America's Drone Sickness...

[Luminous Animal]

http://www.salon.com/2012/04/19/americas_drone_sickness/

This headline and first paragraph from today’s Washington Post scoop by Greg Miller speaks volumes about so many things:




There are many evils in the world, but extinguishing people’s lives with targeted, extra-judicial killings, when you don’t even know their names, based on “patterns” of behavior judged from thousands of miles away, definitely ranks high on the list. Although the Obama White House has not approved of this request from CIA Director David Petraeus, these so-called “signature strikes” that “allow the agency to hit targets based solely on intelligence indicating patterns of suspicious behavior” are already robustly used in Pakistan — having been started by George Bush in 2008 and aggressively escalated by Barack Obama. There is much to say on this new report, but in order for me to focus on three discrete points, permit me to highly recommend two superb articles that highlight other vital aspects of this policy: (1) this article from my Salon colleague Jefferson Morley this morning on why this form of drone-targeting is pure American Terrorism, and (2) this essay from Chris Floyd about a recently published Rolling Stone article by Michael Hastings on Obama’s love of drones and secret wars and how the military’s slang for drone victims — “bug splat” — reflects the sociopathic mindset that drive them.

Petraeus and the signature of U.S. terror
The CIA pressures Obama to step up indiscriminate attacks in Yemen
By Jefferson Morley
http://www.salon.com/2012/04/19/petraeus_and_the_signature_of_u_s_terror/

The brutality of “signature strikes” is not new for the CIA leadership. As the London-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism has reliably reported, “signature strikes” have regularly targeted funeral ceremonies in Pakistan. The amorality of the U.S. actions is chilling. An alleged militant is killed by a U.S. drone. Then when his family and friends try to come to mourn him, the U.S. attacks the gathering from the sky, on the grounds that attending an al-Qaida funeral is evidence of hostile intentions toward the United States. In one such attack reported by the New York Times in June 2009, 60 people were killed. Local press accounts of the incident, cited by BIJ, put the death toll at 83, 45 of whom were non-combatants. It is said that 10 were children.

...

It seems Petraeus and his allies in the current inter-agency debate do not want to be constrained by a list. They calculate if the U.S. slaughters a particular crowd of people at an al-Qaida funeral, they are sure to kill men plotting to attack the United States. The logic, if not the morality, is persuasive: If you kill the certainly innocent, you will also get some of the presumably guilty.

This is also the logic of terrorism, which is one reason why the defenders of “signature strikes” prefer that their names not be published in the Washington Post.

The Way of the Drone: Emblem for an Empire of Cowards
Written by Chris Floyd
http://chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/2235-the-way-of-the-drone-emblem-for-an-empire-of-cowards.html

The boy was probably killed in a "signature strike," where bold and brave CIA analysts sit back in their chairs and observe people going about their business in a foreign country far away. If their activities look "suspicious" according to some arbitrary, secret criteria, then they can be slaughtered instantly by a drone missile -- even if the attackers have no idea whatsoever who the targets are or what they are actually doing. Plotting terrorism, or praying? Organizing jihad, or holding a wedding? Building bombs, or having lunch? The attackers don't know -- and can't know. They simply put down their Cheetohs and fire the missile. Who cares? It's just "bug splatter."

And the fact is, no one does care. As Hastings notes, this hideous program of murder and terror has been fully embraced by the political elite and by society at large. And our rulers are now bringing it back home with a vengeance, putting more and more Americans under the unsleeping eye of government drones watching their every move, looking for the "signature" of "suspicious" behaviour. Hastings notes:

In the end, it appears, the administration has little reason to worry about any backlash from its decision to kill an American citizen – one who had not even been charged with a crime. A recent poll shows that most Democrats overwhelmingly support the drone program, and Congress passed a law in February that calls for the Federal Aviation Administration to "accelerate the integration of unmanned aerial systems" in the skies over America. Drones, which are already used to fight wildfires out West and keep an eye on the Mexican border, may soon be used to spy on U.S. citizens at home: Police in Miami and Houston have reportedly tested them for domestic use, and their counterparts in New York are also eager to deploy them.

History affords few if any examples of a free people -- in such a powerful country, under no existential threat, undergoing no invasion, no armed insurrection, no natural disaster or epidemic or societal collapse -- giving up their own freedoms so meekly, so mutely. Most Americans like to boast of their love of freedom, their rock-ribbed independence and their fiercely-held moral principles: yet they are happy to see the government claim -- and use -- the power to murder innocent people whenever it pleases while imposing an ever-spreading police state regimen on their lives and liberties. Sheep doped with Rohypnol would put up a stronger fight than these doughty patriots.

[gratuitous]

1. You want a thread that gets responses

Mentioning "drones" isn't going to do it. The sensible liberals all know better than to question the wisdom of our sociopathic overlords. As long as someone bleats "freedom" while the missiles are flying, the good Americans are quite all right with it. Later, when historians are sifting through what used to be the American empire, they'll come across some of these objections and wonder just how it was that so many people were oblivious/accepting.

We will surely not be judged kindly.

[Luminous Animal]

4. Though I am not surprised, I am pissed off how easily we've come to accept

our terrorist actions.

[Luminous Animal]

2. The CIA wants to kill Yeminis it merely guesses are terrorists.

[saras]

3. We'll get over it as soon as someone starts using them on us...

[sad sally]

5. Since the President said drone strikes never (or hardly ever) assassinate anyone unless they

are active terrorists (or family members, or neighbors, or someone who passed them on the street, or happened to be in the neighborhood where the terrorist was), and that it "has not caused a huge number of civilian casualties," we can believe him, or maybe not (imo).

In other words, a small to moderate number of innocent civilians who are killed by drone attacks are okay. Here's what seems to be an okay number of civilians murdered by drone strikes: Since Obama took office in 2009, “between 282 and 535 civilians have been credibly reported as killed, including more than 60 children,” writes Chris Woods of the London-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism. “A three-month investigation including eyewitness reports has found evidence that at least 50 civilians were killed in follow-up strikes when they had gone to help victims. More than 20 civilians have also been attacked in deliberate strikes on funerals and mourners.”

[Luminous Animal]

6. Okay with whom?

[sad sally]

9. Not me, but sadly, it looks like many Democrats do say using drones to murder anyone (either

determined to be a terrorist or by accident) is okay. From a February poll:
#####

Obama has also relied on armed drones far more than Bush did, and he has expanded their use beyond America’s defined war zones. The Post-ABC News poll found that 83 percent of Americans approve of Obama’s drone policy, which administration officials refuse to discuss, citing security concerns.

The president only recently acknowledged the existence of the drone program, which some human rights advocates say operates without a clear legal framework and in violation of the U.S. prohibition against assassination.

But fully 77 percent of liberal Democrats endorse the use of drones, meaning that Obama is unlikely to suffer any political consequences as a result of his policy in this election year.

Support for drone strikes against suspected terrorists stays high, dropping only somewhat when respondents are asked specifically about targeting American citizens living overseas, as was the case with Anwar al-Awlaki, the Yemeni American killed in September in a drone strike in northern Yemen.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/poll-finds-broad-support-for-obamas-counterterrorism-policies/2012/02/07/gIQAFrSEyQ_story.html

[trof]

7. Anonymous Death From Above.

Killing used to be hard.
Now it's easy.
And nobody has to know 'whodunnit'.
Is this a great country, or what?

[trof]

8. The Droner's Ballad:

Maybe you're to young to know the old standard ballad "You'd be so easy to love".

You'd be so easy to kill
So easy to annihilate, all others above
So worth the searching for
So swell to keep your home burning for

And we would be so grand at the game
Carefree together that it does seem a shame
That you can't see your future with me
'cause you'd be, oh, so easy to kill

You'd be so easy to kill
Easy to annihilate, all others above
So worth the yearning for
So swell to keep your home burning for

We'd be so grand at the game
So carefree together that it does seem a shame
That you can't see your future with me
'cause you'd be, oh, so easy to kil

Easy to kill
Easy to kill