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.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) forced Washington slightly off its axis Thursday after he filibustered President Obama’s pick to head the CIA. The rare “talking filibuster” generated extraordinary scrutiny of the Obama administration’s drone-strike program and revealed some surprising divisions and alliances on Capitol Hill over the president’s anti-terrorism tactics overseas.
The filibuster culminated in the Senate confirmation of John O. Brennan to be director of the CIA by a vote of 63 to 34. But it scrambled the usual partisan landscape in the Capitol, with some Republican lawmakers attacking Paul for criticizing the president, while liberals and Democrats praised him. Of the 81 votes to end the filibuster, 28 were from Republicans, 13 of whom also voted to confirm Brennan.
The filibuster began Wednesday afternoon and lasted for nearly 13 hours, ending after midnight on Thursday. Paul was demanding that the White House clarify that it would not use aerial drones on U.S. soil to kill American citizens suspected of terrorism — a point on which he felt the administration had not been sufficiently clear.
Brennan’s nomination forced the administration to be more forthcoming about its secretive drone operations, which have devastated al-Qaeda’s core leadership in Pakistan and have been expanded to target affiliated groups in Yemen and Somalia.
...Brennan, a CIA veteran and former station chief in Saudi Arabia, has served as Obama’s principal counterterrorism adviser for the past four years and one of the chief architects of the program that has emerged as the spy agency’s signature counterterrorism tactic. The Brennan nomination brought unprecedented scrutiny to the administration’s use of drones to kill terrorist suspects overseas, and in recent days critics have questioned whether it could be imported to the United States to target American terrorism suspects at home.
A still-theoretical discussion about the domestic use of armed drones emerged in recent days from congressional demands to review Justice Department legal opinions that justified the 2011 drone killing in Yemen of Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen.
Brennan supported torture. He is the architect of the drone program. For more information, read the Salon article entitled 5 Terrifying Facts About John Brennan. I am deeply disappointed that only a few progressives opposed Brennan's nomination. His appointment exposes the Democrats' hypocrisy. It is hypocritical to oppose one policy under Bush and then support the same policy under Obama. Sadly, that is exactly what some liberals have done.
During the Bush Administration, progressives marched in the streets and on the White House demanding an end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They marched against America's drone policy. Some continue to protest. Prominent Democrats, including candidate Obama, voiced opposition to the Iraq war. In fact, many progressives voted for Obama because of his opposition to the Iraq war.
After Obama's election, most liberals became pacified and unconscious. Basically, the peace movement in America is dead. Except for a few fringe groups like Code Pink, many so-called liberals don't care about the drone program as long as Obama is the Commander-in-Chief. They don't care about the President having the power to kill Americans abroad, and possibly at home, without evidence or trial. They do not care about the government violating citizens' due process rights. They don't care about the drones killing innocent men, women and children in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and other countries around the world. They don't care about military intervention in Libya, Syria and other countries.
Some of them attempt to promote group think by demonizing and isolating anyone who has the audacity to question Obama's kill policy and Brennan's appointment. In addition, they desperately try to change the subject by demanding that people talk about Chris Dorner, the LAPD and police brutality. Those important issues should be thoroughly discussed by the media as well. However, Obama's kill policy must be discussed as well. It cannot be ignored.
Throughout our history, African Americans have been denied due process of law. Too often, police officers kill black people without evidence or trial. Clearly, we should be the last people to support Obama's kill policy. It is sickening to see so many African Americans support this unconscionable policy. It is appalling to see so many remain silent. In the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., there comes a time when silence is betrayal. That time is now.
Have they forgotten about all the African American leaders summarily executed during the Cointelpro era? Have they forgotten about the killing of Malcolm X, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Fred Hampton, Mark Clark and many others?
Today, Obama is in the White House. We may trust his judgment. But, what about the precedent being created? What about future presidents who may be even more militaristic? Today, Middle Eastern, Muslim men are the target. Tomorrow, it could be you. As Pastor Niemoller said in First They Came After the Jews,
First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Now that Brennan's appointment is a done deal, we must speak out and demand more legislative and judicial oversight of the drone program.
"The problem with always being a conformist is that when you try to change the system from within. It's not you who changes the system. It's the system that will eventually change you." Immortal Technique
A confidential Justice Department memo concludes that the U.S. government can order the killing of American citizens if they are believed to be “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida or “an associated force” -- even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S.
The 16-page memo, a copy of which was obtained by NBC News, provides new details about the legal reasoning behind one of the Obama administration’s most secretive and controversial polices: its dramatically increased use of drone strikes against al-Qaida suspects abroad, including those aimed at American citizens, such as the September 2011 strike in Yemen that killed alleged al-Qaida operatives Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan. Both were U.S. citizens who had never been indicted by the U.S. government nor charged with any crimes.
The secrecy surrounding such strikes is fast emerging as a central issue in this week’s hearing of White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, a key architect of the drone campaign, to be CIA director. Brennan was the first administration official to publicly acknowledge drone strikes in a speech last year, calling them “consistent with the inherent right of self-defense.” In a separate talk at the Northwestern University Law School in March, Attorney General Eric Holder specifically endorsed the constitutionality of targeted killings of Americans, saying they could be justified if government officials determine the target poses “an imminent threat of violent attack.”
But the confidential Justice Department “white paper” introduces a more expansive definition of self-defense or imminent attack than described by Brennan or Holder in their public speeches. It refers, for example, to what it calls a “broader concept of imminence” than actual intelligence about any ongoing plot against the U.S. homeland.
Michael Isikoff, national investigative correspondent for NBC News, talks with Rachel Maddow about a newly obtained, confidential Department of Justice white paper that hints at the details of a secret White House memo that explains the legal justifications for targeted drone strikes that kill Americans without trial in the name of national security.
“The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future,” the memo states.
The United States claims to be a model democracy, a beacon of light for the world to follow. The rule of law is a fundamental concept in a democratic society. All citizens are supposed to be entitled to due process and equal protection under the law. The accused are presumed to be innocent until proven guilty.
In the post 9/11 world, America has declared war not only against terrorism. She has declared war against her own cherished values. Under the Bush Administration, the United States lost it standing in the world for several reasons. The U.S. launched an unnecessary and costly war in Iraq based upon the false claim that Saddam Hussein's regime possessed weapons of mass destruction. The U.S. waged war in Afghanistan. Since the beginning of the Afghan war, U.S. has imprisoned many so-called enemy combatants in Guantanamo Bay and held them indefinitely without charges or trials. Additionally, America used torture against allegedly terrorists. Finally, the Bush Administration deployed drones in Afghanistan and Pakistan to assassinate alleged terrorists. Frequently, those drone attacks killed innocent women and children. In sum, all of those problems tarnished America's image before the world.
Our first African American President, Barack Obama, was elected based on the promises of hope and change. Unfortunately, Obama has continued and even expanded some of the Bush Administration's reprehensible policies, namely the use of drones. He has used drones far more frequently than Bush. Obama is using drones in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and other countries. As Commander-in-Chief, he is responsible for the deaths of many innocent civilians.
Sadly, most people do not care. The American people are shielded from the grotesque realities of war. Too often, we are presented with an abstract, sanitized, video game type image of war. We do not see the obliterated corpses of innocent women, children and men. If we did, maybe our attitude about the President's use of drones would change. As reported on CNN,
U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan have killed far more people than the United States has acknowledged, have traumatized innocent residents and largely been ineffective, according to a new study released Tuesday.
The study by Stanford Law School and New York University's School of Law calls for a re-evaluation of the practice, saying the number of "high-level" targets killed as a percentage of total casualties is extremely low -- about 2%.
In contrast to more conservative U.S. statements, the Stanford/NYU report -- titled "Living Under Drones" -- offers starker figures published by The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, an independent organization based at City University in London.
"TBIJ reports that from June 2004 through mid-September 2012, available data indicate that drone strikes killed 2,562 - 3,325 people in Pakistan, of whom 474 - 881 were civilians, including 176 children. TBIJ reports that these strikes also injured an additional 1,228 - 1,362 individuals," according to the Stanford/NYU study.
Based on interviews with witnesses, victims and experts, the report accuses the CIA of "double-striking" a target, moments after the initial hit, thereby killing first responders.
Instead of ending terrorism, such actions will only breed more future terrorists.
To make matters worst, the Department of Justice's memo basically gives Obama a license to kill Americans without any evidence, trial or proof of an imminent attack. According to news reports, that license is not necessarily limited to use against Americans abroad. It is possible that the federal government may be able to use such power against Americans here at home. Such power is contrary to America's values. In the words of Kanye West, "no one man should have all that power."
To some people, Obama is like Jesus. They have complete unconditional faith in his judgment. Not me. All men are fallible. We all make mistakes. No one person should be judge, jury and executioner. What about Obama's successors? If we do not act now, it will create a dangerous precedent for future presidents. Imagine if someone like Mitt Romney or some other right wing Republican had that power. How many more innocent people must die before we end this madness? Where is the peace movement?
When George W. Bush was President, large numbers of progressives marched and protested against war. Many progressives oppose senseless wars and the death penalty. Yet, with cult like devotion, many of those so-called "progressives" blindly defend the President's right to kill Americans. That is deeply disturbing and disappointing. Now, only a few people are protesting against the Obama Administration's wars. Hopefully, the release of that Department of Justice memo will wake up the peace movement.
Instead of simply marching and blogging, we should join U.S. Representative Barbara Lee's call. We must urge Congress to repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force law. It is time to end this perpetual war. No President, even if he is a Democrat, should be given a blank check to launch undeclared wars around the world.
The last of the 33,000 troops Obama dispatched to Afghanistan in 2009 will head home at the end of September. Senior administration officials said Tuesday that, though no specific future troop levels have been determined, a “steady reduction” will follow over the next two years.
Obama’s timeline calls on Afghan security forces to take the lead in combat operations by the end of next year. All U.S. troops are scheduled to leave by the end of 2014, except for trainers who will assist Afghan forces and a small contingent of troops with a specific mission to combat al-Qaeda through counterterrorism operations.
In his remarks, Obama emphasized that the United States will not seek permanent military bases in Afghanistan, a country that for centuries has fiercely opposed foreign interlopers...
Those U.S. trainers and Special Operations troops that remain beyond 2014 will live on Afghan bases. Senior administration officials said the agreement is meant to send a signal to the Taliban that they cannot “wait out” the international presence, which is supporting a fragile Afghan government.
“The goal I set to defeat al-Qaeda and deny it a chance to rebuild is now within reach,” Obama said.
Karzai has long requested reassurance from Obama that U.S. support would not wane after 2014. The agreement commits Obama to ask Congress for money to support Afghanistan through 2024, but it does not specify the amount of annual aid...
The accord is designed to promote the training of Afghan forces, a reconciliation and reintegration process for Taliban fighters who leave the battlefield, and regional stability with a focus on improving relations with Pakistan. A second senior administration official, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity, called it “a crucial component to bring the war to an end responsibly.”
..Americans have not outlined what the U.S. troop presence will look like beyond 2014, and NATO has yet to specify its long-term financial commitment to the Afghan security forces. That topic will be a focal point of the NATO summit in Chicago this month.
Al Qaeda has been defeated in Afghanistan. According to a 2009 ABC news report, less than 100 Al Qaeda fighters remain in Afghanistan. Far less probably remain now. Osama Bin Laden is dead, and he was found in another country, Pakistan. After approximately 10 years of war, why is the United States still in Afghanistan? 2014, really? 2024, really?
