Playlist: 030613 - Sen. Rand Paul Senate Filibuster
Rand Paul's 13 hour filibuster the Obama administration's nomination of John Brennan. Rand Paul does this because of the vague answers given by both John Brennan and Eric Holder on the legality of using drones to kill U.S. Citizens on U.S. Soil that do not pose an imminent threat or that are non-combatants without charge and trial in court.
Warning Graphic Footage! This is HOW USA is spreading our wonderful peace and democracy...
Notice the foreign Arab News Guy.. "Those who KILL their own people have lost all credibility.." He is talking about 911..
Makes me sick.. Imagine how you would feel having jets bomb you like this!
30,000 Drones Over America! Obama's Weaponized Police State!
Now, on 2/10/2012 we find the corrupt US Congress has approved (and President Obama has signed) a law funding 30,000 DEVIL DRONE UNMANNED AIRCRAFT[.b] for use inside America's boundaries at the behest of the Department of Homeland Security. Bill, HR 658, the FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act authorizes the manufacture and deployment of the dreadful spy drones by 2015 at a cost of $63.4 Billion which may not include the cost of supporting and maintaining them after they are deployed. I thought we were cutting spending. Who are the financial power elite enabling - military industrial complex crony capitalists getting the spy drone construction contracts?
Read More Here:
Did a CIA Drone Really Level Two Homes in Indianapolis?
A mysterious blast annihilated five homes and left dozens more beyond repair.
More info http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/did-a-cia-drone-really-level-two-homes-in-indianapolis
Obama CIA pick John Brennan defends drone strikes, even on Americans
Code Pink protesters repeatedly disrupted John Brennan's confirmation hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday. Feb 7, 2013Nominated to head the CIA, John Brennan told a protest-disrupted Senate confirmation hearing Thursday the United States employs drone strikes only as a deterrent against imminent terrorist threats, not as punishment for previous actions, firmly defending the controversial attacks that have killed three Americans and an unknown number of foreigners.
"Nothing could be further from the truth," he said of the idea that the U.S. uses the strikes by unmanned aircraft as retaliation in the broad fight against terrorism.
On another thorny topic, under sometimes-combative questioning from senators, he conceded that after years of intelligence work he is uncertain whether the use of waterboarding in interrogations has yielded valuable information.
He declined several times to say whether waterboarding is torture, but he did say it is "something that is reprehensible and
should never be done again."
In hours of questioning from the Senate Intelligence Committee, Brennan made repeated general pledges to increase the flow of information to members of the panel, but he was less specific when it came to individual cases. Asked at one point whether he would provide a list of countries where the CIA has used lethal authority, he replied, "It would be my intention to do everything possible" to comply.
At another point, he said he had no second thoughts about having opposed a planned strike against Osama bin Laden in 1998, a few months before the bombings of two U.S. embassies. The plan was not "well-grounded," he said, adding that other intelligence officials also recommended against proceeding. Brennan was at the CIA at the time.
Brennan was questioned extensively about leaks to the media about an al-Qaida plot to detonate a new type of underwear bomb on a Western airline. He acknowledged trying to limit the damage to national security from the disclosures.
On May 7 of last year, The Associated Press reported that the CIA thwarted an ambitious plot by al-Qaida's affiliate in Yemen to destroy a U.S.-bound airliner, using a bomb with a sophisticated new design around the one-year anniversary of the killing of Osama bin Laden. The next day, the Los Angeles Times reported that the would-be bomber was cooperating with U.S. authorities.
During Thursday's hearing Republican Sens. James Risch of Idaho and Dan Coats of Indiana were among those who contended Brennan had inadvertently revealed that the U.S. had a spy inside Yemen's al-Qaida branch when, hours after the first AP report appeared, he told a group of media consultants that "there was no active threat during the bin Laden anniversary because ... we had inside control of the plot."
Brennan acknowledged the comments about "inside control" but denied that they revealed any secret elements associated with the U.S. operation.
John Brennan, now President Obama's White House counterterrorism adviser, promised to keep congressional intelligence committees "fully and currently informed" of CIA activity.
"I think I have the leak right here," Risch said.
Bristling, Brennan shot back, "I disagree with that vehemently."
Brennan is a veteran of more than three decades in intelligence work, and is currently serving as Obama's top counter-terrorism adviser in the White House. Any thought he had of becoming CIA director four years ago vanished amid questions about the role he played at the CIA when the Bush administration approved waterboarding and other forms of "enhanced interrogation" of suspected terrorists.
In a statement at the beginning of Thursday's session, Brennan said the United States remains at war with al-Qaida and other terrorists and is under "daily cyberattack" by foreign countries and others.
He said historic transformations continue sweeping through the Middle East and North Africa, with "major implications for our interests, Israel's security, our Arab partners and the prospects for peace and stability throughout the region." Additionally, he said that Iran and North Korea "remain bent on pursuing nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missile delivery systems."
The hearing was interrupted repeatedly — once before it began and then several times before Brennan had completed his preliminary remarks. At one point, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., the panel's chairman, briefly ordered the proceedings halted and the room cleared so those re-entering could be screened to block obvious protesters.
The shouted protests centered on CIA drone strikes that have killed three American citizens and an unknown number of foreigners overseas.
It was a topic very much on the mind of the committee members who eventually will vote on Brennan's confirmation.
In the hours before the hearing began, President Barack Obama ordered that a classified paper outlining the legal rationale for striking at U.S. citizens abroad be made available for members of the House and Senate intelligence panels to read.
It was an attempt to clear the way for Brennan's approval, given hints from some lawmakers that they might hold up confirmation unless they had access to the material.
A Code Pink protestor is led out of the hearing room by a U.S. Capitol police officer after Committee Chair Dianne Feinstein ordered the hearing room cleared of spectators.
White House spokesman Jay Carney said Wednesday the White House is making "extraordinary accommodation" in allowing lawmakers to view classified Justice Department legal advice on drone strikes against Americans. Carney said the White House does not plan to send the Justice memos to lawmakers beyond those on the House and Senate intelligence committees.
Responding to the assurances from the administration, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said he was encouraged when Obama called him on the telephone to inform him of his decision.
However, Wyden said that after he went to read the material he became concerned the Department of Justice "is not following through" on the commitment. He asked Brennan to look into the matter, and the CIA nomine said he would.
Despite the sometimes-combative questioning, Brennan's confirmation seemed a foregone conclusion as he appeared before the committee. "I look forward to working with you," said Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo.
Wyden made the drone strikes the main focus of his time to question Brennan, asking at one point what could be done "so that the American people are brought into this debate and have a full understanding of what rules" are for their use.
Brennan said the day's hearings were part of that effort, and said he backs speeches by officials as a way to explain counter-terrorism programs. He said there is a "misimpression by the American people' who believe drone strikes are aimed at suspects in past attacks. Instead, he said, "we only take such actions as a last resort to save lives" when there is no other alternative in what officials believe is an imminent threat.
Aides have portrayed Brennan as cautious in the use of drones, restraining others at the CIA or military who seek to use them more often. At the same time, as the White House's counterterror adviser, he has presided over an explosion of drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia.
Fewer than 50 strikes took place during the Bush administration, while more than 360 strikes have been launched under Obama, according to the website The Long War Journal, which tracks the operations.
Administration officials say Brennan would further limit the use of drones by the CIA and leave the majority of strikes to the military. Brennan signaled in his written answers that he would not seek to expand the CIA's paramilitary operations. In written responses to questions from the committee in advance of the hearing, Brennan wrote, "While the CIA needs to maintain a paramilitary capability ... the CIA should not be used, in my view, to carry out traditional military activities."
The CIA's drone strikes primarily focus on al-Qaida and Taliban targets in the tribal regions of Pakistan. The agency also carries out strikes in Yemen, where three American citizens with al-Qaida connections have been killed: Anwar al-Awlaki, his 16-year-old-son and Samir Khan.
On the question of waterboarding, Brennan said that while serving as a deputy manager at the CIA during the Bush administration, he was told such interrogation methods produced "valuable information." Now, after reading a 300-page summary of a 6,000-page report on CIA interrogation and detention policies, he said he does "not know what the truth is."
In his opening statement, he said U.S. computer systems are under daily attack by "nation states, international criminal organizations, subnational groups and individual hackers."
Every Tuesday, the President of the United States attends a kill meeting in the White House
Every Tuesday, the President of the United States attends a kill meeting in the White House, in which he selects targets and gives approval to drone attacks, which have already killed 176 innocent children and a total of approximately 1,000 civilians in Pakistan alone. Since Obama also authorizes drone attacks in other nations, the number of children and civilians killed by the President is undoubtedly much higher.
Moreover, according to the London-based rights organization, Reprieve, which with the help of a partner organization in Pakistan facilitated access to some of the people interviewed for the Stanford/NYU study, the psychological damage to the surviving family members is extensive.
According to Reprieve's director, Clive Stafford Smith, "drone strikes go much further than simply killing innocent civilians. An entire region is being terrorized by the constant threat of death from the skies. Their way of life is collapsing: kids are too terrified to go to school, adults are afraid to attend weddings, funerals, business meetings, or anything that involves gathering in groups. Yet there is no end in sight, and nowhere the ordinary men, women and children of North West Pakistan can go to feel safe." http://larouchepac.com/node/24860
Child victims of Bush and Obama’s predator drones.
Where's the outrage over Obama's drone policy?The drone program takes the secret use of federal power against an American citizen to a level never seen before.
magine if President George W. Bush or senior members of his administration asserted that they had the power to assassinate any person, including American citizens on American soil, because they merely suspected them of being involved in a terrorist plot.
Now, imagine that they went a step further and claimed that this broad new power was not subject to any oversight by Congress or the judiciary or international law.
A lot of left-wingers would be apoplectic. And they would be right.
Sadly, a Democratic president, Barack Obama, and senior national security officials in his administration appear to be wielding just that kind of power without any oversight, according to a memorandum outlining the extent of the U.S. drone program uncovered by NBC News Investigative Reporter Michael Isikoff.
Yet, the absence of national outrage is deafening.
Yes, the use of drones is better than sending troops. And yes, Congress did grant the president authorization to fight and kill terrorists.
But the use of drone to kill a U.S. citizen – Anwar Al-Alakwi, a New Mexico born convert to Al Qaeda – raises major civil liberty questions about the need for Congress and the courts to review the president’s lethal use of drones.
As a firm believer in the U.S. Constitution, I was alarmed when the Bush administration used the broad powers afforded to it by Congress under the PATRIOT Act to monitor citizen’s phone calls, travel habits, emails, Internet activity, bank accounts and library records, often without a warrant.
As a journalist I’ve written that Congress was wrong – outright negligent and cowardly – to turn away from its oversight responsibilities as the Bush administration jailed terror suspects without any legal safeguards, sent suspects to jails in other countries and even had U.S. agents use enhanced interrogation techniques to torture people.
President Obama continued many of the Bush administration’s policies. Though there were some notable exceptions. He signed an executive order to close Guantanamo Bay, only to have it blocked by Congress. He discontinued the practice of waterboarding.
As President Bush’s Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, recently said on Fox News: “It seems to me that the approach that the Obama administration is following is consistent with and really derived from the Bush administration approach to the War on Terror.”
Bolton is right.
And now the drone program takes the secret use of federal power against an American citizen to a level never seen before.
It is worth noting that the administration did not even officially acknowledge the existence of the drone program until April of 2012.
The person they chose to make this public disclosure was the man who President Obama has now selected to take charge of the CIA, John Brennan.
It is a fitting choice because Mr. Brennan is the architect of the U.S. drone program. It has been widely reported that Brennan is the keeper of the “Disposition Matrix” which the president uses to determine which terror suspects are targeted by drones.
(Seriously, that is what it is called – “the Disposition Matrix”) Even George Orwell would say that sounds creepy. But I digress.
Brennan had served in the Bush administration as Deputy Executive Director of the CIA and Director of the National Counterterrorism Center. Mr. Obama had reportedly considered nominating him as CIA Director in his first term but pressure over his involvement with waterboarding forced the president to nominate Leon Panetta.
Now Panetta is retiring and President Obama is nominating Mr. Brennan. He is will face tough questions about the drone program from the Senate Intelligence Committee during his confirmation hearing this week.
So far, Brennan and Attorney General Eric Holder have maintained that the drone program has been conducted within the bounds of the law.
Yet, as Oregon Democratic Senator Ron Wyden has pointed out, many questions remain about the program.
For instance, how much evidence does the President need to determine someone can be killed with a drone? In other words, what is the standard or the burden of proof? Is there one?
And who makes the final decision? Apparently an “informed high level” official can determine there is an “imminent threat” and authorize lethal use of the drone. Is that official the president? Is it a national security aide?
Also, as Senator Wyden has asked: Are there any geographical limitations to the president’s ability to kill people with drones? Put another way, could the president send a drone armed with a “Hellfire” missile to kill an American on American soil in their home?
We simply do not have clear answers to these questions.
The drone program has proven to be an effective tool in the War on Terror. However, there is a lack of oversight and accountability that has characterized the program so far.
It is simply too dangerous to place this much power in the hands of one person in these dangerous times — even if that person is the president of the United States.
It is time for Mr. Brennan and President Obama to speak publicly to these legitimate Constitutional concerns
CIA Drone Strikes: Why the CIA Wants More Drones, and Why It Should Have None
Obama's secret assassins
The president has a clandestine network targeting a 'kill list' justified by secret laws. How is that different than a death squad?
AMERICAN PATRIOT FRIENDS NETWORK
"....a network of net workers...."
APFN IS NOT A BUSINESS
APFN IS SUPPORTED BY "FREE WILL" GIFT/DONATIONS
Without Justice, there is JUST_US!
APFN Message Board
APFN Contents Page
APFN Home Page
Last updated 03/23/2013