Secrecy defines Obama’s drone war

Nothing like some freshly dead Taliban along with the morning coffee...

Since September, at least 60 people have died in 14 reported CIA drone strikes in Pakistan’s tribal regions. The Obama administration has named only one of the dead, hailing the elimination of Janbaz Zadran, a top official in the Haqqani insurgent network, as a counterterrorism victory.

The administration has said that its covert, targeted killings with remote-controlled aircraft in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and potentially beyond are proper under both domestic and international law. It has said that the targets are chosen under strict criteria, with rigorous internal oversight.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nat ... story.html

The administration says it's legal, we've pop off 60 or more terrorists... is that a problem?

The rapid expansion in the size and scope of the drone campaign as the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been winding down has led to increased criticism from human rights and international law experts, many of whom dispute the legal justification for the program.

According to those socialist lefty lawyers and human rights... it sure is. President Obama know what he is doing. These pacifist wimps need get real.

There's another good reason to keep the drone program quiet.

You see - drones were initially developed by Israel.

Muslims in Pakistan, Yemen, etc. see no coincidence behind the fact that Israeli technology is being used to kill Muslims.

(I'm not much for conspiracy theory - but the fact is very inconvenient).

Hmmm... Drone program... Secret...

Yah... Makes sense to me.

LadyJazzer wrote: Hmmm... Drone program... Secret...

Yah... Makes sense to me.

Really... so you're fine with all the "secret" killings that the administration has caused "Yet in carrying out hundreds of strikes over three years — resulting in an estimated 1,350 to 2,250 deaths in Pakistan — it has provided virtually no details to support those assertions."

You surprise me.

Ironic, isn't it, that while this president is availing himself of the technology that resulted from the "massive" expansion of the military's budget under the previous administration while at the same time calling for such drastic trimming of the future budgets as would hinder his successor from enjoying a similar situation. Is very reminiscent, to me at least, of the liberality with which Clinton used up the existing stores of conventional cruise missiles while at the same time cropping the budget of the military to the extent that a replenishment of what was being used was not possible, leaving one less tool in the box for his successor in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. Interesting how repetitive history is, isn't it? Carter trimming the defense spending to the point where the equipment needed to rescue the hostages was unreliable and the forces conducting the operation severely under trained. A buildup under Reagan to restore both the present and future capabilities of the military, for which he was excoriated by the left. A reduction of defense spending under Clinton during which he significantly expanded the operations of the military and the consumption of existing stores, which his defense budgets provided no replenishment of, followed by a restoration of defense spending by the next president to replenish the stores along with invest in the future capabilities of the military, followed by a cancellation of those future capability programs under Obama along with an expanded use of that which his predecessor supplied. It really is amazing to me to see the rapidity with which history repeats itself sometimes.