On torture, war crimes and hypocrisy

So Democrats in Congress are up in arms about revelations that our government tortured inmates as part of the War on Everything Terror. It's not like this was new information. We've known about it for years. Books have been published based on government documents. Those senators and representatives on the various intelligence committees and oversight committees knew all about it.

But now that the Senate Intelligence Committee has released a summary of its findings, we must all show a renewed sense of indignation. I'm sure there are a few poor souls out there who had no idea this kind of thing must be going on and who are relying on Fox News to shape their opinions and give them some talking points to defend illegal behavior.

Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Cal), among others, has railed at the CIA and the Bush Administration for implementing the program. But, where is that same indignation at the innocent bystanders killed by unmanned US drone attacks in the Middle East? Where is that same indignation when a Hellfire missile tears apart the bodies of women and children out in the fields?

For all of her pontificating about the evils of the torture program (and don't misunderstand my point, those who carried out the program are all guilty of war crimes and should be held to account for their actions), Ms. Feinstein has been a champion of killing innocent men, women and children in illegal missile attacks in foreign countries.

And where has President Obama been through this? He stood in front of a microphone and said we needed to look forward instead of placing blame for past sins. Of course this is the standard line uttered by all presidents when confronted with the illegalities of the prior administration. His pledge to look forward only serves to protect those who have committed illegal acts in his administration - for if he isn't looking to prosecute those who did bad before him, whoever next occupies the White House won't throw the book at members of the Obama administration.

And that's how we undermine the idea that our nation operates under the rule of law.

What goes up must come down

Now that the aerial search for the missing Malaysia Airlines jet has been called off, resources can now be turned toward finding the unmanned drone that crashed (under mysterious) circumstances in Lake Conroe. While the part of the Indian Ocean many believe the airliner crashed in is considered extremely remote, Lake Conroe has often been described as being on the very edge of civilization.

For some strange reason the Montgomery County Sheriff's Office made the decision - that was then ratified by county commissioners - to spend a quarter of a million dollars on an unmanned drone to provide aerial reconnaissance of SWAT team operations.

Dive teams have been unable to locate the remains of the drone due to conditions at the bottom of the lake.

Now why would a law enforcement agency in a suburban county need a $250,000 unmanned drone? Beyond the obvious reason that they could brag about having one, I can't think of any. While a spokesman for the Sheriff's Office said that the drone wasn't used for surveillance, I seem to recall the NSA claiming that Edward Snowden's claims were false. We all know how that turned out.

The use of unmanned drones by law enforcement is very troubling. The only reason a law enforcement agency would want a device capable of viewing the ground from up high is to find out what folks are doing on their property sheltered from the unauthorized view of law enforcement officers on the ground. With a camera-equipped drone flying overhead there is no such thing as privacy as the eye in the sky can see it all.

The use of drones, as well as the outfitting of police officers in military-style gear, is another move toward the militarization of the police. It is symbolic of the "us-against-them" mentality that seems to have taken hold in law enforcement over the past decade.

The incompetence of the folks operating the unmanned drone has cost Montgomery County taxpayers a lot of money - money that could have been used for parks or roads. Maybe those in charge of the county's purse strings will think twice about writing another check for another shiny toy.

Trusting blindly and swallowing whole

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.  - Fifth Amendment, US Constitution

Back in September 2011 a US drone flying over Yemen fired a missile at a car in which two American citizens were riding. The blast killed Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical cleric who may or may not have had ties with al-Qaeda and Samir Khan. Two weeks later another drone fired a missile into a crowd at an outdoor cafe killing Mr. al-Awlaki's 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman, who was also an American citizen.

The US government claimed that Mr. al-Awlaki was in a leadership position in al-Qaeda and that his murder was justified in protecting the national security of the United States. The government also claimed that it had no idea that al-Awlaki's son was in the cafe when it was attacked.

The decisions to kill these Americans was made by a small cabal of government officials huddled in the White House. There were no formal charges. There were no indictments. There were no probable cause hearings. There was no discovery. There was no trial. There was nothing but a star chamber who looked over a list of names and decided who would live and who would die.

Mr. al-Awlaki's parents brought suit against the United States government for the murder of their son and grandson. They alleged that the government's actions had amounted to depriving Mr. al-Awlaki and his son life without due process of law.

Last week US District Court Judge Rosemary Collyer of the District of Columbia tossed out the lawsuit. She chose not to believe that the government had deprived both Mr. al-Awlaki and his son of their due process rights. She fell lockstep in with the official line that we live in dangerous times and that we should trust our government to make the right choices.

In her opinion, Judge Collyer ran through a list of government entities that had looked into Mr. al-Awlaki's background and status. She fully accepted the proposition that if a government agency investigates a matter and draws a conclusion that the conclusion must be accepted as valid.

She, of course, never seemed to give a second thought to the idea that sometimes the government gets it wrong. Everyday across this country there are juries who return verdicts of not guilty in criminal cases because they didn't believe the government had proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt. There are cases dismissed in courts across their country every day because prosecutors come to the realization that they just can't prove their case.

But for Judge Collyer you don't even have to go that far. In her mind the allegation alone - if it is repeated by enough people - is sufficient to prove guilt.

The evidence supporting the government's allegations against Anwar al-Awlaki was never tested in the crucible of trial. The government's witnesses were never challenged on the stand. Mr. al-Awlaki was never given the opportunity to respond. In short, the system of laws that we have in place to "protect" those charged with criminal offenses was ignored by a judge who was looking for any reason to dismiss the case.

In this case the US government exercised its most invasive power - the power to determine who should die - against three American citizens without affording them due process of law. And a judge who swore she would uphold the law and the constitution blindly accepted the government's story without so much as a doubt.

The message is quite clear. The government is here to protect you. Such quaint notions as due process only make it harder for the government to do its job. Besides, why would anyone from the government lie?

Cameron Willingham was accused by the State of Texas of setting his house on fire and killing his children. He was indicted. He was tried. He was convicted. He was murdered by the state. And he was innocent. Sure, he was afforded his due process rights - and look how much good it did him.

Michael Morton was accused by the State of Texas of killing his wife. He was indicted. He was tried. He was convicted. He sat in prison for 25 years before he was exonerated when his attorneys discovered the games that Williamson County prosecutors played during the investigation and during trial. He was afforded his due process rights - and he lost 25 years of his life.

Anthony Graves was accused by the State of Texas of murder. He was indicted. He was tried. He was convicted. He was sentenced to death and sat on death row for more than two decades when his attorneys uncovered the illegal and unethical actions taken by the prosecutor. He was afforded his due process rights - and stared death in the face.

But still Judge Gallyon thought it was enough that someone from the government said that Anwar al-Awlaki was a bad guy and deserved to die. And that is a very frighting notion. The fact that it was a judge makes it even worse.

H/T Democracy Now! and Center for Constitutional Rights

Missing the point entirely

A little bit over a week ago Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch released reports that humanized the victims of US drone attacks in Pakistan and Yemen. The reports presented case studies of the people who were victimized by the "surgical strikes" carried out by unmanned drones flying high overhead.

The debate in the media afterward, however, was restricted to two viewpoints - is it more humane to send troops into Yemen and Pakistan to kill suspected militants or to fire missiles at folks whom the US thinks are militants?

With the exception of the progressive media, and shows such as Democracy Now!, no one questioned whether the US had any right to invade the sovereignty of another nation and kill its citizens based on nothing more than a belief that someone was up to no good. No one questioned whether killing folks without some semblance of due process of law was right. No one questioned the notion that anyone who happens to be hanging out with someone the US thinks is a terrorist is fair game for a missile strike.

Even more obscene was the notion that the only thing that matters in the calculus of making the decision between troops and drones is the expected casualty rate of American soldiers. No one gave a second thought to the innocent men, women and children who have been victimized by drones flown by anonymous personnel sitting in an office in the United States. As far as they were concerned, they were nothing more than collateral damage - and, since they weren't Americans, they didn't matter anyway.

The real question is not about reducing potential American casualties. The real question is will anyone ever be held accountable for the gross violations of human rights caused by the United States? Will the people who "flew" the drones ever be held accountable? Will their military commanders ever be held accountable? Will the President ever be held accountable?

Pakistan and Yemen are sovereign nations. The US has no business flying lethal killing machines over their airspace. Just imagine, for a second, the utter outrage that would result from another country sending armed drones into US airspace to take out someone they suspected of plotting some type of terror attack. Just imagine the reaction of our elected "leaders" when innocent men, women and children who had nothing to do with any planned attack were killed, maimed or wounded as a result of a missile attack in a populated area.

This notion that we have the authority to go into any country and do as we wish to anyone we suspect of being a terrorist is a remnant of imperialism. This idea that the US can do as it wishes when it comes to the War on Everything Terror is the ultimate example of hubris.

The right to live is the most basic human right of them all. Even the most repressive nations have some type of mechanism for arresting, charging and trying those suspected of breaking the law. Those mechanisms may very well not be perfect but a framework exists.

But when the US decides to kill someone they suspect of being a terrorist, there is no mechanism to arresting, charging or trying that individual. There is no semblance of due process. Without so much as a hearing to determine probable cause, the president can order a drone strike. Even worse are the so-called "signature strikes" in which the person ordering the murder doesn't even know who he's killing. Check off enough boxes and you can claim that all signs indicate that John Doe is a terrorist and needs to be blown to bits. And what of those folks around him who had absolutely nothing to do with his alleged acts? They don't even merit a second thought.

Droning on and on and on

It's always amusing when a right wing-nut suddenly becomes a champion of privacy and the citizenry's right to be left alone by the government. They have no problem with the government telling folks with whom they can sleep. They have no problem with the government telling folks who they can and cannot marry. They have no problem sticking their noses up a woman's uterus and telling her what medical procedures she can and cannot have. They have no problem with the steady erosion of the Fourth Amendment.

But now Ted Poe's a believer. He is up in arms about the possibility of unmanned drones patrolling the skies over Houston.

"There will be some more changes in that it will be specific about law enforcement use, civilian use, and commercial use, and the overriding concern about constitutional protection of the Fourth Amendment and the right of privacy," Poe said of the legislation, which he did not expect to be considered until next year. "So were going to get everybody involved in that situation before we see more drones in the air."

Of course as long as the drones are flying over the Middle East and dropping bombs on dark-skinned folks Mr. Poe hasn't a problem.

But I'm more than happy to welcome Mr. Poe to our side in the fight against government intrusion in our lives. I'm more than happy to have him push for the restoration of our Fourth Amendment rights against unwarranted government search and seizure.

I share Mr. Poe's concerns about the dangers of unmanned drones over Houston. With their eyes in the sky, the police will be able to see things they could never see without a search warrant. They will be able to see things they would never be able to see absent a showing of probable cause.

And, if the test to determine the reasonableness of a search then unmanned drones will all but do away with any reasonable expectation of privacy we might have outside our homes. If the owner of a piece of land also is considered to be the owner of the earth beneath him, maybe the answer is to extend that "ownership" to the space above as well. Just a thought.

The unmanned drone lobby (yes, there is such a beast) argues that the more drones, the merrier.

Gretchen West, executive vice president of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems, said the introduction of drones into the nation's airspace could add 23,000 new jobs by 2025. Her group of 6,300 members includes 225 in Texas, including BAE Systems, Lockheed Martin, and Raytheon.

Well, there you go. You do have a choice. You can choose between your right to privacy or jobs. In these economic times it would be just plain unpatriotic to sacrifice jobs for the Fourth Amendment.

It couldn't be that BAE Systems, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and the other members of the drone lobby make their profits off the threat of continual war, could it? These companies have sat down at the public trough and taken our tax dollars to produce items whose sole purpose is to kill. These companies pump massive amounts of dollars into political campaigns in order to prevent the bloated defense budget from being cut down to size.

So, Ted, I'm with you, man. Let's work together to get the government out of our private lives. Let's work together to strengthen the Fourth Amendment. Let's work together to end the military-industrial complex.

The man with his finger on the button

Well so much for all that checks and balances nonsense. Not to mention all that talk of separation of powers. The Obama White House has decided to dispense with any semblance to due process (even lip service) when it comes to the extra-judicial killing of alleged terrorists.

And, while we're at it, who came up with the term "extra-judicial killing?" Why don't we just call it what it is - murder.

John Brennan is the man with his finger on the fire button of the drones. He is the man who decides who goes on the hit list and who is targeted to be murdered. Without having to go through the layers of bureaucracy at the Pentagon, the CIA and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the killing machine can be operated much more efficiently - and with even fewer checks on its power.

In war the commanders in the field decide where to fire and with what force. If the leader of a supposed terrorist cell is in the way, then so be it. Not that killing people is ever going to engender the warm and fuzzy feelings that proponents of the counter-insurgency movement are looking for, but, killing is, after all, part of war.

What the Obama Administration is doing is not part and parcel of war. War can only be declared by Congress against another country or army. The drone attacks are being carried out against those that los federales have decided - absent a finding of guilt - are either terrorists or people providing material support for terrorists.

When did we cede the authority to decide who lives and who dies to an unelected bureaucrat in Washington? Where in the Constitution does it give an unelected official the authority to sentence a man to death without his ever being indicted?

President Obama wants you to think that he's tough on terrorism and will continue to fight the War on the Constitution Terrorism with passion so that you'll vote to return him to office this fall. But what the president is doing doesn't mean that he's going to be tough on the bad guys - it means that he will disregard the Constitution whenever it suits his purposes. And, in that regard, he's no different than the man who preceded him in the White House.

On January 20, 2009, President Obama took an oath to defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States; what he is doing with regard to the murder-by-drone program is a direct attack on that document.

Droning on and on

Under the Obama Administration, the United States has upped the ante when it comes to unmanned drone attacks. And, along with the increased use of drones, come more innocents who end up dead.

President Obama defends his use of drones by claiming they are used to make targeted strikes at suspected terrorists on the other side of the world. What Mr. Obama, and other proponents of drone attacks, seem to forget is that bombs are not the most precise, discriminating killers. While you might very well be able to program a drone to drop a bomb on a particular building, you can't control who's in the building. You also can't control the collateral damage (read: innocent dead people) that results from an explosion.

The history of warfare can best be analogized as looking to see from how far away you can kill someone. We went from hand-to-hand combat to bows and arrows to guns to bombs to drones. War has become a video game for those who oversee the drone program.

But, for all the government's self-congratulatory backslapping after every death by drone, what would the reaction be if another country entered the United States and murdered one of their enemies of the state? What would the reaction be if another country conducted a "surgical strike" in the US that left innocent folks laying dead in the streets?

But, hey, we don't have to worry about that now, do we? I mean, we're talking about a bunch of brown-skinned people who worship their god in a different way. So what's the problem?

Calling someone an enemy combatant doesn't change the calculus. The US is entering another country for the purpose of killing someone without due process of law. In fact, without any consideration of any other country's laws. As Jeff Gamso is wont to point out, the United States is supposed to follow the rule of law - not the law of rule.

Where's the outrage? If it's okay for los federales to carry out extra-judicial (just love that term) murders overseas, what's to prevent another country from invoking the same principle and carrying them our in our streets? Oh, that's right - if someone were to do that here they would face the mighty wrath of the US military but since no one is willing to stand up to the big bully, the US is able to act with impunity.

Still the fact remains, murder is murder, no matter how much you might try to sugar coat it.

Click here to watch the live stream of the International Drones Conference this weekend.

H/T Democracy Now!

Does this thing work?

Well of course the Montgomery County Sheriff's Department needed a drone. Law enforcement agencies are lined up like lemmings outside an Apple store to get their hands on the last must-have toy.

Nevermind those annoying little questions like, for instance, just what the hell do you need a drone for anyway? The people asking that just don't get it. And what fun is it for a SWAT unit to sit outside a building with their rifles at the ready when someone could be flying a remote controlled aircraft overhead?

Okay, forget for a second that the drone can't look inside the building it's flying over. Unless, that is, someone is  holding hostages on the roof.

Not only are the use of drones a growing threat to our right to be left alone by the government, our safety may also be under attack - by the drones themselves.

It would seem there was a little snafu up in Montgomery County the other day. The sheriff, Tommy Gage, his command team and a SWAT unit were conducting a little demonstration of the effectiveness of their new toy law enforcement tool. It was photo op day and the brass were out in force.

Unfortunately, things didn't end quite the way it had all been drawn up. You see, the drone, flying all of 18 feet off the ground, somehow managed to lose contact with the remote control unit. Oops. The drone, having lost its signal, then shut itself off. But the most delicious part of the exercise?

The drone crashed into the SWAT unit's special "Bearcat" armored vehicle. And the need for a law enforcement agency to have an armored vehicle is another subject for another day.

Thank god the officers were well-protected from their own devices.

Montgomery County Sheriff Tommy Gage could not be reached for comment, nor could his chief deputy in charge of his drone program.

I'm fairly certain that Mr. Gage would have only been too happy to talk to reporters after a "successful" photo op. He gets to look like he's really tough on crime and the public gets to see where their tax money goes. Now he just looks like a bumbling fool who wasted a fistful of dollars on a toy plane that doesn't work.