“Obama eventually put in place arcane requirements to issue public reports on civilian death tolls (but just in certain military theaters), to limit targets to high-level militants (again, in certain battlefields), and require interagency approval (also only for certain targets).
Trump has peeled back all of those requirements because, well, he can. We now know more than we did about U.S. drone wars when Obama first took office, but less than when he left.”
Trump’s drone war escalation has gone unreported. His blocking of all reporting on it has gone unnoticed. I don’t hear a single thing about this from the concern trolls who cared very deeply about Obama’s drone war.
Air Force budget documents show a 63 percent increase in Hellfire purchases in Trump’s 2017 budget and another 20 percent increase in the most recent budget request.
During the election I heard so many
people concern trolls warn me about the horrors of the future Clinton administration. The drones they say. The dems used to be against war now they are all about drones.
The drone war was in decline under Obama. And now it’s growing.
I don’t hear much about this anymore.
Rand Paul goes full Strangelove: The “anti-drone” candidate is okay with droning American citizens
Greenwald also questions Paul’s larger strategy here of trying to tie up loose, dovish ends on foreign policy: “I don’t get his strategy: he’s never going to attract GOP hawks, so why dilute what makes him interesting/unique?” That’s the big strategic oddity hanging over all of Paul’s shifts to the right on foreign policy. There are now several politicians considering presidential runs and 501©(4)s being set up solely for the purpose of combating Rand Paul’s allegedly “isolationist” views, even as Paul has fallen in line behind the GOP’s more traditional, hawkish foreign policy. Why is Paul shedding what makes him unique and interesting on foreign policy, when the party’s hawks aren’t buying it anyway?
One posibility is that he, like his father before him; is a complete fraud and cares little to nothing about his rehtoric about freedom and liberty.
Rand Paul would’ve been OK with using drones to hunt Boston suspect
Rand Paul has gone from wanting guarantees that we wouldn’t use drones against American citizens on US soil to advocating the use of drones against American citizens on US soil in record time.
Drones don’t target U.S. citizens. They kill them overseas as collateral damage.
For months, members of Congress have asked to see memos from Obama’s Office of Legal Counsel that outline the lawfulness of the administration’s targeting policies. The White House has been stonewalling them. Why? One reason may be that some of the memos are defective early drafts. The Times says that after Obama’s lawyers wrote their first memo, they discovered by reading a blog that they hadn’t taken into account a federal law that seemed to prohibit drone strikes on American citizens abroad.
Worth a read.
U.N. Drone Investigator Might Be a Deadly Robot’s Worst Nightmare
That carries the possibility of a reckoning with the human damage left by drones, the first such witnessing by the international community. Accountability, Emmerson tells Danger Room in a Monday phone interview, “is the central purpose of the report.”
So, will the administration agree to UN inspections?