Is there a distinction between America’s targeted killing of individuals and acts of murder?

Public domain.

Writing for Esquire, author Tom Junod raises some difficult questions in his article titled, The Lethal Presidency of Barack Obama. Junod’s words are especially troubling as my mindfulness meditation group is currently reading and discussing Thich Nhat Hanh’s book, Calming the Fearful Mind: a Zen response to terrorism, which I recommend to all people who are sincerely interested in peacemaking.” Nhat Hanh warns:

The military doesn’t know where terrorism is. They cannot locate terrorism-it is in the heart. The more military force you use, the more terrorists you create, in your own country and in other countries as well.

But back to The Lethal Presidency of Barack Obama:

Sure, we as a nation have always killed people. A lot of people. But no president has ever waged war by killing enemies one by one, targeting them individually for execution, wherever they are. The Obama administration has taken pains to tell us, over and over again, that they are careful, scrupulous of our laws, and determined to avoid the loss of collateral, innocent lives. They're careful because when it comes to waging war on individuals, the distinction between war and murder becomes a fine one. Especially when, on occasion, the individuals we target are Americans and when, in one instance, the collateral damage was an American boy.

Read more:

60 Minutes: Torture enemy detainees (Bush Administration) or kill them with Predator Drones (Obama Administration)?

Public domain: Abu Ghraib.

I came close to physical illness Sunday evening from watching Lesley Stahl’s interview of former CIA spy Jose Rodriguez on 60 Minutes. Rodriguez strenuously attempted to justify torture of enemy detainees. The details of the techniques practiced during the Bush Administration to extract information from suspected terrorists were the stuff of the worst nightmares. But as Kevin Gosztola points out in his post at FireDogLake, the interview reminded viewers that instead of capturing and torturing the suspects, the Obama Administration, simply kills them (along with any unfortunate innocents who get in the way) with Predator Drone attacks.

Gosztola writes:

Former head of the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) Counterterrorism Center and its former Deputy Director of Operations Jose Rodriguez appeared on CBS’ “60 Minutes” to flaunt his new book Hard Measures, which details how he came to be in charge of CIA torture against terror suspects at “black site” prisons, why he believes torture was effective and why it should not be vilified.

The segment with Lesley Stahl has the same title as Rodriguez’s book. The title sounds like the name of a film starring an action movie star like Chuck Norris or Steven Seagal, which makes it appropriate because each answer from Rodriguez is dripping with bravado. From Rodriguez’s first answer to the last, one cannot help but realize he believes it is somehow unmanly to be concerned that torture of terror suspects violates the rule of law. He appears in his sleek white Camaro rolling down the highway to the CIA. And he says at one point, “We needed to get everyone in government to put their big boy pants on and give us the authorities we needed.”

Of course, like most establishment media interviews, the torture is not called torture. It is called “harsh techniques.” Or the official term Cheney coined for it—“enhanced interrogation techniques.”

*Here are both parts of the interview: Part 1 / Part 2

 

The first words in the segment are, “After the attacks of 9/11…” That phrase is all one needs to hear to know that this is going to be a tireless exercise in explaining away acts that historically have been considered war crimes when carried out.

Read more:

The dark future foretold by drones: detaching brutality from humanity

The Reaper drone. Photo credits: Public Domain.

In A Brief History of Drones at The Nation, John Sifton points out the frightening linguistics associated with America’s unmanned aircraft:

The weapons’ names suggest ruthless and inhumane characteristics. The first drone aircraft deployed by the CIA and Air Force after 2001 was the Predator, a rather coarse name even for a weapons system, suggestive that the enemy was not human but merely prey, that military operations were not combat subject to the laws of war but a hunt. (Some of the computer software used by the military and the CIA to calculate expected civilian casualties during airstrikes is known in government circles as Bug Splat.) The Predator’s manufacturer, General Atomics, later developed the larger Reaper, a moniker implying that the United States was fate itself, cutting down enemies who were destined to die. That the drones’ payloads were called Hellfire missiles, invoking the punishment of the afterlife, added to a sense of righteousness.

Sifton continues:

But the real issue is the context of how drones kill. The curious characteristic of drones—and the names reinforce this—is that they are used primarily to target individual humans, not places or military forces as such. Yet they simultaneously obscure the human role in perpetrating the violence. Unlike a missile strike, in which a physical or geographic target is chosen beforehand, drones linger, looking precisely for a target—a human target. And yet, at the same time, the perpetrator of the violence is not physically present. Observers are drawn toward thinking that it is the Predator that kills Anwar al-Awlaki, or its Hellfire missiles, not the CIA officers who order the weapons’ engagement. On the one hand, we have the most intimate form of violence—the targeted killing of a specific person, which in some contexts is called assassination—while on the other hand, the least intimate of weapons.

This characteristic, the distance between targets and CIA executive officers at Langley, is the defining characteristic of drones. They are the zenith of the technological quest that runs back to the invention of slings and arrows thousands of years ago, efforts of the earliest perpetrators of violence to get away from their victims. That process, which brought catapults and later artillery, reached its first peak with the development of intercontinental nuclear missiles; but those are weapons of limited tactical use and have never been used. Drones allow all the alienation of long-range missions but with much more flexibility and capacity for everyday use. The net result is everyday violence with all the distance and alienation of ICBMs. This is disturbing perhaps because alienation is disturbing.

Sifton concludes:

The issue is not that armed drones are more terrible or deadly than other weapons systems. On the contrary, the violence of drones today is more selective than many forms of military violence, and human rights groups recognize that drones, in comparison with less precise weapons, have the potential to minimize civilian casualties during legitimate military strikes.

Nor is the issue the remote delivery of weapons: alienation from the effects of violence reached a high-water mark in World War I. What makes drones disturbing is an unusual combination of characteristics: the distance between killer and killed, the asymmetry, the prospect of automation and, most of all, the minimization of pilot risk and political risk. It is the merging of these characteristics that draws the attention of journalists, military analysts, human rights researchers and Al Qaeda propagandists, suggesting something disturbing about what human violence may become. The unique technology allows the mundane and regular violence of military force to be separated further from human emotion. Drones foreshadow the idea that brutality could become detached from humanity—and yield violence that is, as it were, unconscious.

In this sense, drones foretell a future that is very dark indeed.

America’s role in returning civilization to the era of the ancient Hammurabi Code

Viktor Bout extradited to the United States aboard a Drug Enforcement Administration plane on Nov. 16, 2010. Photo by Drug Enforcement Administration (in the public domain).

The NY Times notes that Andrew Feinstein, a former member of the South African Parliament, is the author of “The Shadow World: Inside the Global Arms Trade.” The Times fittingly published Feinstein’s op-ed about corruption in the world arms trade on Veterans Day 2011.

As I read this piece, I wondered how long it would take before the likes of Victor Bout, the “Merchant of Death,” would be marketing worldwide the means for manufacturing Predator Drones, if not the actual missile-firing, unmanned air vehicles.

I’m speaking here of the same UAVs that destroyed the convoy in Libya mistakenly believed to be transporting Gaddafi, who was later found in a sewage pipe by rebels. According to videos, his captors brutally beat and humiliated their man before executing him.

Make no mistake, since 9/11 the U.S. has actively participated in returning world civilization to ca. 1780 B.C., the era of the Hammurabi Code, a Babylonian law code that defines justice as “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.”

Take a look at Feinstein’s op-ed and see if it doesn’t give you chills:

LAST week’s conviction of Viktor Bout, the so-called Merchant of Death, was a rare moment of triumph in the fight against the illicit arms trade.

But it points to the fundamental hypocrisy at the heart of the global trade in weapons: Governments protect corrupt and dangerous arms dealers as long as they need them and then throw them behind bars when they are no longer useful.

Arms deals stretch across a continuum of legality and ethics from the formal trade to the gray and black markets. In practice, the boundaries between the three markets are fuzzy.

With bribery and corruption de rigueur — a Transparency International study estimated that the arms trade accounted for almost 40 percent of corruption in all global trade — there are very few arms transactions that do not involve illegality, most often through middlemen, agents or dealers like Mr. Bout.

Mr. Bout made fortunes providing “transport and logistical” services — an oft-used euphemism favored by arms dealers — to conflict zones around the world on behalf of governments, the United Nations, large listed companies and myriad covert operators.

His clients included, among others, the Liberian dictator Charles Taylor, the Northern Alliance and then the Taliban in Afghanistan, a number of the protagonists in the Balkans, the Angolan government and its mortal enemy the Unita rebel movement, and all sides in the complex conflict that continues to rage in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Read more:

US continues to kill Pakistani civilians with drone attacks while accusing that nation of “exporting violent extremism”

Admiral Mike Mullen, chair of Joint Chiefs of Staff

America’s troubled relationship with Pakistan may be due in part to our addiction to the use of Predator drones, which are estimated to kill 10 Pakistani civilians for every militant. Keep in mind that our use of drones has increased in the several wars we’ve participated in since the day when newly inaugurated Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

It should have come as no surprise as reported in The Telegraph that Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently “accused Pakistan of ‘exporting’ violent extremism to Afghanistan by allowing militants to act as an ‘arm’ of the intelligence service.”

Today’s editorial in the NY Times titled The Latest Ugly Truth About Pakistan applauds Admiral Mullen for being a “truth teller,” but fails to mention the corresponding ugly truth of our drone attacks and the resulting civilian deaths:

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is a truth teller. He led the way among senior uniformed officers in urging repeal of the unconscionable “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on gays in the military and pressed to shift more troops from Iraq to Afghanistan.

Now, as he prepares to retire next week after a 43-year career, he is telling another hard truth. On Thursday, he told the Senate Armed Services Committee that Pakistan’s spy agency — Inter-Services Intelligence — played a direct role in supporting insurgents who attacked the American Embassy in Kabul last week, killing 16 people. He also said that with ISI support, the Haqqani network of terrorists planned and conducted an earlier truck bombing on a NATO outpost that killed 5 people and wounded 77 coalition troops, and other recent attacks. 

This was a calculated revelation after Admiral Mullen and other top officials made countless pleas and remonstrances to Pakistan trying to get it to sever all support and ties with the Taliban, the Haqqani network and other extremists who are killing American troops and spreading mayhem on both sides of the border. 

Read more: