Slashdot Mirror
Drone Killed Hostages From U.S. and Italy, Drawing Obama Apology
HughPickens.com writes: The NYT reports that President Obama has offered an emotional apology for the accidental killing of two hostages held by Al Qaeda, one of them American, in a United States government counterterrorism operation in January, saying he takes "full responsibility" for their deaths. "As president and as commander in chief, I take full responsibility for all our counterterrorism operations," including the one that inadvertently took the lives of the two captives, a grim-faced Obama said in a statement to reporters in the White House briefing room. The White House earlier released an extraordinary statement revealing that intelligence officials had confirmed that Warren Weinstein, an American held by Al Qaeda since 2011, and Giovanni Lo Porto, an Italian held since 2012, died during the operation. Gunmen abducted Warren Weinstein in 2011 from his home in Lahore, Pakistan. They posed as neighbors, offered food and then pistol-whipped the American aid worker and tied up his guards, according to his daughter Alisa Weinstein.
The White House did not explain why it has taken three months to disclose the episode. Obama said that the operation was conducted after hundreds of hours of surveillance had convinced American officials that they were targeting an Al Qaeda compound where no civilians were present, and that "capturing these terrorists was not possible." The White House said the operation that killed the two hostages "was lawful and conducted consistent with our counterterrorism policies" but nonetheless the government is conducting a "thorough independent review" to determine what happened and how such casualties could be avoided in the future.
The White House did not explain why it has taken three months to disclose the episode. Obama said that the operation was conducted after hundreds of hours of surveillance had convinced American officials that they were targeting an Al Qaeda compound where no civilians were present, and that "capturing these terrorists was not possible." The White House said the operation that killed the two hostages "was lawful and conducted consistent with our counterterrorism policies" but nonetheless the government is conducting a "thorough independent review" to determine what happened and how such casualties could be avoided in the future.
So, if he's fully responsible for accidentally killing an American, he'll be prosecuted for manslaughter, right?
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Gotta crack a few eggs to make an omelet. If you're worried about dying and are American, stay out of the Middle East.
Does that mean that someone -finally- has legal standing to sue the United States government for their unconstitutional counterterrorism actions?
I am not an Obama fan but I cannot place blame on anyone here except Al Qaeda. Intelligence isn't perfect, it appears due diligence was done, but unfortunately hostages were killed. Perhaps the blame should go to the group that took perfectly innocent people hostage and held them near military commanders who they knew were being targeted.
Sooo . . . does that mean he's going to stand trial for murder? Or even manslaughter? What does "taking full responsibility" actually mean? That I look sad?
It seems like every time we hear about a hostage in the Middle East we find out that they've been kidnapped for years. What the hell is going on over there?
... only because they made up new laws (or executive orders) to make it legal.
Yeah, I voted for the guy, but I am a e seriously disappointed.
They were drawing such a lovely Obama apology when he ordered that drone strike.
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
Drone strikes where you just decide whatever civilians are nearby deserved to die results in unintended deaths.
Who fucking knew?
In other words, we're bumbling idiots.
Maybe your remote control warfare doesn't provide you with enough actual understanding of the situation and just deciding to bomb something without really knowing what you're doing is a bad idea?
'Collateral Damage' is military speak for "we don't actually care who we kill, but we'll pretend it's not a war crime".
If America keeps bombing Pakistan ... is it OK for Pakistan to bomb America? Because the level of "because we're special" which happens here is mind boggling.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
The White House did not explain why it has taken three months to disclose the episode.
Because they were scared someone else had evidence and was going to WikiLeak it.
going over there and everything will be just fine... it works for me,
Then if there is any sign of aggression you can fo what you want with them...
Rush Limbaugh declared today that this admission was just a smoke screen to deflect attention from Hillary's criminal activities.
If kidnapping Westerners and keeping them within 50 feet of you grants you immunity from airstrikes, that increases the incentive to kidnap westerners.
There's no winning the hostage game -- if you ignore the hostages you lose the PR war, if you play to the hostages then you encourage future kidnappings. It's a lose-lose game. The same is seen for the millions of Euro paid by various European nations as ransom -- some of that money goes right back into funding more hostage-taking missions.
There is no way to time-consistent way reconcile the interests of the current hostage in not getting bombed/beheaded with the interests of future hostages in not being kidnapped in the first instance. It's a repeating game, we cannot evaluate each iteration separately but at the same time we cannot evaluate them all together.
I mean, killing innocent Americans and innocent Italians with drone strikes. Now that is totally unacceptable!
I struggle to understand why a terrorist cell would hold a hostage for four years. Surely the cost just for feeding him would be excessive? It's too long to wait for a ransom, and if he was intended as a shield from US strikes they would have advertised his location. Just doesn't make sense.
Seriously, don't f'ing go live in those middle east countries unless you're a native.
about blowing up people, "terrorists" or not, in other countries. The U.S is the greatest violator and aggressor in the world today.
elephant in the room question: why is a jew (I assume) hanging out in a country that does not accept his way of life as valid?
there are places that you should not go if you are deeply hated for your last name. pakistan is one such place.
I will never understand what drives people to go spend time in such a hostile country. it does not forgive what happened, but if you go to dangerous places, bad shit can and will happen.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
I've been thinking about this for a long time, especially after the rash of hostages killed by ISIS. At this point, nobody can really claim to not know the danger. I know nothing about Lo Porto but Weinstein clearly knew the dangers. So we did he stay there? I think there are several reasons why westerners put themselves in deliberate danger in places like Pakistan, Syria, etc.
1) Some people are simply mentally ill. After the first Japanese hostage was killed by ISIS, it came out that he was mentally ill. Not mentally ill enough to need to be locked away, but clearly incapable of making rational decisions regarding his own safety. People like this are simply always going to gravitate towards dangerous places because the internet makes sure that they know where the really dangerous places are.
2) Some people believe that they are special and the bad guys won't go after them because they are "helping". Most of the hostages fall into this category. Weinstein was like this. Alan Henning fell into this category and possibly the first one as well. Reports are that Henning believed to the very end that the fact that he was there to help would save his life. Sometimes these people get away with being in a dangerous location once and they think that they are simply lucky and won't ever be harmed. Henning went into Syria several times and was left alone. The second Japanese hostage executed by ISIS went to help the first one and he went because he'd been to the area before and thought he was special and the bad guys would leave him alone.
3) Some people are so overcome with their desire to help others that they can't rationally assess the danger and while they know if they are captured it's going to end very badly for them, they believe that they will simply beat the odds. Remember many years ago when Americans and Europeans volunteered to be human shields for Saddam Hussein? They were like this. A few months ago it got announced that a young American female hostage was supposedly killed in a bombing raid against ISIS. She had operated in the area previously and had to know the danger, but she believed that because nobody had yet bothered her that she could work there at no risk. She died as a result of being wrong about that.
There's some overlap between those vague 3 reasons I gave for people ignoring the real danger to be in places like Pakistan and Syria and so on, but I don't know how we can ever stop people from willingly becoming victims of their own bad decisions about personal risk.
Funny thing about "collateral damage" -- if it happens consistently enough, then logically, there must come a point where it can no longer reasonably be called "accidental" (i.e. manslaughter).
Guess what it becomes at that point?
The only factor up for debate is just how consistent it must become to no longer be considered accidental. I'll let you decide for yourselves on that one, and simply point out that the victims of collateral damage probably have a vastly different answer than the aggressors.
"Drone delivers pizza, kills hostage..."
News at 11.
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
Drones are so amazing! They're "precision guided" and they're "remote assets" and they allow us to "prosecute our war theaters" without having "boots on the ground!"
Yeehaw! Go, drones!
Oh, wait. You're saying that some 19 year old guy sitting in an air-conditioned room in Arizona who played a lot of XPlane growing up might have accidentally killed our own people when he was totally rad cruising sweet Predators 3,500 miles away and pew-pew-pew chargenup his lazors by remote control?
Darnit! Whoopsie! There was a minor accident! YA THINK??
Fuck war, fuck the military-industrial complex, and I hope certain happy accidents befall everyone in the chain of command that led to Americans dying via drone strike.
elephant in the room question: why is a jew (I assume) hanging out in a country that does not accept his way of life as valid?
Like France or England?
I was just reading that, due to Muslim students, it's no longer possible for someone to be a teacher in France while being openly Jewish.
The British branch of Amnesty International just refused to look at violence against Jews. And on and on and on...
Jews are people of the book, as said by Muhammad. Why should he be afraid to walk among Muslims?
Here:
http://notabugsplat.com/
I'm not disappointed at all. Drones are so much better than actually invading Pakistan, and reduces the number of kids that get killed in war.
I never got the hate for drones in the first place. Why would you want to launch a ground invasion instead, which means MORE kids getting killed?
Sure, if you want to kill someone, you're right. I think the argument against drones is that if you push a button and someone dies on the other side of the Earth and you didn't have to go to war to do that ... well, fast forward two years and you're just sitting there hitting that button all day long. "The quarter solution" or whatever you want to call it is still resulting in deaths and, as we can see here, we're not 100% sure whose deaths that button is causing. Even if we study the targets really really hard.
And since Pakistan refuses to own their Al Queda problem, we have to take care of it for them.
No, no we don't. You might say "Al Queda hit us now we must hunt them to the ends of the Earth" but it doesn't mean that diplomacy and sovereignty just get flushed down the toilet. Those country borders will still persist despite all your shiny new self-appointed world police officer badges. Let me see if I can explain this to you: If David Koresh had set off bombs in a Beijing subway and then drones lit up Waco like the fourth of July and most of the deaths were Branch Davidians, how would you personally feel about that? Likewise, if Al Queda is our problem and we do that, we start to get more problems. Now, that said, it's completely true that Pakistan's leadership has privately condoned these strikes while publicly lambasting the US but that's a whole different problem.
Also, we must always assume that war = killing kids. The fact that people think kids shouldn't be killed in war basically gives people more of an incentive to go to war in the first place. When Bush invaded Iraq, the public should have asked "OK, how many kids are we expected to kill?" Because all war means killing kids. There has never been a war without killing kids.
The worst people are the ones that romanticize war, by saying war is clean and happy and everyone shakes hands at the end. War is the worst, most horrible thing, and we need to make sure people understand that, or they'll continue to promote war.
Yep, think of the children -- that's why we should use drone strikes, right? Look, war means death. Death doesn't discriminate and neither does war. If you're hung up on it being okay to take a life the second that male turns 18, you're pretty much morally helpless anyway. War is bad. Drone strikes are bad. There's enough bad in there for them both to be bad. This isn't some false dichotomy where it's one or the other. It's only one or the other if you're hellbent on killing people.
News flash: you can argue against drone strikes and also be opposed to war at the same time. It does not logically follow that since you're against drone strikes, you're pro war and pro killing children. That's the most unsound and absurd flow of logic I've seen in quite some time.
My work here is dung.
They don't hate jews, they hate zionists. They're not the same thing.
They only make that distinction when speaking to others. When nobody's looking they hate all jews the same.
All that any terrorist organization needs to do to ensure no strikes on them is to go kidnap a hostage and let it be known that there might be one held there?
I'm sorry, but I don't see what is wrong here. Those people were abducted years ago and are no doubt not being treated very well. We can avoid striking camps because there *might* be hostages there, but that just means a terrorist camp stays up and running allowing more kidnappings and attacks.
I personally believe that far too many liberties are taken by government organizations in the name of anti-terrorism, but even I believe that when you find a camp of known enemies that are conducting operations against you, you attack. Two long-term human shields notwithstanding.
The highest level person that explicitly signed off on the strike should be fired. That's not the president--he authorises programs like this with the intention that they're carried out properly. (Whether or not this is an action the USA should be taking is a matter for elections.) If something goes wrong, someone should be punished for their incompetence. It can't be the lowest level person, because they're not the one calling the shots--it has to be someone high in the chain of command. Only explicit accountability can keep this sort of thing from happening again, assuming that this program must continue at all.
(I'm all for banning this sort of thing, but let's be real. Of course, if we're being real, we probably won't hear about this ever again.)
Who exactly is 'they' in this context?
If it's lawful to kill civilians with drones, then you should change your rotten laws.
I'm an RPA pilot, and the only thing you said there that wasn't complete horseshit was the part about flight suits. Show me any sort of logic that says risking my life is any different than risking anybody else's life. I'm not a special snowflake. The reason for the RPA is not to save my life, it's to make the operation more successful or less expensive than another approach. As to your bullshit video game throwaway, I'm not playing video games, I'm playing for keeps. The consequences of losing are, on the big scale, losing the nation and my daughter's freedom. That's not a video game. I don't kill people for the fun, nor is it fun. And no, I'm not walking into work thinking I'm hot shit, in fact, this is the most humble group of pilots I've flown with. However, we keep in top form because failures kill people.
By the way, you're the fucking coward, hiding behind a computer screen, and the men and women who are willing to fight for your right to slander them. I've put my nuts out there, flying over Iraq and Afghanistan. Keep up the bullshit from thinkprogress bullshit, buddy, and feel morally superior at it.
Because even Jews proselytize.
Religion is bad. The cause of war and hatred and unprovable unresolvable differences amongst peoples.
FUCK RELIGION.
Those were just wedding parties...
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
The vaguely defined "other" created to foster inward solidarity and outward hostility.
Problem solved.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
republicans
It means nobody else in the US government has to say they are sorry. It means the Prez won't be blaming anyone else. It means he may have to exchange political credit in a public conversation with Republicans. It might even mean, that the media might not say 'yes, mr. president' quite as strongly, quickly or loudly as it has been doing for his time in office.
As per Article II, Section IV, a president is not "arrested", he is impeached. As per Article I, Section 3, it is the responsibility of the House to impeach a president.
But even when the president is impeached, that is only a legal accusation of a crime, not the trial itself. After impeachment is successfully completed in the house, it is the Senate's responsibility to hold a trial. Then, and only then, can a president be "arrested", only one individual in the entire United States has the authority to do that: the Senate Sergeant in Arms.
You can accuse him all you want of having committed a crime. But until the House actually impeaches a POTUS, he cannot be arrested for any crime.
Here comes the coverup.
Obama will say that he feels sorry for the pain of the relatives and is even more outraged that this action was brought to the attention of the public.
It's a shame the pilot was so far away from the aircraft when the warhead was released.
Had this happened in 1945 and involved people on board a B-29, I don't think anyone would be very concerned, though some of the more sensitive might have muttered, "war is hell."
Had it been fired by an F-16 or A-10 in 1995, there would be more concern but I really don't think anyone would feel "shit happens" fails to adequately address the issue. Because shit does happen, after all.
But it's 2015 and, to our horror, we learn that the pilot wasn't on board the aircraft. It was a "drone." So this is very, very serious indeed.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
What I'm still having trouble understanding is how could the U.S. government justifies purposely killing two of its own citizens with no due process or fair trial. There were two American "terrorists" also killed. The government says they knee they were there.
They were 'taken out'. Jeeze, get your terminology right.
They, they, THEY!
When did the emperor not have enemies?
D'Hubert is a turncoat! That is a fact!
I say more. I say he never loved the emperor! Never!
This is a very good thing. The world is improving that we no longer accept innocent deaths which could have been avoided.
Burning alive an entire city of civilians to destroy one factory was acceptable to our grandparents. Turning jungle villages into moonscapes was acceptable to our parents. Now we have the capability to know where, when, who, and what is going on precisely when we drop a controlled munition with accuracy measured in feet. This progress, expressed through anger when it does not go right, is not a joke to laugh at.
No one should accept people dying violently through no fault of their own merely because it is inconvenient for us to do otherwise.
Probably because if you accept the status quo of racism and just avoid those places it does nothing to fix the racism problem. You might as well ask why all the black people didn't up and leave the USA after the civil war. If we want to change peoples racist attitudes and stereo types you have to make it personal. They need to see that their fears and hatreds are unreasonable as frequently as possible. Going to a country where a significantly large part of the population has an unreasonable hatred for you with the purpose of rendering humanitarian aid is a pretty good way to do that. Whether or not it is a wise decision for your personal well being is a very valid question. But often times the people who do this kind of work value the work they are trying to accomplish more than their own well being, at least before they are actually put into mortal danger. Then again most people's ideals and motivations become very maleable once they are under immenent threat of death.
By that logic, wouldn't it be "lawful" for some other country to randomly kill americans in america using their drones?
Do you have any non-crackpot, non-Zonist citation for that? I'm not seeing anything on the Google.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Maybe the civilian casualties also deserves apologies too..
http://www.theguardian.com/us-...
How many civilian casualties hidden under the newspeak term "militant" ?
(I assume)
Racist!
You want to engage an enemy?
Do sports. Clear defined rules of engagement, everyone knows what they are getting into.
You're not tough enough for a level playing field? Do conventional war, following those age old conventions.
You feel like that's too bloody, and prefer it more lop-sided? Use drones on random targets. But of course, this puts the opponent into the same position to use whatever is available. Be it farting in public, or flying aircraft into sky scrapers.
Bottom line? Do sports.
In other words: "If you find a source, I'm just going to say it doesn't count because I don't like it"
I don't think you know what that phrase means.
Copyright (c) 1990 - 2014 Dice. All rights reserved. Use of this comment is subject to certain Terms and Conditions.
Let me guess, your search term was "Zionist lies from Slashdot"?
Because a few moments of googling for ME turned up the following links, which certainly suggest that the climate in France is certainly not particularly warm to Jewish people and moderate Muslims:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
http://www.theatlantic.com/int...
http://time.com/3694100/france...
http://www.npr.org/blogs/paral...
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb...
http://forward.com/news/breaki...
Please proceed to tell us about how all of these articles are just more examples of crackpot, Zionist activity.
Ah, but that wasn't the assertion, was it? In case you're unable to scroll back to the comment to which I was replying, here's the statement:
No. Longer. Possible. For someone to be a teacher in France while being openly Jewish.
Shall we take a little walk over to a few French universities and examine the names teaching Humanities? Political Science? Medicine? You want to make a little bet on whether or not it is "possible for someone to be a teacher in France while being openly Jewish"?
France is home to the world's third largest Jewish population. Not Europe's third largest, but the world's third largest. Let me guess: you think they're all money-lenders and pawn brokers? There are three quarters of a million Jews in France and 600,000 of them are French citizens. You believe none of them are teachers?
Yes there is anti-semitism in France. And the anti-semitism that is on the rise is as much from the conservatives and nationalists in Europe as from muslims. If you want to see anti-semitism, you can't do much better than white guys with SS tattoos on their necks and shaved heads. And make no mistake, there are neo-Nazis, the white Christian kind, on the rise all over Western and Northern Europe. This is not a new development, since I seem to recall some dustup in that region in the middle part of the last century. And long before that. But when you make a statement about whether it is "possible" to be a Jewish teacher in France, based on some right-wing blog or Breitbart or something, you should always use your head for a minute before accepting it as gospel.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Do you see any sources saying it's "not possible to be a teacher in France if you're Jewish"? If so, I invite you to post it here even if it is from Haaretz or Breitbart. Because so far, I've seen nothing.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Don't you have death penalty over there?
Says the ghost of Robert Byrd; Hillary's great mentor.
Suppose this wasn't accident. Suppose it was intentional. Obviously those who think they're targets sometimes keep hostages around to avoid being blown up. Suppose this was a message: "we'll blow you up regardless".
So apologies are only required when westerners are killed? What about all the innocent local people who have been killed in drone strikes?
`Perche non reggi tu, o sacra fame de l'oro,l'appetito de' mortali?'
http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/...
Link is a fucking paywall, nevertheless it does outline how the family of that American hostage paid the $250K ransom ~ with the help of Pakistan
Personally I do not know why any American (or anyone with sane mind) wants to go to places like that in the first place?
I mean, if that American didn't go to Pakistan he wouldn't be kidnapped by those moslem fuckers, and his family wouldn't be out of $250K with the end result of getting the news of he was blown to bits in a drone strike
That guy was a very selfish asshole for forcing his family to go through so much stress and miseries