AMERIKA NEGARA SUPER POWER DALAM BIDANG TEKNOLOGI DAN ANGKATAN PERANGNYA....??? KONON DIDUKUNG DENGAN SUMBER DANA YANG HEBAT..???!! >>> PARA AHLI EKONOMI-AHLI PERANG-DAN SUPERSPY ...SEMUA ADA DI AMERIKA...???>>> SEMUA KEHEBATAN ITU... SEPERTINYA.. SANGAT TANPA LAWAN ... DAN TAK ADA SATU NEGARAPUN SEPERTINYA SANGGUP MELAWAN AMERIKA SERIKAT...??>> NAMUN DALAM SEPAKTERJANGNYA SEBAGAI NEGARA ADI DAYA.. TERNYATA SANGAT PENUH KECULASAN DAN TAK BERMARTABAT...??>> SEMUA MEREKA LAKUKAN DENGAN ABSURD.. DAN TANPA TATA ETIKA...??>> SEBAGAI NEGARA KUAT.. SEHARUSNYA MENGAYOMI DAN MEMBERIKAN CONTOH SEBAGAI NEGARA YANG BERADAB DAN PENUH SANTUN DAN KASIH SAYANG...???>> KENYATAANNYA AS ADALAH NEGARA KEJI DAN SANGAT AROGAN. DAN JAUH DARI ETIKA.. SEBAGAI BANGSA BESAR..??>> LIHAT BAGAIMANA AS MEMPERLAKUKAN DOUBLE STANDAR DAN MENIPU LAWAN2 DAN KAWAN2NYA.. DALAM SEGALA BIDANG..??? DAN AS TERMASUK PARA PENGUSAHA2 NYA ADALAH CULAS.. DAN SERAKAH.. SANGAT LUAR BIASA ... BAHKAN MUNGKIN SANGATLAH KEJI... MENIKAM DAN MENINDAS BANGSA2 LAIN DIDUNIA..??<>> LIHAT BAGAIMANA FREEPORT DAN PENGUSAHA2 MIGAS AS. DI INDONESIA.. ???>> JUGA BAGAIMANA INTELIGEN MEREKA TANPA MALU DAN TANPA MERASA SALAH .. TELAH MENYADAP PERCAKAPAN DAN SEMUA KEGIATAN2 DENGAN CARA CULAS..??>> APAKAH DEMIKIAN JUGA TERHADAP ANAK2 NEGERINYA..???>> DAN MENGAPA AS DAN PARA PEMIMPIN SERTA PARA AHLI2 POLITIKNYA.. TELAH BERLAKU TAK BERADAB... TERMASUK TERHADAP KAWAN2 YANG KONON MEMBANTU MEREKA.. ??? >> SUNGGUH ANEH.. BANGSA DAN POLITISI AS INI.. YANG KONON SANGAT.. KEJI MEMBELA PARA PENJAJAH DAN PENINDAS BANGSA LAIN DENGAN ALASAN SOLIDARITAS SEBAGAI KAWAN.?? .. NAMUN KAWAN YANG TAK LAYAK KARENA MEREKA MENJAJAH... ??>> ....Serangan pesawat tak berawak di Pakistan "sepenuhnya operasi CIA," kata reporter New York Times, Mark Mazzetti Selasa malam dalam sebuah wawancara di PBS NewsHour. Ia menambahkan bahwa "pemerintah Pakistan tidak akan membiarkan [AS] militer mengambil alih misi itu karena masih ingin memiliki semacam lapisan rahasia yang diberikan CIA."..>> Hubungan itu, lanjut Solomon, berarti bahwa Amazon--berlogo panah berwajah senyum dari A sampai Z, menjual produk ke jutaan orang setiap minggu--bertanggung jawab untuk menjaga rahasia CIA dan mengumpulkan data untuk membantu lembaga itu melakukan tugasnya. Termasuk serangan drone!..>>> Kolaborasi intelijen kedua negara yang tergabung dalam FiveEyes (FVEY) yang separuh personelnya merupakan agen NSA, umumnya difokuskan untuk menyadap negara-negara di Asia. Sasaran utamanya, Indonesia dan China. Untuk Indonesia, Brisbane Times dan Canberra Times melaporan bahwa NSA menyerahkan pada ASD, sejumlah besar data Indosat, untuk menyadap komunikasi pelanggan operator selular itu, termasuk para pejabat kementerian RI. ..>> Tanpa merasa risih dan meminta maaf terhadap negara-negara "korban" penyadapannya, AS dilaporkan malah membangun fasilitas penyadapan tercanggih di wilayah Australia. Di tempat ini AS, bekerja sama dengan intel Australia, memonitor percakapan para petinggi negara-negara di Asia...>> ...Dubes yang baru saja bertugas di Indonesia ini seolah sudah lama mengenal Jokowi. Kemungkinan besar, Robert diberitahu tentang sosok Jokowi oleh dubes sebelumnya, Scot Marciel, yang memang dikenal dekat dengan gubernur DKI Jakarta itu sejak di menjabat walikota Solo. Naiknya Jokowi ke tampuk gubernur bahkan disebut-sebut berkat jasa dubes tersebut dengan imbalan, memberi izin perluasan kantor kedutaan AS di jalan Medan Merdeka Selatan yang ditangguhkan gubernur Jakarta sebelumnya, Fauzi Bowo. Beberapa wartawan sempat bertanya kepada Robert, apakah AS punya agenda khusus untuk Pemilu 2014 di Indonesia? Ia langsung menampik. "Kami tidak punya agenda apapun. kami percaya proses demokrasi di Indonesia dan sangat mengagumi kemajuan demokrasi di negara ini untuk menjalin hubungan baik antara warga dan pemerintah sejak tragedi 1998," urainya. "Kami mempersiapkan beberapa hal taktis. Namun kami percaya pemerintah dan komisi pemilu akan berhasil melaksanakan pemilu ini," tandas Robert yang khas retotrika AS namun tidak menjelaskan lebih jauh tentang apa yang dimaksud dengan "mempersiapkan beberapa hal taktis". Benarkah begitu?..>> ... The administration’s failure to forge a clear detention policy has created the impression among some members of Congress of a take-no-prisoners policy. And Mr. Obama’s ambassador to Pakistan, Cameron P. Munter, has complained to colleagues that the C.I.A.’s strikes drive American policy there, saying “he didn’t realize his main job was to kill people,” a colleague said. ...>> But the strikes that have eviscerated Al Qaeda — just since April, there have been 14 in Yemen, and 6 in Pakistan — have also tested both men’s commitment to the principles they have repeatedly said are necessary to defeat the enemy in the long term. Drones have replaced Guantánamo as the recruiting tool of choice for militants; in his 2010 guilty plea, Faisal Shahzad, who had tried to set off a car bomb in Times Square, justified targeting civilians by telling the judge, “When the drones hit, they don’t see children.” ...>>

The Erosion of the U.S. Constitution ... and It Starts in the White House

Is this goodbye to the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights?

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/erosion-us-constitution-and-it-starts-white-house

Photo Credit: Shutterstock.com/ Paul Fleet

February 16, 2014  |  

To stay on top of important articles like these, sign up to receive the latest updates from TomDispatch.com  here.

Terrorism (ter-ror-ism; see also terror) n. 1. When a foreign organization kills an American for political reasons.

Justice (jus-tice) n. 1. When the United States Government uses a drone to kill an American for political reasons.

How's that morning coffee treating you? Nice and warming? Mmmm.

While you're savoring your cup o' joe, imagine the president of the United States hunched over his own coffee, considering the murder of another American citizen. Now, if you were plotting to kill an American over coffee, you could end up in jail on a whole range of charges including -- depending on the situation -- terrorism. However, if the president’s doing the killing, it's all nice and -- let’s put those quote marks around it -- "legal." How do we know? We’re assured that the Justice Department tells him so.  And that’s justice enough in post-Constitutional America.
Through what seems to have been an Obama administration leak to the Associated Press, we recently learned that the president and his top officials believe a U.S. citizen -- name unknown to us out here -- probably somewhere in the tribal backlands of Pakistan, is reputedly planning attacks against Americans abroad. As a result, the White House has, for the last several months, been considering whether or not to assassinate him by drone without trial or due process.
Supposedly, the one thing that’s held up sending in the drones is the administration’s desire to make sure the kill is "legal." (Those quotes again.)
Last May, Obama gave a speech on the subject.  It was, in part, a response to growing anger in Pakistan, Yemen, and elsewhere over the CIA’s ongoing drone assassination campaigns with all their “collateral damage,” and to the White House’s reported “ kill list.” In it, he insisted that any target of the drones must pose "a continuing and imminent threat to the American people." At the time, the White House also issued a fact sheet that stated: "Lethal force must only be used to prevent or stop attacks against U.S. persons, and even then, only when capture is not feasible and no other reasonable alternatives exist to address the threat effectively." While that sounds like a pretty imposing set of hurdles to leap, all of the "legal" criteria are determined in secret by the White House with advice from the Justice Department, but with no oversight or accountability.
Even then, it turns out that the supposedly tortured deliberations of the administration are not really necessary. Despite the president’s criteria, according to an unnamed administration official quoted by the Associated Press, Obama could make an exception to his policy and authorize the CIA to strike on a one-time basis, no matter what the circumstances. One way or another, it is Obama who decides who to kill and when.

Short-Term Questions

At this point, it’s unclear just why the Obama administration leaked its plans in reference to this errant American abroad. After all, official after official has insisted that Edward Snowden’s revelations of secret NSA documents have caused terrorists to change their communication tactics, yet the one American up to no good somewhere in the terrorist world apparently has not done so in response to the leak about his potential fate, and will remain locatable whenever needed as a target. And yet giving notice of a possible attack in advance in the media would, on the face of it, seem both counterproductive and an invitation to the very barrage of criticisms leveled by key officials at Snowden. After all, under the circumstances, an American connected with al-Qaeda wouldn’t exactly have to be a Bond villain to decide to change his behavior and his location, stay indoors or outdoors more, keep off his phone for a while or trade it in for another.

Are We Watching the GOP on the Verge of Collapse?

The party might be over.

http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/are-we-watching-gop-verge-collapse

February 12, 2014  |  

Mark Twain wrote that “history doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme.” For the Republican Party, 2014 may end up sounding a whole lot like 150 years ago, and we might be seeing the end of the conservative party, as we know it. 

In 1864, prior to the end of the Civil War, a faction of radical Republicans believed President Lincoln was incompetent, and therefore unelectable. These anti-abolition extremists broke away from the establishment under the name Radical Democracy Party, while Lincoln and establishment Republicans created the National Union Party with the intent of attracting War Democrats and Border State Unionists who would not have ordinarily voted for the Republican Party. 

The party nominated incumbent President Lincoln alongside a Democrat - Andrew Johnson. The rebranded establishment ticket went on to win the 1864 election in a landslide, and the radicals were brought back to the fold under the Republican Party brand shortly thereafter. 

This week, the Tea Party aligned Senate Conservatives Fund called on House Republicans to force out Speaker John Boehner in an email that read, “Unless we install a new leader who will actually go on offense, Democrats will never fear us and we will never have any leverage.” 

We may be witnessing the genesis of another temporary or permanent fracture of the Republican Party, for what was once a happy coalition of secular and social conservatives, united to defeating Obama and liberalism, has turned into an openly hostile civil war for control of party, and by all measures the Christian Right/Tea Party faction are winning in their objective of purging what they believe are Republicans In Name Only.

The highest ranking Republican in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, is under siege from the far right with lobbying groups Freedom Works, Madison Project, and the Senate Conservatives Fund spending up big in an effort to tear down the senior Senator from Kentucky. Fox News contributor and Red State blogger Erik Erickson writes, “Defeating McConnell is essential to asserting the Tea Party’s dominance over the Republican Party.” In latest polls, McConnell’s opponent leads by 4 points. 

After suffering a heavy defeat in the 2012 election, establishment Republicans believed the sure fire way to wrestle control of the party back from the clutches of the unelectable Christian Right/Tea Party was to raise enough Wall Street and Chamber of Commerce cash to crush the social conservative moment. But that plan has gone awry given the Federal Electoral Commission revealed that Tea Party and social conservative groups raised nearly three times as much as GOP establishment groups in 2013. 

The Christian Right/Tea Party faction is using this wave of fund raising to oust incumbent establishment politicians who fall even smidgen shy of ideologically pure. In fact, the radicals on the far right have become so authoritarian and cultish that they would rather take out an incumbent GOP officeholder in primary challenge than beat a Democrat in the general. Ron Christie wrote in the Daily Beast, “This could be the cycle pitting those who believe that winning is important coming head to head against those who believe holding firm to principle is important. It would be a sad day for our democracy if winning elective office and holding firm on principle weren’t one and the same. Those in the GOP leadership would be wise to bridge the gap of trust between their base before conservatives form a circular firing squad that kills their chances at victory in November.” 

Not only are moderate or establishment Republicans being purged in this internal civil war, but also many are voluntarily leaving the party they barely recognize anymore. In the past two weeks alone, three high profile Republicans have renounced the party. Former Polk Country Republican Party of Iowa Co-Chair wrote, “My opinion is the "Duck Dynasty Wing" of the Republican Party has taken over the GOP, and they're not about to retreat in their war on science and common sense.” Former Nevada state senator and gaming commissioner has been a Republican for 73 years, but two weeks ago she told the Reno Gazette-Journal, “It’s grown so conservative and Tea Party-orientated and I just can’t buy into that. I’ve left the Republican Party and it’s left me, at the same time.”

A Measure of Change

Secret ‘Kill List’ Proves a Test of Obama’s Principles and Will

Pete Souza/The White House

President Obama in the Oval Office with Thomas E. Donilon, left, the national security adviser, and John O. Brennan, his top counterterrorism adviser.

By JO BECKER and SCOTT SHANE

Published: May 29, 2012 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?_r=0

WASHINGTON — This was the enemy, served up in the latest chart from the intelligence agencies: 15 Qaeda suspects in Yemen with Western ties. The mug shots and brief biographies resembled a high school yearbook layout. Several were Americans. Two were teenagers, including a girl who looked even younger than her 17 years.

A Measure of Change

The Shadow War

This is the third article in a series assessing President Obama’s record.

Previous Articles in This Series »

Multimedia

 

Graphic

Striking Al Qaeda

Assessing Obama’s Counterterrorism Record

Excerpts of remarks from some of nearly 40 current and former officials who had direct knowledge about the United States’ classified counterterrorism efforts.

Interview Excerpts »

Related

• Top U.S. Security Official Says ‘Rigorous Standards’ Are Used for Drone Strikes (May 1, 2012)

• Assessing Obama’s Counterterrorism Record (May 29, 2012)

• U.S. Relaxes Limits on Use of Data in Terror Analysis (March 23, 2012)

• U.S. Law May Allow Killings, Holder Says (March 6, 2012)

• Secret U.S. Memo Made Legal Case to Kill a Citizen (October 9, 2011)

• C.I.A. Steps Up Drone Attacks on Taliban in Pakistan (September 28, 2010)

• Drones Batter Al Qaeda and Its Allies Within Pakistan (April 5, 2010)

Related in Opinion

• Editorial: Too Much Power for a President (May 31, 2012)

• Taking Note: President Obama’s Kill List (May 29, 2012)

Connect With Us on Twitter

Follow @nytimesworld for international breaking news and headlines.

Twitter List: Reporters and Editors

Enlarge This Image

Pool photo by Brennan Linsley

A picture of President George W. Bush is replaced with one of President Obama at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

Readers’ Comments

"Would it be o.k. for this hit list to exist if it prevented you and your immediate loved ones from a certain terrorist attack?"

K Yates, CT

• Read Full Comment »

President Obama, overseeing the regular Tuesday counterterrorism meeting of two dozen security officials in the White House Situation Room, took a moment to study the faces. It was Jan. 19, 2010, the end of a first year in office punctuated by terrorist plots and culminating in a brush with catastrophe over Detroit on Christmas Day, a reminder that a successful attack could derail his presidency. Yet he faced adversaries without uniforms, often indistinguishable from the civilians around them. 

“How old are these people?” he asked, according to two officials present. “If they are starting to use children,” he said of Al Qaeda, “we are moving into a whole different phase.” 

It was not a theoretical question: Mr. Obama has placed himself at the helm of a top secret “nominations” process to designate terrorists for kill or capture, of which the capture part has become largely theoretical. He had vowed to align the fight against Al Qaeda with American values; the chart, introducing people whose deaths he might soon be asked to order, underscored just what a moral and legal conundrum this could be. 

Mr. Obama is the liberal law professor who campaigned against the Iraq war and torture, and then insisted on approving every new name on an expanding “kill list,” poring over terrorist suspects’ biographies on what one official calls the macabre “baseball cards” of an unconventional war. When a rare opportunity for a drone strike at a top terrorist arises — but his family is with him — it is the president who has reserved to himself the final moral calculation. 

“He is determined that he will make these decisions about how far and wide these operations will go,” said Thomas E. Donilon, his national security adviser. “His view is that he’s responsible for the position of the United States in the world.” He added, “He’s determined to keep the tether pretty short.”

Nothing else in Mr. Obama’s first term has baffled liberal supporters and confounded conservative critics alike as his aggressive counterterrorism record. His actions have often remained inscrutable, obscured by awkward secrecy rules, polarized political commentary and the president’s own deep reserve.

In interviews with The New York Times, three dozen of his current and former advisers described Mr. Obama’s evolution since taking on the role, without precedent in presidential history, of personally overseeing the shadow war with Al Qaeda. 

They describe a paradoxical leader who shunned the legislative deal-making required to close the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba, but approves lethal action without hand-wringing. While he was adamant about narrowing the fight and improving relations with the Muslim world, he has followed the metastasizing enemy into new and dangerous lands. When he applies his lawyering skills to counterterrorism, it is usually to enable, not constrain, his ferocious campaign against Al Qaeda — even when it comes to killing an American cleric in Yemen, a decision that Mr. Obama told colleagues was “an easy one.”

His first term has seen private warnings from top officials about a “Whac-A-Mole” approach to counterterrorism; the invention of a new category of aerial attack following complaints of careless targeting; and presidential acquiescence in a formula for counting civilian deaths that some officials think is skewed to produce low numbers. 

The administration’s failure to forge a clear detention policy has created the impression among some members of Congress of a take-no-prisoners policy. And Mr. Obama’s ambassador to Pakistan, Cameron P. Munter, has complained to colleagues that the C.I.A.’s strikes drive American policy there, saying “he didn’t realize his main job was to kill people,” a colleague said. 

Beside the president at every step is his counterterrorism adviser, John O. Brennan, who is variously compared by colleagues to a dogged police detective, tracking terrorists from his cavelike office in the White House basement, or a priest whose blessing has become indispensable to Mr. Obama, echoing the president’s attempt to apply the “just war” theories of Christian philosophers to a brutal modern conflict.

But the strikes that have eviscerated Al Qaeda — just since April, there have been 14 in Yemen, and 6 in Pakistan — have also tested both men’s commitment to the principles they have repeatedly said are necessary to defeat the enemy in the long term. Drones have replaced Guantánamo as the recruiting tool of choice for militants; in his 2010 guilty plea, Faisal Shahzad, who had tried to set off a car bomb in Times Square, justified targeting civilians by telling the judge, “When the drones hit, they don’t see children.” 

Secret U.S. Memo Made Legal Case to Kill a Citizen

By CHARLIE SAVAGE

Published: October 8, 2011

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration’s secret legal memorandum that opened the door to the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, the American-born radical Muslim cleric hiding in Yemen, found that it would be lawful only if it were not feasible to take him alive, according to people who have read the document.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/world/middleeast/secret-us-memo-made-legal-case-to-kill-a-citizen.html?ref=world
 

Site Intelligence, via European Pressphoto Agency

Anwar al-Awlaki, a militant cleric who was an American citizen, was killed in Yemen.

Multimedia

Interactive Feature

Killing of Awlaki Is Latest in Campaign Against Qaeda Leaders

Related

• News Analysis: Coming Soon: The Drone Arms Race (October 9, 2011)

• Two-Year Manhunt Led to Killing of Awlaki in Yemen (October 1, 2011)

• News Analysis: Judging a Long, Deadly Reach (October 1, 2011)

• Times Topic: Anwar al-Awlaki

Connect With Us on Twitter

Follow @nytimesworld for international breaking news and headlines.

Twitter List: Reporters and Editors

Readers’ Comments

Readers shared their thoughts on this article.

• Read All Comments (561) »

The memo, written last year, followed months of extensive interagency deliberations and offers a glimpse into the legal debate that led to one of the most significant decisions made by President Obama — to move ahead with the killing of an American citizen without a trial.
The secret document provided the justification for acting despite an executive order banning assassinations, a federal law against murder, protections in the Bill of Rights and various strictures of the international laws of war, according to people familiar with the analysis. The memo, however, was narrowly drawn to the specifics of Mr. Awlaki’s case and did not establish a broad new legal doctrine to permit the targeted killing of any Americans believed to pose a terrorist threat.
The Obama administration has refused to acknowledge or discuss its role in the drone strike that killed Mr. Awlaki last month and that technically remains a covert operation. The government has also resisted growing calls that it provide a detailed public explanation of why officials deemed it lawful to kill an American citizen, setting a precedent that scholars, rights activists and others say has raised concerns about the rule of law and civil liberties.
But the document that laid out the administration’s justification — a roughly 50-page memorandum by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, completed around June 2010 — was described on the condition of anonymity by people who have read it.
The legal analysis, in essence, concluded that Mr. Awlaki could be legally killed, if it was not feasible to capture him, because intelligence agencies said he was taking part in the war between the United States and Al Qaeda and posed a significant threat to Americans, as well as because Yemeni authorities were unable or unwilling to stop him.

The memorandum, which was written more than a year before Mr. Awlaki was killed, does not independently analyze the quality of the evidence against him.

The administration did not respond to requests for comment on this article.

The deliberations to craft the memo included meetings in the White House Situation Room involving top lawyers for the Pentagon, State Department, National Security Council and intelligence agencies.

It was principally drafted by David Barron and Martin Lederman, who were both lawyers in the Office of Legal Counsel at the time, and was signed by Mr. Barron. The office may have given oral approval for an attack on Mr. Awlaki before completing its detailed memorandum. Several news reports before June 2010 quoted anonymous counterterrorism officials as saying that Mr. Awlaki had been placed on a kill-or-capture list around the time of the attempted bombing of a Detroit-bound airliner on Dec. 25, 2009. Mr. Awlaki was accused of helping to recruit the attacker for that operation.

Mr. Awlaki, who was born in New Mexico, was also accused of playing a role in a failed plot to bomb two cargo planes last year, part of a pattern of activities that counterterrorism officials have said showed that he had evolved from merely being a propagandist — in sermons justifying violence by Muslims against the United States — to playing an operational role in Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula’s continuing efforts to carry out terrorist attacks.

Other assertions about Mr. Awlaki included that he was a leader of the group, which had become a “cobelligerent” with Al Qaeda, and he was pushing it to focus on trying to attack the United States again. The lawyers were also told that capturing him alive among hostile armed allies might not be feasible if and when he were located.

Based on those premises, the Justice Department concluded that Mr. Awlaki was covered by the authorization to use military force against Al Qaeda that Congress enacted shortly after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 — meaning that he was a lawful target in the armed conflict unless some other legal prohibition trumped that authority.

It then considered possible obstacles and rejected each in turn.
Among them was an executive order that bans assassinations. That order, the lawyers found, blocked unlawful killings of political leaders outside of war, but not the killing of a lawful target in an armed conflict.
A federal statute that prohibits Americans from murdering other Americans abroad, the lawyers wrote, did not apply either, because it is not “murder” to kill a wartime enemy in compliance with the laws of war.

But that raised another pressing question: would it comply with the laws of war if the drone operator who fired the missile was a Central Intelligence Agency official, who, unlike a soldier, wore no uniform? The memorandum concluded that such a case would not be a war crime, although the operator might be in theoretical jeopardy of being prosecuted in a Yemeni court for violating Yemen’s domestic laws against murder, a highly unlikely possibility.

Then there was the Bill of Rights: the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee that a “person” cannot be seized by the government unreasonably, and the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee that the government may not deprive a person of life “without due process of law.”

The memo concluded that what was reasonable, and the process that was due, was different for Mr. Awlaki than for an ordinary criminal. It cited court cases allowing American citizens who had joined an enemy’s forces to be detained or prosecuted in a military court just like noncitizen enemies.

It also cited several other Supreme Court precedents, like a 2007 case involving a high-speed chase and a 1985 case involving the shooting of a fleeing suspect, finding that it was constitutional for the police to take actions that put a suspect in serious risk of death in order to curtail an imminent risk to innocent people.
The document’s authors argued that “imminent” risks could include those by an enemy leader who is in the business of attacking the United States whenever possible, even if he is not in the midst of launching an attack at the precise moment he is located.

Secret U.S. Memo Made Legal Case to Kill a Citizen

Published: October 8, 2011

(Page 2 of 2)
There remained, however, the question of whether — when the target is known to be a citizen — it was permissible to kill him if capturing him instead were a feasible way of suppressing the threat.

Killed in the strike alongside Mr. Awlaki was another American citizen, Samir Khan, who had produced a magazine for Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula promoting terrorism. He was apparently not on the targeting list, making his death collateral damage. His family has issued a statement citing the Fifth Amendment and asking whether it was necessary for the government to have “assassinated two of its citizens.”

“Was this style of execution the only solution?” the Khan family asked in its statement. “Why couldn’t there have been a capture and trial?”

Last month, President Obama’s top counterterrorism adviser, John O. Brennan, delivered a speech in which he strongly denied the accusation that the administration had sometimes chosen to kill militants when capturing them was possible, saying the policy preference is to interrogate them for intelligence.

The memorandum is said to declare that in the case of a citizen, it is legally required to capture the militant if feasible — raising a question: was capturing Mr. Awlaki in fact feasible?

It is possible that officials decided last month that it was not feasible to attempt to capture him because of factors like the risk it could pose to American commandos and the diplomatic problems that could arise from putting ground forces on Yemeni soil. Still, the raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan demonstrates that officials have deemed such operations feasible at times.

Last year, Yemeni commandos surrounded a village in which Mr. Awlaki was believed to be hiding, but he managed to slip away.

The administration had already expressed in public some of the arguments about issues of international law addressed by the memo, in a speech delivered in March 2010 by Harold Hongju Koh, the top State Department lawyer.

The memorandum examined whether it was relevant that Mr. Awlaki was in Yemen, far from Afghanistan. It concluded that Mr. Awlaki’s geographical distance from the so-called hot battlefield did not preclude him from the armed conflict; given his presumed circumstances, the United States still had a right to use force to defend itself against him.

As to whether it would violate Yemen’s sovereignty to fire a missile at someone on Yemeni soil, Yemen’s president secretly granted the United States that permission, as secret diplomatic cables obtained by WikiLeaks have revealed.

The memorandum did assert that other limitations on the use of force under the laws of war — like avoiding the use of disproportionate force that would increase the possibility of civilian deaths — would constrain any operation against Mr. Awlaki.

That apparently constrained the attack when it finally came. Details about Mr. Awlaki’s location surfaced about a month ago, American officials have said, but his hunters delayed the strike until he left a village and was on a road away from populated areas.

Jakartatheraphy Theraphy shared Berita Militer Indonesia & Dunia's photo.

https://www.facebook.com/

Indonesia Sasaran Empuk Penyadapan AS dan Australia

Washington, DC., Isu tentang penyadapan yang dilakukan Amerika terhadap Indonesia kembali mencuat setelah adanya pemberitaan harian The New York Times pada hari Sabtu (15/2) mengenai skandal penyadapan yang dilakukan Badan Keamanan Nasional Amerika Serikat (NSA) di Indonesia.

Berdasarkan dokumen yang dibocorkan oleh Edward J Snowden, mantan kontraktor NSA yang kini berada di Rusia, termaktub bahwa NSA memantau setiap firma hukum AS yang bekerja mewakili negara asing dalam sengketa perdagangan, termasuk Indonesia.

Menurut dokumen yang diperoleh pada Februari 2013 itu, Pemerintah Indonesia telah merekrut sebuah firma hukum AS untuk menangani sengketa perdagangan dan karenanya menjadi obyek penyadapan Amerika.

Dokumen tersebut melaporkan bahwa dalam operasinya itu Amerika mendapat dukungan dari Direktorat Sinyal Australia (ASD) yang merupakan partner NSA. ASD menginformasikan kepada NSA bahwa mereka melakukan pemantauan komunikasi, termasuk terhadap pejabat Indonesia dengan firma hukum di AS. Dalam dokumen itu tertera bahwa ASD bersedia berbagi informasi dengan NSA.

Biro hukum Amerika yang tersadap tersebut tidak diidentifikasikan dalam laporan bulanan ASD itu. Namun, diketahui bahwa biro Mayer Brown adalah wakil Pemerintah Indonesia dalam isu-isu perdagangan di AS.

NSA menolak menjawab pertanyaan tentang laporan penyadapan atas firma hukum yang mewakili Indonesia ini. Duane Layton, pengacara dari firma Mayer Brown mengatakan ia tak punya bukti bahwa dia atau perusahaannya telah disadap oleh Australia maupun AS.

“(Namun) saya selalu bertanya-tanya apakah ada seseorang mendengarkan pembicaraan kami. Karena Anda naif bila tidak bertanya-tanya soal itu. Tapi saya tidak pernah benar-benar berpikir bahwa saya sedang dimata-matai,” ujarnya.

Sementara itu pemerintah Australia berkeras menolak berkomentar soal aksi penyadapan mereka terhadap Indonesia. Seperti dilansir ZDNet pada hari Minggu (16/2), perdana menteri Australia Tony Abbot mengatakan: “Kami tidak mengomentari masalah operasi intelijen,” jawab Perdana Menteri Australia Tony Abbott saat ditanya masalah ini.

Ketika ditemui di Bourke, New South Wales, Abbot hanya mengatakan bahwa hasil penyadapan tidak bermaksud untuk merugikan negara lain.

Pernyataan ini sejalan dengan pernyataan AS, yang menyatakan bahwa penyadapan mereka hanya untuk mencegah tindak terorisme dan keamanan negara.

Namun, bocoran Snowden yang diulas tuntas di New York Times menunjukkan penyadapan ASD dan NSA tidak sepenuhnya untuk alasan keamanan. Dalam dokumen 2013 itu, intel kedua negara justru menyadap percakapan negosiasi sengketa dagang Indonesia-AS.

Dalam bocoran tersebut dikatakan, ASD meminta arahan dan restu dari NSA untuk menyadap percakapan perusahaan AS yang bekerja untuk Indonesia dalam menyelesaikan sengketa dagang rokok kretek dan udang pada tahun 2010 lalu. (WZ/The New York Times/ BBC/ Viva/ Liputan 6)

Hegemoni Global

Analis: Gandeng Amazon, Obama Perintahkan CIA Bunuh Warga AS

Islam Times-http://www.islamtimes.org/vdcgux9wwak9nt4.1ira.html

Hubungan itu, lanjut Solomon, berarti bahwa Amazon--berlogo panah berwajah senyum dari A sampai Z, menjual produk ke jutaan orang setiap minggu--bertanggung jawab untuk menjaga rahasia CIA dan mengumpulkan data untuk membantu lembaga itu melakukan tugasnya. Termasuk serangan drone!

Obama CIA

Presiden Obama saat ini sedang mempertimbangkan apakah akan memerintahkan Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) membunuh warga AS di Pakistan. Itu berita besar minggu ini. Namun di balik itu terdapat fakta bahwa Amazon akan jadi aksesori pembunuhan tersebut.

Demikian informasi yang diungkap analis intelijen Global Researh, Norman Solomon. Menurutnya, Amazon memiliki kontrak 600 juta dolar AS dengan CIA untuk menyediakan lembaga itu layanan komputasi "cloud". Selepas konfirmasi akhir terhadap kesepakatan beberapa bulan yang lalu, Amazon menyatakan, "Kami mengharapkan hubungan yang sukses dengan CIA."

Hubungan itu, lanjut Solomon, berarti bahwa Amazon--berlogo panah berwajah senyum dari A sampai Z, menjual produk ke jutaan orang setiap minggu--bertanggung jawab untuk menjaga rahasia CIA dan mengumpulkan data untuk membantu lembaga itu melakukan tugasnya. Termasuk serangan drone!

Serangan pesawat tak berawak di Pakistan "sepenuhnya operasi CIA," kata reporter New York Times, Mark Mazzetti Selasa malam dalam sebuah wawancara di PBS NewsHour. Ia menambahkan bahwa "pemerintah Pakistan tidak akan membiarkan [AS] militer mengambil alih misi itu karena masih ingin memiliki semacam lapisan rahasia yang diberikan CIA."

Pengaruh menakutkan dari peran baru CIA pihak Amazon ini hanya sedikit mendapat sorotan publik sejauh ini.
Sebagai situs pengecer terbesar di dunia, imbuh Solomon, Amazon telah membangun model bisnisnya di atas akumulasi dan analisis data pribadi yang masif dan aman. Divisi Layanan Situs Perusahaan Amazon memperoleh kontrak CIA di tengah harapan kuat bahwa kolaborasi ini akan membuka pandangan baru yang luas guna perpaduan lebih lanjut seputar penyadapan dan peperangan.

Jelas, Amazon tidak mengajukan tawaran yang rendah untuk kontrak 600 juta dolar AS. Perusahaan itu memenangkan kesepakatan setelah membujuk CIA atas keunggulan kapasitas teknisnya dalam bidang digital. "Denga begitu, Amazon kini sudah menjadi bagian integral dari kebijakan luar negeri pemerintah AS untuk mengancam dan membunuh," tulis Solomon.

Setiap keputusan presiden untuk mengambil nyawa warga negara AS, lanjutnya, merupakan salah satu masalah serius yang jauh lebih besar. Apapun kewarganegaraan mereka yang mendengar gemuruh pesawat tak berawak yang mengancam di atas kepala, berupa pembajakan udara untuk mengancam dan membunuh orang-orang di bawahnya jelas-jelas tidak bermoral. Dan , seperti yang diterapkan saat ini, tidak konstitusional.

Pada 11 Februari, Times melaporkan bahwa pemerintahan Obama "memperdebatkan tentang apakah serangan mematikan terhadap warga negara Amerika yang tinggal di Pakistan, yang dipercaya sebagian orang, aktif merencanakan serangan teroris itu diberi otorisasi atau tidak."

Untuk menghadapi tren mengerikan ini, tulis Solomon, pers yang bebas dan independen memiliki tugas dan peran yang sangatlah penting. (IT/GR/rj)

Infiltrasi Asing di Indonesia

Duo AS-Australia Sadap Indonesia via Indosat dan Telkomsel

Islam Times- http://www.islamtimes.org/vdcd5x0sxyt0kx6.lp2y.html

Dalam bocoran itu, NSA juga disebut-sebut telah menyerahkan sekitar 1,8 juta kunci enskripsi induk yang digunakan operator selular Telkomsel untuk melindungi percakapan pribadi pelanggannya. Pihak intelijen Australia juga membongkar seluruh enskripsi Telkomsel.

Indosat dan Telkomsel

"Seringkali kebutuhan lebih besar dari rasa malu." Begitulah kira-kira pameo yang menggambarkan posisi AS di tengah warga dunia menyusul terbongkarnya skandal peyadapan AS cs terbesar di seluruh dunia.

Tanpa merasa risih dan meminta maaf terhadap negara-negara "korban" penyadapannya, AS dilaporkan malah membangun fasilitas penyadapan tercanggih di wilayah Australia. Di tempat ini AS, bekerja sama dengan intel Australia, memonitor percakapan para petinggi negara-negara di Asia.

Laporan itu lagi-lagi berasal dari dokumen badan intel AS, National Security Agency (NSA), yang dibocorkan Edward Snowden pada New York Times (15/2). NSA dan biro intelijen Australia Signals Directorate (ASD), tulisnya, membangun fasilitas intelijen di Alice Spring, Australia.

Kolaborasi intelijen kedua negara yang tergabung dalam FiveEyes (FVEY) yang separuh personelnya merupakan agen NSA, umumnya difokuskan untuk menyadap negara-negara di Asia. Sasaran utamanya, Indonesia dan China. Untuk Indonesia, Brisbane Times dan Canberra Times melaporan bahwa NSA menyerahkan pada ASD, sejumlah besar data Indosat, untuk menyadap komunikasi pelanggan operator selular itu, termasuk para pejabat kementerian RI.

Dalam bocoran itu, NSA juga disebut-sebut telah menyerahkan sekitar 1,8 juta kunci enskripsi induk yang digunakan operator selular Telkomsel untuk melindungi percakapan pribadi pelanggannya. Pihak intelijen Australia juga membongkar seluruh enskripsi Telkomsel.

Pada 2012, Telkomsel terdata memiliki 212 juta pelanggan (62 persen) dan Indosat 52 juta pelanggan, (15 persen). Kedua operator jaringan seluler nasional ini menguasai hampir 77 persen pelanggan seluler di Indonesia.

Disebutkan dalam analisis New York Times bahwa ASD dan NSA menyadap konunikasi bisnis antara pemerintah Indonesia dengan perusahaan AS terkait sengketa dagang rokok dan udang. Dalam memo tahun 2003, disebutkan bahwa intel AS pada fasilitas Alice Spring juga telah memandu agen Australia membongkar enskripsi data milik tentara Papua Nugini.

Menurut bocoran itu, Indonesia dijadikan target intel Australia sejak Bom Bali 2002, yang menewaskan 202 orang, termasuk 88 turis Australia. Negara lainnya yang disasar ASD adalah Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia, Timor Leste, dan Papua Nugini.

China juga menjadi sasaran utama penyadapan AS mengingat negeri tirai bambu itu merupakan dalah salah satu negara terkuat di Asia, baik secara ekonomi maupun pertahanan. Dikatakan bahwa NSA sangat takut jika hasil sadapannya terhadap China dibocorkan Snowden. (IT/rj)

Infiltrasi Asing di Indonesia

John Kerry: Di Mata(-Matai) Kami, (Karena) Indonesia Pemimpin Kawasan

Islam Times- http://www.islamtimes.org/vdciyzaprt1awv2.k8ct.html

 

Dua kalimat pertama tidak singkron dengan kalimat berikutnya. Benarkah AS cs menyadap pejabat RI tanpa maksud memonitor percakapan telepon maupun surat elektroniknya, terlebih yang bersahabat dengan AS; sementara bukti-bukti sudah sudah begitu jelas?

 

John Kerry

"Bukannya minta maaf, malah memuji." Ungkapan ini kiranya mewakili keheranan plus kegeraman rata-rata penduduk Indonesia pada pujian yang disampaikan Menteri Luar Negeri AS John Kerry dalam video yang dirilis Kedutaan Besar AS menjelang kunjungannya ke Indonesia mulai 15 hingga 17 Februari 2014.

"Di mata Amerika Serikat, Indonesia itu pemimpin di kawasan sekaligus mitra dalam mendorong perdamaian dan kesejahteraan serta mengatasi perubahan iklim global," katanya. Luar biasa pujian setinggi langit seorang John Kerry yang sudah umum diketahui, sering berubah-ubah sikap dan ucapan sesuai kepentingan dan permainan politik AS.

Tentu ia tahu betul, pemerintah Indonesia belum pulih dari trauma politik menyusul terbongkarnya skandal penyadapan oleh badan intelijen AS, NSA, via kedubes Australia yang sama-sama anggota Five Eyes (FVEY, negara-negara tukang sadap, termasuk Inggris, Kanada dan Selandia Baru) terhadap komunikasi sejumlah pejabat tinggi nasional selama berahun-tahun. Jadinya, pujian itu hanya sekadar eufimisme politik dengan maksud sebaliknya.

Lalu, untuk mengaburkan inti masalah yang menguak kejahatan politiknya, dan terkesan sengaja diulur-ulur, AS menyuruh duta besar nya untuk RI, Robert Blake, menjelaskan isu skandal penyadapan tersebut. Dia mengatakan, pemerintah Presiden Barack Obama hanya bermaksud untuk melindungi keamanan negara.

Pernyataan ini benar-benar arogan dan menyinggung perasaan RI. Apakah keamanan negara AS harus diciptakan dengan memata-matai, menyadap, mempermalukan, dan merusak keamanan negara lain? Apakah Indonesia dikategorikan sebagai negara yang mengancam AS nun jauh di benuanya sana?

"Kami tidak bermaksud memonitor, baik percakapan telepon maupun surat elektronik dari masyarakat di mana pun. Kami juga tidak akan melakukan hal yang sama dari petinggi negara dan negara-negara sahabat. Semoga hal ini dapat memberikan kenyamanan bagi warga Indonesia," kata Robert dalam wawancara khusus dengan Liputan 6 SCTV yang ditayangkan, Senin (10/2/2014) pagi.

Dua kalimat pertama tidak singkron dengan kalimat berikutnya. Benarkah AS cs menyadap pejabat RI tanpa maksud memonitor percakapan telepon maupun surat elektroniknya, terlebih yang bersahabat dengan AS; sementara bukti-bukti sudah sudah begitu jelas? Lalu, nyamankah masyarakat dengan penjelasan Blake yang terlihat alakadarnya itu?

Tanpa melontarkan kata maaf, Robert malah berharap dampak isu penyadapan tidak berkepanjangan sehingga AS bisa terus bekerja sama dengan Indonesia. "Seperti kita ketahui, Presiden Obama telah menyelesaikan isu pembocoran oleh Snowden. Bagaimana pertahanan nasional menjalankan tugasnya, khususnya bagian intelijen," tandasnya.

Secara tidak langsung, Robert mengakui bahwa AS cs dalam FVEY memang terlibat dalam skandal memalukan itu hingga Edward Snowden, mantan karyawan kontrak NA, membocorkannya. Media Inggris, The Guardian edisi 2 November 2013, lalu mempublikasikan bocoran itu: bahwa badan intelijen Australia (DSD) dan badan intelijen AS (NSA) mengumpulkan nomor kontak para pejabat tinggi bidang keamanan Indonesia saat KTT berlangsung.

"Tujuan dari operasi (penyadapan) ini untuk membangun struktur jaringan komunikasi di Indonesia saat berada dalam keadaan darurat," demikian salah satu kutipan dari bocoran Snowden. (IT/rj)

Jakartatheraphy Theraphy

Saturday 15 February 2014 https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=280770785411590&id=100004360114831

Infiltrasi Asing di Indonesia

Analis: AS Ikut Campur dalam Pemilu RI Dubes yang baru saja bertugas di Indonesia ini seolah sudah lama mengenal Jokowi. Kemungkinan besar, Robert diberitahu tentang sosok Jokowi oleh dubes sebelumnya, Scot Marciel, yang memang dikenal dekat dengan gubernur DKI Jakarta itu sejak di menjabat walikota Solo.

Robert BlakeRobert Blake

Sebentar lagi, rakyat Indonesia akan merayakan pesta demokrasi lima tahunan berupa pemilihan umum 2014. Bursa calon legislatif dan ekskutif mulai santer dibincangkan publik, khususnya tentang siapa calon kuat presiden 2014-2019 mendatang.

Di tengah persiapan menjelang pemilu itu, beberapa pihak berusaha mempengaruhi opini publik dengan melakukan kampanye terselubung, entah lewat tayangan iklan politik, memberi sumbangan kepada korban bencana alam, atau sekadar berkomentar di media massa, agar memilih figur tertentu. Gejala ini tentu saja memelorotkan kualitas demokrasi Indonesia.

Namun, tentunya lebih disesalkan lagi jika upaya mempengaruhi opini publik itu dilakukan orang asing. Itulah yang dilakukan Duta Besar (Dubes) AS untuk RI, Robert Blake, yang ikut mengelus-elus jagoan politiknya sebagai presiden mendatang. "Jokowi adalah sosok fenomena politik. Saya sempat menyapanya dalam beberapa kali pertemuan. Saya sangat mengaguminya dengan pencapaian dalam masa pemerintahannya," kata Robert sebagaimana dikutip dari Liputan 6 Pagi SCTV (10/2).

Dubes yang baru saja bertugas di Indonesia ini seolah sudah lama mengenal Jokowi. Kemungkinan besar, Robert diberitahu tentang sosok Jokowi oleh dubes sebelumnya, Scot Marciel, yang memang dikenal dekat dengan gubernur DKI Jakarta itu sejak di menjabat walikota Solo. Naiknya Jokowi ke tampuk gubernur bahkan disebut-sebut berkat jasa dubes tersebut dengan imbalan, memberi izin perluasan kantor kedutaan AS di jalan Medan Merdeka Selatan yang ditangguhkan gubernur Jakarta sebelumnya, Fauzi Bowo.

Beberapa wartawan sempat bertanya kepada Robert, apakah AS punya agenda khusus untuk Pemilu 2014 di Indonesia? Ia langsung menampik. "Kami tidak punya agenda apapun. kami percaya proses demokrasi di Indonesia dan sangat mengagumi kemajuan demokrasi di negara ini untuk menjalin hubungan baik antara warga dan pemerintah sejak tragedi 1998," urainya.

"Kami mempersiapkan beberapa hal taktis. Namun kami percaya pemerintah dan komisi pemilu akan berhasil melaksanakan pemilu ini," tandas Robert yang khas retotrika AS namun tidak menjelaskan lebih jauh tentang apa yang dimaksud dengan "mempersiapkan beberapa hal taktis". Benarkah begitu?

Menurut pengamat politik Pengamat Komunikasi Politik Direktur Eksekutif Polcom Institute Heri Budianto disela-sela diskusi bulanan Persatuan Wartawan Indonesia Reformasi (PWIR) di Jakarta, Kamis (13/2), "Keikutsertaan Peranan Washington (AS) dan Beijing (China) atau pihak asing dalam pemilu 2014 ini dinilai masih menjadi kendala demokrasi di Indonesia dikarenakan pihak asing masih ikut campur dalam mencari pemimpin di Indonesia karena adanya kepentingan pihak asing dalam segi mencari keuntungan."

Menurutnya, dalam pemilu 2014 mendatang, khususnya dalam pilpres diyakini akan terjadi beberapa kekisruhan dengan adanya beberapa putaran pemilu dikarenakan ikut campurnya pihak asing. "Saya mengamati pemilu dari sebelumnya sejak era reformasi yang dimanfaatkan oleh kepentingan asing," kataya.

Heri menyebutkan, campur tangan asing dalam Pemilu 2014 masih ada. Pasalnya, banyak aset asing yang mereka manfaatkan, harus 'diamankan'. "Karena kita tahu, aset asing banyak, mulai perusahan, pertambangan telekomunikasi, sehingga orang-orang atau negara adidaya yang punya kepentingan mereka cari aman," ungapnya.

Pada Pemilu 2014 nanti, lanjutnya, pemilih dapat menyuarakan pemimpin yang akan muncul untuk bertanggung jawab pada negara sesuai yang diharapkan. "Mereka tentu sudah melakukan deal-deal. Contoh saja Amerika, kontrak Freeport akan habis tahun 2020, kita juga ingin Freeport dinasionalisasi, tapi itu sulit karena selalu ada kepentingan asing," jelasnya.

Menurutnya, Pemilu 2014 menjadi ajang pertarungan kepentingan internasional terhadap keberlanjutan bisnis di Indonesia ataupun negara-negara yang akan ikut berperan dalam mempengaruhi Indonesia. Ia lalu berharap agar kaum muda penerus bangsa saat ini dapat berpikir lebih jernih dalam menyikapi proses politik di Indonesia. (IT/SK-O/rj)

• 
  
• 6 people like this.
• 

  Reno Hardino kyk'a jokowingit mmg ud dprsiapkn olh 'mrk' utk jd RI I (sbgmna sblm'a SBY) smntara ane prnh liat jokowi trmsk member freemason, tangan'apn kerap mbntuk tanda sbgai member illuminati Allaahua'lam
  maav yg sbsr"-'a utk para simpatisan Jokowi

  Yesterday at 5:33am · Like
• 

  Reno Hardino istri'a jg ktua women rotary club solo

  Yesterday at 5:34am · Like
• 

  Anton Diaz betul bngt gan,istri jokowi itu anggota khormatan rotary club..suatu organisasi zionis yahudi yg berbasis d asu..jokowi bagian dri mereka,makany mereka akan slalu menyebarkan propaganda baik melalui pejabat2 mereka d RI,atw melalui media massa d indo supaya jokowi naik jd capres..hati2...

  Yesterday at 7:02am · Like · 1
• 

  Ibnu Tamiya Wah ap bnr gan?

  19 hours ago · Like