NCTC Orders Murder by Drone, Spies on US Citizens (continued)
by WASHINGTON'S BLOG
Given the way al-Qaeda continues to metastasize, some officials said no clear end is in sight.
"Obama has institutionalized the highly classified practice of targeted killing, transforming ad-hoc elements into a counterterrorism infrastructure capable of sustaining a seemingly permanent war.
"White House counterterrorism adviser John O. Brennan is seeking to codify the administrations approach to generating capture/kill lists, part of a broader effort to guide future administrations through the counterterrorism processes that Obama has embraced.
"The United States now operates multiple drone programs, including acknowledged U.S. military patrols over conflict zones in Afghanistan and Libya, and classified CIA surveillance flights over Iran.
"Strikes against al-Qaeda, however, are carried out under secret lethal programs involving the CIA and JSOC [both of which have been called the President's "private army"]. The matrix was developed by the NCTC [the National Counterterrorism Center], under former director Michael Leiter, to augment those organizations' separate but overlapping kill lists, officials said.
"The result is a single, continually evolving database in which biographies, locations, known associates and affiliated organizations are all catalogued. So are strategies for taking targets down, including extradition requests, capture operations and drone patrols.
"The database is meant to map out contingencies, creating an operational menu that spells out each agencys role in case a suspect surfaces in an unexpected spot. 'If he's in Saudi Arabia, pick up with the Saudis, the former official said. If traveling overseas to al-Shabaab [in Somalia] we can pick him up by ship. If in Yemen, kill or have the Yemenis pick him up.
"The administration has also elevated the role of the NCTC, which was conceived as a clearinghouse for threat data and has no operational capability. Under Brennan, who served as its founding director, the center has emerged as a targeting hub."
As Glenn Greenwald notes:
"The central role played by the NCTC in determining who should be killed It is the keeper of the criteria, says one official to the Post is, by itself, rather odious. As Kade Crockford of the ACLU of Massachusetts noted in response to this story, the ACLU has long warned that the real purpose of the NCTC despite its nominal focus on terrorism is the massive, secretive data collection and mining of trillions of points of data about most people in the United States.
"In particular, the NCTC operates a gigantic data-mining operation, in which all sorts of information about innocent Americans is systematically monitored, stored, and analyzed. This includes records from law enforcement investigations, health information, employment history, travel and student records literally anything the government collects would be fair game. In other words, the NCTC now vested with the power to determine the proper disposition of terrorist suspects is the same agency that is at the center of the ubiquitous, unaccountable surveillance state aimed at American citizens.
"Worse still, as the ACLU's legislative counsel Chris Calabrese documented back in July in a must-read analysis, Obama officials very recently abolished safeguards on how this information can be used. Whereas the agency, during the Bush years, was barred from storing non-terrorist-related information about innocent Americans for more than 180 days a limit which meant that NCTC was dissuaded from collecting large databases filled with information on innocent Americans it is now free to do so. Obama officials eliminated this constraint by authorizing the NCTC to collect and continually assess information on innocent Americans for up to five years.
And, as usual, this agency engages in these incredibly powerful and invasive processes with virtually no democratic accountability:
"All of this is happening with very little oversight. Controls over the NCTC are mostly internal to the DNIs office, and important oversight bodies such as Congress and the Presidents Intelligence Oversight Board arent notified even of significant failures to comply with the Guidelines. Fundamental legal protections are being sidestepped. For example, under the new guidelines, Privacy Act notices (legal requirements to describe how databases are used) must be completed by the agency that collected the information. This is in spite of the fact that those agencies have no idea what NCTC is actually doing with the information once it collects it.
"All of this amounts to a reboot of the Total Information Awareness Program that Americans rejected so vigorously right after 9/11.
"What has been created here permanently institutionalized is a highly secretive executive branch agency that simultaneously engages in two functions: (1) it collects and analyzes massive amounts of surveillance data about all Americans without any judicial review let alone search warrants, and (2) creates and implements a matrix that determines the disposition of suspects, up to and including execution, without a whiff of due process or oversight. It is simultaneously a surveillance state and a secretive, unaccountable judicial body that analyzes who you are and then decrees what should be done with you, how you should be disposed of, beyond the reach of any minimal accountability or transparency.
Americans on U.S. Soil May Be Targeted
This might be acceptable if the U.S. government was only targeting really bad guys, and if drones were not being used inside the borders of America itself.
But drones are becoming pervasive within the U.S. Indeed, some of the numerous drones flying over American soil projected by the FAA to reach 30,000 drones by 2020 are starting to carry arms.
When torture memo writer John Yoo was asked last year whether drones could kill people within the United States, he replied yes if we were in a time of war:
(Of course, since the U.S. has declared a perpetual war and see this- drones will always be in fashion.)
Indeed, the military now considers the U.S. homeland to be a battlefield. The U.S. is already allowing military operations within the United States.
The Army is already being deployed on U.S. soil, and the military is conducting numerous training exercises on American streets.
Government officials have said that Americans can be targets in the war on terror. Obama has authorized targeted assassinations against U.S. citizens.
And it is not very comforting that the U.S. government labels just about every U.S. citizen as a potential terrorists.
Or the Matrix?
In the Terminator science fiction series, computers and machines organized by Skynet track people down who threaten the status quo of the machines and then selectively assassinate them.
The powers given to the NCTC remind me of Skynet
especially given how fast the military is advancing its robotic capabilities:
Others are reminded of The Matrix.
Greenwald comments on the machine-like aspect the NCTCs operations:
The Council on Foreign Relations Micah Zenko, writing today about the Post article, reports:
"Recently, I spoke to a military official with extensive and wide-ranging experience in the special operations world, and who has had direct exposure to the targeted killing program. To emphasize how easy targeted killings by special operations forces or drones has become, this official flicked his hand back over and over, stating: 'It really is like swatting flies. We can do it forever easily and you feel nothing. But how often do you really think about killing a fly?'"
"That is disturbingly consistent with prior reports that the military's term for drone victims is "bug splat".
This this warped power and the accompanying dehumanizing mindset is what is being institutionalized as a permanent fixture in American political life by the current president.
At Wired, Spencer Ackerman reacts to the Post article with an analysis entitled "President Romney Can Thank Obama for His Permanent Robotic Death List". Here is his concluding paragraph:
"Obama did not run for president to preside over the codification of a global war fought in secret. But thats his legacy. . . . Micah Zenko at the Council on Foreign Relations writes that Obama's predecessors in the Bush administration were actually much more conscious and thoughtful about the long-term implications of targeted killings, because they feared the political consequences that might come when the U.S. embraces something at least superficially similar to assassination. Whoever follows Obama in the Oval Office can thank him for proving those consequences dont meaningfully exist as he or she reviews the backlog of names on the Disposition Matrix.
But one thing is clear. Warmongering is always good for the super-elite, and bad for everyone else... And it destroys freedom and prosperity.
Given that the national security apparatus has been hijacked to serve the needs of big business and to crush dissent, it's not far-fetched to think that information gained from drones will be used for purposes that are not necessarily in the best interests of the American people.
Indeed, the government has clearly misused 9/11 to justify objectives which have little or nothing to do with keeping us safe.
As Greenwald notes:
"The core guarantee of western justice since the Magna Carta was codified in the US by the fifth amendment to the constitution: 'No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.' You simply cannot have a free society, a worthwhile political system, without that guarantee, that constraint on the ultimate abusive state power, being honored.
And yet what the Post is describing, what we have had for years, is a system of government that without hyperbole is the very antithesis of that liberty.
It is literally impossible to imagine a more violent repudiation of the basic blueprint of the republic than the development of a secretive, totally unaccountable executive branch agency that simultaneously collects information about all citizens and then applies a disposition matrix to determine what punishment should be meted out.
This is classic political dystopia brought to reality (despite how compelled such a conclusion is by these indisputable facts, many Americans will view such a claim as an exaggeration, paranoia, or worse because of this psychological dynamic I described here which leads many good passive westerners to believe that true oppression, by definition, is something that happens only elsewhere).
As the Founders all recognized, nothing vests elites with power and profit more than a state of war. That is why there were supposed to be substantial barriers to having them start and continue the need for a Congressional declaration, the constitutional bar on funding the military for more than two years at a time, the prohibition on standing armies, etc. Here is how John Jay put it in Federalist No 4:
"It is too true, however disgraceful it may be to human nature, that nations in general will make war whenever they have a prospect of getting anything by it; nay, absolute monarchs will often make war when their nations are to get nothing by it, but for the purposes and objects merely personal, such as thirst for military glory, revenge for personal affronts, ambition, or private compacts to aggrandize or support their particular families or partisans. These and a variety of other motives, which affect only the mind of the sovereign, often lead him to engage in wars not sanctified by justice or the voice and interests of his people."
In sum, there are factions in many governments that crave a state of endless war because that is when power is least constrained and profit most abundant.
What the Post is reporting is yet another significant step toward that state, and it is undoubtedly driven, at least on the part of some, by a self-interested desire to ensure the continuation of endless war and the powers and benefits it vests.
So to answer Hayes' question: the endless expansion of a kill list and the unaccountable, always-expanding powers needed to implement it does indeed represent a great success for many. Read what John Jay wrote in the above passage to see why that is, and why few, if any, political developments should be regarded as more pernicious.