By Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger
I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction: for, by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred: and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion; because such men are not under the ties of the commonlaw of reason, have no other rule, but that of force and violence, and so may be treated as beasts of prey, those dangerous and noxious creatures, that will be sure to destroy him whenever he falls into their power.
~John Locke, Second Treatise on Government, Ch. III, (kudos to Bron)
On the night of February 13th, 773 RAF Avro Lancaster bombers swept in low and fast on the Saxony railway town of Dresden. It was early 1945, The Third Reich was collapsing and some 600,000 people had taken refuge in the city to avoid the Allied onslaught. The presumed target was the military complex on the outskirts of town known as the Albertstadt. Dresden, itself, was riddled with military garrisons intermingled among the civilian population. In two waves, the RAF dropped 650,000 incendiaries and 8,000 lbs of high explosives and hundreds of 4,000 pounds bombs on the city center, all with little to no resistance. The entire city was ablaze. RAF crews reported smoke rising to a height of 15,000 ft. Fires were seen 500 miles away from the target.
The next day, February 14, 1945, as Dresden was trying to cope with the crisis, 450 U.S. B-17 Flying Fortress long-range bombers assigned to the 1st Bombardment Division of the United States VIII Bomber Command arrived at 1230 local time. Guided by the fires, they discharged 771 tons of bombs.
The results on the ground were horrific with an estimated 25,000 killed. Survivor Lothar Metzger recalled:
We saw terrible things: cremated adults shrunk to the size of small children, pieces of arms and legs, dead people, whole families burnt to death, burning people ran to and fro, burnt coaches filled with civilian refugees, dead rescuers and soldiers, many were calling and looking for their children and families, and fire everywhere, everywhere fire, and all the time the hot wind of the firestorm threw people back into the burning houses they were trying to escape from.
I cannot forget these terrible details. I can never forget them.
Some estimates bring the number of those killed to 100,000. Nazi propagandists took the figure to 200,000. RAF recon noted that ” 23 percent of the industrial buildings, and 56 percent of the non-industrial buildings, not counting residential buildings, had been seriously damaged. Around 78,000 dwellings had been completely destroyed; 27,700 were uninhabitable, and 64,500 damaged, but readily repairable.”
The raid, ordered by Churchill, rendered such a blow to Western psyche that he distanced himself from the raid saying, “It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of the so-called ‘area-bombing’ of German cities should be reviewed from the point of view of our own interests. If we come into control of an entirely ruined land, there will be a great shortage of accommodation for ourselves and our allies… We must see to it that our attacks do no more harm to ourselves in the long run than they do to the enemy’s war effort.” Of mention, is no sense of the human cost to the enemy of the raid. Th emphasis seems to be purely egocentric: What kind of country will we have when this is all over?
However British Air Chief Marshal Arthur Harris was not so circumspect:
“Attacks on cities like any other act of war are intolerable unless they are strategically justified. But they are strategically justified in so far as they tend to shorten the war and preserve the lives of Allied soldiers. To my mind we have absolutely no right to give them up unless it is certain that they will not have this effect. I do not personally regard the whole of the remaining cities of Germany as worth the bones of one British Grenadier. The feeling, such as there is, over Dresden, could be easily explained by any psychiatrist. It is connected with German bands and Dresden shepherdesses. Actually Dresden was a mass of munitions works, an intact government centre, and a key transportation point to the East. It is now none of these things.”
“War is hell” seems to claim the Air Marshall, and strategic concerns take precedence over humanitarian ones in a war zone. Is he right, or are both he and Churchill “war criminals” to quote some of the more animated commentary on the blog? Neither were prosecuted or charged with war crimes for the Dresden raid.
Which brings us to David Drumm’s fine posting yesterday about a claim of double-tapping Drone strikes in Pakistan and elsewhere in support of the war against the terrorists. The evidence published by the 18-month-old Bureau of Investigative Journalism (BIJ) claims that 6 instances of double-tapping have occurred with rescuers being targeted with second strikes. A review of 5 of those sources (ABC’s article was not easily retrievable) reveals that one arguably involved an attack on civilians, one was unclear on the status of the rescuers, and three reported second attacks on militants and extremists.
In response to my query on this point, David correctly pointed out that the Obama Administration does consider fighting age men in the strike zone “militants.” That fact was disclosed in a long New York Times article:
It is also because Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.
Counterterrorism officials insist this approach is one of simple logic: people in an area of known terrorist activity, or found with a top Qaeda operative, are probably up to no good. “Al Qaeda is an insular, paranoid organization — innocent neighbors don’t hitchhike rides in the back of trucks headed for the border with guns and bombs,” said one official, who requested anonymity to speak about what is still a classified program.
But does six instances of secondary attacks obscured by the fog of war prove that the US has a policy of targeting innocent rescuers? Can it even be said that we are indifferent to the humanitarian concerns of rescuers even as we attack our enemies on their home turf?
From a legal perspective, targeting killing of persons who present an imminent threat to a country is permissible. Obama himself has insisted on such evidence before authorizing the strikes though there are trade-offs, according to the New York Times. The CIA’s man in the White House, John Brennan, a crusty Irishman who has spoken in defense of civil liberties and to close Guantanamo but who has faced withering criticism for his role in post 9/11 interrogations, explains Obama’s analysis:
The purpose of these actions is to mitigate threats to U.S. persons’ lives. It is the option of last recourse. So the president, and I think all of us here, don’t like the fact that people have to die. And so he wants to make sure that we go through a rigorous checklist: The infeasibility of capture, the certainty of the intelligence base, the imminence of the threat, all of these things.
Assassination of persons is generally regarded as murder although, by executive order, the US President may order the killing of foreign leaders who represent an imminent threat to the US.
Former U.S. District Judge (S.D. NY) Abraham Sofaer explains the difference:
When people call a targeted killing an “assassination,” they are attempting to preclude debate on the merits of the action. Assassination is widely defined as murder, and is for that reason prohibited in the United States…. U.S. officials may not kill people merely because their policies are seen as detrimental to our interests…. But killings in self-defense are no more “assassinations” in international affairs than they are murders when undertaken by our police forces against domestic killers. Targeted killings in self-defense have been authoritatively determined by the federal government to fall outside the assassination prohibition.
Likewise, Harold Hongju Koh, Legal Adviser US Department of State, defends the use of drones as ” part of “responsibility of US to its citizens, to use force, including lethal force, to defend itself, including by targeting persons such as high-level al-Qaeda leaders who are planning attacks.”
But what then about rescuers killed trying to aid militants?
Georgetown Law Professor Gary Solis, author The Law of Armed Conflict: International Humanitarian Law in War, and no friend of the US drone policy concedes that “Legal guilt does not always accompany innocent death.” In an example, published by Harper’s Magazine, Solis comments on a US helicopter attack on civilians rendering aid to combatants. “Can a van picking up wounded victims be fired upon? If the helicopter personnel reasonably associated the unmarked van with the presumed enemy personnel, yes. An “enemy” vehicle without red cross, red crescent, or white flag receives no special protection, even if wounded personnel are on board.”
Thus, even critics of the drone program conclude that trying to render humanitarian aid to injured militants affords no protection unless they are clearly visible as such. There is nothing in any of the articles cited by the BIJ indicating that rescuers were so denominated.
What then to make of the double-tap policy and the humanitarian toll. I see no proof that US drone masters are “targeting civilians.” Targeting implies intention and given the Administration’s definition of militants in a strike area it is unlikely that there is the intention to harm civilians rescuers where proof of such status exists. The Administration argues that its definition is based on its decade long experience with al-Qaeda. One certainly can argue with the definition of “militant” given its breadth, but does this definition make us any more culpable that acknowledged WWII heroes Winston Churchill or Air Chief Marshall Harris in arguing that our prime responsibility in war is to deny the enemy the ability to wage war against us even as civilians are maimed or killed?
What do you think?
Sources: linked throughout
~Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger
Don’t be driving next to any speeding cars, now!
Elaine,
I read yesterday that law enforcement is signing up to get drones for use in American……You’ll love this…. For speeding tickets….I believe Pennsylvania is one of the states wanting them….. Right here on American soil……
US Congressmen demand justification for drone strikes
Send letter to President Obama as latest drone strike in North Waziristan kills five.
By Huma Imtiaz
Published: June 14, 2012
http://tribune.com.pk/story/393471/us-congressmen-demand-justification-for-drone-strikes/
Excerpt:
WASHINGTON
Twenty-six US Congressmen have sent a letter to President Barack Obama “demanding a legal justification from the White House for signature drone strikes.”
According to a press release, Congressman Dennis Kucinich and 25 other members of the Congress said that drone strikes “could significantly increase risks of killing innocent civilians or those with no relationship to a potential attack on the US and further inflame anti-American sentiment abroad”.
The letter, signed by 24 Democrat and 2 Republican members of the US House, demands information regarding the authorisation and execution of signature drone strikes along with the mechanisms used by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) to ensure the legality of such killings.
It also questions “the nature of the follow-up that is conducted when civilians are killed or injured… and the mechanisms that ensure civilian casualty numbers are collected, tracked and analysed.”
Congressman Kucinich said, “The implications of the use of drones for our national security are profound. They are faceless ambassadors that cause civilian deaths, and are frequently the only direct contact with Americans that the targeted communities have. They can generate powerful and enduring anti-American sentiment.”
In re: Needing to not get “ad hominem” with Nazi sympathizers.
A discussion that needs to be had, in my opinion.
Free speech means you can say what you want — it doesn’t mean that everybody who objects to what you are saying has to pretend to have respect for your ideas, your words, or you. The fact that you get to say any crap you like doesn’t mean that your choice to say something any sane person would naturally oppose and even feel repulsed by cannot be met with people freely expressing their opinions not only of your speech but of you, as a person who would choose to use such speech among them. They don’t have to pretend you’re respectable just because they respect your First Amendment rights.
Just so, a criminal on trial who actually HAS committed the crimes with which he is charged has every right to use the full measure of law to defend himself. His right to defend himself by every means available to him does not imply that the jury must agree with him in his defense; nor does it mean that absent his own approval, the judge cannot sentence him. He can have his defense. Those who find it inadequate can say so.
When you put yourself in a position to be disrespected by people who can think straight and are not filled with hysterical psychobabbling vitriol, several of them are likely to direct a few streams of words right back at you, and if that is unpleasant for you, as we say, boo hoo.
Off Topic:
Obama Trade Document Leaked, Revealing New Corporate Powers And Broken Campaign Promises
By Zach Carter
6/13/12
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/13/obama-trade-document-leak_n_1592593.html
Excerpt:
WASHINGTON — A critical document from President Barack Obama’s free trade negotiations with eight Pacific nations was leaked online early Wednesday morning, revealing that the administration intends to bestow radical new political powers upon multinational corporations, contradicting prior promises.
The leaked document has been posted on the website of Public Citizen, a long-time critic of the administration’s trade objectives. The new leak follows substantial controversy surrounding the secrecy of the talks, in which some members of Congress have complained they are not being given the same access to trade documents that corporate officials receive.
“The outrageous stuff in this leaked text may well be why U.S. trade officials have been so extremely secretive about these past two years of [trade] negotiations,” said Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch in a written statement.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) has been so incensed by the lack of access as to introduce legislation requiring further disclosure. House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) has gone so far as to leak a separate document from the talks on his website. Other Senators are considering writing a letter to Ron Kirk, the top trade negotiator under Obama, demanding more disclosure.
The newly leaked document is one of the most controversial of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact. It addresses a broad sweep of regulations governing international investment and reveals the Obama administration’s advocacy for policies that environmental activists, financial reform advocates and labor unions have long rejected for eroding key protections currently in domestic laws.
Under the agreement currently being advocated by the Obama administration, American corporations would continue to be subject to domestic laws and regulations on the environment, banking and other issues. But foreign corporations operating within the U.S. would be permitted to appeal key American legal or regulatory rulings to an international tribunal. That international tribunal would be granted the power to overrule American law and impose trade sanctions on the United States for failing to abide by its rulings.
The terms run contrary to campaign promises issued by Obama and the Democratic Party during the 2008 campaign.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/06/national-security-and-education-barack-obama
“On other subjects, Obama’s motivations were different. For example, he took a liking to drone attacks pretty quickly, seeing them as a much more precise method of killing al-Qaeda leaders than the alternatives. Drones, to Obama and his national security team, were attractive precisely because collateral damage from drone attacks tended to be far less than that from high-altitude bombing or military raids. As for the targeting of Anwar al-Awlaki, the American-born cleric who led the al-Qaeda franchise in Yemen, Klaidman reports that it wasn’t even a very close call. Because Awlaki was an American citizen, the decision to target him for assassination produced withering criticism in the liberal community (including some from me), but Klaidman says that the evidence of Awlaki’s terrorist activities was so voluminous and so chilling that Obama quickly agreed to put him on the kill list. Even Harold Koh, the liberal conscience of the State Department, was “shaken” after he spent hours in a secure room reviewing the evidence. “Awlaki wasn’t just evil,” Koh concluded, “he was satanic.”
And so the drone strikes continue and Guantanamo continues to be open and detainees are being tried in military tribunals. Obama isn’t willing to halt U.S. attacks on al-Qaeda completely — he takes the blowback argument seriously but doesn’t consider it decisive — and drones are the most effective way of carrying them out. He’d like to close Guantanamo, but Congress won’t allow detainees to be transferred to the U.S. and other countries don’t want them. And if you can’t bring detainees to the mainland, military tribunals are your only option.
I’m not vouching for Klaidman’s reporting here, and I’m not endorsing the Obama team’s judgments. But whether you approve of Obama’s approach or not, Kill or Capture does a pretty good job of explaining how the arguments unfolded and how the policies evolved.” Kevin Drum, Mother Jones
Opposing view: Drones are unlawful and dangerous
By Hina Shamsi
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/story/2012-06-12/drones-ACLU-Hina-Shamsi/55556482/1
Excerpt:
Robert Grenier, the head of the CIA’s counterterrorism center during the Bush administration, said last week that “we have been seduced” by drones, and that drone killings “are creating more enemies than we are removing from the battlefield.” He’s right.
When our nation violates the law in the name of our national security, it gives propaganda tools to our enemies and alienates our allies. That is why the government’s targeted killing program, which has resulted in hundreds of civilian deaths, is both unlawful and dangerous.
To be sure, targeted killing is not always illegal, nor is the use of drones. Under international law and our Constitution, the government can use lethal force when, for example, an individual takes up arms against the United States in an actual war, or against a person who poses an imminent threat to life and no means other than killing will prevent the threat. These are not the rules the government is following.
Today, our government is killing people in countries in which the United States is not at war. It reportedly adds suspected terrorists — including U.S. citizens — to “kill lists” for months at a time, which by definition cannot be limited to genuinely imminent threats. The New York Times disclosed that the government “counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants” unless intelligence proves them innocent — but only after they are dead.
When mistakes are made, our nation refuses to acknowledge them and does not compensate victims. The first Yemeni missile strike President Obama authorized, in December 2009, targeted alleged militants but killed 21 children and 14 women. WikiLeaks revealed a secret agreement by Yemen to accept responsibility for the U.S. killing. Yemenis were enraged, but most Americans probably never heard about it.
*****
(Hina Shamsi is director of the ACLU’s National Security Project.)
@Glenn Greenwald: “Last night I wrote about how Obama’s drone attacks and other forms of militarism in the Muslim world are making another Terror attack on U.S. soil more likely, ”
************************
Oh, come on, Glenn! Attacking our enemies’ command and control centers with a tactically effective weapon makes attacks on us more likely but allowing them to function with no more than frantic call to Interpol makes attacks on us less likely? In what cosmos? They aren’t willing to kill innocent Americans because we fight them tough; we fight them tough because they are willing to kill innocent Americans.
Your view from the relative safety of Brazil must have skewed your eyesight. You and Michael Murry need to get together for an ex-pat seminar on what folks in other places should do to improve their situation and with strict adherence to your view of a morality with no practical consequences.
What’s you view on the state debt crisis in Iceland? I bet those folks can’t wait to hear your advice.
Mesposer,
I’m still waiting for you to show me why we haven’t declared war on our TRULY BAD NEIGHBORS; i.e. the kidnappers, pedophiles, child rapists and murderers responsible for 14,000 murders per year, 84,000 rapes per year; 4,200 non-family member child abductions; 80,000 children sexually abused each year; 100 child murder abductions per year.
Nal:
No, problem. I got a little worked-up, needlessly. My apologies to you, as well.
Well, Romney isn’t the president, yet.
A full 74 percent of republicans support drone strikes. When Romney becomes president, he will increase the strikes as he has promised.
David Taintor June 13, 2012, 11:00 AM 100 Talking Points Memo
The results of a Pew Global Attitudes Project poll on United States drone strikes show that “Americans are the clear outliers” on the issue. In 17 of 20 countries surveyed, more than half disapprove of the strikes carried out in Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere.
Sixty-two percent of Americans approve of the strikes, while 28 percent disapprove. Most Republicans — 74 percent — approve of the strikes, according to the survey.
In Germany, 59 percent disapprove of the strikes, while 38 percent approve. In Egypt, a whopping 89 percent disapprove, and 6 percent approve. In Brazil, 76 percent approve, and 19 percent approve. And in Japan, 75 percent approve of the strikes, compared to 21 percent who disapprove.
The poll also found a large gender gap on the issue of drone strikes. Double-digit gender gaps were found in 10 nations surveyed, according to the poll. In the U.S., 74 percent of men approve of the strikes. Fifty-one percent of women approve. In Germany, 54 percent of men approve of the strikes, and 24 percent of women disapprove.
The United States’ use of drone strikes has come under new scrutiny after a New York Times report revealed that President Obama keeps an expanding “kill list” of terrorist suspects. The article also revealed that Obama has embraced a method of counting civilian deaths that essentially counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants.
The Pew poll shows that approval of Obama’s policies has declined significantly since he took office. Public approval of Obama’s policies in Muslim countries has declined 9 percent since 2009. Muslim countries’ approval of Obama’s international policies has declined 19 percent since 2009.
See the full poll here.
http://www.salon.com/2012/06/13/u_s_drones_deeply_unpopular_around_the_world/singleton/
WEDNESDAY, JUN 13, 2012 07:40 AM EDT
U.S. drones deeply unpopular around the world
Animus toward American aggression is widespread and sustained in the Muslim world
BY GLENN GREENWALD
Last night I wrote about how Obama’s drone attacks and other forms of militarism in the Muslim world are making another Terror attack on U.S. soil more likely, while my Salon colleague Jefferson Morley documented the mass political instability those policies are spawning. A newly released international polling survey from the Pew Research Center sharply underscores both points.
The new multi-nation poll finds that “in predominantly Muslim nations, American anti-terrorism efforts are still widely unpopular.” Beyond Muslim nations, “in nearly all countries, there is considerable opposition to a major component of the Obama administration’s anti-terrorism policy: drone strikes.” Specifically, “in 17 of 20 countries, more than half disapprove of U.S. drone attacks.” As usual, “Americans are the clear outliers on this issue – 62% approve of the drone campaign, including most Republicans (74%), independents (60%) and Democrats (58%).” But in every other surveyed country besides India (which naturally supports any attacks in Pakistan), more people disapprove of Obama’s drone strikes than approve, usually by very wide margins. Indeed, “the policy is unpopular in majority Muslim nations, but also in Europe and other regions as well”; specifically, “at least three-in-four [are opposed] in a diverse set of countries: Greece (90%), Egypt (89%), Jordan (85%), Turkey (81%), Spain (76%), Brazil (76%) and Japan (75%).”
Just as is true in the U.S., Obama — revealingly and unsurprisingly — finds ample support for his policies among the European Right, with substantial opposition on the Left. “A majority (56%) of those who describe themselves as being on the political right in Britain favor U.S. drone strikes against extremists, but just 31% on the left agree.” And “a similar gap emerges in France, where about half of those on the right (49%) approve of the drone attacks, compared with about one-quarter (26%) among people on the left. Double-digit differences are also found in Italy, the Czech Republic and Germany.”
It’s an article of faith in many progressive circles that Obama has “restored America’s standing in the world” — they’ll just state it as though it’s gospel — but it’s patently untrue. While it’s true that Europeans and citizens of long-standing American allies such as Japan and Brazil generally view Obama far more favorably than they did George Bush (though far less so than was true in 2009), and the U.S. continues to be viewed favorably in the West, the perception of the U.S. in the Muslim world is as bad as, or even worse than, the lowly levels of the Bush era:
In a number of strategically important Muslim nations, America’s image has not improved during the Obama presidency. In fact, America’s already low 2008 ratings have slipped even further in Jordan and Pakistan. . . .
There is little support for Obama, however, in the predominantly Muslim nations surveyed. Fewer than three-in-ten express confidence in him in Egypt, Tunisia, Turkey and Jordan. And roughly a year after he ordered the Abbottabad raid that killed Osama bin Laden, just 7% of Pakistanis have a positive view of Obama, the same percentage that voiced confidence in President George W. Bush during the final year of his administration. . . .
In nearly every country where trends are available, support for Obama’s international policies has declined over the last three years. . . . . The U.S. receives many of its lowest ratings in predominantly Muslim nations. Among Muslim nations, the median has slipped from 34% to 15%. . . . Fewer than one-in-five have a positive opinion about America in Egypt (19%), Turkey (15%), Pakistan (12%) and Jordan (12%)
This is all consistent with numerous other international polls showing the U.S. under Obama as being deeply unpopular in the Muslim world generally and specifically in the region’s most strategically significant nations such as Egypt; not only has there been little improvement since the Bush era (with very few exceptions), in some cases the U.S. is mildly more unpopular now in that region. Notably, China is vastly more popular than the U.S. in the Muslim world.
This isn’t the by-product of some sort of reflexive, irrational anti-Americanism. In fact, there is substantial favorability toward American cultural influences and political ideals, including in the Muslim world (especially among younger Muslims). The cause of this anger is clear and rational; as even a Rumsfeld-commissioned 2004 study explained: “Muslims do not ‘hate our freedoms’, but rather they hate our policies.”
Fortunately, caring about international opinion — like so many other things — is so very 2004, especially in Democratic Party circles (notwithstanding the fact that, as that Rumsfeld-era report documented, anti-American animus arising from American aggression is the greatest security threat and the prime source of Terrorism). Who cares if virtually the entire world views Obama’s drone attacks as unjustified and wrong? Who cares if the Muslim world continues to seethe with anti-American animus as a result of this aggression? Empires do what they want. Despite all this, these polling data will undoubtedly prompt that age-old American question: why do they hate us?
Solon,
Awwww. Did I hurt some lil’ Nazi’s feelings? I don’t give a rat’s ass if you have a problem with me being ad hominem with Nazi sympathizers. If that presents a problem for you? That is your problem. And if you are upset because you too are a Nazi sympathizer? You can be fed to the wolverines as well.
I don’t like Nazis.
I don’t feel being civil to them is merited.
That you disapprove is irrelevant.
Swarthmore mom,
Greenwald didn’t profess support for Ron Paul.
*****
Progressives and the Ron Paul fallacies
The benefits of his candidacy are widely ignored, as are the Democrats’ own evils VIDEO
By Glenn Greenwald
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/singleton/
Definition: Irrefutable = If you say anything against this, you’re wrong.
F’rinstance: When Hitler was in power, everything he said was irrefutable.
Simple system, self-sustaining. Until…
Solontocroesus — what comment? Make a movie yourself was directed to “talkingback” who wonders why Spielberg didn’t make a movie about the things going on inside HIS (talkingback’s) mind…
Of course, you should go ahead and make a movie too — feel free!
Oh, and irrefutable? Sure it is, sure it is.
Malisha, In other words, the facts stated in my comments are irrefutable.
Gene, see reply to Malisha. The best response you have to inconvenient facts is ad hominem.