A CIA Critic in the White House?

Trump NSC appointee Michael Flynn is a critic of the CIA, and of the Osama bin Laden killing. And that makes sense to me . . . .

I read the other day that Donald Trump's choice for national security advisor, Michael Flynn, is highly critical of the CIA, and of the way the Obama administration trampled the law. In fact, it got my attention because he expressed almost exactly the same opinions that I have expressed in this blog.

Michael Flynn, Trump's national security advisor pick (Source: NBC)

It caused me some cognitive dissonance because just a few weeks ago I wrote a piece expressing my deep opposition to Flynn's statements about Islam. (REFLECTION: When people say "the Muslim faith itself is the source of the problem")

And yet here we have Flynn tearing into the CIA:

“They’ve lost sight of who they actually work for,” Mr. Flynn said in an interview with The New York Times in October 2015. “They work for the American people. They don’t work for the president of the United States.” He added, speaking of the agency’s leadership: “Frankly, it’s become a very political organization.”

(Scarry: Here's an idea: SHUT IT DOWN! (Reading the Report on CIA Torture))

Flynn zeroing in on the Osama bin Laden killing:

In killing Bin Laden, he said, “we created a new version of Allah.”

(Scarry: Why Have We Built A Monument To Bin Laden?)

Flynn on the benefit of applying the law:

“What we should have done is shown him to be a decrepit old guy, put him in a freaking cage, in a cell, and put him on trial,” Mr. Flynn added. “Make it a big messy trial, make it global.”

(Scarry: TRIAL OF THE CENTURY: United States v. Bin Laden )

The lesson for me is: in the Age of Trump, we'll have to learn to work with people who speak their minds, and deal with their opinions one by one. We may actually find points of agreement. And opportunity.


Related posts

In the film "The Response," as military judges are debating the fate of a detainee at Guantanamo, one of them says, "Okay, if 9/11 is the measuring stick, are we a great nation because of the blow we took? Or because how we, as a country, respond to that blow? The response matters. Our response defines us . . . . "

(See Why Have We Built A Monument To Bin Laden?)


The U.S. government and its military talk constantly about the new world of "asymmetric warfare" -- which basically boils down to how "unfair" it seems to them that individuals can wield any meaningful amount of power, given how minuscule their numbers or the firepower available to them. But what what we should spend much more time focusing on is "asymmetric policing" -- i.e. the overwhelming power that the U.S. state wields in every encounter with individuals.

(See Too Much State Power? (Asymmetric Warfare and Asymmetric Policing))








The story of the past decade-plus has been the story of the assertion by some that the conception of law that our society has is not sufficient. Simply put, there are those who say that there is a third, "in-between" category of behavior -- and legal status -- that is not civilian (subject to criminal law) and not military (subject to military law and the laws of war). And since there are no rules about how to deal with that third category . . . .

(See Using the Good, Old Criminal Justice System: Worth a Try?) 

Here's an idea: SHUT IT DOWN! (Reading the Report on CIA Torture)

Report on CIA Torture

I have been in the process of conferring with colleagues here in Chicago about what we should be doing in light of the recently published summary of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Report on CIA torture.

I hope that a broad alliance of concerned people -- including but not limited to the groups and individuals already actively protesting illegitimate U.S. practices of kidnapping, detention, and torture, such as the Chicago Coalition to Shut Down Guantanamo -- will take up the report on CIA torture and make it an object of careful study, and a foundation for activism.

The report itself ran to thousands of pages, and the summary alone totals about 600.  It can be downloaded online, or purchased in hard copy.  You can read an outline of the findings in the Wikipedia article on the report.


Abolish the CIA?

The CIA: Shut it down?

As I reviewed the outline of the findings, it struck me that many of the findings point to the fact that the CIA is simply ungovernable:

(4) The conditions of confinement for CIA detainees were harsher than the CIA had represented to policymakers and others.

(5) The CIA repeatedly provided inaccurate information to the Department of Justice (DOJ), impeding a proper legal analysis of the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program.

(6) The CIA has actively avoided or impeded congressional oversight of the program.

(7) The CIA impeded effective White House oversight and decision-making.

(8) The CIA's operation and management of the program complicated, and in some cases impeded, the national security missions of other Executive Branch agencies.

(9) The CIA impeded oversight by the CIA's Office of Inspector General.

(10) The CIA coordinated the release of classified information to the media, including inaccurate information concerning the effectiveness of the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques.

(17) The CIA rarely reprimanded or held personnel accountable for serious or significant violations, inappropriate activities, and systematic and individual management failures. 

(18) The CIA marginalized and ignored numerous internal critiques, criticisms, and objections concerning the operation and management of the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program.

(Emphasis added.)

Time to reprise the 1975 Church Committee hearings?
(a.k.a. United States Senate Select Committee to Study
Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities)

The report makes it clear that the CIA is a law unto itself. (Close observers of the CIA have known this all along, of course.) The CIA thwarted or circumvented every possible entity or individual that could possibly have acted as a brake on the CIA's illegal and immoral activities.

Considering its ungovernability, how can the CIA be allowed to stay in business?

There is fear within the Agency that abolition is in the wind. That was obvious to anyone watching the full court press by CIA spokespeople after the release of the report. They tried every trick in the book to convince the American public that the report should be disregarded.


Other implications of the report

Prosecute torture and other crimes

The CIA carried out brutal torture:

(3) The interrogations of CIA detainees were brutal and far worse than the CIA represented to policymakers and others. 

(14) CIA detainees were subjected to coercive interrogation techniques that had not been approved by the Department of Justice or had not been authorized by CIA Headquarters. 

Prosecution is in called for.

The report finds that torture was not effective.

(1) The CIA's use of its enhanced interrogation techniques was not an effective means of acquiring intelligence or gaining cooperation from detainees. 

(2) The CIA's justification for the use of its enhanced interrogation techniques rested on inaccurate claims of their effectiveness.

Many of us feel that, since torture is never permissible, effectiveness or ineffectiveness should not even be discussed. However, we do need to emphasize frequently that torture serves only to terrorize, not to gain information.

The role of psychologists in the CIA torture program requires special attention:

(13) Two contract psychologists devised the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques and played a central role in the operation, assessments, and management of the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program. By 2005, the CIA had overwhelmingly outsourced operations related to the program.

This refers to the "reverse-engineering" of the SERE program.

 The world knows us by our actions . . . .

See ourselves as others see us

Perhaps the finding that deserves to be most broadly shared with the public is this one:

(20) The CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program damaged the United States' standing in the world, and resulted in other significant monetary and non-monetary costs.

Members of general public in the U.S. are willfully ignorant of how we are perceived by the rest of the world. We must do anything we can to wake people up.


TAKE ACTION:

Read the report.

Join with others to study

and discuss the report.

Join groups seeking

action in light of the report.

Related posts

It is perhaps the signal achievement of the film "Beneath the Blindfold" that it portrays four different survivors, each of whose experience of torture was distinct from that of any of the others, and each of whom has an otherwise unique personality, and yet each makes clear that they share a long-lasting trauma. One leaves the film with a deeply-felt sense of the lasting trauma caused by torture of any kind.

 (See The Revelations of "Beneath the Blindfold" )

 

By now, everyone knows about the New York Times article describing Barack Obama's personal administration of drone killing around the world. What few people are willing to face up to is that Obama 2012 partisans actually see this as a way to get a lot of Americans to like Obama: "This is the candidate; you MUST support him!"

(See Being a Team Player for "Mr. Forceful": Obama and the Dems )


My most prominent memory of my first viewing of the Guantanamo film, The Response, is of one of the stars of the film -- Kate Mulgrew of Star Trek fame -- participating in a panel after the screening. I was blown away when she said, "I did this because our civil liberties in our country have been gravely damaged and we all need to contribute to repairing them."

(See Understanding What Guantanamo Means)

We all wish to be judged by our good intentions. But the way people know us is through our actions. So ... what do people in the Muslim world know about us here in the United States?

(See They'll Know Us By Our Actions)








UPDATE: JANUARY 28, 2015

Government Doing its Best to Undermine Torture Report and Whistleblowers

The new chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee has requested that administration agencies return all copies of a classified torture report to the committee, which would effectively place the “classified report beyond the reach of the Freedom of Information Act,” and could close the book on a very dark time in America’s history that we should never forget.

"CIA torture report architect denounces Republican attempt to claw back copies"
The Guardian

This news, unfortunately, gets a bit more depressing, as most of the recipients of the full torture report never even bothered to read it…

"CIA Torture Rport Sinks A Little More, As Agencies Don't Bother To Read It"
Huffington Post

Meanwhile, the only CIA officer in prison for the torture program is the whistleblower who exposed it - John Kiriakou.

"Prison Dispatches From the War on Terror: EX-CIA Officer John Kiriakou Speaks"
The Intercept

I WANT YOU
to take a stand against torture
worldwide, nationwide, city wide, in your neighborhood
January 31, 2015    #EndTorture

JANUARY 31 -- GLOBAL DAY OF ACTION AGAINST TORTURE!!!

Saturday, January 31, 2015 at 2:00pm

EVERYWHERE
In late November the Senate Report on the Central Intelligence Agency's use of Torture was released. This report has since been swept under the rug and nearly forgotten.

The Mainstream media, the government and a complicit American public are prepared to forget about the Senate Report on CIA torture AND WE CANNOT LET THAT HAPPEN!

Join organizations and individuals from across the political spectrum for protests, rallies, and gatherings on Saturday January 31st to make sure America and the US government do not go unchallenged.

WAKE UP THE PUBLIC TO TAX PAYER FUNDED TORTURE!

DETAILS:

1. This is Decentralized. Connect with activists in your community and plan rallies, protests, street theater, or reenactmen...ts of waterboarding or force-feeding. GRAB THE PUBLIC'S ATTENTION!

2. Create a FB event and post it in the comment! We will add it to the list below.

3. Create memes, write blogs, contact local media, indy media, talk to friends and families! Use the Hashtag #EndTorture Do whatever you can to spread the word through social media and in real life!

4. INVITE! INVITE! INVITE! Let's get the invite list over 50,000 people by January 30th. We can do this! Share on FB pages, twitter, and more!

5. Hit the streets, inform the public and change the global conversation.


EVENTS:

East

Langley, Virginia
https://www.facebook.com/events/751110014967488/

Midwest

Minneapolis, MN
https://www.facebook.com/events/1405660619728976/ 

Columbus, Ohio
https://facebook.com/events/1569486769931599/

Chicago, Illinois
https://www.facebook.com/events/419992514823893/

Grand Rapids, Michigan
https://www.facebook.com/events/1532735950317073/

Bowling Green, Kentucky
https://www.facebook.com/events/584865088281746/

West

Portland, Oregon
https://www.facebook.com/events/700635680034377/

Seattle, Washington
https://www.facebook.com/events/1660749850819078/

San Diego, California
https://www.facebook.com/events/764252260290430/

Las Vegas, Nevada
https://www.facebook.com/events/1530146503911984/

South

Houston, Texas
https://www.facebook.com/events/385512068297291/

Jacksonville, Florida
hosted by Veterans For Peace Jax and 904 Activist Alliance
https://www.facebook.com/events/447081582112863/

Leesburg Florida
https://www.facebook.com/events/1525215821094777

St. Pete, Florida
https://www.facebook.com/events/416528388499160

REAL Progressives Demand that the U.S. Come Clean on Drone Killings

Rep. Adam Schiff

Rep. Walter Jones

[UPDATE April 2, 2014: Reps. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Walter Jones (R-NC) have now submitted a bill calling for drone transparency. See Natasha Lennard, "New Bill Aims for Drone Transparency," and Thomas Earnest, "Representatives Schiff and Jones Introduce Bill to Increase Transparency in U.S. Drone Program." 

[See also Joint Statement in Support of The Targeted Lethal Force Transparency Act by Amnesty International, Arab American Institute, Center for Civilians in Conflict, Center for Constitutional Rights, Friends Committee on National Legislation, Global Justice Clinic, NYU School of Law, Human Rights First, Human Rights Watch, National Security Network, Open Society Policy Center, Peace Action West, Reprieve, and Win Without War.

[SEE: hub page for all Resources to SUPPORT the "Come Clean on Drone Killings" Act (Schiff/Jones HR 4372: the Targeted Lethal Force Transparency Act)]

[ORIGINAL MARCH 31 POST BEGINS HERE]

Reps. Raúl M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.) and Keith Ellison (D-Minn.)

Reps. Raúl M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.) and Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) have called the U.S. on the carpet for dodging the call from the international community to come clean about its drone killings.

Now it's time for all 62 other members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus to step up to the plate.

Grijalva and Ellison's initiative creates an opportunity for all of us to demand of our progressive representatives that they, too, take a stand. It's a simple yes-or-no, no-ifs-ands-or-buts question:

"Have you signed on to the CPC co-chairs' demand

that 'our intelligence agencies provide

an annual public accounting

of the number of civilian casualties

caused by drone strikes overseas'?"

BACKGROUND

The Grijalva-Ellison demand was provoked by a series of events at the United Nations.

First, in October, 2013, a pair of long-awaited reports by the U.N. special rapporteurs on counter-terrorism and on extrajudicial executions were published. The included an unambiguous demand for a full accounting of drone killings.

This was followed by a little-publicized General Assembly vote that use of drones in counter-terrorism must comply with international law.

By early 2014, people were beginning to realize that the government was succeeding in quashing debate about its extrajudicial executions simply through its silence. A consensus began to build around the key point of pressure: the need to bear down on the U.S. government to come clean about its drone killings.

When the U.N. Human Rights council convened in March to take up the matter of the drone killings, the U.S. government had a simple solution: boycott.

And thus it was the sight of the U.S. government fleeing a U.N. convocation into human rights that provoked the call by Reps. Grijalva and Ellison. "Instead of working closely with the international community to help strengthen current international standards on the use of drones, the U.S. government decided to boycott a discussion of the draft resolution. We are troubled by the ease with which dialogue and diplomacy—values at the center of the president’s foreign policy—were cast aside in this debate," they said in their statement.

"Today’s vote highlights the need for Congress to play a larger role in overseeing and regulating the use of lethal force abroad. Requiring that our intelligence agencies provide an annual public accounting of the number of civilian casualties caused by drone strikes overseas — a measure included in the proposed Fiscal Year 2014 Intelligence Authorization Act — would be a good start," they said. (emphasis added)

NEXT STEPS

Reps. Grijalva and Ellison issued their call in their capacity as co-chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.  The clear next steps is for every other member of the CPC to join the call. This is a simple but unambiguous assertion by Congress of authority in the U.S. drone killing program, and it is vital that there be unanimous support by the CPC.

Please look at the list below and write personally to the member who represents you.  Now is the time for us to insist on public statements from every member of Congress that they unreservedly support the call for the U.S. to come clean about its drone killings.

And if you live in Arizona or Minnesota . . . you have a thank you note to send.

(PS - Raul Grijalva is now a -- CO-SPONSOR of HR 4372: the Targeted Lethal Force Transparency Act - Read more about Raul Grijalva's sponsorship)


Members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus

(note: may of these members signed the May 10, 2012 letter to President Obama calling for drones transparency - 5/10/2012 letter)


CALIFORNIA
CA02 - Jared Huffman @RepHuffman

CA11 - George Miller @askgeorge (5/10/2012 letter)

CA13 - Barbara Lee @RepBarbaraLee (5/10/2012 letter) - Chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus Peace and Security Task Force. See "Rep. Lee Demands Administration’s Full Response on Drones" March 11, 2013 -- CO-SPONSOR! HR 4372: the Targeted Lethal Force Transparency Act

CA17 - Michael Honda @RepMikeHonda (5/10/2012 letter)

CA20 - Sam Farr @RepSamFarr

CA27 - Judy Chu @RepJudyChu

CA34 - Xavier Becerra @RepBecerra

CA37 - Karen Bass @RepKarenBass

CA40 - Lucille Roybal-Allard @RepRoybalAllard

CA41 - Mark Takano @RepMarkTakano

CA43 - Maxine Waters @MaxineWaters

CA44 - Janice Hahn @Rep_JaniceHahn

CA47 - Alan Lowenthal @RepLowenthal -- CO-SPONSOR! HR 4372: the Targeted Lethal Force Transparency Act


COLORADO
CO02 - Jared Polis @RepJaredPolis - See the call on No Drones Colorado for Jared Polis to support the "Come Clean" bill!


CONNECTICUT
CT03 - Rosa DeLauro @rosadelauro - See the call on No Drones New England for Rosa DeLauro to support the "Come Clean" bill!


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
DC00 - Eleanor Norton @EleanorNorton


FLORIDA
FL05 - Corrine Brown @RepCorrineBrown

FL09 - Alan Grayson @AlanGrayson - See the call on No Drones Florida for Alan Grayson to support the "Come Clean" bill!

FL22 - Lois Frankel @RepLoisFrankel

FL24 - Frederica Wilson @RepWilson


GEORGIA
GA04 - Henry Johnson @RepHankJohnson (5/10/2012 letter)

GA05 - John Lewis @repjohnlewis (5/10/2012 letter)

See the call on No Drones Georgia for Henry "Hank" Johnson and John Lewis to support the "Come Clean" bill!


IOWA
IA02 - David Loebsack @daveloebsack - See the call on No Drones Iowa for David Loebsack to support the "Come Clean" bill!


ILLINOIS
IL04 - Luis Gutierrez @RepGutierrez (5/10/2012 letter)

IL07 - Danny Davis @RepDannyDavis

IL09 - Jan Schakowsky @janschakowsky Offered an unsuccessful amendment in late 2013 that would have banned signature strikes.


INDIANA
IN07 - André Carson @RepAndreCarson - See the call on Indiana Drones Project for André Carson to support the "Come Clean" bill!


MASSACHUSETTS
MA02 - James McGovern @RepMcGovern (5/10/2012 letter) -- CO-SPONSOR! HR 4372: the Targeted Lethal Force Transparency Act

MA04 - Joseph Kennedy @RepJoeKennedy

MA07 - Michael Capuano @mikecapuano

See the call on No Drones New England for Joseph Kennedy and Michael Capuano to support the "Come Clean" bill!


MARYLAND
MD04 - Donna Edwards @repdonnaedwards (5/10/2012 letter)

MD07 - Elijah Cummings @RepCummings

See the call on No Drones Maryland for Donna Edwards and Elijah Cummings to support the "Come Clean" bill!


MAINE
ME01 - Chellie Pingree @chelliepingree - See the call on No Drones New England for Chellie Pingree to support the "Come Clean" bill!


MICHIGAN
MI13 - John Conyers @repjohnconyers (5/10/2012 letter) - See the call on No Drones Michigan for John Conyers to support the "Come Clean" bill!


MINNESOTA
MN08 - Richard Nolan @USRepRickNolan


MISSOURI
MO05 - Emanuel Cleaver @repcleaver - See the call on No Drones Missouri for Emanuel Cleaver to support the "Come Clean" bill!


MISSISSIPPI
MS02 - Bennie Thompson @HomelandDems


NEW JERSEY
NJ06 - Frank Pallone @FrankPallone

NJ12 - Rush Holt @RushHolt - - See the call on No Drones New Jersey for Rush Holt to support the "Come Clean" bill!


NEVADA
NV04 - Steven Horsford @RepHorsford


NEW YORK
NY07 - Nydia Velázquez @NydiaVelazquez

NY08 - Hakeem Jeffries @RepJeffries

NY09 - Yvette Clarke @YvetteClarke (5/10/2012 letter)

NY10 - Jerrold Nadler @RepJerryNadler (5/10/2012 letter) - Watch Rep. Nadler on drones during a February, 2013, committee hearing.

NY12 - Carolyn Maloney @RepMaloney

NY13 - Charles Rangel @cbrangel (5/10/2012 letter)

NY15 - José Serrano @RepJoseSerrano

NY25 - Louise Slaughter @louiseslaughter

See the call on No Drones New York State for these progressive members of Congress from New York to support the "Come Clean" bill!


OHIO
OH11 - Marcia Fudge @RepMarciaFudge - See the call on No Drones Ohio for Marcia Fudge to support the "Come Clean" bill!


OREGON
OR01 - Suzanne Bonamici @RepBonamici

OR04 - Peter DeFazio @RepPeterDeFazio (5/10/2012 letter) - CO-SPONSOR! HR 4372: the Targeted Lethal Force Transparency Act - Read more about Peter DeFazio's sponsorship


PENNSYLVANIA
PA02 - Chaka Fattah @chakafattah

PA17 - Matt Cartwright @RepCartwright

See the call on No Drones Pennsylvania for Chaka Fattah and Matt Cartwright to support the "Come Clean" bill!


RHODE ISLAND
RI01 - David Cicilline @davidcicilline - See the call on No Drones New England for David Cicilline to support the "Come Clean" bill!


TENNESSEE
TN09 - Steve Cohen @RepCohen - See the call on No Drones Tennessee for Steve Cohen to support the "Come Clean" bill!


TEXAS
TX18 - Sheila Jackson Lee @JacksonLeeTX18

TX30 - Eddie Johnson @RepEBJ

See the call on No Drones Texas for Sheila Jackson Lee and Eddie Bernice Johnson to support the "Come Clean" bill!


VIRGINIA
VA08 - James Moran @Jim_Moran - See the call on No Drones Virginia for Jim Moran to support the "Come Clean" bill!


VIRGIN ISLANDS
VI00 - Donna Christensen @DelegateDonna


VERMONT
VT00 - Peter Welch @PeterWelch - July 12, 2013Welch introduces legislation to limit domestic drones, protect privacy -- CO-SPONSOR! HR 4372: the Targeted Lethal Force Transparency Act


WASHINGTON
WA07 - Jim McDermott @RepJimMcDermott (5/10/2012 letter) -- CO-SPONSOR! HR 4372: the Targeted Lethal Force Transparency Act - Read more about Jim McDermott's sponsorship


WISCONSIN
WI02 - Mark Pocan @MarkPocan

WI04 - Gwen Moore @RepGwenMoore

See the call on No Drones Wisconsin for Mark Pocan and Gwen Moore to support the "Come Clean" bill!


Related posts

A 2013 U.N. report makes it clear that the U.S. has to report fully on all its drone attacks.

(See 2014: The Year of Transparency (for U.S. Drone Use)?)

The reason the Administration is hiding truth about drones is that they don't have a satisfactory answer for how decisions about drone strikes are made.  As we have known all along, we need the public to think about how crummy the whole drone program is, and then they will be ready to be on our side. The best way to get them really thinking is to shine a spotlight on the secrecy, evasiveness, and deceit involved in the U.S. drone program.

(See Drone Killings: Come Clean )

An Insider's Guide to the 7 S's (surveillance, secrecy, and assassinations) in the 2014 Midterms: linchpin races, scandal, principle, drone testing, and some "special" cases.

(See Will the 2014 Midterms be a Referendum on Obama's Surveillance, Secrecy, and Assassinations?)

DRONE LOVE: If the Chicago Tribune Represents American Public Opinion, the Republic is in Trouble

Tribune Tower gargoyle

It's reasonable to ask what the titans of media who sit high atop the Tribune Tower think of the rest of us. Sometimes they let us know loud and clear.

Everybody needs to read the editorial that appeared in the Chicago Tribune yesterday. The editorial appears online under the title "America's drone program needs to keep flying." The title of the editorial in the paper edition that showed up on people's doorsteps on Friday was "Drones in the cross hairs." (More on that discrepancy below.)

The editorial represents the worldview of the editorial board of one of the major newspapers in the country. What it says is alarming, and it should serve as a call to action to thinking people throughout the country.

*   *   *   *   *

Here are just the high points -- or should I say, low points -- of what the Tribune is saying.

(1) For the Love of Drones

To the people at the Tribune, moderating the drone program amounts to putting "drones in the cross hairs." For them to use this language betrays a profound confusion about the nature of injury.  Not to mince words, it is deranged to talk about drones or the drone program being "in the cross hairs," and to compare drones or the drone program to people who are injured by drones (and all other manner of U.S. military force).

(The Tribune editorial board also speaks of U.S. anti-terrorism programs "strangled by red tape.")

It is not coincidental that the same editorial board smirks at the fear and pain that might be experienced by actual people: "we imagine he is avoiding rooftops and other open-air venues" . . . "nervously glancing at the skies" . . . .

This syndrome -- in effect letting the machines take over -- is a danger that social critics long ago warned against.  (See A Modest Proposal: Debate the Drones)

(2) Due Process (NOT)

The editorial board at the Tribune has completely lost sight of the notion of due process, of the idea of a nation of laws.

How else can you explain their absorption with the idea that administration officials can and should make decisions about executions? They deride what they see as a "saunter to judgement" -- by implication insisting, "We need a rush to judgement!"  They actually print the words, "What's taking so long?"

Not only has the Chicago Tribune abandoned the idea of courts of law, now they're even dismissive of the ersatz process that the Obama administration has substituted for the courts: "We can't think of a more dangerous prospect than U.S. drones tangled in bureaucracy . . . ."

Sadly, the Obama administration has been successful in dodging due process. (See Eric Through the Looking Glass) Not satisfied, the Tribune insists on throwing the last shred of caution to the wind.

(3) Drone Effectiveness (?)


The fulcrum of this entire, sad discourse is the suggestion that drones are "effective."

The sub-title of the editorial is "The value of this anti-terrorist weapon" and the text refers to the drone killing program as "[o]ne of America's most effective anti-terrorist programs." However, the editorial offers no specifics in support of this assertion; it points to no proof of this claim.

And how could it? The facts of the drone program are secret.

That's why the most important thing we could be doing right now is to demand that the Obama administration come clean with the full details of all drone strikes to date. (This is what the United Nations has called for.)

Until that happens, the American public will continue to be subjected to the assertion that drone killing is "effective" with zero facts to back up the claim.  (See Drone Killings: Come Clean)

(4) The Global "Battlefield" and (5) The Case of the Disappearing Sovereignty

One could go on and on about all the things that are benighted about the Chicago Tribune and its editorial board's ideas about drones, law, security, and international relations. I'll conclude by pointing to just two more.

The editorial jingoistically touts House Intelligence Committee chair Mike Rogers' recent pronouncement about how individuals are "removed from the battlefield" by U.S. counterterrorism operations. This is a reminder to us that a whole swath of our government and power elite consider the world a battlefield, and have abandoned any notion of the law of nations or the need for a declaration of war before engaging in hostilities.

And so perhaps it should not be surprising -- though I find myself astonished -- that the Tribune editorial berates Pakistan and Afghanistan for voicing opposition to the U.S. drone program. (As if they should have any say about what happens in their own countries!)

I won't try to capture here the smug, imperialist tones of the Tribune. You have to read it for yourself.

(See How About a REAL (Tea) Party? SHUT DOWN THE MILITARY BASES! )

*   *   *   *   *

It is startling to reflect that, on the day before this editorial appeared, the very same Tribune editorial page featured a cartoon by Joe Fournier, entitled "Thinking Outside the Drone," which had these crystal clear words:

OBAMA: As we both know - it's wrong to kill U.S. citizens with drones . . .
HOLDER: and illegal
OBAMA: and illegal . . .

The Chicago Tribune: deranged and forgetful . . . .


Related posts

Since a jury just got done saying NO! to the efforts of the Cook County State's Attorney's attempts to use the Illinois terror statute to foment fear and repress dissent . . . and since February 11 was designated "The Day We Fight Back" against state surveillance, repression, and intimidation . . . and since the media is broadcasting a fresh threat by the Obama administration to assassinate a U.S. citizen using a drone strike . . . and since the Illinois primaries for every seat in congress fall just a few weeks away (March 18), it seems like a good time to ask all the members of the Illinois congressional delegation -- current and prospective -- Hey Illinois pols! Where do you stand? (On U.S. surveillance, secrecy, and assassinations)
 

A September 5, 2013, U.S. drone strike in Pakistan killed six people - including Sangeen Zadran -- a "senior militant commander" who was "implicated in a long-running kidnapping drama involving an American soldier." Or so we are told by the U.S. media. Will we ever learn the real facts?

(See September 5 in Pakistan: Another Day, Another Drone Killing)

We will only deal successfully with the crimes being committed using drones when we understand them as part of the much larger war against communities of color . . . .

(See Drone Gaze, Drone Injury: The War on Communities of Color )

Who Decides? (When Drones are Judge, Jury, and Executioner)

Abdulrahman Awlaki, killed by a U.S. drone strike in Yemen.

This past week I was in Madison, WI, where I saw a number of excellent presentations on peacemaking. One, in particular, changed my thinking.

Joan Haan and Elliott Adams gave a presentation at the Veterans for Peace (VFP) convention, "Creating a Culture of Peace: Exploring Nonviolent Social Change Movements Past, Present, and Future," which provided excellent tools for organizers. Part of their presentation dealt with three distinct aspects of public opinion:

• public awareness of the problem
• public opposition to powerholder policies
• public support for movement alternatives

(These three aspects are part of the Movement Action Plan model developed by Bill Moyer, as shown on the chart above.)

Our discussion turned to the question: where are we on each of these aspects when it comes to drones?

Public opposition

There seemed to be general agreement that we are making good progress in encouraging public awareness of the problem of drones.

Clearly, we are not yet at the point where there is broad public support for the alternatives being offered by the antiwar movement.

This then led us to ponder: might we, in fact, be on the cusp of a breakthrough moment when the public decides that they aren't buying the policies of U.S. powerholders with respect to drones?

As I thought about this in the days that followed, I became more and more convinced . . .

• It's time for our movement to move beyond stimulating public awareness of the problem -- beyond just saying "drones, drones, drones"
• The moment is not yet ripe for us to convince the public of commit to the alternatives we are proposing
• The moment is right to invite the public to shine a bright light on powerholder policies -- to decide for themselves, "Are you buying the government's story?"

In other words, it's time for us to do less telling and more asking, inviting, and listening.

In my opinion, all we need to invite many more people into the conversation is two words: "Who decides?"

Who decides?

If the public will join us in asking the question "Who decides?" about drone executions, I believe they will rapidly come to realize that they are utterly dissatisfied with what the government is saying.

(1) All the President's men?

Ever since last May, when the New York Times profiled the weekly Tuesday "kill list" decisions by Barack Obama and his inner circle, we've been aware that the President and a few close advisers think they have the right to huddle in the White House and decide who lies and who dies.

Is the American public really happy with the idea that we're back to rule by "All the President's Men" -- this time with drones?

(2) The CIA?

The largest portion of the U.S. drone killing program to date has been in the hands of the CIA. (Though this is not publicly acknowledged, because, well, it's the CIA.)

Who among the public -- really -- vests trust in the CIA?

(3) The generals?

Strange to say, the public would probably place more confidence in the leaders of the military -- at least when it comes to the use of drones -- than in the other possible alternatives.

Unfortunately, the leaders of the military are probably the least involved in decisions about the use of drones. (Perhaps we should hear more from them about that.)

(4) Contractors?

The Snowden affair has gone a long way toward exposing the involvement of government contractors in propping up the U.S. security state. However, we have not yet begun to see real public awareness of the number of civilian contractors involved in the drone "kill chain."

Is the American public going to be satisfied with the idea that these life-and-death decisions are in the hands of a bunch of IT contractors?

(5) Or does The Machine decide?

There is a very real sense in which the decisions to use drones to kill are being made by the machines themselves. That is, the relative weight of the system design and network communications in the outcome, relative to the weight of human agency, is becoming more and more overwhelming.

I predict that, at the end of the day, Americans will vote down the idea of computers, robots, and information systems being judge, jury, and executioner.


What do you think we can to spur public engagement with the question, "Who decides?"


Related posts

Now comes the messy part. We need many more people to engage with with the emotions aroused by drones. This is going to involve many different groups of people, engaging with this topic in many different ways: churches and faith groups . . . young people . . . . The point is: the discourse on drones is going to get out of our hands. It isn't always going to go the way we want. But the important thing is that many, many people are going to be talking about it in the ways that feel appropriate to them.

 (See Democracy vs. Drones)

By now, everyone knows about the New York Times article describing Barack Obama's personal administration of drone killing around the world. What few people are willing to face up to is that Obama 2012 partisans actually see this as a way to get a lot of Americans to like Obama: "This is the candidate; you MUST support him!"

(See Being a Team Player for "Mr. Forceful": Obama and the Dems )

First Reps. Raúl M. Grijalva (D-AZ) and Keith Ellison (D-MN) called the U.S. on the carpet for dodging the call from the international community to come clean about its drone killings. Then Reps. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Walter Jones (R-NC) submitted a bill calling for drone transparency. So ... are we finally going to get the truth?

(See REAL Progressives Demand that the U.S. Come Clean on Drone Killings)

The impossibly upside-down world described by George Orwell actually turns out to be -- point by point -- the world we now live in.

(See Dirty Wars and Extrajudicial Execution (So 1984!) )

#NATOvictims - Drone Strikes in Pakistan

The juxtaposition of the vainglorious NATO Summit in Chicago and today's latest set of CIA drone strikes in Pakistan is just too much to take.

Much of the world press regurgitates the standard United States government narrative of these drone strikes -- see for instance the New York Times account: Pakistan Says U.S. Drone Strike Kills Suspected Militants. In contrast, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism (BIJ) compiles as many accounts as possible, which gives a far more truthful account of the facts -- especially those related to injury and death inflicted on innocent people. According to BIJ, in the latest attack:

The CIA’s drones returned to the attack for the second time in 24 hours, killing ‘suspected militants’ in an attack on a house. But a nearby mosque was also hit as villagers attended morning prayers. At least three civilians died. ‘The drone fired two missiles at the compound. We believe it was being used by militants,’ one official told Reuters. Associated Press’s sources said that ‘most of those killed were Uzbek insurgents,’ although KUNA reported tribal elders as saying that all of those killed were ‘innocent local tribesmen.’ At least three civilians were reportedly killed when a nearby mosque was also struck during the attack, according to AFP. A security official told the news agency that the three worshippers, believed to be Central Asians, ‘were seriously wounded and died later in the hospital.’ Channel 4 News said that most of the dead were local villagers, with four being ‘foreign fighters, believed to be Turkmen.’

Would someone please look at the list of drone strikes in Pakistan -- week after week after week -- compiled by BIJ and figure out a way to convey to Americans what this would feel like if it the UNITED STATES were on the receiving end of this terror?
There can be no question but that Americans and the rest of the world will eventually wake up to the terror being inflicted in their name on Pakistanis and others. The only question that will then remain will be whether Obama, Panetta, and the whole drone "kill chain" will be prosecuted as war criminals or as ordinary criminals. (And God help them if they are condemned to the limbo of "unlawful enemy combatant" - entitled to neither civil nor military justice.)

Make Drone Killing 100% VISIBLE!

More at: Can we stop the DRONES?

I just returned from Washington, D.C., where I attended Code Pink's Drone Summit: Killing and Spying by Remote Control.

Two days were packed with comprehensive information presentations and planning sessions for activists.

At the end of the first day, I came to a realization: the fundamental problem that we had all gathered to address is that drones render killing 100% invisible. And as long as the killing is invisible, we lose the most powerful tool we have for fighting the killing: the disgust and outrage of the general public.

But recognizing the problem is the first step in being clear about the solution. If drones render killing 100% invisible, WE must find a way to make drone killing 100% VISIBLE.

Drone killing: 100% visible. We now know what we need to do. The rest is just implementation.


More at: Can we stop the DRONES?

* * * * * *

Are you working to make drone killing 100% visible? Connect with others at the STOP the Drone Killing! Grassroots Coalition group page on Facebook.

My post on Drones and Zero Accountability Government has lots more links on the problem of drone killing ....

Photos: Predator drone silhouette from The Christian Science Monitor; Pakistani child victims from Examiner.com

* * * * * *

Check out this collage of NATO killings on Tumblr.

Take a look at the important work to protest drone killings being done by The Upstate NY Coalition to Ground the Drones & End the Wars

* * * * * *

People on Twitter are making the #drones killing 100% VISIBLE:

* * * * * *

We made the drone killing 100% visible on May 17 on the streets of Chicago, during the NATO protests.

Related posts

Five big realizations I'm taking away from the 2013 CODEPINK Drone Summit "Drones Around the Globe: Proliferation and Resistance" in Washington, DC.

(See The 2013 DC Drones Conference: 5 Big Takeaways )

October, 2013: A new U.N. report makes it clear that the U.S. has to report fully on all its drone attacks.

(See 2014: The Year of Transparency (for U.S. Drone Use)?)

There was a lot of noise in Chicago during the NATO Summit. But one message we managed to get through -- at least to some people -- was that people in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and many other places are being injured and killed in their names ... and that if that bothers their consciences they can get active and do something about it.

(See Making Drone Killing 100% VISIBLE in Chicago!)

 In 1984, the transgressive act that starts Winston Smith on the path of resistance is writing in a diary, and the memory that he chooses to record is an eerie vision of our own time: " . . . then the helicopter planted a 20 kilo bomb in among them terrific flash and the boat went all to matchwood. then there was a wonderful shot of a childs arm going up up up right up into the air . . . "

(See Orwell: Making the Drone Killing Visible )



Nuclear radiation is invisible. It needs to be measured and counted to be recognized, and it requires careful scientific method to be understood. Measuring and counting and science are difficult. But . . .

(See GLOBAL HIBAKUSHA: Doing the work to render the invisible visible)