Report: Obama 'Admin' To Announce 'Low count' Civilian Casualties From Drone Strikes.

Report: Obama 'Admin' To Announce 'Low count' Civilian Casualties From Drone Strikes. (Popsci).

                      An official number, oddly lower than all previous estimates.

Next week, the Obama Administration is expected to announce the civilian death totals from America’s targeted killing campaign by drone. The number will be low. The administration “believes around 100 civilians have died in nearly 500 U.S. drone strikes since 2009,” U.S. officials told NBC.

Reporting on casualties in conflicts, especially ones where everyone involved has a vested interest in some competing version of the truth, is tricky. In 2013, one estimate of the campaign at that point held 3,000 total casualties from drone strikes, with reasonable certainty that at least 700 or so were civilians and children.

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, a nonprofit that’s covered the casualties of the drone war for years, found between 259 and 636 reported civilian deaths from drone strikes in Pakistan alone. The Bureau also maintains records for strikes in Yemen and Somalia, and notes that children as a percentage of drone strike casualties decreased greatly over time.

Other accounts vary greatly, with the 100-civilians figure from the administration at the lower end. Accompanying the announcement is likely to be a change in policy.

The Daily Beast reports:

According to a source familiar with the discussions, the president may also impose other new rules on drone and other air strikes, including providing more financial reparations to families of civilians killed in drone strikes and requiring other countries with which the U.S. partners to follow the same rules as it does. The source added that the administration is also expected to release a less redacted copy of the presidential policy guidance that governs drone strikes. That means more details about the policy may come to light than currently available.

It’s unlikely that any change will prevent this or future administrations from using drones for targeted strikes entirely. Drones are particularly well-suited as a tool of war against non-state actors like Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and ISIS. They are also weapons that can afford to wait. The cameras they carry capture a tremendous amount of detail, enough to differentiate somewhat between the people down below.


With an expectation of transparency on the program, perhaps future drone missions will do better in striking only those who themselves self-identify as agents of malicious violence.

'US drone strikes on Pakistani territory must stop: Army chief General Raheel Sharif.

'US drone strikes on Pakistani territory must stop: Army chief General Raheel Sharif. (ET).

Army chief General Raheel Sharif on Wednesday said US drone strikes on Pakistani territory are regrettable and must stop as they are a threat to the sovereignty and security of the country, Express News reported.

“US drone strikes in Pakistani territory are regrettable and must stop,” said General Raheel while speaking to the media after President Mamnoon Hussain’s address to the joint session of Parliament.

General Raheel Sharif was present at the session marking the start of the new parliamentary year along with the navy and air force chiefs.

Earlier, the army chief warned the recent US drone strike targeting late Taliban leader Mullah Akhtar Mansour was detrimental to bilateral relations between the two countries. The army chief’s reaction came during a meeting with the Ambassador of US David Hale at the General Headquarters in Rawalpindi, a statement issued by Inter Services Public relations (ISPR) said.

While expressing serious concerns over the drone strike, COAS said such acts of sovereignty violations are detrimental to relations between both countries and are counter-productive for ongoing peace process for regional stability. Read the full story here.

Three Countries, Obama's BFF Iran leading Were Responsible for 70 Percent of the World’s Executions in 2014.

Three nations Obama's BFF Iran leading then Iraq, and Saudi Arabia — were responsible for 70 percent of the executions recorded by Amnesty. (Vice).

Conflict and terrorism led governments around the world to execute nearly 500 more people last year than they did in 2013, prompting Amnesty International to express alarm over the increase on Wednesday in the human rights organization's annual report on capital punishment.

While executions were up, Amnesty reported that the number of new death sentences handed down fell by a sizable 22 percent to 607 worldwide in 2014, even as Egypt, Nigeria, and other nations responded to "real or perceived threats to state security."

Since 2009, Amnesty's report has excluded executions in China due to a lack of reliable data from the country, which is believed to put more people to death than the rest of the world combined. Researchers were similarly unable to estimate or distinguish judicial executions from other forms of violence in Syria, where a four-year civil war has claimed the lives of some 220,000 people.

Twenty-two countries carried out executions in 2014, the same as the previous year, but seven of those were states that resumed judicial killings after a hiatus of one or more years. Those countries were Belarus, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Jordan, Pakistan, and the United Arab Emirates.

Three nations — Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia — were responsible for 70 percent of the executions recorded by Amnesty. Activists at the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center said the Iranian government's official capital punishment toll of 289 is likely much higher. The activists put the figure at 721, with a majority of inmates put to death for drug crimes — an application of the penalty that opponents say is particularly heinous. Already this year, the Center has reported 258 executions in Iran, only 73 of which were announced by the government.

In Saudi Arabia, where Amnesty recorded at least 90 executions, some of the cases stemmed from accusations of witchcraft and sorcery, according to the report.

The US remains one of the few industrialized countries that carries out executions. American courts put 35 people to death in 2014, four fewer than the year before. Inmates were executed in seven US states, but only four — Texas, Missouri, Florida, and Oklahoma — accounted for 89 percent of the executions. Read the full story here.

Related: 'Moderate' Iranian Pres Rouhani's 'Admin' executed 500 people in six months.


Total number of executions in 2012 under Ahmadinejad:

Total in 2012: 522
Announced By Government in 2012: 292

Total in 2013: Total in 2013: 624

Announced By Government in 2013: 334

2013 number executed under Rouhani's presidency starting August 2013 see chart.

Notice the halt of executions in May 2013 and the sudden Restart under Rouhani as from October!

Obama White House exempts Syria airstrikes from tight standards on civilian deaths....after being sole authority approving strikes.

Obama White House exempts Syria airstrikes from tight standards on civilian deaths....after being sole authority approving strikes. (Yahoo).

Amid reports of women and children killed in U.S. air offensive, official says the 'near certainty' policy doesn’t apply.

The White House has acknowledged for the first time that strict standards President Obama imposed last year to prevent civilian deaths from U.S. drone strikes will not apply to U.S. military operations in Syria and Iraq.

A White House statement to Yahoo News confirming the looser policy came in response to questions about reports that as many as a dozen civilians, including women and young children, were killed when a Tomahawk missile struck the village of Kafr Daryan in Syria's Idlib province on the morning of Sept. 23.

The village has been described by Syrian rebel commanders as a reported stronghold of the al-Qaida-linked Nusra Front where U.S officials believed members of the so-called Khorasan group were plotting attacks against international aircraft.

Asked about the strike at Kafr Daryan, a U.S. Central Command spokesman said Tuesday that U.S. military “did target a Khorasan group compound near this location. However, we have seen no evidence at this time to corroborate claims of civilian casualties.” But Caitlin Hayden, a spokesperson for the National Security Council, told Yahoo News that Pentagon officials “take all credible allegations seriously and will investigate” the reports.

At the same time, however, Hayden said that a much-publicized White House policy that President Obama announced last year barring U.S. drone strikes unless there is a “near certainty” there will be no civilian casualties — "the highest standard we can meet," he said at the time — does not cover the current U.S. airstrikes in Syria and Iraq.

The “near certainty” standard was intended to apply “only when we take direct action ‘outside areas of active hostilities,’ as we noted at the time,” Hayden said in an email. “That description — outside areas of active hostilities — simply does not fit what we are seeing on the ground in Iraq and Syria right now.”

Hayden added that U.S. military operations against the Islamic State (also known as ISIS or ISIL) in Syria, "like all U.S. military operations, are being conducted consistently with the laws of armed conflict, proportionality and distinction."

The laws of armed conflict prohibit the deliberate targeting of civilian areas and require armed forces to take precautions to prevent inadvertent civilian deaths as much as possible.

But one former Obama administration official said the new White House statement raises questions about how the U.S. intends to proceed in the conflict in Syria and Iraq, and under what legal authorities.

“They seem to be creating this grey zone” for the conflict, said Harold Koh, who served as the State Department’s top lawyer during President Obama’s first term. “If we’re not applying the strict rules [to prevent civilian casualties] to Syria and Iraq, then they are of relatively limited value." Hmmm....At least the US military has one comfort all strikes are 'personally' approved by pres Obama.

President Obama has asked to personally sign off on all airstrikes against Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) targets in Syria, according to a report from the Wall Street Journal.

@pdmastersnyu @MichaelvdGalien @YahooNews Hmm....Obama personally to approve all strikes on ISIS http://t.co/6yAmgatFvq
— MFS - The Other News (@MFS001) October 1, 2014

Obama's BFF Erdogan: "All websites harming Turkey's national interests to be blocked."

Obama's BFF Erdogan: "All websites harming Turkey's national interests to be blocked."(Taz).

All websites that harm the national interests of Turkey will be blocked, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said on March 23, Turkish channel TRT Haber reported.

According to him, the national interests are a priority for the country and Turkey (ERDOGAN) will do everything that is necessary to protect them.

Turkish authorities blocked access to the Twitter microblogging network on Friday night.

Twitter was banned a few hours after Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan made a statement about such a possibility.

He said the issue of banning Youtube and Facebook may be included in the agenda if needed, in order to protect Turkish citizens from external influences.

However Turkish President Abdullah Gul made a statement about the impossibility of banning Youtube and Facebook. He also said a total ban on Twitter in Turkey can not be considered.

Microblogs on Twitter were blocked in Turkey by a court decision, Turkish media outlets said.

It was also reported that Turkey demanded of Twitter to delete the tweets that are against the Turkish statehood, however the company has not yet responded.

Two years ago over 350,000 tweets, inciting anti-Semitism in France, were removed by Twitter in accordance with French government's decision.Hmmm....He will invade Syria in order to survive, only he is important.

Obama's BFF Turkish PM Erdogan might shut down Facebook and YouTube ‘if needed’

Obama's BFF Turkish PM Erdogan might shut down Facebook and YouTube ‘if needed’.(Taz).

Faced with ever-damaging accusations against him, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has threatened to shut down Facebook and YouTube "if necessary" via a controversial new law, while suggesting "he would not sacrifice the Turkish people" to the two websites Hurriyet Daily News reported.

"Some known circles immediately rebelled against this Internet law. We have done everything that we could do up to now, but there are some other steps that we can take after the [local elections on] March 30. We are determined, we won't let the Turkish people be sacrificed to YouTube and Facebook," Erdogan said during a live interview on private broadcaster ATV late March 6.

"Whatever step is necessary, we will take it in the most precise way, including shutting down [both websites] because those people incite any kind of immorality or espionage for the profit of these institutions. There is no such mentality of freedom," Erdogan said.

He also said he had ceased speaking with cryptic phones after the publication of dozens of phone conversations over the Internet. Although he effectively confirmed the authenticity of some of the recordings, Erdogan insisted that tapes leaked on Feb. 24 featuring a conversation with his son about hiding large sums of cash amid graft raids were a "montage."

"I speak now with normal phones. I say to them: 'Listen if you want to.' This wiretapping can bring people to the scaffold, there is such montage," he said.

Erdogan accuses U.S.-based Islamic scholar Fethullah Gulen over the leaks and the massive graft probe that has engulfed his government since mid-December.
Erdogan also said during the interview that he conveyed to U.S. President Barack Obama his complaints regarding Gulen.
"I said the person who is responsible for the unrest in Turkey lives in your country, in Pennsylvania. I said this clearly. 'I expect what's necessary,' I said. You have to take the necessary stance if some threaten my country's security," Erdogan said.

"He looked at it positively. 'We got the message,' he said," Erdogan added.

The Turkish prime minister also said a Red Notice from Interpol may be sought for Gulen.
"Why not? You have to prepare the basis in the first place. And then prepare a thorough bulletin if you do," he said.Hmmmm......'A man Is known by the company he keeps'.

Update: 

Banning of YouTube and Facebook in Turkey out of question -President Gul

Turkish President Abdullah Gül wants government to fix Internet bill this week.

Turkish President Abdullah Gül wants government to fix Internet bill this week. (Taz).

During a "Sunday coffee chat" with journalists in the Huber Palace, which has an impressive view of the Bosphorus, President Abdullah Gül frankly admitted that all efforts to impose bans on the Internet would bear no results, the Hürriyet Daily News reported.

"Even the Americans gave it up," he said. "As far as I know, they tried a lot after the Snowden leaks."

He said he had invited journalists in order to explain why he had approved a controversial law imposing additional government control on the Internet last week. He thinks the New York Times editorial accusing him of joining Prime Minister Tayyip Erdoğan government's "assault on free speech" was "not written with bad intentions, but was unfair."

Gül said he had two options when the bill was sent for his approval after passing with ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Parti) votes in Parliament, despite his earlier warnings that there were "a few problematic points" in the text.

"I could have chosen the easier and more popular way and vetoed it. But in this election atmosphere the government would most likely have passed it again in the same form, and I would then have had no constitutional choice but to sign it with no improvements. I chose the difficult path, hoping that I could make some improvements that could make it acceptable to me, and faced a lot of criticism," he said.

Taking the example of his predecessors "like Süleyman Demirel and Ahmet Necdet Sezer," Gül approved the law and asked the government to make the changes he suggested. If it does not do this, he has the right to apply to the Constitutional Court for the annulment of the whole law.

But Gül is well aware that these explanations will fall short in changing the public perception, both inside and outside Turkey, that he approved a bill limiting ("controlling" is the word Erdoğan prefers) Internet freedom. "It is clear that we [Turkey] are going through a time of negative perceptions. We have to correct this," he said.

That is why he is looking forward to a parliamentary vote led by the government that would fix the drawbacks that he sees in the law.

There are four main "corrections" that Gül seeks.

The first one is taking back the right from the head of the Telecommunications Board (TİB) to demand the content of web communications, in addition to IP addresses. 

The second is the maintenance of the necessity of a court ruling in order to ban an Internet broadcast, instead of the decision simply being made by the head of the TİB. 

The third blocks the transfer of personal information. 

The fourth suggests the establishment of expertise courts; "communications courts" in this case.

"The corrections have already passed through the Planning and Budget Commissions in Parliament, which pleased me. With all due respect to Parliament's will, it is expected that it will be voted on Tuesday. So I hope that we leave this debate behind this week," Gül said.

The question is: What if Parliament doesn't pass the "corrections" that Gül seeks? Would he then go to the Constitutional Court to nix the whole package?

"I am pretty resolute [on those corrections]" Gül answered. "But at the end of the day, we have a government with a clear dominance in Parliament. I don't expect any problems."

President Gül is hopeful that these "corrections" would soothe down the debate on the bill and temper reactions inside and outside Turkey. But he also knows it may not be easy to correct the perception that the Erdoğan government decided to impose limitations on the Internet after the serial release of wiretappings revealing Erdoğan's alleged interventions in the media.

This is especially the case at a time when two more controversial bills are set to come to Gül's desk for approval before the March 30 local elections. One is about more political control over the appointment and inspection of judges and prosecutors, and the other is about additional powers being given to Turkey's National Intelligence Agency (MİT).

Gül, by the way, thinks there were 15 violations of Constitution in the 12 articles of the judges and prosecutors (HSYK) draft, and hopes these were corrected by the government before they were voted on last week.Hmmmm.....trying to regain his 100,000 twitter unfollowers from last week?

'Islamist' Turkey toughens fight against drunken drivers.

'Islamist' Turkey toughens fight against drunken drivers.(Taz).

New rules will be implemented in Turkey starting today as part of measures to fight against drunken drivers, Turkish Milliyet newspaper reported

The driving licenses of those caught driving drunk for the first time will be suspended for six months, according to the report.

In case of a second occurrence, the driver's license will be suspended for two years, and if for a third time - for five years.

Turkey has been taking a series of measures to minimize traffic accidents. Recently Turkey made the use of seatbelts on buses mandatory for passengers.

Every year over 8,000 people are killed in road accidents in Turkey, most of the victims being those aged 15-29, according to official statistics.

Excessive speed is the cause of 34 percent of fatal accidents.
Approximately 385,000 people have been killed in road accidents in Turkey in the past 30 years

With approved Internet Bill, Turkey Drifts Away from Democracy, towards Sharia ruled Turkey.

GUESS WHEN THE AKP AND ERDOGAN CAME TO POWER

With approved Internet Bill, Turkey Drifts Away from Democracy, towards Sharia ruled Turkey.HT: Freedomhouse

Turkey has a history of violating internet freedom, and abuses of media freedom in general are rising sharply. But now that President Abdullah Gül signed the restrictive internet bill adopted by the parliament last week, he will take the country into uncharted territory.

Going well beyond previous edicts on Turkish cyberspace, the new legislation hands the government the authority to block individual URLs without judicial review. It also obliges internet service providers (ISPs) to store users’ personal internet data for up to two years, and creates a single association of ISPs.

Draconian measures to censor the internet are not shocking given Turkey’s track record on media and internet freedom over the past decade. Since 2001, the government has sought to codify laws that directly target online content in a manner that disregards the universal right to “seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” The 2007 law that the new legislation would amend, No. 5651 on Regulating Broadcasting in the Internet, already allows courts to block websites if there is “sufficient suspicion” of a crime. The measure was invoked to ban YouTube in 2008–10, and more recently Vimeo, another video-sharing service, in January 2014. In its 2013 Transparency Report, Google disclosed that the Turkish government had made almost 1,700 requests to remove material, and Freedom House’s Freedom on the Net 2013 report stated that Turkey was blocking 29,000 websites as of April 2013.

Such restrictions have been subject to critical rulings by the European Court of Human Rights, which condemned Law No. 5651 in 2012. But the judgments have not deterred Turkey from pursuing additional mechanisms for censoring online speech.

The European Union has denounced the new bill publicly, indicating that it would not be compatible with Turkey’s EU candidacy. In issuing his statement on the legislation, EU Enlargement Commissioner Stefan Fule ironically used Twitter, which Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan labeled a “menace” following its prominent role in antigovernment protests centered on Istanbul’s Gezi Park in the summer of 2013.

However, the internet bill is not simply a response to the protests, which were ultimately crushed by police. Instead, the legislation seems designed to suppress leaks related to a corruption investigation into Erdoğan’s government. One damaging audio recording, in which the prime minister is allegedly heard discussing a bribe to ease zoning laws for a construction tycoon, was shared through the file-sharing site SoundCloud in January.

The proposed law would effectively institutionalize  many of the violations of user rights that the government until now has committed on an ad hoc, indirect, or extralegal basis. For example:

• The bill circumvents the often pliant courts by giving the transport and telecommunications minister full authority to block individual URLs based on mere allegations. No safeguards are included to ensure transparency and due process.

• The rules requiring ISPs to keep records of users’ online activity for up to two years would also force them to hand over unspecified data to the government on demand. There are no provisions for independent oversight of these requests, leaving the door open to extensive abuse.

• The amendment creating a single association of ISPs has led Doğan Akın, founder of the news website T24, to argue that the legislation is an attempt by the government to control the internet in the same way that it already controls traditional media—through financial, regulatory, and political pressure on large business groups.

After the parliament adopted the bill, Turkish citizens flooded the streets last Saturday, chanting, “Hands off my internet!” Freedom House has joined Turkish civil society and other international organizations in calling on President Gül to veto the legislation.

The EU should likewise continue to urge the president to reject a statute that would contradict the principles of its Digital Agenda, including freedom of expression, access to independent media, and user privacy. As Catherine Ashton, the EU’s high representative for foreign affairs, stated in January 2013, “For cyberspace to remain open and free, the same norms, principles and values that the EU upholds offline, should also apply online.”

The United States has also expressed concerns about the bill, but it and other allies of Turkey have often been reluctant to confront Erdoğan’s government over its growing antidemocratic abuses. To prevent further deterioration, the United States—as a supporter of Turkish democracy and a promoter of internet freedom—must urgently remind Ankara that Turkey’s political stability and economic vitality depend in large part on its compliance with human rights obligations.

There are many ways in which the Erdoğan government’s actions are opening a gap between its international ambitions for Turkey and the country’s actual course, but one marker of this divergence is fast approaching. In September 2014, Istanbul will host the ninth annual meeting of the Internet Governance Forum, for which human rights, freedom of expression, and the free flow of information on the internet are key concerns. As host, Turkey must set an example of basic compliance with these norms. It will be patently unable to do so now President Gül signed the internet legislation before him.

Internet monitoring in Turkey is not a new phenomenon. According to a 2013 study by the Economic Policy Research Foundation of Turkey (TEPAV), Turkey ranks second after China in demands to ban internet content. It is estimated that Turkey currently restricts accessibility to as many as 10,000 websites. In 2013 Google’s Transparency Report notes that 1,673 requests for content takedown were submitted by the Turkish government in the first six months of 2013. That number is more than three times to number of requests submitted by any other government.

Turkey's pres. Gül approves tighter control of Internet.

Turkey's pres. Gül approves tighter control of Internet.(Taz).

Turkey's president announced his approval of the new law tightening control over the Internet, bolstering embattled Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan but deepening concerns about free speech and the rule of law, Today's Zaman reported.

Gül said on his Twitter account he gave his approval after the government announced it would push through parliament an amendment of the new legislation in response to the president's concerns regarding two articles in the law.

The bill, passed by parliament this month and was approved by President Abdullah Gül late Tuesday, are seen by Erdoğan's critics as an authoritarian response to a corruption inquiry shaking his government, a bid to stymie court cases and to stop leaks circulating online.

The new law on the judiciary will give the government more influence over the naming of judges and prosecutors, while the Internet bill will enable the authorities to block access to web pages within hours without a prior court order.

The moves by Turkey, which has been seeking membership of the European Union for decades, have raised concern in Brussels, which fears it is shifting further away from EU norms, and unnerved investors in a country whose stability over the past decade has been based on Erdoğan's firm rule.

Erdoğan's opponents have called on Gül, who co-founded the ruling AK Party with him in 2001 but is generally seen as a more conciliatory figure than the combative prime minister, to use his powers to veto the bills.

Speaking to reporters on a trip to Hungary late on Monday, he gave little sign he would do so.
"As the president I cannot put myself in the position of the constitutional court. But in a very general way, I can make my objections concerning the points I see," he was quoted as saying by the Hurriyet and Habertürk newspapers.

Gül pointed out he had raised concerns about the AK Party's first draft of the judicial reform bill, which had since been amended, and that the opposition had already indicated it would in any case appeal to the constitutional court.

"That is our tradition. Presidents before me would say 'the constitutional court decides on the subject of laws in which there are arguments for and against'," he was quoted as saying.

Gül has also said there are "problems" with some elements of the Internet law, which the country's communications minister was quoted on Tuesday as saying may still be amended.

Gül has made little secret of his desire to return to mainstream politics and is seen as a future leader of the AKP, an ambition his critics say leaves him too wary of conflict with Erdoğan to act as an effective check on his power.

"Gül wants to serve as president for a second term and has the desire to chair the AKP after Erdoğan, so even if he does not fully agree, he is approving controversial reguations from the party," Turkish political analyst Atilla Yeşilada said in a report.

The battle for control of the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors (HSYK), which appoints senior members of the judiciary, lies at the heart of a feud between Erdoğan and his critics.

Gül is seen as enjoying more support from Gülen's network of sympathizers, who view themselves as pro-democratic and reformist, then Erdoğan, whose views on issues from abortion to alcohol they see as unnecessary interference in private life.

In the eyes of Turkey's opposition, too weak in parliament to stall AKP bills, that opens the way for Erdoğan to impose an increasingly authoritarian rule.

"If the president approves the HSYK law, the judiciary will be bound completely to the government. The separation of powers will be completely shelved," said Devlet Bahçeli, head of the opposition Nationalist Movement Party (MHP).

"I fear that Prime Minister Erdoğan will sit at the top of the judiciary as the chief judge."Hmmm....."Judge, Jury and executioner?"

Anti-drone activist kidnapped in Pakistan before he was due to testify in Europe, lawyer claims.

Anti-drone activist kidnapped in Pakistan before he was due to testify in Europe, lawyer claims.(RT).

Kareem Khan was taken from his home in Rawalpindi – a city located just nine miles away from Islamabad in Punjab province – by approximately 20 men. Shahzad Akbar, Khan’s lawyer, told AFP that many of the men were wearing police uniforms, though the affiliation of the kidnappers remains unknown.

Khan was scheduled to depart Pakistan on Saturday to speak with German, Dutch, and British parliamentarians about his experience with drone strikes.

Khan originally hails from the tribal region of North Waziristan and became the first Pakistani man to sue the US government in connection with drone attacks that killed members of his family. Khan’s brother and son were killed in a strike in December 2009.

Akbar now maintains that Khan’s wife and children have not been given any information regarding his location, or why he was taken.
“We lodged a report with the local police but they denied having picked him up,” the attorney said. “It seems to be work of the intelligence agencies.”

Local police have denied any involvement, saying they have no record of a raid on the night in question.
Clare Algar, executive director at Reprieve – a legal charity based in the UK – wrote on the organization’s website that officials are growing concerned.

“We are very worried about Mr. Khan’s safety,” she wrote. “He is a crucial witness to the dangers of the CIA’s covert drone program, and has simply sought justice for the death of his son and brother through peaceful, legal routes. Reports that he was detained by men in police uniforms are of great concern, and we urge the Government of Pakistan to do everything in its power to secure his immediate release.”

He first filed suit in 2010, asserting that drone strikes murder innocent civilians and violate international law by subverting the international prohibition on assassinations away from a battlefield. Khan said he was not home at the time of the strike, but stated that neighbors witnessed a massive blast.

In addition to Khan’s brother and son, a construction worker also died in the strike. Khan’s brother was a teacher with a master’s degree in English, while his son was a staff member at a government school.

Senior US intelligence officials told CNN at the time that Khan was suspected of housing Haji Omar Khan, a notorious Taliban leader who was also killed in the strike. Khan has denied ever knowing Haji Omar Khan, who fought against the Soviet Red Army in Afghanistan before developing close ties with Mullah Omar.

Last year, Akbar – who represents a number of Pakistanis affected by drone strikes – and other activists published a letter in which they named the CIA station chief in Islamabad, accusing he and CIA director John Brennan of murder for their role in a drone strike late last year.

While exact figures are murky, AFP estimates that 2,155 Pakistanis have been killed in drone attacks since august 2008. It remains unknown how many of those killed were suspected militants and how many were civilians. Hmmmm......"I can do anything i want?"

Read the Memo Explaining Why the U.S. Can Totally Kill Its Own Citizens Without Trial.

Read the Memo Explaining Why the U.S. Can Totally Kill Its Own Citizens Without Trial.HT: Slate.

Obtained by NBC News. As Glenn Greenwald explains, "This is not the primary OLC memo justifying Obama's kill list -- that is still concealed -- but it appears to track the reasoning of that memo as anonymously described to the New York Times in October 2011."

Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen who is a Senior Operational Leader of Al Q... by Mike Riggs

Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen who is a Senior Operational Leader of Al Q...

I don't quite want to throw up my hands and just say "read Greenwald," but the man slings words by the barrel and he explains most of the moral queasiness-inducers in the memo. The political context to view this in is that a growing (but small) number of liberals and libertarians, led today by Jeff Merkley and Rand Paul, want to pass resolutions that restore the power to declare war to Congress. Ending the authorization of military force (or, as Paul and Merkley want, requiring a new authorization from Congress for further action in Afghanistan) would complicate the legal kludging in this memo.Read the full story here.

David Weigel is a Slate political reporter. You can reach him at daveweigel@gmail.com, or tweet at him @daveweigel.

"Survival of the Fittest" Drone-spotting: Survival guide informs on new breed of aerial predators.

"Survival of the Fittest" Drone-spotting: Survival guide informs on new breed of aerial predators.(RT).

In light of the growing number of drones, the Guide advises a number of techniques to evade and scramble drones. The document is available online and has been translated into 17 different languages.

“Our ancestors could spot natural predators from far by their silhouettes. Are we equally aware of the predators in the present-day?” writes the Guide.

It contains the silhouettes and measurements of all of the most widely-used drones, from the ‘Killer Bee’ to ‘The Sentinel’ as well as information on where they are currently operational. It goes on to detail ways you can hide from a drone.

“Most drones are equipped with night vision, and/or infrared vision cameras, so-called FLIR sensors. These can see human heat signatures from far away, day or night. However there are ways to hide from drones.”

Among the tactics it advices for eluding the aerial craft are: hiding “in thick forests,” wearing space blankets to confuse heat sensors, not using wireless communication, and the use of mannequins or human-sized dolls as decoys.

“Wait for bad weather. Drones cannot operate in high winds, smoke, rainstorms or heavy weather conditions.”


As well as avoidance strategies to escape from the craft, the document also gives advice on how to hack into a drone’s systems. The Guide gives the assurance that as long as a drone’s communications are not encrypted then they can be hacked. It describes how to intercept and interfere with the workings of a drone and also details a process called “spoofing”.

“Small, portable GPS transmitters can send fake GPS signals and disrupt the Drones navigation systems. This can be used, for example, to steer drones into self-destruction flight paths or even hijack them and land them on a runway.”Read the full story here.

Obama 'admin' Changes Drone Strike Rules To 'Permit' Bombing Civilians.

Obama 'admin' Changes Drone Strike Rules To 'Permit' Bombing Civilians.(Washington Times)

The Pentagon has loosened its guidelines on avoiding civilian casualties during drone strikes, modifying instructions from requiring military personnel to “ensure” civilians are not targeted to encouraging service members to “avoid targeting” civilians.

In addition, instructions now tell commanders that collateral damage “must not be excessive” in relation to mission goals, according to Public Intelligence, a nonprofit research group that analyzed the military’s directives on drone strikes.

“These subtle but important changes in wording provide insight into the military’s attempts to limit expectations in regards to minimizing collateral damage and predicting the lethal effects of military operations,” Public Intelligence said in a recent report.

“Before any strike is taken, there must be near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured — the highest standard we can set,” President Obama said in a rare acknowledgment of the strikes in May 2012.Read the full story here.

New book claims Obama told aides: 'I'm really good at killing people'

New book claims Obama told aides: 'I'm really good at killing people' HT: RussiaToday.

The quote comes from a new book called “Double Down,” by journalists Mark Halperin and John Heileman, which chronicles the inside story of the 2012 election. The Washington Post was the first outlet to expose the quote in its review of the book.

The White House has yet to comment on the alleged quote, but one of the president’s senior advisors, Dan Pfeiffer, rejected many of the book’s claims on ABC’s Sunday show “This Week.” The book also claims that Obama’s political team considered replacing Vice President Joe Biden with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for the reelection campaign.

"The president is always frustrated about leaks," Pfeiffer said. "I haven't talked to him about this book. I haven't read it. He hasn't read it. But he hates leaks."

The revelation of the quote comes as the administration’s drone campaign is placed under increasing scrutiny. Since taking office in 2008, and winning the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009, Obama has greatly expanded the use of drones and targeted killings in foreign nations. He oversaw the 2009 surge in Afghanistan, drone operations during NATO’s 2011 involvement in Libya, the May 2011 raid that killed Osama bin Laden, and the most recent strike that killed the Pakistani Taliban leader Hakimullah Mehsud.

According to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism in London, the president has authorized 326 strikes in Pakistan alone. It also estimates that, since George W. Bush took office for his second term in 2004, the strikes have killed anywhere between 2,500 and 3,600 individuals, and that between 416 and 948 of those individuals were civilians.

The White House claims the number of civilians killed by drones is much lower than that, though it has declined to release its own number for national security reasons. The administration considers any “military-age males” within a strike zone to be combatants.

Civilian drone deaths came under the spotlight just recently in Washington, when a Pakistani school teacher and his family testified before Congress on the effects of the program on civilians. According to Amnesty International, the family’s grandmother was killed by a U.S. drone strike in 2012, along with 18 other civilians.

 For his part, Obama has argued that the drone program is legal, and that it actually prevents the death of even more civilians at the hands of terrorists.
"Let us remember that the terrorists we are after target civilians, and the death toll from their acts of terrorism against Muslims dwarfs any estimate of civilian casualties from drone strikes," Obama said during a speech earlier this year.Hmmmm......Flashback 2012 :

WHITE HOUSE INSIDER: Barack Obama’s High Tech Snuff Films.

Video - 'Will I Be Next?' Pakistan drone survivor evidence prompts calls for US war crime trials.

Amnesty international is accusing the US of committing war crimes through its drone program in Pakistan.(RT).

A report from the Human Rights organization lists recent incidents and says there's an almost complete absence of transparency. The activists have challenged the Obama administration to prove it has thoroughly investigated all cases of unlawful killings.

The report is based on the investigation of the nine out of 45 drone strikes reported between January 2012 and August 2013 in North Waziristan, the area where the US drone campaign is most intensive. The research is centered on one particular case – that of 68-year-old Mamana Bibi, who was killed by a US drone last October while she was picking vegetables with her grandchildren.

The report is entitled ‘Will I be next?’ citing the woman’s eight-year-old granddaughter Nabeela, who was near when the attack occurred, but miraculously survived.

"First it whistled then I heard a "dhummm". The first hit us and the second my cousin,” Nabeela recalls.

The report also recounts an incident from July 2012, when 18 laborers, including a 14-year-old, were killed in the village of Zowi Sidgi. The men gathered after work in a tent to have a rest when the first missile hit. The second struck those who tried to help the injured.

“Amnesty International is seriously concerned that these and other strikes have resulted in unlawful killings that may constitute extrajudicial executions or war crimes,” the report reads.

Amnesty’s main point is the need for transparency and accountability, something the US has so far been reluctant to offer.

“The US must explain why these people have been killed - people who are clearly civilians. It must provide justice to these people, compensation and it must investigate those responsible for those killings,” Mustafa Qadri, the Amnesty researcher who wrote the report, says.

The report comes at a time when the US is facing growing international pressure over its drone program.

Nawaz Sharif, the Pakistani prime minister, is currently in Washington, where he is expected to talk drones with Barack Obama. And on Friday the UN General Assembly will be debating the use of remotely-piloted aircraft.

In a separate report, a UN investigation revealed some 33 drone strikes around the world - not just in Pakistan - that violated international humanitarian law and resulted in hundreds of civilian casualties. That report is also calling for more transparency and accountability from the United States.

Analyst: Drone strikes are a violation of international law and constitute the supreme war crime under the Nuremberg principles.

Analyst: Drone strikes are a violation of international law and constitute the supreme war crime under the Nuremberg principles.(PressTv).

A US political commentator says CIA assassination drone strikes are a violation of international law and constitute the supreme war crime under the Nuremberg principles.

Dr. Kevin Barrett, who is one of the renowned US critics of Washington’s so-called war on terror, made the remarks in an interview with Press TV on Friday, a day after a United Nations report warned that the use of armed drones threatens global security and encourages more states to acquire unmanned weapons.

“These drone strikes are clearly examples of the supreme war crime under the Nuremberg principles, which is the crime of aggression. Attacking another country, that is in any situation other than to stop an imminent attack on one’s own country, is aggression, the supreme war crime,” Barrett said.

“So every single drone strike is an example of this supreme war crime, and I think this UN report is an example of too little too late. They are not coming out and calling it what it is — the supreme war crime. They are simply claiming it is a misguided example of so-called global policing.

“But if some anti-American group would start using drones to blow up wedding parties in the US, it would be called terrorism and these people would be internationally considered outlaws.

“So the Americans who are using this cowardly means of slaughtering innocent civilians all over the world are terrorists and outlaws as well.”

The veteran commentator also said, “I do not think the UN is going to be able to stop these drone attackers from doing their evil deeds. I think it will probably happen gradually as the US Empire slowly loses its power.”

The UN report, which has been submitted to the UN General Assembly by Christof Heyns — the organization’s special rapporteur on extrajudicial killings, summary or arbitrary executions — called for states that operate armed drones to be more transparent and publicly disclose how they use them.

“The expansive use of armed drones by the first states to acquire them, if not challenged, can do structural damage to the cornerstones of international security and set precedents that undermine the protection of life across the globe in the longer term,” the report said.

“The use of drones by states to exercise essentially a global policing function to counter potential threats presents a danger to the protection of life, because the tools of domestic policing (such as capture) are not available, and the more permissive targeting framework of the laws of war is often used instead,” it pointed out.

The report also called for international laws to be respected rather than ignored.

“The view that mere past involvement in planning attacks is sufficient to render an individual targetable, even where there is no evidence of a specific and immediate attack, distorts the requirements established in international human rights law,” stated the report.

Countries cannot consent “to the violation of their obligations under international humanitarian law or international human rights law,” it added.

The report noted that “drones come from the sky but leave the heavy footprint of war on the communities they target.”

“The claims that drones are more precise in targeting cannot be accepted uncritically, not least because terms such as ‘terrorist’ or ‘militant’ are sometimes used to describe people who are in truth protected civilians,” it said.

The report is the first of two major papers on drone strikes due to be debated at the UN General Assembly on October 25.

The second, by Ben Emmerson, the UN special rapporteur on human rights and counter-terrorism, was published on Friday.

The investigation found that US drone strikes have killed more than 450 civilians in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen over the past decade.

Emmerson said that drone strikes have killed far more civilians than US officials have publicly acknowledged.
He said on Thursday that at least 400 in Pakistan and as many as 58 in Yemen have been killed by the CIA drone strikes, and censured the US for failing to aid the investigation by disclosing its own figures.


Washington uses assassination drones in several countries, claiming that they target “terrorists”. According to witnesses, however, the attacks have mostly led to massive civilian casualties.

Related: RT – Drones - National Debate Coaches Association (PDF).

1. Jeff, Research Analyst at the Institute for the Study of War. .... Under international law, in order for the U.S. government to legally target civilian terror ... including by a non-state actor, would constitute an “armed attack” under Article 51. ...... US drone policies violate UN Basic Principles