Insyriated (2017): What Not To Conclude

 

InsyriatedPoster

Available among recent releases to watch for free on Sky Movies right now is Insyriated (2017), a Belgian film directed by Philippe van Leeuw, which is set in the midst of the current civil war raging in Syria. The film could just as well have been called “Iniraqated” or “Inlibyated” or “Inyemenated”, or just substitute the name of any other country where war is currently raging.

This is a story about each and every war zone, for it depicts the lawless world into which all citizens are plunged once the powers that be, whether at home or abroad, decide to opt for war as a way to resolve conflict. Some will doubtless see in Insyriated a pretext for continued international intervention in Syria. The clearly identified bad guys are two government security agents who search terrified families’ homes and commit crimes along the way. The good guys here are the rebels, who we are made to believe fall into the category of “appropriately vetted moderate rebels” embroiled in a protracted and bloody conflict with the government of Bashar al-Assad.

In reality, we know nothing about the rebels depicted in this film, beyond the fact that they have families. Are they affiliated with Al Qaeda, ISIS, Al Shabaab, Al Nusra, or other official enemies of the West? It may not matter in the least. Certainly the “appropriately vetted moderate rebels” in Syria have more in common with “unvetted radical rebels” than some in the US government supposed when they unwisely opted covertly to bestow upon the former some 600 tons of weapons from 2012 to 2013. The result was plain for everyone to see: a massive expansion of ISIS across both Syria and Iraq. Groups such as ISIS are non-state entities, devoid of any form of military industry. They are able to take up arms only when formal military institutions provide them with the means to do so. Seems so obvious, and yet the flow of weapons to the Middle East from the West continues unabated.

It also may not matter all that much from the perspective of the civilians “Insyriated”, trapped in a terrifying war zone where bombs are falling all around and snipers are shooting all day long, that the government of Syria is not staffed primarily by saints (in contrast to Western governments!). The family and those whom they shelter depicted in this film are confined to a small apartment, unable to go outside, whether to work or to school. All that these people seem to want is for the war to end, so that they might finally resume their normal lives. Recall that in the aftermath of the US invasion of Iraq, many Iraqis voiced their considered opinion that, for ordinary people, the quality of life under dictator Saddam Hussein was far better than any time since he was deposed.

It would be a non sequitur of gargantuan proportion to conclude from the fact that some government security agents are thugs, rapists and thieves (in this film, two of them are identified as such) that we must jump into the ring and help to eject the Syrian government. For the truth is that the dynamics displayed in this film are more about the reality of wartime than about any particular context. Throughout history, men on both sides of every conflict have seized the opportunity to conduct themselves as though “Everything is permitted,” as though they had been flung back into the state of nature, where the law of the jungle is the only one which matters: Might makes right. Only the strong survive.

The tendency of wars to spiral into vicious, horrifying scenes of murder and mayhem has been witnessed over and over again, throughout history, and should, therefore, be regarded as a foreseeable consequence of any decision to go to war. In the twentieth century, World War II and the US intervention in Vietnam were particularly grisly examples of what can happen when young men are told that the proscription to homicide no longer applies, but every other war has also involved similar atrocities, if on a somewhat smaller scale.

Most recently, we know that during the US occupations of both Afghanistan and Iraq, many crimes were committed by US troops and privately contracted security forces, all paid for by well-intentioned US citizens. There is nothing unique about the horrific situation in Syria, where women and children are terrorized, raped, maimed and killed because the rules are no longer thought by some to apply. Nor does it matter in the least that some of the people fighting may have good intentions.

In fact, all of the parties to this conflict believe in what they are doing. The government forces believe that they are defending Syria from terrorists. The moderate rebels believe themselves to be rising up against the oppressive government. The radical rebels wish to establish a permanent Caliphate. “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” makes every military conflict difficult to grasp, but in Syria the situation is about as complicated as they ever get. There are no clear heroes and villains, for murder and rape and destruction have been committed on all sides. This is a multifaceted conflict with a long history, and it is sophomoric to suppose that “We are good and they are evil” tropes might somehow apply. (See Reese Erlich, Inside Syria (2014) for a detailed account of just how multifaceted this conflict is.)

The question, then, remains: what to do? And the answer should be obvious: not more of the same. Sending more troops to Syria, continuing the flow of arms to the region, and lobbing missiles and bombs on territories thought to harbor either terrorists or the central government is the worst policy of all, as should be evident from the outcomes of the stupid wars in both Iraq and Libya. Unfortunately, the latest chemical attack in Syria is being used to drum up support, once again, for more Western engagement in Syria. But what we know about this most recent attack is only that it occurred. We know that both the rebels and the government of Syria have had access to chemical weapons and may well have used them in the past. It is naive beyond belief to assume that every time chemical weapons are used, this constitutes the crossing of a proverbial red line which necessitates intervention.

It is, needless to say, highly suspicious that the latest attack occurred only shortly after President Trump’s announcement of an intention to remove troops from Syria. But would Western powers be so pernicious as to perpetrate a false flag chemical attack, effectively torturing and sacrificing innocent people for the purpose of perpetuating US involvement in the civil war? They’ve done it before, and it seems safe to say that they’ll do it again. After the abject failure of US intelligence agencies in the build-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, I find it remarkable that anyone continues to pay any heed to what they say. Yellow cake, aluminum tubes and chemical attacks all sound like reasonable pretexts to Joe Q. Public for Western governments to get involved. But only assuming that the stories being told to promote war are not based on falsehoods or, even worse, lies.

Injecting more weapons and troops into Syria will result only in more families being raided, more children being terrorized and more women being raped. If the central government is overthrown, then there will be more, not less, drowning of people in cages. The chaos to ensue, as rival factions rush in to fill the government void, might even, as in postwar Libya, fling open the door to slavery.

In the light of the recent history of the Middle East, Insyriated is most plausibly interpreted as a call to end the slaughter in Syria. It’s time to bring all of the troops home. From everywhere. Now.

Insyriatedposter2

Advertisements

Notes on a Prophetic Film: Robocop (1987)

Robocop1987poster2

Having seen the 2014 remake before the original Robocop (1987), I was anxious to find out why some reviewers are so adamant that the earlier version is vastly superior. Of course, that is often the case for movie remakes, and I never cease to be amazed when directors take it upon themselves to attempt to improve upon already excellent films, given that they are essentially setting themselves up for critical failure. As for Robocop, I myself find that both the 1987 and the 2014 version are worth watching and have distinct virtues, offering as they do slightly different takes on the militarization and automation of policing currently underway in the real world.

What is remarkable about the original Robocop, directed by Paul Verhoeven, is that it portrays as science fiction what has largely come to pass in reality. The Drone Age was well underway by 2014, but in 1987, people weren’t even using the internet, much less signing up to become remote-control assassins under the aegis of the US military. In 2014, robotic technology, mass surveillance and the use of facial recognition programs to pinpoint the location of suspects were also a matter of common knowledge. At the time of the release of the first Robocop, in contrast, such capacities were known about only by those privy to the arcane activities of DARPA’s inner sanctum. And of course readers of science fiction, from which many of the latest and most lethal innovations may ultimately derive, given that there appear to be intelligence community analysts whose job it is to read everything that has ever been published (as in Three Days of the Condor).

The popular success of both versions of Robocop is most likely due to the fact that, on the most obvious level, they are clear-cut examples of the action genre, featuring easily identifiable heroes and villains, and showcasing the typical Manichean quest between good and evil, highly embellished with fighting and killing and bloodshed and car crashes all along the way. In the 1987 version, we are to sympathize with Alex Murphy, the good cop, and his spunky female sidekick, Anne Lewis, because they are obviously good people who want nothing more than to stop crime and track down the perpetrators of past transgressions so that they can be thrown into prison where they so clearly belong. But what makes both of these films much more than typical (and forgettable) action flicks is the presentation in each of a complex network of corruption, which includes not only the lawless lowlife scoundrels out in the streets but also the white collar establishment in cahoots with organized crime. For the philosophically inclined, these films also raise many questions about the moral status of human beings and the nature of personhood.

AnneLewisRobocop

Thefts and homicides have spiraled out of control in old Detroit, and the city management has decided to privatize and revolutionize the police force, by replacing many human officers with robotic surrogates. Such an idea may have seemed farfetched throughout much of the twentieth century, but that this should eventually come to pass seems today rather predictable for some of the very same reasons that automation is causing the disappearance of many other professions. You can be replaced by a machine is no longer a humorous trope but a literal truth, at least insofar as vocations are concerned. In the relentless quest to cut costs in order to grow profit margins, the most expensive element in corporate networks remains the human factor. What company executive beholden to stockholders wants to foot the bill for health and retirement benefits, sick and maternity leave, and annual vacations, plus satisfy all of the other annoying demands made by human employees? More importantly, why do any of those things, if they can be altogether avoided? You can and will be replaced by a machine. It’s only a matter of time…

Somewhat ironically, developers of artificial intelligence have been working overtime to see to it that many if not most professions (theirs included!) can be better and more efficiently carried out by machines using automated processes. How the people formerly employed in those professions will be able to afford to live remains to be seen. Optimists maintain that with new technologies will come new industries, but it is becoming less and less clear how hordes of delivery persons and bus and taxi drivers (and Uber drivers who became the equivalent of taxi drivers for lack of better opportunities) will find gainful employment in the not-too-distant future, as automatic vehicles take over the streets and drones hover above in the sky. There’s also the poignant story of the employees of the already ailing brick-and-mortar retail sector, who were revealed to be next in line for unemployment by the recent Amazon-Go experiment. Yes, a handful of managers and administrators will always be needed, but where will all the workers go? These sorts of concerns appear to have reinvigorated the “universal basic income” movement, but that’s another story.

DeltaCity

In Robocop, order will need somehow to be maintained in Delta City as it is constructed from the scrappy remains of destitute Detroit by a huge influx of workers. With these new residents on their way, the city administrators have turned crime management over to a private company, Omni Consumer Products (OCP), an Amazon-meets-Halliburton-meets-Blackwaterlike entity, which will be supplementing the police force with robots. The plan is touted by its marketers as a stroke of genius, for robots, unlike human beings, never suffer fatigue, succumb to emotions, or waver from their mission (well, except in 2001: A Space Odyssey).

OmniConsumerProductsRobocop

ED209Unfortunately, the very first fully robotic police officer template, the ED-209 enforcement droid, malfunctions during its unveiling demonstration at a board meeting, brutally slaughtering one of the company employees. The CEO waves off the incident as a “glitch”, and one of his underlings avails himself of this propitious opportunity to pitch to the president a different sort of prototype, a cyborg, which he was enlisted to develop as a back-up plan because of the looming delivery deadline ahead.

The cyborg is created from the remains of Officer Murphy, whose body was mutilated beyond repair by a gang of thugs, though his brain was still salvageable. The brain of this human being is reprogrammed and enhanced as a synchable computer before being attached to a robotic body. This cyborg “officer” is conceived by its creators not as a person but as a product. Despite having Murphy’s brain, Robocop is regarded by company executives as a machine to do with as they please. (This point is underscored by the fact that the manager in charge, upon learning that one of Murphy’s arms was saved, orders that it be replaced by a prosthetic limb, so that all of Robocop’s body parts will be fully robotic.) Murphy was pronounced dead, so no one not involved in the project has any idea, at least not initially, that Robocop is anything but a machine.

Robocop1987posterAnother glitch arises with this new prototype, however, for Murphy’s brain was not wiped clean of all memories. He awakens abruptly from a dream in which he has accessed images of the scoundrels who viciously attacked him and left him for dead. Murphy goes rogue and sets out for revenge, which is really a quest for justice in this Manichean tale, since he has been wronged and the scoundrels are indeed guilty of heinous crimes. Along the way, Robocop/Officer Murphy discovers that not all of the apparently “good guys” involved in law enforcement are good guys. Dick Jones, the CEO of OCP, is in fact protecting Murphy’s own murderer, Clarence Boddicker, who is the leader of a sprawling underworld criminal gang responsible for the deaths of many Detroit police officers.

 

The Drone Angle

There is no point in relaying the bloody details of this hyperviolent film, which includes all of the standard fare sought by amateurs of the action movie genre, including fight scenes, crash scenes, explosions, shoot-outs, etc. I would like, instead, to point out two features pertinent to the Drone Age which may not have seemed salient to most viewers, whether they watched the film upon its release (long before the dawning of the Drone Age) or more recently.

First off, the idea that criminals should be executed rather than captured and made to stand trial for their alleged infractions is simply assumed in scenes such as the bust up of a large illicit drug laboratory. Murphy is on a personal quest to hunt down Clarence Boddicker and his crew, but along the way, he slaughters countless individuals who happen to have been in the wrong place at the wrong time. The assumption, of course, is that all of the people being executed by Murphy are “bad guys”. It is worth pointing out, however, that, because Robocop Murphy is not vulnerable to harm from any of the criminals wielding ordinary firearms, it is never an act of self-defense when he fires directly upon them with the express intention of killing them. These people cannot actually harm him, yet he executes them nonetheless.

This manifestation of what I call “lethal creep” is interesting to see in a film from 1987, for it presaged what is happening in the Drone Age on “battlefields” designated as such by those who run the drone program outside areas of active hostilities. People located thousands of miles away and who have no capacity whatsoever to harm the personnel targeting them are being slaughtered under the assumption that they are guilty of whatever a group of analysts have concluded through secretive deliberations that they may have done or, more preposterously, are possibly planning to do.

Thousands of other young, mostly Muslim, men outside areas of active hostilities have also been killed by the US government with absolute impunity for their apparent association with—or proximity to—persons suspected of complicity in terrorism. The danger of such an idea, that suspicious persons and their associates, all of whom are incapable of harming their eventual killers, should be annihilated nonetheless, because it is thought by someone somewhere that the world will be better without them, leaves the question of who may live and who deserves to die entirely to the discretion of those managing the remote-control killers. Under cover of State Secrets Privilege, all “nominations” to kill lists are carried out behind closed doors.

ClarenceBoddiker

In Robocop, the viewer knows that Boddicker’s gang of degenerates have already murdered many people and can be expected to murder many more, if they are not stopped. But the assumption in killing, not only those gang members, but also everyone else present at the drug laboratory (many of whom are probably not murderers), is that homicide is a perfectly reasonable way to prevent future crime. The Robocop police officer is wiping out all of these suspects not because they pose any immediate danger to anyone, least of all to him—built as he is of Kevlar-coated titanium—but simply because he can. We Kill Because We Can.

The parallel to the drone strike case is worth making a bit more explicit. When hellfire missiles miss their intended targets, killing innocent civilians instead of the persons suspected of complicity in terrorism (sometimes past, but usually future), the deaths are written off as “collateral damage”. In regular combat warfare, the deaths of innocent people are said to be regrettable but unavoidable, given present military exigencies. In the case of drone warfare outside areas of active hostilities, where force protection is not at issue, the same logic is nonetheless assumed to hold: that this “collateral damage” is unavoidable. But just as Officer Murphy is not killing in literal self-defense adversaries armed only with regular guns, there is no analogous military necessity at the time of drone strike deaths outside areas of active hostilities, for there are no soldiers on the ground requiring protection by the drone. This slippery slope of redefining assassination as targeted killing in order to permit “collateral damage” outside areas of active hostilities has made the US killing machine far more lethal than it would have been, were the use of military force restricted to regular war contexts.

Remarkably, Robocop succeeds in conveying a second, and equally frightening danger inherent to the drone program. For the inevitable presence of corrupt elements in the establishment (given human nature) itself implies that these tools of summary execution, whether drones or droids, can be used to rout out not only persons likely to commit murder in the future, but also those who pose a very different kind of danger, and only to those in power. Whistleblowers working within these systems can be facilely eliminated using this technology, given its associated culture of secrecy and lack of transparency and due process, as can outsiders who dare to pose questions about what those in power are doing.

The lethal turn occasioned by the Drone Age, the quest to kill as many suspects as possible in order to prove to lawmakers and the populace that they are being kept safe, will eventually come back to haunt citizens, at least any who dare to pose uncomfortable questions or to expose graft within their own society’s government. None of this bodes well for the future of democracy, and Robocop (1987) is prophetic for having pointed out the potential for such abuses.

 

DeltaCitySilverLining

Interview: What will be the likely effects of loosening restrictions on US military drone exports?

In this short interview, Jason White of Sputnik International asks Laurie Calhoun to comment on recent reports that the Trump administration plans to loosen restrictions on military drone exports.

1053708383

 

Here is a more detailed treatment of the topic.

 

 

 

Trump administration to ease restrictions on military drone exports–what does it mean?

TrumpDrone

For some time now, military advisors to President Trump have been floating the idea that the exportation of military drones should be stepped up in order to keep the United States “in the game”, so to speak. Obviously, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) are part of a growth industry, with drones of all shapes and sizes being produced and sold to people all over the world.

Under Obama, lethal drone exports were strictly limited in accordance with what is perhaps best characterized as a policy of American Exceptionalism: Do as we say, not as we do. The technology has been spreading nonetheless all over the globe, with both China and Israel as major players ready and willing to furnish drones to countries not on Obama’s very short list of trustworthy customers. The Obama administration approach was to operate with a presumption against the exportation of lethal drones, but governments seeking this technology no longer need the United States to acquire it. To suppose that lethal drones would not eventually be hovering all over the globe, with or without the blessing of the executive branch of the US government, was shortsighted, to put it mildly. The dangerous precedent was set by the US government itself for the use of drones in wars on “battlefields” paradoxically “outside areas of active hostilities”, and now we can expect to see the true globalization of remote-control killing, across all borders, as lethal creep seeps into the protocol of governments large and small, democratic and monarchic alike.

MadDogMattisOne of the figures promoting the expansion of drone exports has been, predictably, Secretary of Defense James Mattis, who, like so many other influential advisors to the president, has financial incentives for seeing to it that this facet of US military industry flourish. Initial indications suggest that the exports will be primarily of surveillance, not weaponized drones, but it is the very nature of a drone to be modular, so lethal delivery systems can be snapped on facilely by the customer. Needless to say, there will be no way to control how these machines are deployed by the end user, and at some point, the thin edge of the wedge will become the thickest, with untrammeled exports of fully weaponized drones as the norm–the argument being, again, that “if we don’t provide the lethal add-on, some other country will.” No one sells guns without ammunition and it seems predictable that drones will be regularly produced and shipped prêt-à-tuer in the not-too-distant future, given that the weaponized drone has already been successfully marketed as a tool of “smart war” in both the United States and the United Kingdom.

DavidCameronDroneFormer US president Barack Obama and former UK prime minister David Cameron intentionally and premeditatedly hunted down and killed their own compatriots in acts of summary execution without indictment, much less trial. What reason can there be for believing that other political leaders will not also follow suit? If two of the most stable democratic governments on the planet have opted to substitute assassination for judicial process, why would the leaders of nondemocratic nations not take this as a license to kill anyone whom they perceive to be threats?

People who see lethal drones as a growth industry are right: the market potential has only just begun. Who knew that Western democracies would revert to pre-Magna Carta times in their desperation to stem the tide of terrorism? That the use of this tactic, the summary execution without trial of suspects, along with whoever happens to be at their side, has failed spectacularly is evidenced by the very fact that the Global War on Terror (GWOT) continues to expand as terrorists proliferate and move to new places, sometimes seeking refuge in the West–which is of course the safest place for them to hide out at this point in history. Certainly jihadists concerned to retaliate to lethal drones hovering above their own neighborhoods in homelands in the Middle East have prudential reasons to pitch a tent somewhere else.

The move to increase drone exports undoubtedly appeals to Trump, not because he himself is in cahoots with the lethal drone industry (at least not to my knowledge), but because he proudly proclaims that his primary mission is to Make America Great Again. Being first and foremost a businessman, Trump naturally measures “greatness” in economic terms. This explains why he has been exporting military weapons and technologies in a dizzying flurry all over the world, especially to the Middle East, but also to Southeast Asia. President Obama had set new records for military exports to Saudi Arabia but Trump, never to be outshined by Obama, has taken weapons exports to a whole new level.

It is possible that Trump’s unabashed quest to out-do Obama on all fronts is a motivating factor in his increased use of lethal drones, the proliferation of hunt and kill missions, and also the decision to ramp up all military exports, including drones. I am inclined, however, to interpret all of this as following from Trump’s monolithic desire to make America economically great again.  The more of these “tools” which are expended, whether in military missions abroad or in exports to other governments, the more there will be a perceived need to produce even more of them, using American capital and American labor. Greater production of weapons by Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and the many other American firms whose wealth derives from the sale of implements of mass homicide will mean more profits. It seems safe to say that Trump does care more about the nation’s economic well-being than the fact that the number one US export has become, sad to say: death. But Trump’s heartfelt desire to revive the US steel industry and, ultimately the US economy, is merely aided by his massive increases in weapons exports. The end justifies the means. Let the missiles fall where they may.

The way was paved for Trump’s increase in military drone exports by the resplendent success on the part of the previous administration in normalizing assassination and, remarkably, convincing people to believe that drone operators may in fact commit what would obviously be war crimes, if perpetrated by uniformed soldiers on the ground. For drones are used to kill suspects without providing them with the opportunity to surrender, even when they are unarmed and not threatening anyone with death, least of all the drone operator incinerating the target. As much as Trump detractors would like to blame the current president for the marked increase in drone-perpetrated carnage to come, the formidable feat of normalizing assassination was accomplished not by Donald Trump, but by Barack Obama. This was a landmark, paradigm-shifting, even revolutionary, rebranding of assassination as targeted killing, said to constitute perfectly legitimate warfare.

No one should be surprised that, like US politicians, foreign leaders find lethal drone technology to be highly seductive. Targeted killing has proven easy to sell. More and more leaders will likely follow the US example, by insisting that lethal drones save the lives of compatriots, and obviate the need to sacrifice soldiers. But unscrupulous politicians and the leaders of nations where democracy has yet to take hold can use the very same rationalizations for killing suspects as did their mentors: political dissidents will be denounced as intrinsically evil terrorists and therefore fair game for summary execution.

The myopia of the Obama administration in normalizing assassination without thinking through what were sure to be the ultimate consequences of insisting that the executive branch of a government has the right, in national self-defense, to execute suspects where and when it pleases, will emerge clearly in the years to come. For now, it seems safe to say that “strike first, suppress questions later” will characterize the approach to dissidents by more and more political leaders, all over the globe, thanks to the nearly boundless potential for profits in the death industry. The use of lethal drones to assassinate suspects will be limited only by the imaginations of politicians as they decide, behind closed doors, who does and who does not deserve to be extinguished by remote control.

ObamaAssassin in Chief

You Can Leave audiobook now available

The audiobook for You Can Leave is now live and available for sampling and purchase. Be among the first to listen to this harrowing tale of struggle and survival in a world gone morally mad and bureaucratically bad.

You Can Listen to a 5 minute sample or download the entire recording free with a trial membership to Audible:

https://mobile.audible.co.uk/pd/Crime-Thrillers/You-Can-Leave-Audiobook/B07BLJL4BW?ref=a_search_c3_lProduct_1_1&pf_rd_p=c6e316b8-14da-418d-8f91-b3cad83c5183&pf_rd_r=D87S21BRZJTFTPT2Y26T&

National Bird: A Cautionary Tale

NationalBirdCover

National Bird, a film directed by Sonia Kennebeck, received much less attention than Eye in the Sky, though both had US releases in 2016. One reason for this is that Eye in the Sky paints drone warfare as a positive development in human history, and its perpetrators as somehow noble, despite the risk of killing civilians which invariably attends this new practice. Another reason for the relative lack of attention received by National Bird is simply that documentary films, which tend to be more critical of their subject matter and far less entertaining, rarely get much coverage in the media, and those about drone warfare are no exception to the rule. Several films highly critical of the US drone program have been released, but unfortunately they have quickly fallen by the wayside and failed effectively to penetrate the collective consciousness of the citizens who fund the practice, new to the twenty-first century, of hunting down and killing persons suspected of complicity in terrorism, or of being in association with persons suspected of complicity in terrorism.

The administrators of the US drone program have succeeded resplendently in their promotion campaigns by persuading politicians and the populace to accept the official story, according to which assassinations carried out by uniformed soldiers stationed in trailers in the desert thousands of miles away from “the battlefield”, using remote-control launched missiles, are really “targeted killings” and legitimate acts of war. National Bird, like the documentaries which preceded it, calls into question this reigning dogma, and disputes some of the most basic “facts” being reported by the US administration. All of the documentaries produced to date on the topic of targeted killing examine some of the seldom-mentioned negative effects of the drone program upon not only the victims abroad, but also the young American recruits enlisted to serve as paid assassins under a guise of defending the homeland.

EverywhereNationalBird

What is unique about National Bird is its deft illumination of three key aspects of the drone program, beginning with what is in effect the racial profiling of the unnamed persons being intentionally killed. The US administration has killed thousands of persons on suspicion of complicity in terrorism—or suspicion of association with persons suspected of complicity in terrorism—simply assuming all along the way that the military-age males killed are guilty until proven innocent. Such an inversion of the burden of proof is preposterous on its face, implying, among other things, that many of the journalists on the ground investigating these cases are themselves, by the same criterion, fair game for targeting.MilitaryAgeMale2

National Bird homes in on some of the actual victims in Afghanistan, both mothers and fathers who have lost their children, and military-age males who have lost their limbs in US drone strikes. The men interviewed are obviously not terrorists, but if they had been killed rather than maimed, they would have been reported to the US populace as Enemy Killed in Action, or EKIA, along with the thousands of other unnamed persons killed by the drone “warriors” all over the Middle East.

MilitaryAgeMaleVictimThe three former drone program analysts who share their experience in National Bird—Heather, Daniel, and Lisa—all insist that claims such as that by former President Barack Obama that strikes are not taken unless there is “near certainty” that no civilians will be killed, are in fact false. As they have worked within the program, they can confidently assert that this follows straightforwardly from the fact that the persons being killed are, in most cases, of unknown identity. When missiles are launched, the persons being targeted are thought by someone in the kill chain to be legitimate targets, but it is only in the aftermath of strikes that anyone can confirm who was or was not killed. In most cases, no effective confirmation is carried out at all.

Of course, demonstrating that an intended target was killed in a strike would not in any case establish the target’s guilt, only that the person suspected of being in complicity or in association with terrorists is now dead. The suggestion that state execution of a suspect suffices to demonstrate his guilt is a highly disturbing development in history, a huge step backwards in procedural justice to pre-Magna Carta times. But such concerns are ignored by the drone warriors, as they continually vaunt the success of their killing campaigns, even as the Global War on Terror (GWOT) expands like an amoeba to new and larger “battlefields”, a sure indication that terrorism is not in decline but on the rise. The angry survivors of drone attacks—fathers, sons, brothers, and friends of those killed—sometimes join forces with groups such as ISIS to fight back against the Westerners who continue to slaughter people throughout the Middle East with impunity.

LisaLingNationalBird

Lisa Ling, one of the former analysts interviewed in National Bird, expresses concern that this new paradigm, which involves vacuuming up information from all possible sources in order to locate people to kill, implies that there are no limits to killing anyone anywhere at anytime, because there are no effective constraints on the killers.

Heather, a former image analyst, whose job involved distinguishing allegedly bad actors from HeatherNationalBirdobvious civilians such as women and children, laments that the push-button killers are trigger-happy, always seeking out opportunities to eliminate potential threats, even when concern has been aired that there might be civilians present. Heather explicitly articulates an extremely disturbing truth which drives the drone program forward: the killers are rewarded professionally for killing more, not fewer persons, because all of the dead are simply assumed to be dangerous terrorists until proven otherwise, which is rarely ever done.

DanielNationalBirdDaniel, also a former analyst, points out that the lack of any sort of disciplinary consequences in the event of faulty strikes, when it later emerges that scores of civilians have died, makes it easier and easier for those in charge to approve the strikes. They are gambling with human lives, as happens in warfare more generally, but the difference in this case is that nothing will happen to the killers themselves when they make mistakes.

Ironically, the only persons in the kill chain who seem to be truly endangered by the drone program are the former operators and analysts who dare to speak out about what they have been lured into doing. They are investigated for possible violations of the Espionage Act, and even when they are not charged with crimes for boldly proclaiming that many civilians have died, and that claims by the administration about minimal collateral damage have in fact been lies, they are nonetheless quite effectively threatened by the specter of possible future prosecution.

JesselynRadackNationalBirdJesselyn Radack, an attorney with several whistleblowers numbering among her clients, points out that the persons pursued by the Department of Justice are often blacklisted from employment and ruined financially in the process of defending themselves from charges that they are spies, when, in fact, they have attempted only to expose what is wrong with the systems in which they were employed.

By looking at the plight of both bereft survivors on the ground and traumatized former drone program analysts, National Bird manages to highlight a third problem with the ongoing industry of remote-control killing. It is a matter of no small irony that both civilians on the ground and whistleblowers who attempt to speak out about what they believe to have been crimes are effectively terrorized by the very existence of the drone program, which was erected in order to fight terrorism. The threat of possible prosecution most likely has a chilling effect upon other former operators, who may decide not to talk for fear of the personal consequences of doing so.

DanielProtesting

At the same time, persons living under threat of death by lethal drones hovering above their heads have in some cases come to avoid public functions such as weddings and funerals, and they refrain from associating with people in other public places as well, for fear that they will somehow be pegged as “associates” of persons suspected of complicity in terrorism. It seems likely also that male journalists of military age may well avoid drone strike sites for fear that they might die next, while attempting to uncover the truth about previous drone strikes.

AmputeesAfghanistan

All of this shows that the targeted killing program is a gross affront to the very idea of democracy, causing people to fear for their life and well-being if they do what human beings have a right to do: to associate in groups, and to speak their mind and stand up for what they believe. These longer-term cultural effects of the drone program will play out only over decades, but they do not bode well for the future of civilization, and they certainly will not contribute to the democratization of lands where central government authorities are provided with the means to dispatch their political (and personal) enemies with the push of a button.

The moral turpitude of the drone program is so pervasive and so wide-ranging that it is difficult to know where to begin in criticizing it. But National Bird does a good job of highlighting some of the worst consequences of the highly regrettable normalization of assassination with impunity by persons with financial incentives to kill as many people as they can. In the process, young American soldiers are being transformed into assassins, having been lured into this profession in some cases only because they needed a job. Those who drop out of the program must suffer with their conscience for the rest of their lives. Those who stay in will rise in the ranks to become administrators who will follow the typical trajectory of lethal creep characteristic of corrupt actors more generally. The more they kill, the more they will seek out opportunities to kill, in order to prove to themselves that they were right to have done what they already did.

calhoun-b-format_final-1

Interview on Brave New World

John Harrison recently interviewed Laurie Calhoun on the radio program “Brave New World” about her new book, You Can Leave: a novel. Topics discussed include the potential dangers of new technologies for dissidents and how mass surveillance and covert targeting practices used in the drone program could be commandeered by bad actors.

 

 

https://sputniknews.com/radio_brave_new_world/201802231061909528-when-is-a-suicide-not-a-suicide/

 

YouCanLeaveCalhoun