Obama redefines “militant” to avoid counting civilian casualties?
This morning, the New York Times has a very lengthy and detailed article about President Obama’s counter-Terrorism policies based on interviews with “three dozen of his current and former advisers.” . . . The article explains that Obama’s rhetorical emphasis on avoiding civilian deaths “did not significantly change” the drone program, because Obama himself simply expanded the definition of a “militant” to ensure that it includes virtually everyone killed by his drone strikes. Just read this remarkable passage:
Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent. . . .
This counting method may partly explain the official claims of extraordinarily low collateral deaths. In a speech last year Mr. Brennan, Mr. Obama’s trusted adviser, said that not a single noncombatant had been killed in a year of strikes. And in a recent interview, a senior administration official said that the number of civilians killed in drone strikes in Pakistan under Mr. Obama was in the “single digits” — and that independent counts of scores or hundreds of civilian deaths unwittingly draw on false propaganda claims by militants.
Read More: http://americanvisionnews.com/3610/obama-redefines...
Top Opinion
-
wolf sloan 2012/05/31 16:12:44





















Had this been Bush I tend to think that this would have caused a major outcry.
The democrats don't seem to mind when THEIR party increases domestic surveillance, invades a few countries under UN resolution, or passes terrible legislation like the NDAA.
Double standards abound in the political world and I am REALLY tired of it!!! ANYTHING the press can do to help O they have and they should all be ashamed for their coverage.