Shaker Aamer and the Spectre of “Kill Don’t Capture” Drone Policy


There has been an exciting flurry of activism surrounding the impending release of Shaker Aamer, a former British resident mistakenly imprisoned at Guantánamo Bay way back in 2001 and detained ever since, even after having been cleared for release years ago and on multiple occasions. Vigils have been held in the hopes that the US and British governments will follow through with the announced release of Mr. Aamer.

Not all of the detainees in Aamer’s circumstances have survived. Some of them died in prison. These people, denigrated by Bush administration officials such as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld as “the worst of the worst”, had been rounded up by bounty hunters in exchange for large sums of cash. Is it tautological to state that “bounty hunters” are invariably mercenaries, motivated first and foremost by the prospect of financial gain?

Those who defend the US government’s various efforts as well-intended, if not always obviously effective, may reply: How else can suspects be fingered in lands where the people speak a different language than the only one spoken by most soldiers and intelligence agents? Are we not ultimately dependent upon such mercenaries to provide essential information about threats and crimes?

Certainly bribed informants have continued to play a key role in the selection of terrorist suspects under President Barack Obama. Unfortunately, an important component of Obama’s approach to counterterrorism has been to “kill don’t capture” the suspects. If Shaker Aamer had been pegged as a terrorist suspect in 2011, rather than 2001, it grieves me to say, he would now be dead.

We must, therefore, ask: How many of the military-age male targets located in areas thousands of miles away (from US soil), in territories deemed “hostile” by the US government, have been closer to Shaker Aamer than to Osama bin Laden? I’d venture to say that a good number of them, about the same proportion of the detainees held erroneously at Guantánamo Bay, have been innocent.

The percentage of “the worst of the worst” who ended up being altogether innocent was a frightening 86%. Even if the Obama administration has been “more careful” in selecting named targets than the previous administration (which was fighting two wars in two different countries simultaneously), the identification of targets in “signature strikes”, against unnamed suspects, has also depended crucially upon the testimony and collaboration of bribed informants on the ground.

Given that the source of human intelligence (HUMINT) remains the same–bribery–we have rational grounds for concluding that many men morally equivalent to Shaker Aamer who were pegged as “suspected terrorists”—or militants or insurgents (these categories have been persistently conflated throughout four US administrations)—have been innocent. So while we celebrate the release of Shaker Aamer, we should at the same time pause to mourn the men killed on the basis of hearsay and circumstantial evidence in misguided attempts to persuade the people paying for the deaths that they are being kept safe and that justice is being served. Nothing could be further from the truth.

For more information and related criticism, see We Kill Because We Can: From Soldiering to Assassination in the Drone Age, Chapter 3: The Logic of Targeted Killing; Chapter 4: Lethal Creep; Chapter 5: Strike First, Suppress Questions Later; and Chapter 10: Death and Politics


“Words Written to Spark Debate”: New Zealand Television Appearance

Dunedin (New Zealand) TV reports on the launch of We Kill Because We Can:


Drones and Death in the First 2016 Democratic Presidential Debate


Five contenders vying to be the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee met yesterday in Las Vegas to spar over the issues. They talked a bit about guns, income disparity, racial discrimination, women’s rights, Wall Street, the pending Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, unemployment, social security, and a smidgeon of foreign policy. The word drone did not come up at all. In some ways, that was surprising, given that drones are politically palatable, providing leaders with the ability to intervene abroad to kill without risking the lives of any US soldiers.

In other ways, the omission of any mention of drones was unsurprising, because the US government did not acknowledge its practice of remote-control killing of suspects during the period from November 2002 to January 2012. It was all hush-hush, under cover of State Secrets Privilege. President Obama finally made public in advance of his reelection that he had been killing people with drones in lands far away. He reassured those listening to his Google Talk chat—clearly designed to woo voters—that “drones have not caused a huge number of civilian casualties,” and that the process of target selection was “not a bunch of folks in a room just making decisions.” So what is it, then? one has to ask. Does Obama, like George W. Bush before him, perhaps hear voices?

In 2012, Obama prevailed in the contest with Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney in part because on the campaign trail he succeeded in painting himself as strong for having killed, rather than captured, Osama bin Laden. Maybe that’s why 2016 contender Hillary Clinton went out of her way during the debate yesterday to say that she was “in the room” helping Obama when he “made the call” on May 2, 2011.

JimWebbOne of the more obscure candidates on the debate floor, Jim Webb, also boasted of having a killed a man—in his case in Vietnam. Given the evident interest among the presidential contenders in broadcasting their lethal creds, one can only wonder why such candidates should be at all surprised that so many people in the homeland are killed with guns every year. According to those who pen US foreign policy, homicide is now the “strategy” of choice—in fact, it’s a tactic—and the first, not last, resort, even in the case of unarmed suspects located thousands of miles away and who pose no danger to any other human being, much less a US national, when they are killed. In the drone age, US leaders kill not because they must, but because they can.

BernieHillShow2That using lethal drones to dispatch suspects abroad creates bereft survivors and seething anger among communities some of the members of which vow to seek revenge is never acknowledged by US leaders, who are subject to electoral redress only in the short term. Blowback, in contrast, erupts later on down the line, after the responsible policymakers have retreated from public life.

During last night’s debate, Hillary Clinton, who as secretary of state infamously pronounced that “Gaddafi must go,” remarkably characterized the US debacle in Libya as “smart power at its best”, clearly indicating that she would continue the Obama “smart wars”, projecting US power abroad through the use of lethal drones. Bernie Sanders, considered by many to be the progressive candidate of the group—although Clinton labeled herself a progressive, too, last night—said that he also agreed with the Obama approach.

BernieHillShowIn a dramatic flourish, Clinton shirked all responsibility for the deaths at Benghazi, making a remark to the effect that US government jobs in other countries can be dangerous. Indeed, and much more so when, as in Libya, the country in question has become chaotic and devoid of security as a direct result of the US government’s decision to remove its leader, which Clinton and others talked Obama into doing.

Is the Democratic slate better than the Republican slate of candidates for the presidency? Yes, but that’s pretty faint praise, at least judging by the Republican debates to date.


For more information and related criticism, see We Kill Because We Can: From Soldiering to Assassination in the Drone Age, Chapter 3: The Logic of Targeted Killing; and Chapter 10: Death and Politics

American Exceptionalism and False Dichotomy: Analysis of Robocop (2014), part II

part 1, the Robocop (2014) Story


Lethal Drone issues broached in Robocop (2014)

The anti-drone perspective of Robocop is palpable and perhaps a bit too heavy-handed in message delivery. The style of the film is undeniably didactic and the tone similar to a story one might see on Lifetime television. I happen to agree with the main criticisms of the film but believe that the important points would have been more persuasive to viewers if they had been approached with a bit more subtlety.

The film is highly critical of the military-industrial-congressional-media-academic-pharmaceutical-logistics complex and pokes fun at the mainstream media in addition to the greed of global corporations involved in the weapons industry. Even the use of drugs (in this case to modify dopamine levels) is treated briefly. But does the film effectively address the most fundamental problem with lethal robotic technology?

The real problem underlying all of the catastrophe to which cyborgs could give rise is that all robots are ultimately programmed by human-all-too-human beings, some of whom will invariably be corrupt. Robocop suggests as much by mentioning the corruption among the police force and also politicians, but it does not press the point. The blanket assumption underlying the use of the cyborgs is that threats can be facilely distinguished from non-threats. It’s a longstanding George W. Bush false dichotomy: “You’re either with us, or you’re with them.” Nowhere is the simplistic quality of such an assumption better illustrated than in the current war raging in Syria.

The drone wars have been carried out under the false assumption in “The World According to George W. Bush” that “the friend of my enemy is my enemy.” Associates become defined in this way as fair game for slaughter, when in fact they may be completely devoid of any intention to harm any other human being. If nothing else positive arises from the quagmire in Syria, perhaps people will finally come to see that the enemy of my enemy is not my friend. The friend of my enemy is not my enemy. The enemy of my friend may or may not be my enemy. It’s not black and white at all.

When people are scanned by the cyborg-man to determine whether they are threatening or nonthreatening, the decision is binary: there is no gray area. People holding weapons are deemed threatening. People with criminal records are deemed threatening. The problem with assuming that every person with a weapon is a threat is seen in the decision by US administrators to label all military-age males in “hostile” areas combatants and fair targets for Hellfire missiles launched by lethal drones. Many people have been destroyed in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) of northwestern Pakistan for the “crime” of bearing weapons, in other words, of being potentially threatening, even when no US national is anywhere near them. This is a wholesale license to kill people on the basis of demographics and a recipe for genocide.

Decisions such as these, how to define rules of engagement (ROE), whom to kill and whom to let live, are made by human beings. When the decision makers are rewarded for their dead-terrorist tallies, they may loosen the criteria for what constitutes a legitimate target. If there are no “high-value” named targets available, then they may cast about for other people to kill. That appears to have been the origin of the practice of “crowd killing” and also “signature strikes”, where groups of people whose identities are unknown are dispatched for their “suspicious” behavior patterns, said to match those of a disposition matrix of known terrorists.

The problems become even worse when the government is killing its own people using lethal drones, as has already occurred now in both Pakistan and Nigeria. Robotic technologies can be used to suppress dissent and to oppress people by forcing them to conform. They can also be used to kill at the caprice of whoever is in charge of the robotic systems. These are powers already presumed by political leaders in their use of military weapons abroad. What would society be like, were the drone warriors provided with the same power to kill with impunity at home as they wield overseas?

We have already witnessed some of what can happen in the Drone Age. Terrorists are said to have associates, who are claimed by drone program administrators to be fair game for slaughter, despite the evident fact that some of the associates turn out to be people who are more demographically than morally similar to terrorists.

Most of the people annihilated by Predator drone under the authorization of President Obama and his administration (usually the decisions are delegated to others, such as CIA director John Brennan) have been very unlike the clever mastermind of the attacks of September 11, 2001. They may share Osama bin Laden’s skin color. They may dress similarly, and they may even despise the US government, given its endless incursions into other nations and its blanket assertion of the right to kill anyone anywhere at any time and for any reason. Do all people who oppose the hovering over their head of lethal drones or the occupation of their country by foreign invaders deserve to be razed from the face of the earth? Presumably US citizens do not believe that they themselves deserve to die for holding such a view!

This point about double standards is made effectively in Robocop (2014). What’s good for the goose (Iran) is good for the gander (USA). Or maybe it’s just as wrong to subject Iranians to scanning by cyborgs as it would be to do to Americans. This is a more general critique of “American Exceptionalism”—better known as “hypocrisy” to people living far from US shores. We have reached a disturbing turning point in history, where death is being sought as an end in itself in places where there are not even any soldiers on the ground to protect. The specter of this sort of lethal obsession being applied in the homeland is too awful to contemplate.

Yet precisely this nightmare is imposed on the people of other countries by the US government and is paid for by its citizens. The official story told of what is being done is packaged in anodyne terms and used as rhetorical fodder by politicians, who paint themselves as strong for “defending” the country through supporting the use of drones abroad, oblivious as they are to the fact that the people of other countries are not different in moral essence from the people of the United States. If we oppose the use of lethal drones in our own civil society, then we should oppose their use in civil societies abroad as well.


For more information and related criticism, see We Kill Because We Can: From Soldiering to Assassination in the Drone Age, Chapter 8: From Conscience to Oblivion; Chapter 10: Death and Politics; Chapter 11: Death and Taxes; and Chapter 12: Tyrants are as Tyrants Do

Robocop (2014): The Drone Angle, part I


I recently watched Robocop, a 2014 film directed by José Padilha which treats cyborgs and the ascendance of robots in contemporary culture. An earlier film named Robocop was directed by Paul Verhoeven in 1987. I have not seen that version, which many reviewers at find vastly superior. Fortunately, I won’t be distracted in my analysis of Robocop (2014) by the earlier version, although I must say that I am now anxious to watch it—better late than never!

On the surface, Robocop (2014) may seem to be just another action flick with a touch of science fiction thrown in for good measure. Cyborgs were depicted in other movies (aside from the original Robocop) such as the Terminator series (starring Arnold Schwarzenegger) long before they were anything close to being a reality. By 2014, the science treated was no longer fiction at all. Drones are here and being used to spy on and kill people all over the planet. Other types of robots have been used to check areas for land mines and IEDs, and also for other military applications. This film raises a number of important questions about the use of unmanned systems.


The Story

The primary plot dispute is whether cyborgs should be used in the US homeland to save the lives of policemen, just as drones are being used abroad to avoid having to put “boots on the ground” and to obviate the need for manned bombers. The manufacturer of cyborgs in Robocop (2014) is a company called “OmniCorp”, based in China. This is a diaphanous jab at China’s recent economic ascendance in reality, but also the growing trend of private military companies  (PMCs) setting up shop abroad to avoid paying US taxes. Omnicorp is enthusiastically supported by a Fox News Network-type pundit, Pat Novac (played by Samuel Jackson in a hairstyle reminiscent of James Brown). Novac argues à la Sean Hannity in an obvious effort to convince viewers that their lawmakers should rescind a reigning prohibition on the use of cyborgs in the homeland.

Senator Hubert Dreyfus, the author of the Dreyfus amendment, is the arch opponent of the use of cyborgs on US soil, and up until now his position has been supported by the populace, who follow his lead in insisting that “the human factor” must remain in tact whenever lethal weapons are in play. If a cyborg mistakenly kills a child, it will feel nothing, and that is the fundamental problem, according to supporters of the Dreyfus amendment. How can delicate matters of life and death be delegated to a machine?

The head of OmniCorp, Raymond Sellars (played by Michael Keaton), naturally wants to change public opinion so that his company will become even wealthier and more powerful than it already is. The firm commands enormous contracts for cyborgs used in many other places around the world, including Iran, where the robots are shown scanning Iranians to locate threats in a manner reminiscent of Nazi roundups under the Third Reich—or US round ups during the occupation of Iraq. The procedures are broadcast back home to share with the citizens paying for the practice the “good” their government is doing on the other side of the globe. When mistakes are made, the channel switches abruptly to more palatable topics, just as in reality, where US military interventions abroad are sanitized by the mainstream media.

Heeding the poll data, Sellars sets out with his trusty company scientist, Dr. Dennett Norton (played by Gary Oldman), to create a cyborg-human amalgam, using a man, Alex Murphy (played by Joel Kinnaman), who has been nearly destroyed by a car bomb. All that remains of Murphy is his brain, one arm, and his lungs. He is the perfect guinea pig for the creation of a cyborg-human amalgam, which will function as effectively and be as lethal as a robot, but still retain the sentience of a human being and therefore not be illegal under the terms of the Dreyfus amendment.

All seems to be going well until details of all of the crimes which Cyborg-man Murphy will be sent out to solve are uploaded to his brain. He becomes emotionally overwhelmed by the ugliness and evil of the mountain of crimes, and his doctors find the need to sedate him by modifying his dopamine levels. Under medication, he becomes emotionally numb to the point where he no longer feels anger or any human emotions and looks more like a zombie than a man as he goes out to find the people on his list of wanted suspects. He walks right past his wife and son as though they do not exist, for he is focused singlemindedly on fighting crime and cannot be bothered with anything else.

The doctors soon recognize that they cannot allow the human element of Murphy to be functional when he is on duty, because his judgment may be clouded by strong emotions. They ingeniously devise a means by which to make him fully robotic during the times when he is out fighting crime, while laboring under the belief that he is making all decisions about his actions by himself. In truth, everything has been programmed into him. He only believes that he has free will, which is an illusion.

The cyborg-human amalgam turns out to be a failure, but it succeeds in serving as a perfect marketing tool, swaying public opinion to the point where congress agrees to overturn the Dreyfus amendment and permit fully robotic cyborgs to operate on US soil, the argument having been made that if only Murphy had not become obsessed with avenging his own murder, then chaos would not have ensued.


part 2: Lethal Drone Issues in Robocop (2014)


An automated assassin is an automated assassin by any other name


British Prime Minister David Cameron recently got in on the drone killing game by dispatching two of his countrymen and labeling the homicides acts of “national defense”. Would the homicides have been accepted without protest if the Prime Minister had enlisted a contract killer to sneak into the homes of British nationals and use strangulation wires to eliminate them while they were lying in bed asleep? Or would that not obviously constitute extrajudicial execution, doubly illegal under British law and the EU Charter, both of which prohibit capital punishment?

Now that Cameron has succeeded in strapping on his Hellfire missile holster with little response from the British public, he has decided to acquire even more lethal drones, doubling the country’s current arsenal. He will switch out the Reaper drones now in the RAF armory to make room for a new model. To ensure that no one puts up a fuss, he’s decided to call them “Protector” rather than Predator or Reaper drones, whose name unequivocally expresses their intended purpose: to kill human beings.

These machines are used not only to fire on targets, but also to hunt them down, making it impossible for them to escape alive. The targets are not permitted to surrender, as soldiers on the ground would be required to allow enemy soldiers to do. “No immediate threat” means “no killing” for a human combat soldier, who is subject to court martial and criminal charges when he opts to slay a person posing no clear and present danger to any person present.

In the Drone Age, the warriors “take no prisoners”, following the lead of US President Barack Obama, whose signature policy is “kill don’t capture”. The suspected targets (militants, insurgents, terrorists or just plain allegedly “evil” people) are incapable of laying down their arms before their killer, the drone lurking over their head, in most cases because they are not bearing any arms at all when they are obliterated. They are typically not threatening other human beings with death and so could not be legally terminated by another human being on the ground. The question therefore must be addressed: how can it be right to kill people using lethal drones, if it would be wrong for a human contract killer to do the same to unarmed persons walking down the street?

The practice of remote-control killing became a standard operating procedure because it was normalized by the US government after years of covert actions, which, carried out under cover of State Secrets Privilege, were never the subject of debate. The time has arrived for the populace of countries whose leaders wield or condone the use of lethal drones (as the German government does by permitting drone killing to be orchestrated from Ramstein Air Force base) to wake up to the reality of what is being done with their money under a pretext of national defense.

Calling summary execution without trial “protection” merely masks the reality, making it more politically palatable, just as calling the unintended victims “collateral damage” hides from the people paying for the deaths the horror of what has been done in their name.


For more information and related criticism, see We Kill Because We Can: From Soldiering to Assassination in the Drone Age, Chapter 3: The Logic of Targeted Killing; Chapter 10: Death and Politics; Chapter 11: Death and Taxes; and Chapter 12: Tyrants are as Tyrants Do

Upcoming Event! “When Lethal Drones Come Home: The Path to Political Perdition”

Please join us for a presentation and discussion by Laurie Calhoun, author of We Kill Because We Can: From Soldiering to Assassination in the Drone Age:

“When Lethal Drones Come Home: The Path to Political Perdition”

Date and Time: Thursday, October 22, 2015, at 1 pm

Place: National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Otago, 518 Castle Street, Dunedin, Southland, New Zealand 9054

Hope to see you there!