US drone attacks are ‘targeted assassinations’

[The Northerner]

Rick Rozoff, manager of Stop NATO International has criticized the U.S. drone campaign in other countries as “targeted assassinations” that aim “to kill particular individuals.”

Rozoff told Press TV’s U.S. Desk on Tuesday that the deadly airstrikes in Pakistan and Yemen are “a violation of every Geneva Convention.”

Top White House adviser John O. Brennan, in his latest remark on the issue, has said that not only does the U.S. Constitution allow the president to assassinate people anywhere on the planet, but that the drone program is “legal, ethical and wise.”

“The fact that a leading U.S. official like John Brennan would attempt to justify or even celebrate these mass killings is a moral and political incitement against the government of the United States,” Rozoff said.

Read more: http://presstv.com/usdetail/239064.html


I couldn't agree more that the unethical drone strikes are assassinations but I think they're also assassinations based on suspicion which is disturbing considering that people are relentlessly slaughtered without trial and there seems to be little mass opposition or legislation opposing the continued drone slaughters.

[The Link]

1. Are you referring to drone attacks under the Bush administration or the Obama administration?

I think there is probably a big difference between the two.

[Vincardog]

3. What is that difference? Illegal is illegal.

[G_j]

2. the "intelligence" is not impressive

same $$ driven leads that put most of the people in Gitmo..and gave us lies about WMD.

[Robb]

4. "The Northerner," do you support Iran's position on LGBT, e.g. civil rights?

Since you post daily, sometimes hourly articles from the official press arm of the Iranian government, can you comment on its position that homosexuality is a disease, and that same-sex marriage is immoral?

Thanks in advance.

[RZM]

8. Don't expect an answer

Shortly after posting this:

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=86479

The number of star members ignoring me went up by one. Of course I don't know who it was . . . but I have an idea

[The Link]

10. I would point out that our own country has a problem with homosexuality.

And our current President finds same-sex marriage immoral. What does the Iranian governments position on LGBT rights have to do with the subject of this discussion thread?

[The Northerner]

12. +1

[The Northerner]

11. How are drone strikes and LGBT issues related?

While I support equal treatment for LGBT persons I don't see how it relates to the ongoing slaughter of civilians by drone strikes.

How about discussing the OP instead?

[Robb]

13. Would you post links from the Klan's newsletter, then?

...If the KKK Monthly or what-have-you had a good recipe for cornbread, would you share it with us in the Cooking and Baking Group?

How about the Washington (Moonie) Times' take on the economy? Fox News editorials on infrastructure?

Can you clarify why you propagate a source that is required by law in its country to parrot the government's viewpoints, when so many of those "viewpoints" are unacceptable to any thinking liberal?

Thanks in advance.

[The Northerner]

14. While I oppose all homophobia I think that Press TV does a good job of covering numerous

occurrences of warmongering, imperialism, and foreign policy-related hypocrisy which the msm usually doesn't.

Aside from some independent media sources such as Democracy Now, The Nation, CounterPunch, Common Dreams, World Socialist Web Site, etc. there doesn't seem to be much of a focus on the ongoing slaughter of people by drone strikes in foreign countries.

And no, I don't post news from the Washington Times, Fox News, KKK, etc.

[Robb]

15. The Iranian state is homophobic. Your source is its press arm.

Press TV, and its affiliates, are required by the Iranian constitution to represent the opinions of the government. That is no small matter.

It might be one thing to cite a questionable source. But you are citing a source that is part and parcel to a government. You are helping contribute to increasing the reach and influence of a government, not an independent news source.

And this is a government that makes being gay an imprisonable offense.

I'll ask you to confirm: do you oppose all homophobia? Because this is an opportunity to actually do so.

[The Northerner]

16. Yes, I oppose all homophobia in addition to any hatred towards the LGBT community but

I don't see how that relates to the drone strikes which slaughter numerous innocent civilian and suspects on a weekly basis.

[Robb]

20. You are promoting the efforts of a homophobic state.

There are, as you admit, other sources that are covering this issue. I will be as clear as possible.

Stop using the one that's run by a bigoted government, please.

[HiPointDem]

17. Whether or not iran is homophobic, and leaving aside the point that a number of US allies can

be said to be homophobic, I didn't realize that homophobia justified drone strikes.

[msanthrope]

5. Why are you posting a news source owned by the Iranian government?

I mean, seriously, Iranian state-owned press????

Do I even have to start listing the anti-gay, anti-Semitic crap they routinely push????

[randome]

6. Let's see, assassinations used to be done covertly, a la James Bond.

Now they are done publicly with drones. Perhaps that's progress? At least it's in the open for all to see!

[EFerrari]

7. Then again, John Brennan embraced rendition, torture, subverting FISA and immunizng the telecoms

for their felony warrantless spying on Americans in America.

[msanthrope]

9. This news source is owned by the Iranian state. Do you normally find them newsworthy and reliable?

As Robb noted upthread, they have a rather disgusting view on gay rights, not to mention featuring Nicholas Kollerstrom.

[whatchamacallit]

18. Given what our corporate media pukes up daily

it's probably no less newsworthy and reliable than our own.

[msanthrope]

21. Wow. Just wow. nt

[whatchamacallit]

22. Okay

there's no denying their deplorable positions and reporting on some social issues diminishes their credibility. That doesn't mean everything they report must be a lie.

[redqueen]

19. It seems most people have the impression

that such strikes cause fewer unintended casualties than other types of strikes.

In order to build much opposition there would need to be a campaign to prove otherwise.

But hell, where was the mass opposition to the bombing runs which resulted from those no-fly zones (which only the US and the UK set up, the UN did not get involved)? In other words, I would not hold my breath waiting for mass opposition to these strikes/slaughters.

[EFerrari]

23. There are two studies already

that refute the Pentagon's slimeball numbers.

I believe one was by a news outfilt and one was by a think tank. Don't remember who but they will come up for you if you search "drone strikes kill civilians". Or, one will and it refers to the other. Sorry, rq.