Drones Abroad and at Home: Why We Should Care

Wednesday, 12 March 2014 12:55 By Ed Kinane, SpeakOut | Op-Ed  in Truthout

"The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"
- C. Little

Chicken Little got it wrong. The sky isn't exactly falling, but it does pose lethal threats. Those threats are near and long term, domestic and international. They entail surveillance and terror.

Weaponized unmanned drone aircraft – the Predator, the Reaper, the Global Hawk - have no crew on board. Hence no head, no heart. These drones are amoral robots exquisitely designed to spy and to kill, to maim and to demolish. Out of the blue, their 500-pound bombs and Hellfire missiles strike like lightning bolts.

Stateside technicians piloting them see their human targets as through a soda straw. Their computer screen vision is severely constricted. Their cultural understanding is distorted by American exceptionalism and prevailing Islamophobia.

Further, the pilots' moral vision tends to be compartmentalized. How could it be otherwise? Military training features "killing and blowing up things." Recruits are dehumanized, the better to dehumanize the "enemy." They are programmed to follow orders without question. Extensions of the drones, they too become robotized.

In their illegality, their immorality and their inhumanity, these death squads play the devil. In executing non-combatants without judge or jury - without due process - these vigilantes and their chain of command play God.

Why should we care?

Out of self-interest – whether narrowly or broadly defined. Drone technology - cheaper and more nimble than jet aircraft or nuclear weaponry - rapidly evolves and proliferates.

Currently, the US and Israel are on the very cutting edge of drone design and deployment. For fear of being arms race losers, dozens of other nations are also acquiring drone technology. Some use drones to intimidate domestic dissent or to suppress tribal minorities.

Drones become dark angels exacting revenge. Not all nations look fondly upon the US and its "interests." Given the resentment generated by promiscuous drone strikes, this hostility and dread triggers blowback. The world is not made safer.

Drone strikes are classified, anonymous. Often, they defy investigation. Often, the victims can be neither named nor counted. But we know drone strikes occur in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, as well as in Muslim areas of Africa and the Philippines. And who knows where else.

Thanks to the US nuclear arsenal, the leaders of every nation have long been forced to defer to the US. Now, in the face of the US drone fleet, they must doubly do so. Opposing the world's most militarized nation - one that claims the obscene privilege to assassinate whenever and wherever it chooses - is imprudent.

Chickens come home to roost. Will we be next? Drone targets won't always be the poor, the defenseless, the non-Judeo-Christian. Nor will the targets always be "them" or "over there."
With billions in contracts and research grants, the US drone industry is burgeoning...and busy lobbying. The FAA is mandated to expedite domestic drone use. Conveniently, much of the US population think drones are "cool" and "save lives."

Thanks to pro-drone mainstream media hype, the public is already de-sensitized to extrajudicial execution. Opting for a delusional security, they tolerate, even welcome, creeping surveillance at home. Think NSA.

Police and intelligence agencies drool at the prospect of using these toys - initially unweaponized - here. Whether we trust the President and his advisors, whether we embrace the Pentagon and Homeland Security agenda, must we keep ceding unaccountable power to them?

This article is a Truthout original. 

Ed Kinane works with Upstate Drone Action to expose and indict US Reaper drone attacks. Many such attacks originate from the 174th Attack Wing of the NY Air National Guard at Hancock Air Base near Syracuse. Check upstatedroneaction.org or reach Ed at edkinane@verizon.net.

 

Related Stories

Armed Drones Becoming the Norm? At the Crossroads of Robotic Warfare

By Margaret Flowers and Kevin Zeese, Truthout | News Analysis

The Dangerous Seduction of Drones

By Medea Benjamin, OtherWords | Op-Ed

UN report identifies 30 drone strikes that require ‘public explanation’

March 1, 2014 by Alice K Ross

Published in: All Stories, Covert Drone War    The Bureau of Investigative Journalism

A UN counter-terrorism expert has published the second report of his year-long investigation into drone strikes, highlighting 30 strikes where civilians are reported to have been killed.

The report, by British lawyer Ben Emmerson QC, identifies 30 attacks between 2006 and 2013 that show sufficient indications of civilian deaths to demand a ‘public explanation of the circumstances and the justification for the use of deadly force’ under international law.

Emmerson analysed 37 strikes carried out by the US, UK and Israel in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and Gaza, to arrive at a ‘sample’ of strikes that he believes those nations have a legal duty to explain.

Britain and the US conduct strikes as part of the armed conflict in Afghanistan, and the US also conducts covert strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia.

Although Israel has never officially acknowledged using armed drones, Emmerson met with Israeli officials in the course of preparing his report and lists seven attacks in Gaza among those requiring investigation.

This report expands on an argument for the legal obligation for states to investigate and account for credible claims of civilian casualties, which Emmerson first laid out in his previous report, presented to the UN General Assembly in October.

He writes: ‘in any case in which there have been, or appear to have been, civilian casualties that were not anticipated when the attack was planned, the State responsible is under an obligation to conduct a prompt, independent and impartial fact-finding inquiry and to provide a detailed public explanation of the results.’

A February 2010 attack in Afghanistan serves as a ‘benchmark’ of the kind of disclosure that should follow claims of civilian casualties.

After a US drone attack on a convoy of trucks reportedly killed up to 23 civilians, the International Security Assistance Force (Isaf), which runs international operations in Afghanistan, partially declassified the findings of its internal investigation. Emmerson writes that this report strongly criticised the crew’s actions and revealed ‘a propensity to “kinetic activity” [lethal action]‘.
This level of transparency is rare.

The most recent incident featured in Emmerson’s report is a December 2013 attack that hit a wedding procession near Rada’a in Yemen, killing at least 12. Multiple sources have identified numerous civilian casualties among the dead, including a Human Rights Watch investigation published last week.

Three unnamed US officials told Associated Press after the publication of Human Rights Watch’s report that an internal investigation had found only alleged militants were killed – but no results of this investigation have yet been officially released.

Continue article here. 

US Drone Strike Kills US-Backed Afghan Soldiers

 At least five reported killed and many injured as "precision" weapon obliterates allies on the ground - Jon Queally, staff writer

Published on Thursday, March 6, 2014 by Common Dreams

At least five Afghan National Army soldiers in Logar Province are dead and many others injured on Thursday after a U.S. drone bombed a former NATO-run military outpost in Afghanistan.

The latest incident of mistaken targeting by a U.S. drone—which the military and Obama administration call a "precision" weapon—is sure to further outrage ordinary Afghans as well as President Hamid Karzai who has repeatedly, and with increasing anger, criticized bother NATO and U.S. forces for their disregard of Afghan lives while operating within the country.

“We believe the strike was the result of poor coordination between the people on the ground and the operators of the drone,” said Din Mohammad Darwish, a spokesman for the governor of Logar Province, which is in the east of Afghanistan.

“The area is frequented by insurgents both foreign and local, and drone strikes are carried out quite often in that part of Charkh,” Darwish continued. “The A.N.A. outpost was part of the security belt in the province.”

According to Agence France-Presse:

Khalilullah Kamal, the Charkh district governor, told AFP he had visited the site of the attack, which he said was from a US drone.

‘‘The post is totally destroyed,’’ he said.

‘‘The Americans used to be in that post but since they left, the ANA [Afghan national army] took over. The post is on a hilltop. The attack was conducted by drones.’’
NATO’s International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) issued a statement following the bombing which confirmed that at least five Afghan soldiers had been killed.

"An investigation is being conducted at this time to determine the circumstances that led to this unfortunate incident,’’ read the statement. ‘‘Our condolences go out to the families of the ANA soldiers who lost their lives and were wounded ... we will determine what actions will be taken to ensure incidents like this do not happen again.’’

The New York Times adds: "While no hard data is available, the American military has apparently been using drones in Afghanistan with increasing frequency after strict controls were imposed on airstrikes to prevent civilian casualties, as well as complaints by the Afghan military that they were not getting adequate air support for their operations."

Spring Days of ACTION

An international call for Spring Days of Action – 2014, a coordinated campaign in April and May to:

End Drone Killing, Drone Surveillance and Global Militarization

Check out the organizing website of the campaign against drones.

Locally in the Twin Cities of Minnesota, save the dates of Wednesday April 30 and Saturday May 17 for days of action.  More information forthcoming.
Sign up for WAMM's email calendar and ACTION alerts to be kept up-to-date on events and actions. Click here.

10:00 am Friday Panel Discussion on Drones and Resistance to Military and Surveillance Drones

Friday February 28, at 11:00 am ET, Fellowship of Reconciliation will host
a Panel Discussion on Drones and Resistance to Military and Surveillance Drones
at  Vonvo.com  

You will be able to see  the speakers in video boxes with a chat box below for submitting questions to panelists and talking with other viewers.  

The Speakers are:
Noor Mir of CodePink,
Nick Mottern of the National Network to End Drone Killing, Drone Surveillance and Global Militarization
Judy Bello of the Upstate Coalition to Ground the Drones and End the Wars

Moderator: Leila Zand of Fellowship of Reconciliation

https://vonvo.com

The NSA’s Secret Role in the U.S. Assassination Program

By Jeremy Scahill and Glenn Greenwald

The Intercept - new website by Scahill and Greenwald

The National Security Agency is using complex analysis of electronic surveillance, rather than human intelligence, as the primary method to locate targets for lethal drone strikes – an unreliable tactic that results in the deaths of innocent or unidentified people.

According to a former drone operator for the military’s Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) who also worked with the NSA, the agency often identifies targets based on controversial metadata analysis and cell-phone tracking technologies. Rather than confirming a target’s identity with operatives or informants on the ground, the CIA or the U.S. military then orders a strike based on the activity and location of the mobile phone a person is believed to be using.

The drone operator, who agreed to discuss the top-secret programs on the condition of anonymity, was a member of JSOC’s High Value Targeting task force, which is charged with identifying, capturing or killing terrorist suspects in Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

His account is bolstered by top-secret NSA documents previously provided by whistleblower Edward Snowden. It is also supported by a former drone sensor operator with the U.S. Air Force, Brandon Bryant, who has become an outspoken critic of the lethal operations in which he was directly involved in Iraq, Afghanistan and Yemen.

In one tactic, the NSA “geolocates” the SIM card or handset of a suspected terrorist’s mobile phone, enabling the CIA and U.S. military to conduct night raids and drone strikes to kill or capture the individual in possession of the device.

The former JSOC drone operator is adamant that the technology has been responsible for taking out terrorists and networks of people facilitating improvised explosive device attacks against U.S. forces in Afghanistan. But he also states that innocent people have “absolutely” been killed as a result of the NSA’s increasing reliance on the surveillance tactic.

One problem, he explains, is that targets are increasingly aware of the NSA’s reliance on geolocating, and have moved to thwart the tactic. Some have as many as 16 different SIM cards associated with their identity within the High Value Target system. Others, unaware that their mobile phone is being targeted, lend their phone, with the SIM card in it, to friends, children, spouses and family members.

Some top Taliban leaders, knowing of the NSA’s targeting method, have purposely and randomly distributed SIM cards among their units in order to elude their trackers. “They would do things like go to meetings, take all their SIM cards out, put them in a bag, mix them up, and everybody gets a different SIM card when they leave,” the former drone operator says. “That’s how they confuse us.”

As a result, even when the agency correctly identifies and targets a SIM card belonging to a terror suspect, the phone may actually be carried by someone else, who is then killed in a strike. According to the former drone operator, the geolocation cells at the NSA that run the tracking program – known as Geo Cell –sometimes facilitate strikes without knowing whether the individual in possession of a tracked cell phone or SIM card is in fact the intended target of the strike.

 Continues...Read article here.

Obama officials weigh drone attack on US suspect

By KIMBERLY DOZIER

AP Intelligence Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The case of an American citizen and suspected member of al-Qaida who is allegedly planning attacks on U.S. targets overseas underscores the complexities of President Barack Obama's new stricter targeting guidelines for the use of deadly drones.

The CIA drones watching him cannot strike because he's a U.S. citizen. The Pentagon drones that could are barred from the country where he's hiding, and the Justice Department has not yet finished building a case against him.

Four U.S. officials said the American suspected terrorist is in a country that refuses U.S. military action on its soil and that has proved unable to go after him. And Obama's new policy says American suspected terrorists overseas can only be killed by the military, not the CIA, creating a policy conundrum for the White House.

Two of the officials described the man as an al-Qaida facilitator who has been directly responsible for deadly attacks against U.S. citizens overseas and who continues to plan attacks against them that would use improvised explosive devices.

The officials said the suspected terrorist is well-guarded and in a fairly remote location, so any unilateral attempt by U.S. troops to capture him would be risky and even more politically explosive than a U.S. missile strike.

White House press secretary Jay Carney said Monday he would not comment on specific operations and pointed to Obama's comments in the major counterterrorism speech last May about drone policy.

"When a U.S. citizen goes abroad to wage war against America and is actively plotting to kill U.S. citizens, and when neither the United States, nor our partners are in a position to capture him before he carries out a plot, his citizenship should no more serve as a shield than a sniper shooting down on an innocent crowd should be protected from a SWAT team," Carney said, quoting from Obama's speech last year.

Under new guidelines Obama addressed in the speech made to calm anger overseas at the extent of the U.S. drone campaign, 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." The target must also pose "a continuing, imminent threat to U.S. persons" - the legal definition of catching someone in the act of plotting a lethal attack.

The Associated Press has agreed to the government's request to withhold the name of the country where the suspected terrorist is believed to be because officials said publishing it could interrupt ongoing counterterror operations.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the classified drone targeting program publicly.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Mich., complained last week that a number of terrorist suspects were all but out of reach under the administration's new rules that limit drone strikes based on the target's nationality or location. Two of the U.S. officials said the Justice Department review of the American suspected terrorist started last fall.

The senior administration official confirmed that the Justice Department was working to build a case against the suspected terrorist. The official said, however, the legal procedure being followed is the same as when the U.S. killed militant cleric and former Virginia resident Anwar al-Awlaki by drone in Yemen in 2011, long before the new targeted killing policy took effect.

The official said the president could make an exception to his policy and authorize the CIA to strike on a onetime basis or authorize the Pentagon to act despite the possible objections of the country in question.

Continue article here.