Вход на сайт


Облако тегов

Сноуден: использование США ударных БПЛА в Ираке приведет к появлению новых террористов

Аватар пользователя Не тот человек

Использование Соединенными Штатами ударных беспилотных летательных аппаратов (БПЛА) в Ираке и Сирии приведет к появлению новых террористов. Такое мнение выразил получивший убежище в России бывший сотрудник американских спецслужб Эдвард Сноуден в интервью, опубликованном в газете "Дагенс нюхетер". 

"Программа беспилотников порождает больше террористов, чем уничтожает. Беспилотники в большинстве случаев наносят удар, нацеливаясь не на конкретного человека, а на мобильный телефон. И они (операторы) понятия не имеют, держит ли этот телефон в руках сам объект (террорист) или его мать. Поэтому многие атаки терпят фиаско, поэтому они попадают в свадебные застолья", - сказал он. 

В октябре американский интернет-портал The Intercept, ссылаясь на оказавшиеся в его распоряжении секретные данные правительства США, сообщил, что большая часть ударов американских БПЛА не достигла целей и что 90% погибших в результате таких атак - мирные жители. "Используемая ими (операторами беспилотников) информация опасна и ненадежна", - убежден Сноуден.


Фонд поддержки авторов AfterShock


Аватар пользователя Abgeschmiert
Abgeschmiert(2 года 3 недели)(23:04:38 / 07-11-2015)

ну так и покажи уж месяц как опубликованные документы про исплоьзование бпла)

или ссыль дать?

Аватар пользователя Abgeschmiert
Abgeschmiert(2 года 3 недели)(23:19:42 / 07-11-2015)



Article №1 of 8The Drone Papers


Oct. 15 2015, 2:57 p.m.

From his first days as commander in chief, the drone has been President Barack Obama’s weapon of choice, used by the military and the CIA to hunt down and kill the people his administration has deemed — through secretive processes, without indictment or trial — worthy of execution. There has been intense focus on the technology of remote killing, but that often serves as a surrogate for what should be a broader examination of the state’s power over life and death.

DRONES ARE A TOOL, not a policy. The policy is assassination. While every president since Gerald Ford has upheld an executive order banning assassinations by U.S. personnel, Congress has avoided legislating the issue or even defining the word “assassination.” This has allowed proponents of the drone wars to rebrand assassinations with more palatable characterizations, such as the term du jour, “targeted killings.”

When the Obama administration has discussed drone strikes publicly, it has offered assurances that such operations are a more precise alternative to boots on the ground and are authorized only when an “imminent” threat is present and there is “near certainty” that the intended target will be eliminated. Those terms, however, appear to have been bluntly redefined to bear almost no resemblance to their commonly understood meanings.

The first drone strike outside of a declared war zone was conducted more than 12 years ago, yet it was not until May 2013 that the White House released a set of standards and procedures for conducting such strikes. Those guidelines offered little specificity, asserting that the U.S. would only conduct a lethal strike outside of an “area of active hostilities” if a target represents a “continuing, imminent threat to U.S. persons,” without providing any sense of the internal process used to determine whether a suspect should be killed without being indicted or tried. The implicit message on drone strikes from the Obama administration has been one of trust, but don’t verify.

Photo: The Intercept

Small Footprint Operations 2/13
Small Footprint Operations 5/13
Operation Haymaker
The Intercept has obtained a cache of secret slides that provides a window into the inner workings of the U.S. military’s kill/capture operations at a key time in the evolution of the drone wars — between 2011 and 2013. The documents, which also outline the internal views of special operations forces on the shortcomings and flaws of the drone program, were provided by a source within the intelligence community who worked on the types of operations and programs described in the slides. The Intercept granted the source’s request for anonymity because the materials are classified and because the U.S. government has engaged in aggressive prosecution of whistleblowers. The stories in this series will refer to the source as “the source.”

The source said he decided to provide these documents to The Intercept because he believes the public has a right to understand the process by which people are placed on kill lists and ultimately assassinated on orders from the highest echelons of the U.S. government. “This outrageous explosion of watchlisting — of monitoring people and racking and stacking them on lists, assigning them numbers, assigning them ‘baseball cards,’ assigning them death sentences without notice, on a worldwide battlefield — it was, from the very first instance, wrong,” the source said.

“We’re allowing this to happen. And by ‘we,’ I mean every American citizen who has access to this information now, but continues to do nothing about it.”

The Pentagon, White House, and Special Operations Command all declined to comment. A Defense Department spokesperson said, “We don’t comment on the details of classified reports.”

The CIA and the U.S. military’s Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) operate parallel drone-based assassination programs, and the secret documents should be viewed in the context of an intense internal turf war over which entity should have supremacy in those operations. Two sets of slides focus on the military’s high-value targeting campaign in Somalia and Yemen as it existed between 2011 and 2013, specifically the operations of a secretive unit, Task Force 48-4.

Additional documents on high-value kill/capture operations in Afghanistan buttress previous accounts of how the Obama administration masks the true number of civilians killed in drone strikes by categorizing unidentified people killed in a strike as enemies, even if they were not the intended targets. The slides also paint a picture of a campaign in Afghanistan aimed not only at eliminating al Qaeda and Taliban operatives, but also at taking out members of other local armed groups.

One top-secret document shows how the terror “watchlist” appears in the terminals of personnel conducting drone operations, linking unique codes associated with cellphone SIM cards and handsets to specific individuals in order to geolocate them.


A top-secret document shows how the watchlist looks on internal systems used by drone operators.


The costs to intelligence gathering when suspected terrorists are killed rather than captured are outlined in the slides pertaining to Yemen and Somalia, which are part of a 2013 study conducted by a Pentagon entity, the Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Task Force. The ISR study lamented the limitations of the drone program, arguing for more advanced drones and other surveillance aircraft and the expanded use of naval vessels to extend the reach of surveillance operations necessary for targeted strikes. It also contemplated the establishment of new “politically challenging” airfields and recommended capturing and interrogating more suspected terrorists rather than killing them in drone strikes.

The ISR Task Force at the time was under the control of Michael Vickers, the undersecretary of defense for intelligence. Vickers, a fierce proponent of drone strikes and a legendary paramilitary figure, had long pushed for a significant increase in the military’s use of special operations forces. The ISR Task Force is viewed by key lawmakers as an advocate for more surveillance platforms like drones.

The ISR study also reveals new details about the case of a British citizen, Bilal el-Berjawi, who was stripped of his citizenship before being killed in a U.S. drone strike in 2012. British and American intelligence had Berjawi under surveillance for several years as he traveled back and forth between the U.K. and East Africa, yet did not capture him. Instead, the U.S. hunted him down and killed him in Somalia.

Taken together, the secret documents lead to the conclusion that Washington’s 14-year high-value targeting campaign suffers from an overreliance on signals intelligence, an apparently incalculable civilian toll, and — due to a preference for assassination rather than capture — an inability to extract potentially valuable intelligence from terror suspects. They also highlight the futility of the war in Afghanistan by showing how the U.S. has poured vast resources into killing local insurgents, in the process exacerbating the very threat the U.S. is seeking to confront.

Read more
Find, Fix, Finish
These secret slides help provide historical context to Washington’s ongoing wars, and are especially relevant today as the U.S. military intensifies its drone strikes and covert actions against ISIS in Syria and Iraq. Those campaigns, like the ones detailed in these documents, are unconventional wars that employ special operations forces at the tip of the spear.

The “find, fix, finish” doctrine that has fueled America’s post-9/11 borderless war is being refined and institutionalized. Whether through the use of drones, night raids, or new platforms yet to be unleashed, these documents lay bare the normalization of assassination as a central component of U.S. counterterrorism policy.

“The military is easily capable of adapting to change, but they don’t like to stop anything they feel is making their lives easier, or is to their benefit. And this certainly is, in their eyes, a very quick, clean way of doing things. It’s a very slick, efficient way to conduct the war, without having to have the massive ground invasion mistakes of Iraq and Afghanistan,” the source said. “But at this point, they have become so addicted to this machine, to this way of doing business, that it seems like it’s going to become harder and harder to pull them away from it the longer they’re allowed to continue operating in this way.”

The articles in The Drone Papers were produced by a team of reporters and researchers from The Intercept that has spent months analyzing the documents. The series is intended to serve as a long-overdue public examination of the methods and outcomes of America’s assassination program. This campaign, carried out by two presidents through four presidential terms, has been shrouded in excessive secrecy. The public has a right to see these documents not only to engage in an informed debate about the future of U.S. wars, both overt and covert, but also to understand the circumstances under which the U.S. government arrogates to itself the right to sentence individuals to death without the established checks and balances of arrest, trial, and appeal.

Among the key revelations in this series:

How the president authorizes targets for assassination

Read more
Kill Chain
It has been widely reported that President Obama directly approves high-value targets for inclusion on the kill list, but the secret ISR study provides new insight into the kill chain, including a detailed chart stretching from electronic and human intelligence gathering all the way to the president’s desk. The same month the ISR study was circulated — May 2013 — Obama signed the policy guidance on the use of force in counterterrorism operations overseas. A senior administration official, who declined to comment on the classified documents, told The Intercept that “those guidelines remain in effect today.”

U.S. intelligence personnel collect information on potential targets, as The Intercept has previously reported, drawn from government watchlists and the work of intelligence, military, and law enforcement agencies. At the time of the study, when someone was destined for the kill list, intelligence analysts created a portrait of a suspect and the threat that person posed, pulling it together “in a condensed format known as a ‘baseball card.’” That information was then bundled with operational information and packaged in a “target information folder” to be “staffed up to higher echelons” for action. On average, it took 58 days for the president to sign off on a target, one slide indicates. At that point, U.S. forces had 60 days to carry out the strike. The documents include two case studies that are partially based on information detailed on baseball cards.

The system for creating baseball cards and targeting packages, according to the source, depends largely on intelligence intercepts and a multi-layered system of fallible, human interpretation. “It isn’t a surefire method,” he said. “You’re relying on the fact that you do have all these very powerful machines, capable of collecting extraordinary amounts of data and information,” which can lead personnel involved in targeted killings to believe they have “godlike powers.”

Assassinations depend on unreliable intelligence and hurt intelligence gathering

Read more
Firing Blind
In undeclared war zones, the U.S. military has become overly reliant on signals intelligence, or SIGINT, to identify and ultimately hunt down and kill people. The documents acknowledge that using metadata from phones and computers, as well as communications intercepts, is an inferior method of finding and finishing targeted people. They described SIGINT capabilities in these unconventional battlefields as “poor” and “limited.” Yet such collection, much of it provided by foreign partners, accounted for more than half the intelligence used to track potential kills in Yemen and Somalia. The ISR study characterized these failings as a technical hindrance to efficient operations, omitting the fact that faulty intelligence has led to the killing of innocent people, including U.S. citizens, in drone strikes.

The source underscored the unreliability of metadata, most often from phone and computer communications intercepts. These sources of information, identified by so-called selectors such as a phone number or email address, are the primary tools used by the military to find, fix, and finish its targets. “It requires an enormous amount of faith in the technology that you’re using,” the source said. “There’s countless instances where I’ve come across intelligence that was faulty.” This, he said, is a primary factor in the killing of civilians. “It’s stunning the number of instances when selectors are misattributed to certain people. And it isn’t until several months or years later that you all of a sudden realize that the entire time you thought you were going after this really hot target, you wind up realizing it was his mother’s phone the whole time.”

Within the special operations community, the source said, the internal view of the people being hunted by the U.S. for possible death by drone strike is: “They have no rights. They have no dignity. They have no humanity to themselves. They’re just a ‘selector’ to an analyst. You eventually get to a point in the target’s life cycle that you are following them, you don’t even refer to them by their actual name.” This practice, he said, contributes to “dehumanizing the people before you’ve even encountered the moral question of ‘is this a legitimate kill or not?’”

By the ISR study’s own admission, killing suspected terrorists, even if they are “legitimate” targets, further hampers intelligence gathering. The secret study states bluntly: “Kill operations significantly reduce the intelligence available.” A chart shows that special operations actions in the Horn of Africa resulted in captures just 25 percent of the time, indicating a heavy tilt toward lethal strikes.

Strikes often kill many more than the intended target

Read more
Manhunting in the Hindu Kush
The White House and Pentagon boast that the targeted killing program is precise and that civilian deaths are minimal. However, documents detailing a special operations campaign in northeastern Afghanistan, Operation Haymaker, show that between January 2012 and February 2013, U.S. special operations airstrikes killed more than 200 people. Of those, only 35 were the intended targets. During one five-month period of the operation, according to the documents, nearly 90 percent of the people killed in airstrikes were not the intended targets. In Yemen and Somalia, where the U.S. has far more limited intelligence capabilities to confirm the people killed are the intended targets, the equivalent ratios may well be much worse.

“Anyone caught in the vicinity is guilty by association,” the source said. When “a drone strike kills more than one person, there is no guarantee that those persons deserved their fate. … So it’s a phenomenal gamble.”

The military labels unknown people it kills as “enemies killed in action”

Read more
Manhunting in the Hindu Kush
The documents show that the military designated people it killed in targeted strikes as EKIA — “enemy killed in action” — even if they were not the intended targets of the strike. Unless evidence posthumously emerged to prove the males killed were not terrorists or “unlawful enemy combatants,” EKIA remained their designation, according to the source. That process, he said, “is insane. But we’ve made ourselves comfortable with that. The intelligence community, JSOC, the CIA, and everybody that helps support and prop up these programs, they’re comfortable with that idea.”

The source described official U.S. government statements minimizing the number of civilian casualties inflicted by drone strikes as “exaggerating at best, if not outright lies.”

The number of people targeted for drone strikes and other finishing operations

Read more
Kill Chain
According to one secret slide, as of June 2012, there were 16 people in Yemen whom President Obama had authorized U.S. special operations forces to assassinate. In Somalia, there were four. The statistics contained in the documents appear to refer only to targets approved under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, not CIA operations. In 2012 alone, according to data compiled by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, there were more than 200 people killed in operations in Yemen and between four and eight in Somalia.

How geography shapes the assassination campaign

Read more
Firing Blind
In Afghanistan and Iraq, the pace of U.S. strikes was much quicker than in Yemen and Somalia. This appears due, in large part, to the fact that Afghanistan and Iraq were declared war zones, and in Iraq the U.S. was able to launch attacks from bases closer to the targeted people. By contrast, in Somalia and Yemen, undeclared war zones where strikes were justified under tighter restrictions, U.S. attack planners described a serpentine bureaucracy for obtaining approval for assassination. The secret study states that the number of high-value targeting operations in these countries was “significantly lower than previously seen in Iraq and Afghanistan” because of these “constraining factors.”

Even after the president approved a target in Yemen or Somalia, the great distance between drone bases and targets created significant challenges for U.S. forces — a problem referred to in the documents as the “tyranny of distance.” In Iraq, more than 80 percent of “finishing operations” were conducted within 150 kilometers of an air base. In Yemen, the average distance was about 450 kilometers and in Somalia it was more than 1,000 kilometers. On average, one document states, it took the U.S. six years to develop a target in Somalia, but just 8.3 months to kill the target once the president had approved his addition to the kill list.

Inconsistencies with White House statements about targeted killing

Read more
Kill Chain
The White House’s publicly available policy standards state that lethal force will be launched only against targets who pose a “continuing, imminent threat to U.S. persons.” In the documents, however, there is only one explicit mention of a specific criterion: that a person “presents a threat to U.S. interest or personnel.” While such a rationale may make sense in the context of a declared war in which U.S. personnel are on the ground in large numbers, such as in Afghanistan, that standard is so vague as to be virtually meaningless in countries like Yemen and Somalia, where very few U.S. personnel operate.


Аватар пользователя Abgeschmiert
Abgeschmiert(2 года 3 недели)(23:24:19 / 07-11-2015)

Сноуден слил новые документы о правительственной программе уничтожения людей при помощи дронов

да, чувак явно не ачкует !
Ресурс The Intercept опубликовал секретные документы министерства обороны США о программе уничтожения людей при помощи беспилотников, которая применялась в Йемене, Сомали и Афганистане с санкции высшего руководства страны. Из материалов к примеру следует, что президент США Барак Обама лично в 2012 году санкционировал убийство как минимум 20 человек в Йемене и Сомали, причём кто именно стал целями операции не называется. Всего за период с января 2012 года по февраль 2013-го на северо-востоке Афганистана беспилотниками было уничтожено более 200 человек, при этом только 35 из них были заранее намеченными целями для атаки.

Авторами утечки стали уже хорошо известный Эдвард Сноуден и Дэниел Эллберг, который в 1971 году также опубликовал секретные документы Пентагона о войне во Вьетнаме, но после судебного разбирательства под давлением общественности был оправдан. Поскольку документы содержат сведения о применении беспилотников для таких целей, о которых общественность и так догадывалась по многочисленным фильмам о работе спецслужб, то основная причина их публикации состоит в том, что привлечь внимание к тому, что спецслужбы крайне легко и крайне неразборчиво применяют грозное оружие против в том числе и невиновных людей.

Насколько можно понять из материалов, существуют две отдельные программы по использованию беспилотников в качестве орудия для убийств — отдельно в ЦРУ, и отдельно в министерстве обороны США. Судя по всему, опубликованные документы касаются обеих программ, потому что в качестве источника информации называется сотрудник разведки, работавший в обоих ведомствах. Из презентаций становится ясно, что для сотрудников спецслужб, занятых в подобного рода программах, существуют специальные методические указания. Эти указания, к примеру, требуют перед атакой определять специальный параметр CDE (collateral damage environment, побочный ущерб окружающим), который показывает скольким людям, не являющимся целью операции, может быть нанесён вред. В частности, как минимум два отдельных агента должны предоставить непротиворечивую информацию, что объект атаки действительно находится в нужном месте. Судя по всему, зачастую значение CDE не принималось во внимание.

Вот так выглядел запрос от военных на устранение с воздуха при помощи беспилотника одного из предполагаемых руководителей Талибана Квари Муниба. Операция была проведена на северо-востоке Афганистана:


Среди сотрудников ЦРУ и министерства обороны, занятых в программе беспилотников, существует нечто вроде сленга, словами которого они обозначают этапы своей работы. Собственно операция по устранению цели обозначается как «F3EA». Эта аббревиатура подразумевает сразу несколько шагов: «Find a person, Fix a person, Finish them». Под буквами «EA» понимают анализ успешности атаки — «Exploit and Analyze». Успешный выстрел по цели у операторов принято называть словом «джекпот» (jackpot), тогда как случайные жертвы, пострадавшие в результате выстрела, обозначаются аббревиатурой EKIA (enemies killed in action). Если требуется стрелять не по человеку, а по сигналу его мобильного телефона, то в случае успеха такую атаку называют «тачдаун» (touchdown). Вот так выглядит распечатка перемещений цели, полученной с её телефона:

спасибо   Евгений @jeston

Лидеры обсуждений

за 4 часаза суткиза неделю

Лидеры просмотров

за неделюза месяцза год