11 February 2013

Unless you've had your head in the sand, you would have heard about the use of drones in Afghanistan and Iraq, and even in Pakistan, Yemen, and who knows how many other countries.
In fact, Iran had recently hijacked (US: "it malfunctioned and crashed") a US drone that was discovered in its air space.

Drones are basically unmanned aircraft, sophisticated as hell, that are used for either reconnaissance or precision air strikes. They've been particularly popular with the US due to their unManning-ness (please, someone pick up on that joke) and the fact they seem to provide legislative loopholes to selectively spy on and kill perceived threats to national security.

Today's Daily Quota is a link to a memo, recently linked by NBC News, that details President Obama's rationale for using these drones to target al-Qa'ida affiliates and potential conspirators.
Here's the twist - this would include targets within the USA, including, if need be, US citizens.
This would ofcourse imply that these US citizens are given no trial, no jury, no judicial process as conferred upon them by the constitution.

In this leaked memo, Obama attempts to justify this as constitutionally sound, while others like Julian Assange are urging greater transparency on the post-9/11 world of drone warfare.
Gizmodo has put together a good summary of the document, and relevant 'buzz words' in the proposed reforms:

The document, obtained by NBC News, explains that targets believed to be “senior operational leader[s] of al-Qa’ida” or an “associated force” who “pose an imminent threat” can be targeted by US drones without the need for excessive quantities of paperwork. 

The memo goes on to explain that an “informed, high-level” official of the US government must determine that the target has “recently” been involved in “activities” posing a threat of a violent attack and “there is no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities”. The words “recently” and “activities” aren’t defined. Right. 

There are, of course, some further guidelines. Capturing the person in question must be “infeasible” and terminating the target must be performed according to the “law of war principles.” Well, at least that’s something.

Whatever the case, it seems that this news has rattled some cages - as it should.
It would be interesting to see how US citizens and liberal activists react to this news.
It's not too harsh a read, and very informative for anyone that wants to know the legal 'rationale' of such military action on home soil. 

READ IT HERE