Nobody Gives A Damn About U.S. Drones Killing Civilians

Common Dreams reported that:

Despite being heralded as the first time in history that U.S. lawmakers would hear directly from the survivors of a U.S. drone strike, only five elected officials chose to attend the congressional briefing that took place Tuesday.

Pakistani schoolteacher Rafiq ur Rehman and his two children—9 year-old daughter Nabila and 13 year-old son Zubair—came to Washington, DC to give their account of a U.S. drone attack that killed Rafiq's mother, Momina Bibi, and injured the two children in the remote tribal region of North Waziristan last October.

According to journalist Anjali Kamat, who was present and tweeting live during the hearing, the only lawmakers to attend the briefing organized by Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.), were Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) and Rep. Rick Nolan (D-Minn.).

Before the handful of reporters and scant lawmakers, however, Rafiq and his children gave dramatic testimony which reportedly caused the translator to break down into tears.

In her testimony, Nabila shared that she was picking okra with her grandmother when the U.S. missile struck and both children described how they used to play outside but are now too afraid.

Unfortunately, that tragedy is not an isolated event. The Washington Post reported that:

The United States on Tuesday defended drone strikes targeting al-Qaida operatives and others it deems enemies, rejecting reports by two human-rights groups questioning the legality of strikes they asserted have killed or wounded scores of civilians in Yemen and Pakistan.

Human Rights Watch alleged that 82 people, at least 57 of them civilians, were killed by the unmanned aircraft and other aerial strikes in Yemen between September 2012 and June 2013 and called such strikes unlawful or indiscriminate. Amnesty International called on the U.S. to investigate reports in Pakistan of civilian casualties, among them a 68-year-old grandmother hit while farming with her grandchildren.

The New York-based Human Rights Watch said such strikes are unlawful or indiscriminate. Amnesty, based in London, said it is concerned that the attacks outlined in the report and others may have resulted in unlawful killings that constitute extrajudicial executions or war crimes...

Among the six strikes detailed by Human Rights Watch is an attack in Sarar, in central Yemen on Sept. 2, 2012, in which two warplanes or drones attacked a minibus, killing a pregnant woman, three children and eight other people. The report said the apparent target, tribal leader Abd al-Raouf al-Dahab, was not in the vehicle. The Yemeni families were only compensated for the deaths after Human Rights Watch brought the case to the Yemeni government’s attention, the report said.

The researchers also examined the U.S. cruise missile strike in al-Majalah in southern Abyan province on Dec. 17, 2009. The report said the Yemeni government described the attack as a Yemeni airstrike that killed 34 at a training camp, but a later Yemeni government inquiry found the strike actually killed 14 suspected AQAP fighters, but also at least 41 local civilians living in a Bedouin camp, including nine women and 21 children.

Based on the low attendance and the scant media coverage, I guess no one really gives a damn about innocent children, grandmothers and pregnant women being blown to bits by U.S. drones.

Why I Oppose Military Intervention in Syria

This morning, I sent the following letter to my Senators, Barbara Mikulski and Benjamin L. Cardin and my House Representative, C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger.

September 2, 2013

The Honorable Barbara Mikulski
503 Hart Senate Office Building
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Mikulski:

I urge you not to authorize military action against Syria. Despite the claims of the Obama Administration, we do not know with absolute certainty that the Assad regime launched chemical attacks against its own people. It is possible that the so-called rebels may be responsible for those despicable crimes against humanity. As reported in the USA Today article entitled Syrian rebels pledge loyalty to al-Qaeda, many of those so-called rebels are affiliated with the terrorist group, Al Qaeda. They capable of anything. Their crimes are well documented in the New York Times and many other media sources.

Furthermore, the Obama Administration's unclassified report does not cite any sources. Similarly, as reported in a Washington Post article entitled Sarin gas used in Syria attack, Kerry says, Secretary of State John Kerry claims that laboratory test results found traces of sarin in hair and blood collected at the scene. However, Mr. Kerry did not provide any details. His claim is unsubstantiated.

We are expected to simply accept the Administration's word. In light of the intelligence community's abysmal track record, that would be unwise. The Bush Administration told us that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that Saddam posed a threat to national security. After the lost of thousands of lives and billions of dollars, we now know that Bush's assertions were false. Based on faulty intelligence reports, the Obama Administration told us that the attacks in Benghazi stemmed from protests over a film insulting Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. Later, the Administration had a retract that assertion and admit that it was a well planned terrorist attack. Not to long ago, National Intelligence Director James Clapper told Congress that the NSA was not collecting records on thousands of Americans. Whistle blower Edward Snowden proved Mr. Clapper's assertion to be false. Again, we cannot accept any administration's word without concrete and verifiable proof.

The United Nations conducted an investigation and plans to issue a report soon. Before engaging in an act of war against a sovereign state, America should at least wait until the UN releases its report. That report will confirm whether or not chemical weapons were in fact used. We should insist that the UN inspectors be allowed to conduct further inspections to definitively determine who is responsible for the attack. Even President Obama acknowledged that there is no urgent need to immediately respond with force. We can wait.

Even if the Assad regime committed the alleged atrocities, you still should not authorize the use of force that this time. Syria does not pose a threat to America's national security. They have not attacked or threatened to attack America. If the US attacks Syria, it will jeopardize our national security. Syria will probably retaliate against the US and its allies. Troops should not be deployed for purpose of political gamesmanship or to save face for the President.

In addition, the mission is not clear or sound. "Limited attacks" from the air will not be sufficient to remove Assad from power. If Assad did in fact use chemical weapons, a US attack would probably incite him to use chemical weapons on a larger scale against his own people. Instead of protecting civilians in Syria, more civilians will die.

The US may be forced to escalate its involvement in Syria. The President assures the American people that there will be no boots on the ground. He assures us that the operation will be limited in scope and duration. However, as currently drafted, the President's resolution does not provide any such limitations. That is simply unacceptable.

The Obama Administration claims that it must act because the Assad regime violated international law by using chemical weapons. However, as reported in a Huffington Post article entitled Syria: Is An Attack On The Country Legal?,

Article 2 (4) of the UN charter states that "all members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state." But the UN does allow for states to use force for self-defence and, under Chapter 7, authorizes the Security Council to take action "to maintain or restore international peace and security."

Here, the US is would not be acting in self defense. Moreover, the UN Security Council has not taken any action to maintain or restore international peace. Thus, if the US unilaterally attacks Syria, the US will be violating international law. One cannot uphold international law by violating international law. Such actions make America look hypocritical.

The United States cannot be the world's policeman. The crisis in Syria is Arab problem that requires Arab solutions. The Arab League should bear the primary responsibility for creating stability in the region, not the US. The US should not put troops in danger by using them to prop up and protect Al Qaeda affiliated terrorists in Syria. Has the US learned anything from its experience in Afghanistan?

Many claim that this operation is being conducted for humanitarian purposes. The Administration claims that its acting in order to protect the Syrian people. You do not protect people by bombing them. There is no guarantee that US bombs will not kill many innocent civilians. That would defeat the purported purpose of the mission. The U.S. drone policy is a prime example of US military attacks can result in significant collateral damage.

This is not about humanitarianism. It is about geopolitics and the control of natural resources. If Syria was not located in an oil rich region, there would be no calls for military action. Thousands of innocent civilians are dying in the Central Republic of Congo, Nigeria and many other countries around the world. Yet, the US does nothing. Clearly, this is not about protecting civilians.

If we truly want to protect innocent civilians, we must intensify our diplomatic efforts, not our military efforts. Please do not authorize the use of military force in Syria.

Very truly yours,

Anson C. Asaka

Do You Support the President's Foreign Policy?

Good morning family. Yesterday, President Barack Obama addressed the United Nations. Do you support the President's foreign policy? Why? Why not?

The Uprising in Egypt Exposes America's Hypocrisy

The uprising in Egypt has exposed America's hypocritical foreign policy.  The United States claims to be the beacon of light for the rest of the world to follow.  America asserts that it is the leader of the free world, the proud protector and promoter of democracy and freedom. 

Contrary to those purported democratic values, the U.S. has overthrown democratically elected governments. Here are a few examples.  In 1951, the U.S. overthrew the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran, Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh. In 1960, the United States overthrew the democratically elected Prime Minister of Congo, Patrice Lumumba. Arguably, the United States overthrew democratically elected former Haitian president Jean-Bertrand Aristide in 2004. 

For decades, both Democratic and Republican administrations have supported brutal and repressive dictatorships in Egypt, Zaire (Mobutu era), Saudi Arabia, Chile (Pinochet era), Iran (Shah era), Iraq (Saddam era, pre-Desert Storm) and Cuba (pre-Castro era), to name a few.  For approximately 30 years, the U.S. has supported Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak's dictatorship.  The U.S. has invested billions of dollars in Egypt's military. 

This contradiction is further evidenced by the Obama administration's evolving response to the situation in Egypt.  Initially, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, "Our assessment is that the Egyptian government is stable and is looking for ways to respond to the legitimate needs and interests of the Egyptian people."

As the Hill reported, when asked if Mubarak was a dictator, Vice President Biden said, "Mubarak has been an ally of ours in a number of things and he's been very responsible on, relative to geopolitical interests in the region, Middle East peace efforts, the actions Egypt has taken relative to normalizing the relationship with Israel ... I would not refer to him as a dictator." 

As reported by the Washington Post, here is the most recent another statement from the White House,

"It is my belief that an orderly transition must be meaningful, it must be peaceful and it must begin now," Obama said he had told Mubarak in the phone call.

"That suggested Mubarak's concession was not enough, but Obama left the point dangling. He was careful not to say that Mubarak should have left immediately, and he stressed that it was not up to the United States to pick Egypt's leaders."

"Furthermore, the process must include a broad spectrum of Egyptian voices and opposition parties," he said. "It should lead to elections that are free and fair. And, it should result in a government that is not only grounded in democratic principles but is also responsive to the aspirations of the Egyptian people."

If America truly believes in democracy, it must universally demand more democracy at home and abroad.  America must insist that all countries, allies and adversaries alike, implement democratic reforms.  Democracy is the future. Dictatorships, oligarchies and monarchies are outdated forms of government.  The U.S. should urge Mubarak to immediately resign.  I am glad that Obama finally called on Mubarak "to immediately begin the process of transitioning the country to new leadership."

I salute the Egyptian people for standing up to the Mubarak dictatorship.  I hope that one dictatorship is not replaced with another dictatorship.