There's a conventional wisdom in Washington that there's nothing we can do politically to stop the U.S. government from killing innocent civilians with drone strikes.
But it ain't necessarily so.
Speaking only for myself, I'm willing to stipulate that killing "high value terrorists" who are known to be actively preparing to kill Americans is wildly popular, regardless of whether it is constitutional and legal.
Here's what's not wildly popular: killing innocent civilians.
This is not a liberal vs. conservative issue. This is an American issue. Go to the reddest of Red America. Stand outside a megachurch or military base in the Deep South. Find me 12 Christian Republicans who are willing to sign their names that they want the U.S. government to kill innocent civilians. I bet you can't do it. Killing innocent civilians is un-American.
Consider: after what widely reported news event did even Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum say maybe we ought to get our troops out of Afghanistan? After it was reported that a U.S. soldier massacred Afghan civilians.
The historian Howard Zinn suggested that it's a backhanded compliment to the American people that our government lies to us about what it's doing in other people's countries. Because it suggests that if the American people knew, they would never stand for it.
Thanks to a New York Times report this week, we now know. In an echo of the Colombian military's "false positives" scandal, our government is killing people with drone strikes and then decreeing that "military age men" killed by U.S. drone strikes are automatically "combatants." Born a chicken, raised a chicken, now you're a fish.
Some senior U.S. officials are quite unhappy about this, the Times reports.
The C.I.A. accounting has so troubled some administration officials outside the agency that they have brought their concerns to the White House. One called it "guilt by association" that has led to "deceptive" estimates of civilian casualties."It bothers me when they say there were seven guys, so they must all be militants," the official said. "They count the corpses and they're not really sure who they are."
So what is producing this conventional wisdom that there's nothing we can do?
A key determinant is what Members of Congress are willing to say and do. If you can't get 12 Members of Congress to say "boo" about something, then the conventional wisdom says it's not an issue.
Well, that just changed. Thirteen Members of Congress are willing to say "boo." Here they are: Dennis Kucinich, John Conyers, Rush Holt, Jesse Jackson, Jr., Maurice Hinchey, Charlie Rangel, Pete Stark, Mike Honda, Raul Grijalva, Bob Filner, Barbara Lee, Jim McGovern, and Lynn Woolsey.
These 13 Members of Congress -- who, one hopes, will soon be joined by others -- have signed a letter to the administration demanding that the administration come clean with Congress and the American people about its drone strike policy, particularly concerning civilian casualties and so-called "signature strikes" that target unknown people.
This Congressional letter is being supported by the Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict, Amnesty International, and other groups who don't want the U.S. government to kill innocent civilians.
If ten thousand Americans would write to their Members of Congress, urging them to sign the Kucinich-Conyers letter, we could get 40 Members of Congress to sign it. If we could get 40 Members of Congress to sign it, the beltway media would report that Members of Congress are complaining about civilian deaths from drone strikes. If we could get the beltway media to report that Members of Congress are complaining about civilian deaths from drone strikes, the conventional wisdom that there's nothing we can do politically about civilian deaths from drone strikes would be dead.
Sometimes mate in five starts with a pawn move.
As Stephen Colbert put it,
"The administration has developed a brilliant system of ensuring that those building engulfing explosions don't kill non-combatants: they just count all military age males in a strike zone as combatants...This isn't just the president executing innocent people around the world by fiat, there is an appeals process. The men are considered terrorists unless 'there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent,' in which case, I assume, there is a legal process that un-kills them."
Colbert Nation, to your laptops.
The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive
Follow Robert Naiman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/naiman
Nick Turse: A Drone-Eat-Drone World
As long as the premise that this has anything to do with fighting terrorist is allowed to stand, Americans will look the other way when civilians are killed. The peace movement has squandered the potent ammunition handed to it, by Rep. John Tierney, in a congressional report which affirms Smedley Butler's precept "war is a racket." A congressional subcommittee draws the conclusion that the US is financing both sides of the conflict.
CBS: "U.S. Tax Dollars Fueling Afghan Insurgency"
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18563_162-6604606.html
Estimates are from $300 million and up, enough to be one of, if not the, major financing source for insurgents. For comparison, the Taliban's opium profits are estimated at a few hundred million yearly.
AP: "$360M lost to insurgents, criminals in Afghanistan"
http://news.yahoo.com/360m-lost-insurgents-criminals-afghanistan-150450640.html
This is all the evidence we need to show this is a manufactured war. Americans will not call an end to the war because of civilian casualties if they think it is about keeping them "safe." But focusing on the Tierney report "Warlord Inc." removes that premise, and lays bare the ugly truth of the war.
We are, however, at war. In war there are casualties.
No one asked the Taliban to blow up the World Trade Center, our embassy's or to attack our civilians.
No one asked the U.S. to undermine foreign governments or spend hundreds of millions of dollars supporting autocratic governments.Foreign governments did not ask the powerful corporations of the world to raid their resources and pay hundreds of millions to support western governments to protect and support the Western corporations that have plundered foreign counties and foreign societies for hundreds of years.
Perhaps one day we will all learn to mind our own business and learn to like and understand others that are not of our culture.
There, in truth..to my point of view, lies the dilemma.
Let's turn the tables once more. If it were you and your family, totally innocent, and you had a guest that you knew was a high level terrorist living either with you or next door, what would you do? I, personally would find a way to get far away as possible because, you know, someone might come in after that terrorist and I and my family might get hurt. I would take to the hills until it was safe to return.........if not.........collateral damage.
Am I heartless? No. I am realistic and take responsibility for what goes on around me.....if I truly don't know, then it is a shame and I am sorry and either dead or grieving. This is what happens when terrorists are condoned and sheltered, it is war......or drug lords.....or mafia......or........etc.
People in other places do not necessarily have the option to leave or report without being killed themselves. They may be in the village they have lived all their lives and generations before them and have few options to leave.
We are the ones with the luxury to use intelligence reports to pinpoint activities and targets. We have no right to indiscriminately use unmanned drones to just blow places and people up because it is easy and then excuse our actions by defining people as "combatants."
What do you think about those incidences in the Bible where all infant and toddler boys were killed because there were prophecies, one referring to Moses and one referring to Jesus, to prevent a future overthrow of power? Was that right? Would you think that was okay too?
When did people become so afraid they were willing to do anything to give themselves the illusion of safety?
There is always a complaint or a ‘cause’ to protest. Pick a subject- any subject and you will find some people stridently protesting and condemning it.
This piece will never lead anywhere close to stopping the use of drones. If you protest drones I am sure you would like an old fashion means of war. Say…like the Civil War?
No drones or lists of innocent deaths. If I remember correctly our Civil War caused more death than any war we were in.
I guess you would want all weapons banned from war except .22 cal single shot rifles. But you would have others protesting your protest…on and on.
Guess what? Go for the simple and effective manor to stop killing the innocent in time of war……take away all Presidential and Congressional ability to declare war and take away their ability to meddle in all foreign affairs……But, guess what? Some group would protest that too.
Do the Right Thing and Put People in the White House and Congess that want REAL PEACE
That is why Ron Paul is no longer in the running.
See Guy de Montfort....
But faved anyway for the WWII refs, which very much ought to apply to any serious conversation on this topic.
And removing leadership does work. Not everyone is so easily replaced.
This is how the Tamil Tigers were stopped.
It is how the Shining Path was stopped.
And now the Basque Separatists.