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

101–110 of 226 posts

Re: The Drone Papers

#101

Post by yuvadam »

e12e wrote: post #83
yuvadam wrote: post #2

There are a few interesting anecdotes about this huge story - This is the same leak that Glenn Greenwald describes to Edward Snowden in Moscow (-> -> -> -> POTUS), meaning this story has been in the making for at least 1.5 years. Second, this quality and quantity of leaks is incredible and can only be attributed to a news organization that takes security as a paramount consideration, setting up proper secure channels…

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.

Re: The Drone Papers

#102

Post by bambax »

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…

You're right in that's a false equivalence; but the response of Obama about the two events that happened the same day was striking.

He has no control whatsoever about crazy people who shoot other people on campuses; and yet that's what he chose to talk about.

He has a lot of control about what targets US armies bomb, drones or no drones. And yet he has almost nothing to say about that.

But my point is not even this. My point is Obama actually loves guns... when they're his own.

Everyone who uses guns thinks they're doing God's work -- and nobody is.

"Evil" is just a point of view when used as an epithet. The only thing that separates us from true evil is certainly not the assertion that one is right and the other, wrong.

It's the rule of law. Get rid of due process, and evil is everywhere, or nowhere at all.

Re: The Drone Papers

#103

Post by dragonwriter »

mcphilip wrote: post #82

Logically, if the U.S. feels justified in targeted drone strikes against legitimate threats to national security, what's to stop China or Russia from doing the same? Arent there some legitimate scenarios where U.S. and Chinese national security interests are in opposition? Who has the "moral high ground", if such a thing exists, in such cases?

> Logically, if the U.S. feels justified in targeted drone strikes against legitimate threats to national security, what's to stop China or Russia from doing the same?

Um, nations have been using military force of whatever kind they have available -- and doing so in whatever ways minimize what they have at risk for what they stand to achieve -- for a very long time, longer than the US has been around.

Its not like Russia or China would refrain from using drones, where available, just because the US hadn't done it first.

> Who has the "moral high ground", if such a thing exists, in such cases?

The moral high ground is highly subjective, and generally perceived as being strongly linked to the validity of the justification.

Not that the moral high ground matters all that much in practice if the outrage level isn't tied to groups with both the capacity and the will to do something about it which influences the national interest calculation.

Re: The Drone Papers

#104

Post by venomsnake »

BuildTheRobots wrote: post #71
nkw wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>- IMEIs are used to track targets. Can IMEIs be spoofed? Yes. Relatively trivially.

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.

Re: The Drone Papers

#105

Post by mahyarm »

I thought it has been known for years that the US govt uses drones to execute military and assassination targets. And the public has no insight into how these decisions are made.

This may reveal internal details, but I don't know how different from what the world has known for years?

Re: The Drone Papers

#106

Post by cryoshon »

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…

Agreed entirely; drone strikes are called "signature strikes" much of the time specifically because of how unified their political and tactical appendages are.

Sure, the swipe of the pen or an "okay, go for it" is a few steps divorced from lasing the missile yourself, but it's part of the same causal chain, and that is how responsibility should be assigned.

Re: The Drone Papers

#107

Post by cryoshon »

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…

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 mattered for the attendees.

Re: The Drone Papers

#109

Post by timmytokyo »

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…

"Obama is trying to kill people to make the world a better place."

I wonder if that's why he was given the Nobel Peace Prize.

Re: The Drone Papers

#110

Post by AUmrysh »

dombili wrote: post #7
yuvadam wrote: post #2

There are a few interesting anecdotes about this huge story - This is the same leak that Glenn Greenwald describes to Edward Snowden in Moscow (-> -> -> -> POTUS), meaning this story has been in the making for at least 1.5 years. Second, this quality and quantity of leaks is incredible and can only be attributed to a news organization that takes security as a paramount consideration, setting up proper secure channels…

Oh, so that's what that scene was about! I re-watched it now and it really is incredible. Screenshots of some of Greenwald's notes (they don't say much): 1- http://i.imgur.com/Xk3tefg.jpg 2- http://i.imgur.com/3C7sdIA.jpg 3- http://i.imgur.com/8FNhVfE.jpg

"There are 1.2 m people on various stages of their watch list" :-O

That's absolutely terrifying. I wonder how many of those are American citizens.

Post reply on HN