. It's certainly possible. But that's hard to
a reason to presume it's true.

~~~
morsch
We know about the drone strikes we know about, that much is true.

------
mahyarm
I thought it has been known for years that the US govt uses drones to execute
military and assassination targets. And the public has no insight into how
these decisions are made.

This may reveal internal details, but I don't know how different from what the
world has known for years?

~~~
rdancer
facts > guesswork

~~~
jononomo
word

------
jgome
Some history and some facts about the U.S.:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_interventions_of_the_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_interventions_of_the_United_States)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_r...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_mili...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations)

[http://qz.com/374138/these-are-all-the-countries-where-
the-u...](http://qz.com/374138/these-are-all-the-countries-where-the-us-has-a-
military-presence/)

[http://www.statista.com/statistics/262962/countries-with-
the...](http://www.statista.com/statistics/262962/countries-with-the-most-
prisoners-per-100-000-inhabitants/)

------
NN88
This guy seem like he deserved it: [https://theintercept.com/drone-papers/the-
life-and-death-of-...](https://theintercept.com/drone-papers/the-life-and-
death-of-objective-peckham/)

------
kzhahou
This could use a better title. I avoided the link all day thinking it was
about quadcopters.

------
jstalin
War is the health of the state.

------
d23
I know it's a tangent, but I'm actually blown away by the quality of the
website itself. They've managed to use modern techniques like header
background video and fading in of navigation elements in a way that is classy
and reserved. It doesn't lag up my browser; it doesn't make jarring movements
that cause UI elements or content to jump out of line of the eye.

The best part? It actually helps add to the point they're trying to make.
It's... chilling, serious, international-stakes stuff here. Kudos on perfect
execution of the full package.

~~~
dcre
And 0 trackers that Ghostery has to block. Though I guess it would be pretty
ironic if there were any.

~~~
jononomo
nice.

------
dang
We changed the URL from [https://theintercept.com/drone-
papers](https://theintercept.com/drone-papers) to the first article on the
list, which begins by introducing the series.

~~~
wilg
I actually think this is a confusing change. Before I read this comment, I
read the first article as linked, which ends abruptly and I was left a bit
unsatisfied. (I ignored everything after the article, which I always do on
news articles, like a regular person.) The page layout doesn't really make it
clear that there is a higher level until you get to the end and scroll past
the comments.

Plus, the article linked is titled "The Assassination Complex" not "The Drone
Papers", like the original link and the current title of the HN Story.

Plus, the initial image of Obama and Bush hugging in scary black and white
makes me think that this is more of a hit piece on Obama, which is not exactly
accurate.

Also, the first article does not really introduce the series very well.

------
whatafarce
Utterly disgusting, America conducts clear war crimes, tortures, bombs afghan
hospitals, assisinates, all without consequence.

I'm sure some idiot will tell me to vote, because that'll change the systemic
corruption and nightmare that has taken hold of US power.

Did voting in nazi Germany help? No because they were voted in, voting only
legitimizes a political system completely captured by insiders and corporate
juggernauts. These people only response to power and will not hesitate to kill
you, imprison you, or otherwise destroy your life.

But go on, tell us how voting matters. Lol.

~~~
rayiner
Voting, by design, won't change something the majority of people want to keep
happening: [http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/poll-support-drone-
str...](http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/poll-support-drone-
strikes-118372) ("Fifty-eight percent of respondents expressed approval of
U.S. drone strikes, while only 35 percent disapproved. This included nearly
three-fourths of Republicans, slightly more than half of Democrats and 56
percent of independents.").

"Insiders" and "corporate juggernauts" are a red herring. The problem isn't
them--it's your family and friends and coworkers. The problem is the people
you walk past on the street every day, your kids' teachers, maybe even the guy
at the grocery store register. The problem is _us_ and our moral
justifications for these sorts of interventions abroad.

NB: I don't support drone strikes.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Most of whom don't know anything or don't have time to care. The aggregate
will of majority is bullshit - the votes are not boolean, but have a third,
undefined state, which happens also to be default.

This also means that if you _make_ people care, turn the issue into a hot
topic that people start tying to their identities, they'll eagerly vote your
way.

~~~
rayiner
What information do you think is missing? If you look at the poll, half of
Americans are "very concerned" about civilian casualties from drone strikes,
another 30% are "somewhat" concerned about them. Yet, 60% still support them.
That doesn't strike me as ignorance, it strikes me as a broadly-shared value
judgment.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Well, I know that there are children starving in Africa, and can say this is
sad and I am "very concerned", but otherwise it has close to zero emotional
impact on me. It's an abstract issue. I _actually feel about drone strike
victim stronger_ , because I've seen the pictures, read the stories, seen the
math.

The point is, this issue is totally disconnected from the lives of most
people. You need to get them invested emotionally. Make a blockbuster movie.
Harry Potter and The HellFires of Voldemort. Or something. Invite the
Pakistani that lost his arm, leg and half of the family to US drone strike.
And then keep pounding at people with the topic.

If we can't get people to care about this more than they care about "slut
shaming" or Ferguson or Comcast, we truly have failed as a civilization.

~~~
xixi77
Well, why should people necessarily care about this issue more than about any
of those? Also, just because people do not agree with you, does not always
mean they do not care. Sure, there are many innocent victims of drones -- but
your opponents can just as easily showcase equally innocent victims of Taliban
or of Al Qaeda or of whatever group the people killed by drones belonged to.

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _Well, why should people necessarily care about this issue more than about
> any of those?_

Because their government is murdering innocent and helpless people in cold
blood?

Yes, I sometimes forget that for general population, morality is inversely
proportional to the square of distance...

> _Also, just because people do not agree with you, does not always mean they
> do not care._

I know. I'm sure there are people who after careful consideration of their
values and information available to them decided to support the drone strikes
program. But I don't believe their number is anywhere near 60% of US
population, or even 60% of people who responded to that poll.

