Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Drone Papers

theintercept.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 226 posts

Re: The Drone Papers

#111

Post by DominikR »

rhino369 wrote: post #92
bambax wrote: post #48

This 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) assa…

The huge false equivalence you are making is Obama is waging a war against a truly evil organization. But the college shootings are senseless violence purposely used on innocent people. You can throw in the hospital attack. But that attack obviously wasn't purposeful. It also wasn't a drone. It was ground support strike, something Obama wouldn't be involved in. You can blame Obama for keeping us in the war. In that r…

Why is it obvious that the attack on the hospital wasn't purposeful?

This article by associated press indicates that they attacked the hospital on purpose.

http://bigstory.ap.org/urn:publicid:ap.org:5e20fcd92aee49e69...

> Obama is trying to kill people to make the world better...

I have no words for this. How a person can even entertain such thoughts is beyond me.

Re: The Drone Papers

#112

Post by runjake »

venomsnake wrote: post #104
BuildTheRobots wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was going to say the exact opposite; that it's in no way trivial and that possessing the tools and information to do so is illegal in a number of European countries. More information would be greatly welcomed :) Edit: On reflection that sounds extremely dodgy... I got curious a few months ago and couldn't turn up much, so I'd certainly classify it as more difficult than trivial... but then I am still curious.

First result on search https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.vivek.imei... Imei changing is trivial. But you are still on the same number. Now - to change numbers on the fly requires telco assistance. And some very very interesting toys.

This only changes the apparent IMEI at the OS level to mask oneself from apps that pry.

The hardware is still using the same old IMEI as far as the phone company and SIGINT is concerned. This is not readily, or trivially, changeable.

Re: The Drone Papers

#113

Post by e12e »

yuvadam wrote: post #101
e12e wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are 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?]

In 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.

Right. 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-Ramst... (etc)

Re: The Drone Papers

#114

Post by the-dude »

rhino369 wrote: post #92
bambax wrote: post #48

This 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) assa…

The huge false equivalence you are making is Obama is waging a war against a truly evil organization. But the college shootings are senseless violence purposely used on innocent people. You can throw in the hospital attack. But that attack obviously wasn't purposeful. It also wasn't a drone. It was ground support strike, something Obama wouldn't be involved in. You can blame Obama for keeping us in the war. In that r…

That is just your opinion. Almost all US military intervention since 2001 has resulted in a lot of evil and this evil is continuing to this day and will do so for a very long time. You actually created the power vacuum which IS is exploiting.

This is just my opinion.

Re: The Drone Papers

#115

Post by csommers »

csommers wrote: post #58

Kind of eerie: http://chj.tbe.taleo.net/chj05/ats/careers/requisition.jsp?o... Quick Google search for the key-term "GILGAMESH"...

Another interesting one ... a resume: 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.

Re: The Drone Papers

#116

Post by simplexion »

kafkaesq wrote: post #94
bambax wrote: post #48

This 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) assa…

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). Deplorable though it was, the Kunduz hospital strike was done by an AC-130, not drones. Also, it was not, by any stretch, a "targeted killing" in the sense of the attacks targeting specific individuals that the article addresses. It had absolutely nothi…

Why can't fruit be compared?

Re: The Drone Papers

#117

Post by e40 »

DominikR wrote: post #111
rhino369 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The huge false equivalence you are making is Obama is waging a war against a truly evil organization. But the college shootings are senseless violence purposely used on innocent people. You can throw in the hospital attack. But that attack obviously wasn't purposeful. It also wasn't a drone. It was ground support strike, something Obama wouldn't be involved in. You can blame Obama for keeping us in the war. In that r…

Why is it obvious that the attack on the hospital wasn't purposeful? This article by associated press indicates that they attacked the hospital on purpose. http://bigstory.ap.org/urn:publicid:ap.org:5e20fcd92aee49e69... > Obama is trying to kill people to make the world better... I have no words for this. How a person can even entertain such thoughts is beyond me.

>> Obama is trying to kill people to make the world better...

> I have no words for this. How a person can even entertain such thoughts is beyond me. reply

Let's apply your lost of words to WWII. Do you believe it was unjust or unfair to kill Germans in the service of stopping that war? Are you still at a loss for words?

Re: The Drone Papers

#118

Post by kafkaesq »

cryoshon wrote: post #107
kafkaesq wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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). Deplorable though it was, the Kunduz hospital strike was done by an AC-130, not drones. Also, it was not, by any stretch, a "targeted killing" in the sense of the attacks targeting specific individuals that the article addresses. It had absolutely nothi…

Shrug, the actual detail of the Kunduz massacre not being a drone is utterly irrelevant. The actual detail of using a drone rather than another type of airstrike is also irrelevant. The systematic and intentional killing ("collateral damage") of tons of civilians for an endless war is relevant. Look up all those times we droned weddings, killing dozens. Certain people at those weddings were targeted, not that it matt…

They are if you prefer to live in a world where fact and spin are indistinguishable, and of equal value. To each their own, I guess.

Re: The Drone Papers

#119

Post by kushti »

I 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.

Re: The Drone Papers

#120

Post by PythonicAlpha »

gortok wrote: post #5

There 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-comp... - IMEIs are used to track targets. Can IMEIs be spoofed? - Military Aged Males are considered enemy combatants. Effectively that…

> 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.

A German newspaper wrote, that males with an age of 12 years up are considered legit targets.

Post reply on HN