Drones and assassinations: Our legacy in the war on terror

Richard Wright makes some important points on Predator drone strikes in Pakistan -- void of the Pakistani government's full support or authorization -- and the order to assassinate Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen now in Yemen implicated in inciting the Fort Hood shooter and the Underwear bomber.

If Harold Koh — the state department lawyer assigned the job of justifying Obama’s strategy — carries the day, America will be telling the world that it’s O.K. to lob missiles into countries that haven’t attacked you, as long as you think a terrorist may live there. Do we really want to send that message to, for example, Russia and China, both of which have terrorism problems? Or India or Pakistan?

And are we sure we want to say that, actually, due process of law isn’t really guaranteed all American citizens so long as there’s a war on terrorism — which, remember, is a war that may continue for eternity?

(For more background, Koh gave a speech recently defending many of the national security policies the Obama administration adopted from the Bushies. Adam Serwer gave a detailed breakdown of Koh's points on drones and assassinations.)

Sandy Levinson asks, What if it were Bush?

It is widely known that Obama has ordered more drone strikes in his year in office than George W. Bush did in his entire administration. One can only wonder what the response of the left would be if it were Bush (and, say, John Yoo) engaging in (and defending) the actions that seem central to the Obama Administration's policy in Pakistan (and Yemen and....). The most ominous part of Wright's column is an argument that the policy is very likely to be counterproductive, for a number of reasons he goes into. So there may be a "negative trifecta," i.e., a policy that raises serious moral and legal questions and is counterproductive to boot.

But more to the point, Is this what we want America to be? How can we realistically disallow other powerful countries from conducting similar activities -- especially in the case of drones -- without completely losing all credibility (if we haven't lost enough already)?

And I'm not really sure why I'm even asking because I know why: Where are all the Bush haters that complained about these very same procedures? There are MORE drone strikes mowing down civilians and vague, unverified "suspects" now and Bush never targeted an American citizen for DEATH. Where are the liberals, progressives, civil libertarians and others on the Left now?

In Pakistan, one in three drone kills are civilians

A new study (pdf) by the New America Foundation finds some harrowing statistics regarding drone use in Pakistan. According to the report, one in three deaths from Obama's drone strikes is a civilian fatality. Not a good average.

Rethink Afghanistan compiled some of the highlights:

Our study shows that the 114 reported drone strikes in northwest Pakistan from 2004 to the present have killed between 830 and 1,210 individuals, of whom around 550 to 850 were described as militants in reliable press accounts, about two-thirds of the total on average. Thus, the true civilian fatality rate since 2004 according to our analysis is approximately 32 percent.

…[A]lthough the drone strikes have disrupted militant operations, their unpopularity with the Pakistani public and their value as a recruiting tool for extremist groups may have ultimately increased the appeal of the Taliban and al Qaeda, undermining the Pakistani state. This is more disturbing than almost anything that could happen in Afghanistan, given that Pakistan has dozens of nuclear weapons and about six times the population.

It's worth repeating: "Their value as a recruiting tool for extremist groups may have ultimately increased the appeal of the Taliban and al Qaeda, undermining the Pakistani state."

I don't see how this is a valuable tool in curbing extremism or sympathy for terror. For every one suspect killed, how much "extremism" is created? Somebody explain the upside, please, because I don't get it.

Accessorize with the Predator drone!

Hey kids, get your Predator drone gifts and apparel here.

Obama's version of 'upholding values'

Last night, in his State of the Union address, President Obama did not mention Guantanamo Bay, nor indefinite detentions of detainees at Gitmo and other prisons despite a lack of evidence of any wrongdoing. You know, the basis for incarcerating a human being.

The closest he came was this passage:

Throughout our history, no issue has united this country more than our security. Sadly, some of the unity we felt after 9/11 has dissipated. We can argue all we want about who's to blame for this, but I'm not interested in relitigating the past. I know that all of us love this country. All of us are committed to its defense. So let's put aside the schoolyard taunts about who's tough. Let's reject the false choice between protecting our people and upholding our values. Let's leave behind the fear and division, and do what it takes to defend our nation and forge a more hopeful future — for America and for the world.

"Let's reject the false choice between protecting our people and upholding our values."

The gall it takes to utter this breathless phrase is pretty appalling when considering his government's policies.

Via Carol Rosenberg of the Miami Herald, one of the most dogged reporters on the issue of Guantanamo Bay:

A yearlong review of evidence against men who are being held as terrorism suspects at Guantanamo has concluded that most of them should be released or transferred to third countries.

The review has angered human rights advocates, however, by concluding that "roughly" 50 of the detainees should be held indefinitely, even though there isn't enough valid evidence to prosecute them.

Only 35 of the men should face trial, either in civilian or military courts, the review concluded. That's far fewer than the 60 or 70 cases that the Pentagon's chief prosecutor has said his unit is preparing to try before military commissions.

The review, whose results have been divulged to a handful of reporters but not publicly announced, provides the first specific numbers for what the Obama administration thinks should be done with the detainees who are still at Guantanamo.

To posture as if he is attempting to uphold American values while endorsing indefinite detention, not to mention advocating the assassination of American citizens overseas, completely void of a trial or verifiable evidence, is insulting, dishonest, shameful and morally bankrupt.

Of course, this is the tip of the iceberg. Obama, quite predictably, refused to mention the legally-dubious program of unleashing Predator and Reaper drones throughout the world.

All this on the day after the death of the great freedom fighter Howard Zinn.

Zinn's last essay in The Nation touched on Obama:

I thought that in the area of constitutional rights he would be better than he has been. That's the greatest disappointment, because Obama went to Harvard Law School and is presumably dedicated to constitutional rights. But he becomes president, and he's not making any significant step away from Bush policies. Sure, he keeps talking about closing Guantánamo, but he still treats the prisoners there as "suspected terrorists." They have not been tried and have not been found guilty. So when Obama proposes taking people out of Guantánamo and putting them into other prisons, he's not advancing the cause of constitutional rights very far. And then he's gone into court arguing for preventive detention, and he's continued the policy of sending suspects to countries where they very well may be tortured.

I think people are dazzled by Obama's rhetoric, and that people ought to begin to understand that Obama is going to be a mediocre president--which means, in our time, a dangerous president--unless there is some national movement to push him in a better direction.

Mr. President, the world is not your battlefield.