Intelligence Committee Doesn’t Care If Targets Are Even IDENTIFIED Before They Are ASSASSINATED

Government Sees No Need to Know Who It’s Killing

Matt Stoller – one of the best bloggers around, and also a fantastic researcher of Congressional records – tweeted this gem:

We hunted down the actual Congressional transcript, and Stoller is right:

November 25, 2013, As Reported by the Intelligence (Permanent) Committee


Ms. Schakowsky offered an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to prohibit lethal action against an individual if the U.S. Government does not know the identity of that individual with a near certainty.


The Committee rejected the amendment by Ms. Schakowsky to prohibit lethal action against an individual if the U.S. Government does not know the identity of that individual with a near certainty ….

Indeed, the Obama administration has ordered numerous indiscriminate drone strikes.  Given that it labels all young men who happen to be in war zones as “militants”, a lot of innocent people could be killed.

In reality, killing people when you don’t know who they are is a  war crime (more here and here) … which creates more terrorists than it kills.

This entry was posted in Politics / World News. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Dee

    The Individual that is making these claims is not the voice of the UN

    As special rapporteur, Emmerson’s role at the UN is that of an independent researcher and adviser, but he does not necessarily represent the views or speak on behalf of the world body. “It’s not my job to speak for the UN,” he said. “I speak to the UN.”

    On the other hand in order to receive the rights under international law Terrorists must observe the International Laws of war and they must dress in a manner that can distinguish them from non combatants.

    “In order to be granted the privilege of being a lawful combatant, the fighter must, however, observe four rules: 1. Be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; this requirement is intended to ensure that irregular forces have a structure of command and discipline capable of following the laws of war. 2. Wear a distinctive sign or article of clothing visible at a distance in order to indicate that he is a combatant and a potential target who may lawfully be attacked by opposing forces; this provision is for the protection of noncombatant civilians. 3. Carry his weapon openly to indicate his combatant status and to distinguish fighters from the civilian population. 4. Observe the laws of war. – See more at:

    The Terrorists have a long history of atrocities and war crimes and do not wear distinctive uniforms or clothing. The Terrorist are, by definition, war criminals, and as such have no rights or protections under international law. And it is the Terrorists failure to clearly distinguish themselves from non combatants that causes civilian casualties.

    Good people can differ on many things of importance. And after investigation individual incidents, the US may or may not have crossed the line. Emmerson is his role of an investigator reporting to the UN has a job to do, the UN Security Council or Human Rights Council may have to make recommendations based o what he finds …

    But no such investigation is needed to determine if the terrorists are international war criminals .. they are the minute they do not follow the established rules and operate outside of their own country. ( inside their own country they are still criminal if the commit crimes, but that is strictly up to the local government). Once you are an international war criminal and a terrorist, by committing terrorist acts and violating the international laws of war, you are , not only fair game, but it is the obligation of every country that is a signatory to the UN Charter to pursue you and either capture or kill you, as outlined by numerous US Security Council resolutions.

    The International laws of War apply because aI Qaeda declared war on us .. and then followed that up with actual attacks.
    This means we are at war until both sides come to the table and say the war is over.. International law.. if you are attacked you have the Right of self defense UN Charter , If you violate the Hague and Geneva Conventions and commit war crimes you have no protection from the provisions of the Hague and Geneva conventions International law of War. If you are mixing in with civilians and not clearly identifying yourself as a combatant , you are a war criminal and any civilian casualties are on you.
    I’ll be the first to say, almost all of there rules were set up when international terrorism was not the norm, and some of the rules do not address the situation gracefully. Folks are working on updates to the Conventions to try to make rules that cleanly and clearly apply.
    It may turn out some of what the US does is criminal, but so far that has no been the finding on any competent international organization with jurisdiction.. on the other hand every competent international organization with jurisdiction universally has adjudicated the terrorist as international war criminals and has imposed sanctions and encouraged the signatories to whatever Treaty or Charter or Conventions they may be signatories to, to create domestic law to outlaw terrorism and the support of terrorism and full co-operate with those nations actively suppressing terrorism thru all means necessary.

    • Rocky Racoon

      What are you talking about? Terrorists by definition are NOT legal combatants-they are criminals. Rules of war do not apply to them as police action should used against them not military. Trying to justify drone strikes that kill innocent civilians according to the Laws of War is a non starter. Your argument is ridiculous.

  • george

    And according to her wikipedia page she’s “by some accounts the most Progressive member of the current US Congress.”

    • Dee

      Nothing wrong with being progressive.. in fact I don’t even think that is the question.. The question is what are the international laws as they currently stand v. how we wish they were and why not use unicorns pooping skittles instead of drones firing hellfires.

  • If this passed they would have been able to nuke without the local census records…..

    • Dee

      again with the nukes.. geeze louise

      • The STATE invented the slippery slope. When it comes to law, every act must be brought to it’s logical absurdity.

        • Dee

          if that’s working for you .. go for it… but as far as what passed.. better read the story again, the amendment that would have limited power was rejected .. so , the hysteria you should have expressed is ‘OMG they don’t even need the census now to nuke us .. we are all going to die arraaaggghhhh splat’

  • Arizona

    YOU CAN read all day,and IF your able to understand what your reading,YOU’LL realize OBOOZO is planning an ATTACK ON AMERICA,with all his FOREIGN TROOPS,all they need to do now is set off a nuclear weapon and the BIG SHOW WILL START,are you ready OR IS YOUR HEAD “STILL UP YOUR ASS”,thats fine if it is,we didn’t need you anyway,your proably a government suck ass,good riddance……..FOR those of you who are awake,GET READY,THEY WILL BE COMING…………….

    • Dee

      I rest my case.

  • Bill Gertz-The Washington Times May 28, 2014

    Pentagon Directive Outlines Obama’s Policy To Use Military Force Against American Citizens… What the ….?

    • Dee

      I don’t get the drone thing? Forbids use of armed unmanned aircraft .. so .. it isn’t like we have a shortage of armed manned aircraft and citizens are a little light in the anti-aircraft department.

      But none of this is a new thing, Lincoln was big on Federal troops against Citizens. And good ol’ Doug MacArthur ( aided by Eisenhower) ran down citizens in Washington DC with US Army Tanks led by Patton and used war gas against the protesting citizens.

  • Diana

    When you’re trying to rid the world of 5.5 billion people, you can’t afford to be choosy.