Join the Team: Interested in being part of the Oppression.org Team?Drop us a line!
World
Analysis: How Obama changed definition of ‘civilian’ in secret drone wars
Written by Chris Woods
Tuesday, 29 May 2012 16:06
President Obama with his Defense Secretary and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Two US reports published today provide significant insights into President Obama’s personal and controversial role in the escalating covert US drone war in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia.
In a major extract from Daniel Klaidman’s forthcoming book Kill Or Capture, the author reveals extensive details of how secret US drone strikes have evolved under Obama – and how the president knew of civilian casualties from his earliest days in office.
The New York Times has also published a key investigation exploring how the Obama Administration runs its secret ‘Kill List’ – the names of those chosen for execution by CIA and Pentagon drones outside the conventional battlefield.
The Times’ report also reveals that President Obama personally authorised a broadening of the term ‘civilian’, helping to limit any public controversy over ‘non-combatant’ deaths.
Civilian Deaths from Day Three As the Bureau’s own data on Pakistan makes clear, the very first covert drone strikes of the Obama presidency, just three days after he took office, resulted in civilian deaths in Pakistan. As many as 19 civilians – including four children – died in two error-filled attacks.
Until now it had been thought that Obama was initially unaware of the civilian deaths. Bob Woodward has reported that the president was only told by CIA chief Michael Hayden that the strikes had missed their High Value Target but had killed ‘five al Qaeda militants.’
Now Newsweek correspondent Daniel Klaidman reveals that Obama knew about the civilian deaths within hours. He reports an anonymous participant at a subsequent meeting with the President: ‘You could tell from his body language that he was not a happy man.’ Obama is described aggressively questioning the tactics used.
Embraced: MEK Leader Massoud Rajavi and Saddam Hussein
It should not come as a surprise to see the once leftist, President Obama, move increasingly towards the right. The advocate of “change” who promoted peace and regression of American preemptive wars is a man of broken promises. As the 2012 presidential elections approach, a more aggressive Obama has emerged.
The Born-Again Neocon
Billy Kristol, neocon and key Iraq war architect, praises Obama's recent actions and calls him a born again neocon.
While pounding the war drums, the Neocons have come to the aid of President Obama. Daniel Pipes offered free advice to President Obama: if Obama wants to win reelection in 2012 he must be at war with Iran.
Condemned to repeat the past
Past US allies consisted of Saddam Hussein, Prince Osama (a.k.a Osama Bin Laden), Taliban (days before 9/11 US gave Taliban $43 million in aid) and we all know the result of these friendships. But has America learned from her past? Just today WSJ published an article saying Obama is days away from delisting MEK from the State Department's terror list.
David Rubin, former mayor of the Israeli city of Shiloh and author of The Islamic Tsunami: Israel and America in the Age of Obama, says it would be a "great disappointment" if French President Nicholas Sarkozy loses his re-election bid on Sunday.
"It certainly would be a great disappointment," he admits, "and it wouldn't be a positive move for France or for Western civilization if Sarkozy doesn't get in."
Update:
Sunday: Sarkozy lost the elections
David Rubin, former mayor of the Israeli city of Shiloh and author of The Islamic Tsunami: Israel and America in the Age of Obama, says it would be a "great disappointment" if French President Nicholas Sarkozy loses his re-election bid on Sunday.
"It certainly would be a great disappointment," he admits, "and it wouldn't be a positive move for France or for Western civilization if Sarkozy doesn't get in."
I have long written of discrimination, abuse and xenophobia as suffered by others; from Blacks in Libya to Muslims in the United States of America. But nothing could prepare me for this piece, one which will attempt to humbly relay what little information I am permitted to discuss, covering a lawsuit against the restaurant chain known as the International House of Pancakes (IHOP).
After my father, Hussein ‘Joseph’ Chamseddine, lead plaintiff in the discrimination suit against IHOP, spoke at a press conference on April 18 both local and international media networks were engrossed with the case; from Good Morning America, The Daily Mail (UK), The Huffington Post, CBS, to FOX,NBC and the New York Post.
My father had worked for IHOP some 12 years; he began as an assistant manager working tiring night-shifts, moving up along the ladder towards his final position as a district manager overseeing 4 stores in the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex, even being asked by IHOP to make two trips to Ohio in order to train IHOP managers in that district.
I recall trips my younger siblings and I would make with my father, assisting him with lifting heavy boxes, files et al. He would take it upon himself to stay up late in the evening so he may resolve all assigned work, and often those unassigned, beyond even satisfactory achievement. The walls of our home are decorated with awards and certificates he has received from IHOP: Best Manager, Best Sales, Certificate of “above and beyond achievement” etc.
Despite my fathers commendable history at IHOP he is one of four men who were fired for being Arab and Muslim in 2010, nearly two years ago.
My father, lead plaintiff Hussein Chamseddine, maintains that Glendale, Calif.-based IHOP and Coppell-based Anthraper Investments wrongfully fired him and three other longtime employees – Rami Saleh, Brandon Adam and Chekri Bakro – in a span of nearly 10 months and replaced them with non-Arab, non-Muslim employees, despite all four men having repeatedly received good performance reviews and having suffered discriminatory harassment at work.
The Governor of Pakistan's lawless Balochistan province says the Army may be summoned in the provincial capital city, Quetta, after adramatic escalation in ethnic and sectarian violence. Zulfiqar Ali Magsi, the Governor, has strongly criticized the provincial government and suggested it to resign from the office due to its stark failure to curb the deadly wave of violence targeting the Shia, Hazara minority community. If not immediately contained, the governor fears, this spate of violence may push the gas-rich region bordering Iran-Afghanistan into a state of civil war.
In Pakistan, the Governor of a province is the representative of the State appointed by the President. His is a symbolic title with almost no administrative powers. The daily affairs of the government are run by the Chief Minister who is elected by the regional legislature for a five-year term.
Governor Magsi, who himself served Balochistan twice in 1990s as a successful chief minister in terms of ensuring peace and stability in the province, says he is running out of patience with the poor performance of the current regional coalition government headed by the Pakistan People's Party. "People are tired of carrying the dead bodies of their loved ones," he says and further turns skeptical of the government when he reads newspaper statements from the serving ministers who grumble over the breakdown of the law and order. Yet these ministers, on their part, do nothing to improve the conditions despite having the mandate and the authority to do so.
"There is no point [for the ministers] to remain a part of the government, on the one hand, and then still criticize it, on the other hand," said the Governor, "the best option for them is to quit the cabinet and join the Opposition."
The Sunni militant group, the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, with close contacts with al Qaeda and the Taliban has been steadily stepping up brutal assaults on Shia, Hazaras.
On Saturday, April 14, at least eight members of the minority Hazara community were shot dead in two separate attacks in Quetta. These attacks come immediately after a number of similar attacks in the recent weeks in which the feeble Hazara minority community has been singled out and victimized.
Bill in Congress could suspend your passport if you own taxes to the IRS
Written by Administrator
Tuesday, 17 April 2012 13:31
Efforts to pass a bill that would allow the IRS to deny travel rights to U.S. citizens who the feds merely claim owe $50,000 or more in delinquent taxes represents a de facto move to revoke the citizenship of Americans without due process and in complete violation of the Constitution.
A recently passed Senate bill, the suitably Orwellian entitled ‘Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act’, includes a provision that allows the federal government to revoke passports of Americans accused of owing back taxes.
Efforts to pass a bill that would allow the IRS to deny travel rights to U.S. citizens who the feds merely claim owe $50,000 or more in delinquent taxes represents a de facto move to revoke the citizenship of Americans without due process and in complete violation of the Constitution.
A recently passed Senate bill, the suitably Orwellian entitled ‘Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act’, includes a provision that allows the federal government to revoke passports of Americans accused of owing back taxes.
An Iraqi woman who was left brutally beaten in her Southern California home with an apparently xenophobic note beside her has died.
Shaima Alawadi, a 32-year-old mother of five, was taken off life support Saturday, said the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), an organization that advocates for Muslim civil liberties.
She had been on life support since Wednesday when her teenage daughter found her unconscious in the living room of their home in El Cajon in San Diego County.
"During the initial stages of this investigation, a threatening note was discovered very close to where the victim was found," Lt. Mark Coit of the El Cajon police said.
Authorities would not specify what the note said. But Alawadi's daughter said it threatened the family to go back to Iraq and called them "terrorists."
Daughter 'speechless' after mom's murder
Police said a similar note was left outside the family home earlier in the month, but the family did not report it.
"A week ago they left a letter saying, 'This is our country, not yours, you terrorists,'" the daughter, Fatima Al Himidi told CNN affiliate KGTV. "So my mom ignored that, thinking (it was) kids playing around, pranking. And so the day they hurt her, they left it again and it said the same thing."
Hanif Mohebi, executive director of CAIR's San Diego chapter, said the family came to the United States from Iraq in the mid-1990s. He did not know when they moved to El Cajon, which has one of the nation's largest Iraqi community.
Alawadi and her husband have three daughters and two sons, ranging in age from 8 to 17, Mohebi said.
Fatima Al Himidi said nothing was stolen from the house, leading her to believe the attack on her mother motivated by hate.
"Why did you take my mother away from me? You took my best friend away from me," she said, choking with tears, in an interview with CNN affiliate KUSI. "Why? Why did you do it? I want to know. Answer me that."
Police would not say whether they were treating the case as a hate crime, saying they were "exploring all aspects of this investigation."
"Evidence thus far leads us to believe this is an isolated incident," Coit said in a statement.
But social media users quickly compared Alawadi's death to that of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, calling both hate crimes, and drawing a parallel between a hijab and a hoodie.
Martin was killed last month as he walked back to his father's fiancee's house in Sanford, Florida, after a trip to the convenience store. Police say he was shot by George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer who said he was acting in self-defense and has not been charged.
The teen was unarmed, carrying a bag of Skittles candy and an iced tea, and was wearing a hoodie.
On Sunday morning, the authors of the parenting blog, Momstrology, tweeted: "A teen murdered for wearing hooded sweater. An Iraqi woman beaten to death for wearing a head scarf. Our hearts ache for you."
An Iraqi woman who was left brutally beaten in her Southern California home with an apparently xenophobic note beside her has died.
Shaima Alawadi, a 32-year-old mother of five, was taken off life support Saturday, said the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), an organization that advocates for Muslim civil liberties.
She had been on life support since Wednesday when her teenage daughter found her unconscious in the living room of their home in El Cajon in San Diego County.
"During the initial stages of this investigation, a threatening note was discovered very close to where the victim was found," Lt. Mark Coit of the El Cajon police said.
Authorities would not specify what the note said. But Alawadi's daughter said it threatened the family to go back to Iraq and called them "terrorists." Daughter 'speechless' after mom's murder
Police said a similar note was left outside the family home earlier in the month, but the family did not report it.
"A week ago they left a letter saying, 'This is our country, not yours, you terrorists,'" the daughter, Fatima Al Himidi told CNN affiliate KGTV. "So my mom ignored that, thinking (it was) kids playing around, pranking. And so the day they hurt her, they left it again and it said the same thing."Hanif Mohebi, executive director of CAIR's San Diego chapter, said the family came to the United States from Iraq in the mid-1990s. He did not know when they moved to El Cajon, which has one of the nation's largest Iraqi community.
Alawadi and her husband have three daughters and two sons, ranging in age from 8 to 17, Mohebi said.Fatima Al Himidi said nothing was stolen from the house, leading her to believe the attack on her mother motivated by hate.
"Why did you take my mother away from me? You took my best friend away from me," she said, choking with tears, in an interview with CNN affiliate KUSI. "Why? Why did you do it? I want to know. Answer me that."Police would not say whether they were treating the case as a hate crime, saying they were "exploring all aspects of this investigation."
"Evidence thus far leads us to believe this is an isolated incident," Coit said in a statement.But social media users quickly compared Alawadi's death to that of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, calling both hate crimes, and drawing a parallel between a hijab and a hoodie.
Martin was killed last month as he walked back to his father's fiancee's house in Sanford, Florida, after a trip to the convenience store. Police say he was shot by George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer who said he was acting in self-defense and has not been charged.
The teen was unarmed, carrying a bag of Skittles candy and an iced tea, and was wearing a hoodie.On Sunday morning, the authors of the parenting blog, Momstrology, tweeted: "A teen murdered for wearing hooded sweater. An Iraqi woman beaten to death for wearing a head scarf. Our hearts ache for you."
Govt to keep info on Americans with no terror ties
Written by Eileen Sullivan
Friday, 23 March 2012 14:58
WASHINGTON (AP) - The U.S. intelligence community will now be able to store information about Americans with no ties to terrorism for up to five years under new Obama administration guidelines.
Until now, the National Counterterrorism Center had to immediately destroy information about Americans that was already stored in other government databases when there were no clear ties to terrorism.
Giving the NCTC expanded record-retention authority had been called for by members of Congress who said the intelligence community did not connect strands of intelligence held by multiple agencies leading up to the failed bombing attempt on a Detroit-bound airliner on Christmas 2009.
"Following the failed terrorist attack in December 2009, representatives of the counterterrorism community concluded it is vital for NCTC to be provided with a variety of datasets from various agencies that contain terrorism information," Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said in a statement late Thursday. "The ability to search against these datasets for up to five years on a continuing basis as these updated guidelines permit will enable NCTC to accomplish its mission more practically and effectively."
The new rules replace guidelines issued in 2008 and have privacy advocates concerned about the potential for data-mining information on innocent Americans.
"It is a vast expansion of the government's surveillance authority," Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said of the five-year retention period.
The government put in strong safeguards at the NCTC for the data that would be collected on U.S. citizens for intelligence purposes, Rotenberg said. These new guidelines undercut the Federal Privacy Act, he said.
"The fact that this data can be retained for five years on U.S. citizens for whom there's no evidence of criminal conduct is very disturbing," Rotenberg said.
"Total Information Awareness appears to be reconstructing itself," Rotenberg said, referring to the Defense Department's post-9/11 data-mining research program that was killed in 2003 because of privacy concerns.
The Washington Post first reported the new rules Thursday.
The Obama administration said the new rules come with strong safeguards for privacy and civil liberties as well. Before the NCTC may obtain data held by another government agency, there is a high-level review to assure that the data "is likely to contain significant terrorism information," Alexander Joel, the civil liberties protection officer at national intelligence directorate, said in a news release Thursday.
The NCTC was created after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to be the central U.S. organization to analyze and integrate intelligence regarding terrorism.
WASHINGTON (AP) - The U.S. intelligence community will now be able to store information about Americans with no ties to terrorism for up to five years under new Obama administration guidelines.
Until now, the National Counterterrorism Center had to immediately destroy information about Americans that was already stored in other government databases when there were no clear ties to terrorism.Giving the NCTC expanded record-retention authority had been called for by members of Congress who said the intelligence community did not connect strands of intelligence held by multiple agencies leading up to the failed bombing attempt on a Detroit-bound airliner on Christmas 2009.
"Following the failed terrorist attack in December 2009, representatives of the counterterrorism community concluded it is vital for NCTC to be provided with a variety of datasets from various agencies that contain terrorism information," Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said in a statement late Thursday. "The ability to search against these datasets for up to five years on a continuing basis as these updated guidelines permit will enable NCTC to accomplish its mission more practically and effectively."
The new rules replace guidelines issued in 2008 and have privacy advocates concerned about the potential for data-mining information on innocent Americans.
"It is a vast expansion of the government's surveillance authority," Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said of the five-year retention period.
The government put in strong safeguards at the NCTC for the data that would be collected on U.S. citizens for intelligence purposes, Rotenberg said. These new guidelines undercut the Federal Privacy Act, he said."The fact that this data can be retained for five years on U.S. citizens for whom there's no evidence of criminal conduct is very disturbing," Rotenberg said.
"Total Information Awareness appears to be reconstructing itself," Rotenberg said, referring to the Defense Department's post-9/11 data-mining research program that was killed in 2003 because of privacy concerns.The Washington Post first reported the new rules Thursday.
The Obama administration said the new rules come with strong safeguards for privacy and civil liberties as well. Before the NCTC may obtain data held by another government agency, there is a high-level review to assure that the data "is likely to contain significant terrorism information," Alexander Joel, the civil liberties protection officer at national intelligence directorate, said in a news release Thursday.The NCTC was created after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to be the central U.S. organization to analyze and integrate intelligence regarding terrorism.
Since Iran hasn't been attacked yet, if the Muslims organize a rally then the perceived conclusion would be that Muslims support terrorism? I find this to be very troubling on many fronts.
If the goal of Islamophobia and the War on Terror is to silence Muslim dissent I would say the tactic has been successful.
Being reactionary is always the safer route, e.g., lets wait till Iran is attacked then protest. Let's use a more relevant example:
We all knew the FBI and NYPD were spying on Muslims. In fact when the news broke, most Muslims, including those on here said, "We already knew the government was watching us."
Ok -- so if you knew that, then why didn't you make it a big deal about it [BEFORE the AP report]? You really can't claim, "oh, because there was lack of evidence." Really? If there was a lack of evidence, then how did you conclude that "government is watching us" before the AP report? You must have based this on some "evidence." Right?
If the Muslims had not voluntarily given up their civil liberties, and were proactive and demanded answers from the NYPD how would the situation be different today?
Some will say, it wouldn't have made any difference? I would beg to differ. Because the Muslims only got aggressive after the report, countless number of the Muslim brothers and sisters have been entrapped and sent to prison. They were all causalities.
And if we take the same reactionary approach to the prospect of a war with Iran (as we did with Iraq and Afghanistan) -- we're talking about the loss of lives.
Sure it's easier to protest protest after the death of innocent men, women, and children -- but why wait so long? Because ofhow the media and politicians will perceive your protest?
It's a dilemma, isn't it?
Ever since 9/11 Muslims have been hesitant in voicing their opinions that go against the extreme right. Have you noticed the lack of protest and demonstrations against the possibilities of the West (and Israel) attacking Iran by the Muslim American community? The logic is, since Iran hasn't been attacked yet, if the Muslims organize a rally then the perceived conclusion would be that Muslims support terrorism, since Iran is a "sponsor of terrorism." I find this to be very troubling on many fronts. If the goal of Islamophobia and the War on Terror is to silence Muslim dissent I would say the tactic has been successful.
Being reactionary is always the safer route, e.g., lets wait till Iran is attacked and then protest. Let's use a more recent example, we all knew the FBI and NYPD were spying on Muslims. In fact when the news broke, most Muslims, including activists, said: "We already knew the government was watching us."
OK -- so if you knew that, then why didn't you make it a big deal about it BEFORE the AP report? You really can't claim, "oh, because there was lack of evidence." Really? If there was a lack of evidence, then how did you conclude that "government is watching us" before the AP report? You must have based this on some "evidence." Right?
If the Muslims had not voluntarily given up their civil liberties, and were proactive and demanded answers from the NYPD how would the situation be different today?
Some will say, it wouldn't have made much of a difference? I would beg to differ. Because Muslims only got aggressive after the AP report, countless number of the Muslim brothers and sisters have been entrapped and sent to prison. They were all causalities of the "war on terror." And if we take the same reactionary approach to the prospect of a war with Iran -- we're talking about the loss of lives in the thousands.
Today starts another round of Peter King's personal vendetta against the Muslim American community, the same community that once put him in power under the guise of "homeland security." Today's hearing is focused on Iran, Hezbollah, and the threat to national security.
There has been chatter among Muslim Americas about how they should respond to Peter King and his ridiculous tax-payer funded hearings on Muslims. They have been particularly afraid to protest these hearings because because it concerns Iran and Hezbollah. And they are worried that the media will spin their protest and portray Muslims as supporting Iran and Hezbollah.
