16 ms·
The Drone Papers
- yuvadam 11y agoThere are a few interesting anecdotes about this huge story - This is the same leak that Glenn Greenwald describes to Edward Snowden in Moscow (-> -> -> -> POTUS), meaning this story has been in the making for at least 1.5 years. Second, this quality and quantity of leaks is incredible and can only be attributed to a news organization that takes security as a paramount consideration, setting up proper secure channels to enable technically apt whistle-blowers to approach them with confidence. Props to The Intercept for some fine journalist work.
- Kristine1975 11y ago>This is the same leak that Glenn Greenwald describes to Edward Snowden in Moscow (-> -> -> -> POTUS You mean in "Citizen Four", right?
- rdancer 11y agoYes.
- dombili 11y agoOh, so that's what that scene was about! I re-watched it now and it really is incredible. Screenshots of some of Greenwald's notes (they don't say much): 1- http://i.imgur.com/Xk3tefg.jpg http://i.imgur.com/Xk3tefg.jpg 2- http://i.imgur.com/3C7sdIA.jpg http://i.imgur.com/3C7sdIA.jpg 3- http://i.imgur.com/8FNhVfE.jpg http://i.imgur.com/8FNhVfE.jpg
- AUmrysh 11y ago"There are 1.2 m people on various stages of their watch list" :-O That's absolutely terrifying. I wonder how many of those are American citizens.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- RevRal 11y agoMy gut says a majority, I believe that the war is truly inward. A flagging system wouldn't be too difficult. You could even flag people who aren't dead and yet haven't raised a flag in some time-frame (Unibomber). Statistical analysis, the data's all there. Set up keys that resemble the analyses's output. Find what you're looking for. Unfortunately, those keys are controllable. You'll always find people who fit a certain profile, you will always find who you're looking for. Unfortunately, you'll require some vagueness to ensure that the net you've cast doesn't have holes too large.
- jsn117 11y agoThose are some amazing revelations, ones that have nothing to do with spying and everything to do with defeating a war effort.
- e12e 11y agoAre you sure these are the same documents/from the same source? (As far as I recall, those were from a drone pilot, that's done a few tv appearances already?). Or that was my impression, anyway. [Bad form to comment before I've read the story, but just wanted a clarification - if this was an assumption or something that's been stated clearly by one of the people involved?]
- yuvadam 11y agoIn Citizenfour (the scene I was referencing but neglected to mention) GG explicitly mentions this slide, as well as the existence of another whistleblower. Of course the situation might be more complicated than that, but it's clear the story was in the making for quite some time. I also recall Laura Poitras mentioning the work that Jeremy Scahill was doing on this topic at one of the Q&A's she did.
- e12e 11y agoRight. I thought (when I saw the film) that he was reffering to the leaks by Brandon Bryant: http://daserste.ndr.de/panorama/aktuell/Brandon-Bryant-Ramstein-is-absolutely-essential,drohnen252.html http://daserste.ndr.de/panorama/aktuell/Brandon-Bryant-Ramst... (etc)
- anigbrowl 11y agoI'm inclined to at least consider the possibility that other foreign governments are helping out with making this information available because it suits their own interests. The notion that Snowden and Greenwald are plucky little protagonists doing everything on their own against the malign might of the US government is a peculiarly American narrative in that it doesn't consider the possibility that any non-Americans could be involved in shaping public perceptions in the US.
- sangnoir 11y agoThis is insane. By your logic: "I'm inclined to at least consider the possibility that the Russians are polluting American's precious bodily fluids because it suits their own interests..."
- anigbrowl 11y agoLeaking supposedly confidential information to the press is hardly a novel technique in espionage, or in any social context for that matter, eg feeding a juicy tale to the village gossip to embarrass a rival. Machiavelli made a systematic study of such techniques centuries ago. What do you find so insane about it?
- sangnoir 11y agoWhat is insane to me, is the reasoning behind suggesting "X is beneficial to Russia. Therefore Russia is doing X" without producing a shred of evidence. I am inclined to at least consider the possibility that you are a NSA/GCHQ agent[1] attempting to discredit and diminish the reputation of Snowden and Greenwald. See what I did there? 1. https://theintercept.com/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/ https://theintercept.com/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/
- robertfw 11y agoWhat I see is you putting words into anigbrowl's mouth (letters onto his keyboard?)
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- gortok 11y agoThere are lots of important points in this set of articles, but a few stand point: - Congress has not defined what "assassination" means; and since they haven't defined it, the Executive Order 12333 is effectively meaningless. https://theintercept.com/drone-papers/the-assassination-complex/ https://theintercept.com/drone-papers/the-assassination-comp... - IMEIs are used to track targets. Can IMEIs be spoofed? - Military Aged Males are considered enemy combatants. Effectively that means all males ages 18-49 are considered enemy combatants. Since you're guilty by association, your age makes you a target.
- grandalf 11y ago> Military Aged Males are considered enemy combatants. Effectively that means all males ages 18-49 are considered enemy combatants. Since you're guilty by association, your age makes you a target. As an American citizen I'm so ashamed that we do this.
- whatafarce 11y agoShame? How about anger, or rage, or wrath? How about an inflexible demand to stop war crimes. No one wants to conduct a meaningful opposition because the American system will destroy them. We are ruled by fear.
- uptown 11y agoThe full searchable PDFs of the Drone Papers are available here: https://www.documentcloud.org/public/search/%22Project%20ID%22:%20%2222876-the-drone-papers%22 https://www.documentcloud.org/public/search/%22Project%20ID%...
- dang 11y agoWe changed the URL from https://theintercept.com/drone-papers https://theintercept.com/drone-papers to the first article on the list, which begins by introducing the series.
- wilg 11y agoI actually think this is a confusing change. Before I read this comment, I read the first article as linked, which ends abruptly and I was left a bit unsatisfied. (I ignored everything after the article, which I always do on news articles, like a regular person.) The page layout doesn't really make it clear that there is a higher level until you get to the end and scroll past the comments. Plus, the article linked is titled "The Assassination Complex" not "The Drone Papers", like the original link and the current title of the HN Story. Plus, the initial image of Obama and Bush hugging in scary black and white makes me think that this is more of a hit piece on Obama, which is not exactly accurate. Also, the first article does not really introduce the series very well.
- whatafarce 11y agoUtterly disgusting, America conducts clear war crimes, tortures, bombs afghan hospitals, assisinates, all without consequence. I'm sure some idiot will tell me to vote, because that'll change the systemic corruption and nightmare that has taken hold of US power. Did voting in nazi Germany help? No because they were voted in, voting only legitimizes a political system completely captured by insiders and corporate juggernauts. These people only response to power and will not hesitate to kill you, imprison you, or otherwise destroy your life. But go on, tell us how voting matters. Lol.
- grandalf 11y agoVoting for a major party candidate does not matter, since both major parties strongly support the status quo. I'd say 80% of the power structure influencing US politics strongly agrees with the status quo. It follows that anyone who can get elected president has essentially promised to continue the status quo. However, I do think that voting for 3rd party candiates could help over time. If even 10% of Americans voted for a 3rd party candidate in a presidential election, things would start to change. If there were two viable 3rd party candidates things would change faster. It seems that the 50% of eligible citizens who choose to vote very much prefer to vote for a major party candidate. This goes along with the general herd behavior of animals like us, and also makes sense in light of the massive amplification of differences between the parties. So much money is spent to magnify (and dignify) the smallest differences between candidates/parties so that the average person can come to think that his/her vote for one of those parties (and for the status quo) mattered. The main reason we don't have much dissent is because of the vast efforts by the powerful and the media to focus on the delegitimization of nearly all institutions other than the US Government. NPR will cover nearly any story but never ask questions about the trustworthiness or legitimacy of any part of the US Government. The occupy movement helps disempower private institutions, the NY Times stories about China flooding helps alienate us from other humans who live in China. And the presentation of the third world is much, much worse. There is a massive bias toward government institutions over private ones... Occupy is nowhere near as hard on the corrupt regulators as it is on the firms. All this helps squash dissent. The Intercept seems to be one of the first efforts to offer the mainstream media consumer an alternative view. The internet has (so far) made it easier for powerful interests to shape opinion, but that may start to change as groups like The Intercept have the budget to do the kind of high quality reporting that can be tough to ignore. But with so much money riding on continuation of the status quo, there will always be lots of influential people (academics, politicians, pundits, business leaders) who will completely ignore things like this in favor of focusing on one of the many silly issues covered by mainstream television and newspapers. As a case in point, Zuckerberg would absolutely never make a public statement supporting this reporting, since his interests are already quite closely tied to continuing the status quo. Similarly, Bezos now owns the WaPo but would never syndicate this coverage. So more than voting, the issue is lack of dissent. As an aside, the most telling aspect of this is when the US president suffers through a (very rare) interview. The journalist simply will not ask tough questions and the atmosphere is one of utter groveling and supplication. Of all things, I can't believe we are willing to live in a society where this happens... but it's considered such a rare honor to do a one hour on-on-one with a president that of course only the most ingratiating journalist (if one can call them that) would ever get the chance.
- praptak 11y agoHm. So what stops US from targeted killings in China? Russia? Europe? Only the probable retaliation?
- frandroid 11y agoYeah. "Only" when the conflict could then escalate and the opponent has nuclear weapons is kind of understating the case.
- praptak 11y agoFrom the ethical point of view? Yup, it's still "only". You are not considered ethical if your motivation is " do what we can get away with".
- harryf 11y agoWho's to say it's not already happening? Could be an interesting twist on this mystery... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10391723 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10391723
- TeMPOraL 11y agoNuclear weapons, most likely.
- gerty 11y agoDoesn't explain Pakistan though.
- rhino369 11y agoPakistani leadership wants the Drone strikes. At least parts of Pakistani leadership wants the Drone strikes.
- TeMPOraL 11y agoTrue. The bombings happen near the border though, they're probably easy for the government of Pakistan to ignore, or maybe even convenient. Moreover, from what I can find on-line, Pakistan seems to have just over a hundred warheads, most in the few dozen kiloton range, none exceeding half a megaton. They can't do any real damage with that. Maybe blow up a few cities in the US, at which point the rest of the world would turn them into a flat sheet of glass visible from orbit, and the only good thing that would come from that for anyone would be increased albedo of Earth helping combat the global warming. There is no MAD situation with Pakistan.
- d23 11y agoI know it's a tangent, but I'm actually blown away by the quality of the website itself. They've managed to use modern techniques like header background video and fading in of navigation elements in a way that is classy and reserved. It doesn't lag up my browser; it doesn't make jarring movements that cause UI elements or content to jump out of line of the eye. The best part? It actually helps add to the point they're trying to make. It's... chilling, serious, international-stakes stuff here. Kudos on perfect execution of the full package.
- akiselev 11y agoI too was pleasantly surprise, especially since it actually works well on mobile Chrome with nice big text that is actually readable. As far as I can tell all of the graphics are responsive and there weren't any annoying ads that bumped the scroll position. Only concern is that pinch to zoom is disabled but the typography makes up for that for probably >95% of readers.
- dcre 11y agoAnd 0 trackers that Ghostery has to block. Though I guess it would be pretty ironic if there were any.
- jononomo 11y agonice.
- bambax 11y agoThis phrasing is incorrect: > [there are x persons] President Obama ha[s] authorized U.S. special operations forces to assassinate US special ops are the President's weapon. It doesn't make sense to say "yesterday I authorized my gun to kill a man"; what you want to say is "yesterday I killed a man". President Obama didn't "authorize targeted killings" or whatever you want to call those. He (and Bush before him) assassinated people, assassinates them without trial or due process, while smiling and holding babies and making jokes at the White House correspondents dinner, and complaining about the gun culture and mass killings. The same day of the Umpqua College shooting (10 dead), US drones in Afghanistan targeted a hospital and killed 22 people (12 staff, 10 patients including 3 children). If Obama really wants Americans to get rid of their guns, maybe he should start with his own. But of course he won't, so forgive me for not listening to whatever he has to say.
- MrJagil 11y agoThat's interesting. Wouldn't that logic excuse the "weapons" though? A common nazi excuse after WWII was that they were just obeying orders. That excuse seems to have been wildly disregarded. Edit: Yes, I am very aware both parties should then be considered morally responsible.
- pkinsky 11y agoThe Nuremberg trials established that 'just obeying orders' is no excuse, that acting as the tool of another does not absolve a person. That doesn't mean the person giving the orders isn't at least as guilty as the person who carries them out.
- darkerside 11y agoThat's right, but it does mean there is a totally valid distinction between "authorizing" killings, and carrying them out yourself. The top level comment is blurring lines that shouldn't need to be blurred.
- 11y ago
- jstalin 11y agoWar is the health of the state.
- snake_plissken 11y agoFor me the most grave offense of our current president was taking out Anwar al-Awlaki in 2011. I understand he was not a good individual, by any means, but he was an American citizen which entitled him to all of the protections afforded under The Constitution. Programs like these are what undermines any legitimacy our country has left.
- stefantalpalaru 11y agoDon't forget his 16 year old son, killed 2 weeks later at an outdoor restaurant, together with 6 other people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_al-Awlaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_al-Awlaki He was also a US citizen.
- devit 11y agoDoesn't U.S. law offer any recourse in this case?
- NN88 11y ago1. He renounced his citizenship 2. Yemen tried him in absentia
- merpnderp 11y agoWhat should the US have done instead? He was planning and committing terrorist attacks and there was no way to simply arrest him. Why should the US be obligated to allow Americans to commit war crimes when they are unreachable by law enforcement?
- ionised 11y agoBecause if the US isn't going to follow the law why the fuck should anybody else?
- merpnderp 11y agoWhat law did the US break? The guy was a member of Al Queda. Congress explicitly initiated a war against Al Queda. The guy wasn't in a place where US law enforcement could reach him. Which is kind of the definition of being at war.
- csommers 11y agoKind of eerie: http://chj.tbe.taleo.net/chj05/ats/careers/requisition.jsp?org=PLURIBUSINTERNATIONAL&cws=1&rid=207 http://chj.tbe.taleo.net/chj05/ats/careers/requisition.jsp?o... Quick Google search for the key-term "GILGAMESH"...
- sarciszewski 11y agohttp://www.webcitation.org/6cIxkqFKZ http://www.webcitation.org/6cIxkqFKZ In case they change it.
- csommers 11y agoAnother interesting one ... a resume: http://docslide.us/documents/fredrickdaliry-chronologicorder20141120.html http://docslide.us/documents/fredrickdaliry-chronologicorder... Quite a few of the keywords (programs) don't show up in Google results, so I'm guessing they are yet to be unveiled by any leaked docs so far.
- mcphilip 11y agoLogically, if the U.S. feels justified in targeted drone strikes against legitimate threats to national security, what's to stop China or Russia from doing the same? Arent there some legitimate scenarios where U.S. and Chinese national security interests are in opposition? Who has the "moral high ground", if such a thing exists, in such cases?
- e12e 11y agoSuperior nuclear capability? (And no, I don't think this sets a great precedent. Then again, it's not really something new to perform war crimes against "3rd world nations" -- but it does seem horribly out of place in our (thankfully) more educated times (as in, all of us are far more educated now, than previously)). The worst part, is that with all three big players lobbying warheads around in Syria, we might be closer to a third world war than we've ever been before.
- DominikR 11y agoOne legitimate scenario is the US support for Jihadist organizations that operate all around the globe including in China. (Uyghur region) I think it is pretty clear who has the moral high ground on this one. For me this aspect of US foreign policy is by far the most disgusting, even more than the assassinations. You can see for yourself how the US demands from Russia to stop their military campaign in Syria now that the Jihadi groups are losing ground.
- pjc50 11y agoWell, this is basically what's now happening in Syria; the Russians are carrying out strikes on US-backed anti-Assad fighters using (among other things) cruise missiles launched from the Black Sea.
- dragonwriter 11y ago> Logically, if the U.S. feels justified in targeted drone strikes against legitimate threats to national security, what's to stop China or Russia from doing the same? Um, nations have been using military force of whatever kind they have available -- and doing so in whatever ways minimize what they have at risk for what they stand to achieve -- for a very long time, longer than the US has been around. Its not like Russia or China would refrain from using drones, where available, just because the US hadn't done it first. > Who has the "moral high ground", if such a thing exists, in such cases? The moral high ground is highly subjective, and generally perceived as being strongly linked to the validity of the justification. Not that the moral high ground matters all that much in practice if the outrage level isn't tied to groups with both the capacity and the will to do something about it which influences the national interest calculation.
- mahyarm 11y agoI thought it has been known for years that the US govt uses drones to execute military and assassination targets. And the public has no insight into how these decisions are made. This may reveal internal details, but I don't know how different from what the world has known for years?
- kushti 11y agoI don't see this in CNN top yet, BBC is also silent(though UK citizen was killed by an US drone). However, RT and other media independent of western governments already have this on main page. Let's think why dear HNers.
- Satchelmouth 11y agoYou have a point however I just wanted to point out that RT is a very poor example to use.
- kushti 11y agoWell, I guess Al-Jazeera is also a "very poor example" for you? Could you provide a good example then?
- Satchelmouth 11y agoWell, I don't personally have a problem with Al-Jazeera. In the "editorial interference from the government" tables, Al-Jazeera makes an appearance but it is far, far below RT.
- kzhahou 11y agoThis could use a better title. I avoided the link all day thinking it was about quadcopters.
- jgome 11y agoSome history and some facts about the U.S.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_interventions_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_interventions_of_the_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_r... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_mili... http://qz.com/374138/these-are-all-the-countries-where-the-us-has-a-military-presence/ http://qz.com/374138/these-are-all-the-countries-where-the-u... http://www.statista.com/statistics/262962/countries-with-the-most-prisoners-per-100-000-inhabitants/ http://www.statista.com/statistics/262962/countries-with-the...
- NN88 11y agoThis guy seem like he deserved it: https://theintercept.com/drone-papers/the-life-and-death-of-objective-peckham/ https://theintercept.com/drone-papers/the-life-and-death-of-...
- sabertoothed 11y agoCurrently, there is a special inquiry going on in the German Bundestag (Federal Parliament). An ex-drone pilot is reporting about the work he did in the US miltary base in Ramstein Germany. It is utterly shocking and disgusting. I fail to see why this is not murder. According to press articles reporting about this inquiry, boys from the age of 12 were cleared to be killed by drones. In my little happy world, there is only one reason when you are allowed to use violence - and that is self-defense (to protect you or others). And according to German law and probably the law of many other countries, your self-defense is only justified if the attack on you is (1) unlawful, (2) happening right now (has started or is immediately impending) and (3) if the means to counter the attack are within reason. The killing via drones makes me feel very, very uncomfortable. I don't think it is compatible with human rights or any reasonable constitution. EDIT: The following is a quote from the inquiry - quoted by the German Bundestag [1]. "In diesen Einsatzgebieten hätten alle männlichen Personen im Alter von über zwölf Jahren als legitime Ziele gegolten. Wenn ein Opfer jünger gewesen sei, sei das aber auch nicht besonders tragisch genommen worden. Man müsse das Gras mähen, bevor es wachse, habe es dann geheißen. Mit anderen Worten: Aus Kindern wären später ohnehin Terroristen geworden." My clumsy translation: "In these areas of operation, all male persons above the age of 12 were considered legitimate targets. If a victim was younger, however, it was not regarded as a big deal. You have to mow the grass, before it grows, it was said. In other words: Children would have become terrorists later anyways." This is revolting. [1] http://www.bundestag.de/dokumente/textarchiv/2015/kw42_pa_nsa/390984 http://www.bundestag.de/dokumente/textarchiv/2015/kw42_pa_ns...