C.I.A. Drones May Target Yemen Terrorists

(CBS)  In the past two years, reports CBS News national security correspondent David Martin, an escalating campaign of CIA drone strikes against al Qaeda and other terrorist groups in the Tribal areas of Pakistan has killed more than 600 militants. Now the Obama Administration is planning a similar offensive against al Qaeda in Yemen. "They're not feeling the same heat - not yet anyway," one official said.

The result, according to former counter terrorism official Matt Leavitt of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, is that al Qaeda in Yemen - or AQAP as it is called - is a direct threat to the U.S.

"What makes AQAP a danger to the United States is the fact that it not only has the capability, but it has the interest in carrying out attacks beyond its immediate region," Leavitt tells CBS News.

AQAP recruited that young Nigerian who nearly blw up a passenger jet over Detroit on Christmas day. Its chief recruiter is Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen who speaks English and is becoming known as the Bin Laden of the internet.

"Al-Awlaki is very good at reaching a very wide audience in words and language they can understand," said Leavitt.

He can recruit from among 50,000 Yeminis who hold dual American citizenship and would know how to operate inside the U.S.

Al Qaeda in Yemen is one of the few successes Osama Bin Laden can claim in recent years. Driven out of Saudi Arabia by a no holds barred crackdown, al Qaeda regrouped in Yemen.

"That possibly might have been al Qaeda core's greatest strategic action over the past few years," said Leavitt.

U.S. Navy ships have launched at least three cruise missile attacks against al Qaeda in Yemen, but it has not yet been hammered by drone strikes day in and day out and that, says one U.S. official, "has to change."

[alphaa10000]

WAGING PERPETUAL WAR IN THE NAME OF PEACE

brianbwb2015 said, (Quoting CBS) "Considered Direct Threat to U.S., Yemen has Capability and Interest in Carrying Out Attacks beyond Its Immediate Region"

(And comments) "(Yet) Considering and proving are two different things. Killing people based on "considering", especially when those doing the considering are too often racist war mongers, has no basis in law, and anyone issuing orders to commit murder based on consideration should be brought to justice, and sanctioned appropriately."
---

The immediate, and worst problem posed by clandestine, global use of attack drones is to take the conduct of war out of the hands of our congress and place it in the hands of the CIA and Pentagon as a low-profile, but permanent part of "global security hygiene".

Under such a global regime-- all in the name of "American national security"-- no country is safe.

Put another way, how would we feel if drones from Unidentified (Rogue) State XXXX had drones flying over our territory, obliterating with Hellfire missiles anything an operator (watching a screen in an air-conditioned van or building thousands of miles distant) decided was "threatening" or met (he suspected) his current target profile?


Questions arise--

1. Would we not regard the overflights (not to mention attacks) as acts of war, no matter what the professed target?

2. Can the actual theater of operations be precisely controlled? Suppose our Rogue State drone operator let a target tracked across Canada move into the United States-- and then launched his attack "in hot pursuit", since he could not see the imaginary line separating territories.



A General Policy of Irresponsibility--

Aside from making aerial attack more of an impersonal video game than ever, attack by drones opens vast new vistas of irresponsibility for the American military and its leadership. In this context, "irresponsibility" is a lack of clear and direct accountability to members of congress.

Inevitably, the control center for policy-making shifts from congress to the Pentagon, as our Pentagon becomes a pilotless drone, itself.

Must we detail a group of congressional staffers to visit the Pentagon hourly to update congress on (1) whom we attack and (2) on what basis?

Clearly, the decision to attack with drones is now made quietly, as a matter of "national security", thereby removed from the very debate which is vital to our democracy.


War Is Peace ? ---

Political essayist George Orwell's negative utopia of "1984" depicted a totalitarian state totally removed from control of the people it claimed to represent. Periodically, people were informed by loudspeaker or screen of What They Need to Know about a global state of perpetual war.

In 1984, there was no pretense of democracy. Self-governing citizens quickly became slaves to state control-- or, if you will, the "national security interest".

One of 1984's more chilling phrases is "war is peace". From all appearances, perpetual war in the name of "national security" will serve just as well as any claim of "peace".

[chief77777]

Drones should attack ANY KNOWN TERRORISTS ANYWHERE!

[rafaeldrc]

The problem with the logic of these weapons of cowardice is that, for every one you kill, several are born and join. For every innocent you kill, ten join. Our Military demonstrates that life is of less value, if it isn't one of ours. And so, the vicious cycle is fueled and refueled.

We lost Vietnam with the same mentality, on the same path. In those days our military thought that technology would triumph. With every technological advance, the "enemy" became more hardened. In the end, they won. Just how many fronts does our military think the can fight and at what cost? At some point, as in chess, you become over extended. And that is the road we are on, and where we are being taken, not by the Pentagon, but but our enemy.

[wyodutch]

Our terrorists will kill some of their terrorists... Then some of their terrorists will kill some of our terrorists.
.

[ToolMangler1]

Sure would be nice if we could ignore them. They just won't let us because we aren't Muslim. We can stay in our country all we want but that will not satisfy the hardliners. They will come and get us simply because they are driven by a near madness that they themselves don't understand. they blame the world when their problem is deep within them caused by their 'misunderstanding' of the Deity they worship....
The biggest clues to the lack of understaning is in these facts.

Jesus never harmed a person in his 'human' life on earth and set that as his two commandments."Love GOD with everything you have in you, Love your heighbor as yourself."

Muhammad did... "Muhammad led 27 military campaigns against innocent
villages and caravans & planned 38 others"

You tell me!!! which is the 'true Religion of Peace'!!!!!!!!!!

[ludvig1-2009]

Oh my Shipyard was closed, something I thought was impossible since we were the only yard involved in a couple of key items. They moved them to another yard.

[ToolMangler1]

I thought you knew... NASA is closing the Space program. ;)

(No more spaceships)

[ludvig1-2009]

My wife is a hairstylist and they know everything. She says that she used to have these customers from Yemen and she hasn't seen them in a long time. She was the one who gave me a heads up that my shipyard might be closing by telling me that a Navy officer from Korea was on the yard evaluating the buildings as we were being considered for possible closure. If you want to be a spy, become a hairstylist. They know everything.