A Letter from Four Former Drone Operators with Echoes from the Stimson Center Report

 

Former drone sensor operator Brandon Bryant has given interviews all over the world about his involvement in the US government’s drone program or “killing machine”, as it has been aptly labeled by some. He has not always met with sympathy from interviewers and commentators. I was especially struck by the antagonistic stance of one BBC reporter, Stephen Sackur, whose questions often hinged on questionable facts which he had accepted as the gospel truth. Here’s a YouTube video of the interview:

Where, for example, did the notion that Anwar al-Awlaki gave advice to the 9/11 attackers come from, if not from a myth fabricated for the public to rationalize the US citizen’s summary execution without trial in Yemen? For those who missed it, including Stephen Sackur, here’s what Anwar al-Awlaki said in an interview with National Geographic News on September 28, 2001:

“My worry is that because of this conflict, the views of Osama bin Laden will become appealing to some of the population of the Muslim world. Never in the past were there any demonstrations raising the picture of Osama bin Laden–it has just happened now. So Osama bin Laden, who was considered to be an extremist, radical in his views, could end up becoming mainstream. That’s a very frightening thing, so the US needs to be very careful and not have itself perceived as an enemy of Islam.”

 In an interview on October 31, 2001, by Ray Suarez for PBS, Anwar al-Awlaki said:

“Our position needs to be reiterated, and needs to be very clear. The fact that the US has administered the death and homicide of over 1 million civilians in Iraq, the fact that the US is supporting the deaths and killing of thousands of Palestinians, does not justify the killing of one US civilian in New York City or Washington, DC.”

It is possible, of course, that this was all a part of a grand and sneaky scheme on the part of Al-Awlaki to pretend to condemn the attacks which he “in fact” helped to orchestrate. It is also logically possible, I suppose, that the 9/11 hijackers attacked the United States because “they hate us for our freedom.” Far more probable—and logically tenable—is that 9/11 was blowback for the 1991 Gulf War and related US interventions, especially in Muslim lands, abroad.

Likewise, more probable than the conspiracy theory according to which Al-Awlaki was only pretending to denounce the attacks of 9/11 is the version of the story ably relayed by Jeremy Scahill in Dirty Wars: that the Muslim cleric was radicalized by the actions of the US government itself, which in aftermath of 9/11 did precisely what Al-Awlaki counseled against, by waging what could be reasonably interpreted as a war on Islam.

By executing Al-Awlaki, rather than indicting him and allowing him to stand trial, the US government effectively etched its own version of what transpired onto the tablets of history. Reporters such as Stephen Sackur simply assume that the US government version of the story is true, without doing so much as a cursory Google search to find out what Al-Awlaki was doing and saying back in 2001.

It is more than a little disturbing that so many journalists and reporters have uncritically parroted, replicated and disseminated whatever the US drone warriors say, even as they regularly contradict themselves and completely re-write the story of what they have done as circumstances dictate. Was Osama bin Laden armed when he was killed in Abbottabad, Pakistan? The initial official story was that he was killed by Navy SEALS in legitimate self-defense, armed as the mastermind was with an AK-47. Later versions—some from the US government—have offered very different accounts of what transpired.

The obdurate refusal on the part of mainstream journalists to go beyond the official stories shared (and often “leaked”) by the government reveals that the Fourth Estate has effectively forsaken its democratic raison d’être–just as surely as US congresspersons did when in October 2002 they renounced their right and responsibility to check the power of the executive to wage war at his caprice. The result? The 2003 invasion of Iraq, and everything to ensue, up to and including the ongoing ISIS-driven quagmire in Syria.

When brave men such as Brandon Bryant step forward to share the ghastly reality of what is being done in the drone program, they are naturally met with skepticism and sometimes ire. Why? Because if what they are saying is true—and there is no compelling reason for thinking that they lie—then the US government has gone morally awry in its politically driven effort to convince citizens that they are being kept safe through a concerted and wide-ranging program of “targeted killing” (formerly known as “assassination”) abroad.

In assessing the credibility of this witness, it is important to bear in mind that Brandon Bryant was not fired from his position. He quit his job and declined even to accept a generous bonus (aka “bribe”) for staying on. Why? Because he could no longer continue in good conscience to do what he had come to believe was wrong.

Here is a recent letter sent to the powers that be by Bryant and three kindred spirits, Cian Westmoreland, Stephen Lewis, and Michael Haas:

    
 
 (source: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2515596-final-drone-letter.html — Contributed by: Ed Pilkington, The Guardian)

 

It is worth pointing out that in the first paragraph of the letter these admirable souls have clearly articulated some of the very concerns aired by the Stimson Center task force in its US government-commissioned report of 2014. One rarely hears mention of it these days, but the administration agreed to subject the drone program to scrutiny by an independent group of academics, industry experts, and former military officers. Unfortunately, no one in power appears to have read the report, which, in addition to advising that lethal drones be taken out of the hands of the CIA, also clearly warns in its Executive Summary:

Blowback: Civilian casualties, even if relatively few, can anger whole communities, increase anti-US sentiment and become a potent recruiting tool for terrorist organizations. Even strikes that kill only terrorist operatives can cause great resentment, particularly in contexts in which terrorist recruiting efforts rely on tribal loyalties or on an economically desperate population. UAV strikes by the United States have also generated a backlash in states not directly affected by the strikes, in part due to the perception that such strikes cause excessive civilian deaths, and in part due to concerns about sovereignty, transparency, accountability and other human rights and rule of law issues.”

Sound familiar? Military and drone program supporters may dismiss out of hand the testimony of former drone operators—writing them off as PTSD victims, disgruntled employees, or simply “bad apples”. But can any of those terms be applied to the Stimson center committee, the members of which were appointed by the US government?

Perhaps Obama, Brennan & Co. (literally) were hoping for a report which would conclude by patting the drone warriors on the back and exhorting them to continue on in their quest to kill brown-skinned suspects wherever they may be said to hide, working from “evidence” furnished by privately contracted analysts with strong reasons of financial self-interest to generate longer and longer kill lists–as long as they can.

 

Israel’s Compact Kamikaze Drones: Strategic Ineptitude or Simple Insanity?

 

 

HeroDrone

Israel has developed and is selling the new Hero-30 drone, which weighs in at a mere 7lbs and can be used to kill a target with less collateral damage than the more prevalent Predator and Reaper drones. The larger drones deliver Hellfire missiles to destroy entire groups of people in “crowd killing” and “signature strikes”—or a specific named target along with whoever happens to be around. The Hero-30’s manufacturer, uVision, has boasted that their creation is in great demand. I wonder why?

Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld used to talk with vim and verve about making the military leaner and meaner. Earlier strategists had come up with the bizarre idea of “suitcase nukes”, which always struck me as odd and self-sabotaging to the citizens of the nation supposedly being protected. Who in his right mind would propose the development of weaponry ideal for use by enemies against the very people who paid for its research, development and production?

Nuclear weapons small enough to carry around in a suitcase could easily be passed from one individual to another—that’s the whole point. But the twentieth-century history of Africa amply illustrates that the persons involved in the weapons trade are on the whole a fairly disreputable lot—perfectly willing to arm both sides of a conflict and watch the corpses pile up. The transfer of a suitcase nuke to a questionable customer, far from being preposterous, would be only one unscrupulous businessman away—provided only that he was confident that his customer would be deploying the weapon far, far away…

Small-scale nukes could be used by small groups of committed warriors against nuclear powers in acts of retaliation logically akin to the attacks of September 11, 2001, insofar as the tools of the hegemon would be deployed against the hegemon itself. Such innovative attacks, too, would be claimed to be intended to make the citizens funding the homicides of their government—and therefore complicit as “associates”—finally come to understand what others had suffered in wars painted as “just” and “necessary” by politicians.

In the Drone Age, similarly suitcase-sized UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles or drones) are now being produced and sold by the government of Israel to undisclosed clients as it sees fit. It is puzzling, to say the least, how any strategist could regard such weapons as useful to a government without recognizing that they might be even more so to their declared enemies, in Israel’s case, the Palestinians regarded as terrorists.

If we have learned anything from the history of the weapons industry, it is that the latest and greatest means to death developed by advanced states do not stay only in the hands of those who develop them. Every implement of homicide developed by a First World power ends up ultimately in the hands of the leaders of Third World client states, but also in the hands of the militants who are their enemies.

Saddam Hussein would never have been able to use chemical weapons against the Kurds without the development and provision to him of such means by the governments of nations considerably more technologically and industrially advanced than Iraq. Similarly, small factions are devoid of the capacity to produce sophisticated weapons and would not use them unless they were provided with pre-fabricated versions small enough to be transferred from one person to the next.

What could be better for a terrorist than the possibility of launching attacks without risking his personal demise? Fanatical jihadists are of course ready and willing to die for what they take to be a cause transcending their self. But if one act of “jihad” is good, then would not two be even better? Why not carry out multiple acts of retaliatory revenge before departing from the terrestrial world to unite finally with God? If one mass bombing is conceived by its perpetrator as a heroic act, then would it not be even better commit many attacks before making the final sacrifice?

Drones make it all possible: to kill multiple times without risking death. Small drones are the perfect weapon for factions and individual operators, both politically affiliated and those who dispatch persons at the behest of their boss, the person who pays them to kill. True, that description fits drone operators just as surely as it does hitmen.

As the Drone Age marches on (or should I say “spirals downward”), it seems reasonable to predict that more and more hitmen will be technicians who send out the poison or the bomb, or whatever specific means to death is deemed best under the circumstances, with next to no risk of detection. Should the death look like a heart attack? No problem: small drones are up to the task and can surely be rigged to deliver the needed means.

What could be worse than a weaponized small drone falling into the hands of “technicians” who work in organized crime? How about a small drone whose payload happens to be a small nuke—or the chemical weapons used by Saddam Hussein?

HeroDrone
HeroDrone
HeroDrone

 

 

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 7: The Operators; and Chapter 10: Death and Taxes

Slippery slopes and the case of Mohammed Emwazi

JihadiJohn

You know that the war on terrorism is waning in popularity when the summary execution without trial of a single young British man believed to be an executioner makes all of the major headlines, even as the reports are qualified with terms indicating their complete lack of ‘near certainty‘ that the strike destroyed the intended target:

NYT: Pentagon Says ‘Jihadi John’ Probably Killed

BBC: Jihadi John: US ‘reasonably certain‘ strike killed IS militant

Washington Post: US strike believed to have killed ‘Jihadi John’ Islamic State Executioner

This latest act of premeditated, intentional, stealth homicide is being trumpeted as an important victory, just as so many earlier reports before touted “suspected militants slain” and “no. 2 Al Qaeda leader defeated”. All of the other able-bodied males killed in the stead of intended, named targets become immortalized as “suspected militants slain”. The women, children and elderly men are generally not mentioned, unless they happen to be Westerners, in which case they are labeled ‘collateral damage’ and blamed on the evil enemy.

Let’s assume for the sake of argument that Mohammed Emwazi, better known as “Jihadi John”, is dead and that he in fact murdered people and so was guilty of capital crimes. He was killed by a US drone, with the aid of UK intelligence. British Prime Minister David Cameron made a public statement to let everybody know about his belief in the reasonable certainty that “Jihadi John” was probably another feather in his cap. Or a war trophy. Britain is not officially at war with Syria, but Cameron’s government has been following Obama’s lead in doing whatever they like, whenever they like, and wherever they like.

Cameron appears to be in the midst of a whirlwind effort to accrue big-time drone warrior creds, having already authorized the execution of two other British nationals, Reyaad Khan and Ruhul Amin, in August 2015. He also recently purchased a slew of new drones which he has christened “Protectors“. That slick maneuver brought him quickly up to speed with the longstanding Orwellian rebranding game. Is Cameron moving forward, or is he sliding down a slippery slope to a dark and dismal place, while taking Britain with him?

An editorial in The Guardian on the legality of the strike argues, with Labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn, that the latest drone killing of a British citizen cannot be rationalized under Article 51, the national self-defense clause, of the United Nations Charter. The sudden and quite vocal expression of concern surrounding the legality of the killing of Mohammed Emwazi strikes me as a bit tardy. How in the world were the assassinations of Reyaad Khan and Ruhul Amin any better on that count? Or perhaps the assumption among many at the time was that those two homicides would be rare exceptions, not the beginning of Britain’s own full-fledged Drone Age, complete with new ways of interpreting old laws.

These have all been small but significant steps down a path which can only end in summary execution without trial in the homeland. Not possible? Implausible? Improbable? I believe that we can be reasonably certain that this is probably where all of this will end. It will only take a leader capable of recognizing the arbitrariness of the location of a suspect, and also the implement of homicide–using a pistol or a poison would be illegal, but a missile is permissible?–before summary execution without trial will become standard operating procedure at home as abroad.

The Obama administration’s sad legacy will be the further erosion of the rule of law and a full-on attack on the very idea of human rights. Was Jihadi John destroyed in the strike? Or was it some other young male who wound up in the wrong place at the wrong time? If so, this fact may be discovered later on, but the designation of the victims as legitimate targets will not change. The military-age males destroyed by drone strikes are defined as guilty until proven innocent, which is of course impossible for them to do.

After the attacks of September 11, 2001, the US government decided to pursue the perpetrators by ordering full-scale invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. When large-scale preemptive war did not work, they added on smaller-scale targeting of individuals in lands where war had never been waged. From killing only foreigners, the drone warriors moved “ahead”, in a misguided show of cosmopolitanism, to target nationals suspected of treason as well. Obama authorized the execution of Anwar al-Awlaki, and the rest is British history.

Hackers and propagandists, both nationals and nonnationals, have been hunted down abroad and killed just as though they were weapon-bearing militants. The next natural step in this progression will be the elimination of political dissidents within the homeland. If it seems as though that would be breaking a law or two, no matter: just redefine a term or two, and we’ll have achieved Orwellian’s ultimate nightmare: when “democracy” becomes indistinguishable from tyranny.

Gallows

For more information and related criticism, see We Kill Because We Can: From Soldiering to Assassination in the Drone Age, Chapter 4: Lethal Creep; and Chapter 12: Tyrants are as Tyrants do

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

ShakerAamer

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

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

part 1, the Robocop (2014) Story

Robocop2

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.

WeKillBecauseWeCanLaurieCalhoun

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

Robocop2014

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 IMDB.com 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.

RobocopLab

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.

cont’d…

part 2: Lethal Drone Issues in Robocop (2014)

Robocop3

The Pentagon Now Dispatches Hackers by Drone: Caveat Edward Snowden

The Pentagon first announced back in 2011 that they would regard cyberattacks as bona fide acts of war, to which a military response would be appropriate. That sounded like a policy statement to me, which educated citizens of a constitutional republic might have thought should be issued by political leaders, not warriors. Everyone in the mainstream media pretty much yawned and went on with whatever they were doing, mostly parroting Pentagon announcements about “suspects reportedly slain” touted as “victories” in the eternal “war on terror”.

The Pentagon recently boasted that they had eliminated twenty-one-year old Junaid Hussain, a British national and “top” hacker for ISIS—a “high-value target”—so now they have put their missiles where their mouth is and demonstrated that they meant what they said: hackers, too, are “unlawful enemy combatants” and therefore legitimate targets for annihilation. Here’s hoping that Edward Snowden heeds the dictates of prudence and stays put, under the circumstances.

It all started with the attacks of September 11, 2001, which were responded to as though acts of war waged by a formal state, even though they were planned and carried out by a relatively small group of people, most of whom hailed from Saudi Arabia, not from Afghanistan or Iraq. Once Osama bin Laden and most of the perpetrators had been killed, the military set its sights on other people, who looked a lot like Bin Laden but possessed nothing like his power to orchestrate attacks on US soil.

Unfortunately, Barack Obama, despite having been elected on the promise of “hope and change”, has essentially signed-off on whatever the Pentagon and the CIA want. The US has been sliding down a very slippery slope since the events of September 11, 2001, waging preemptive wars, rendering suspects to torture-friendly countries and no-law zones, and redefining the meanings of previously well-understood terms such as defense, imminent, and last resort.

Obama, going well above and beyond the call of MIC duty, transformed his own authority to wage war into a blanket power of summary execution, and then proceeded to confer it on the self-styled czar of targeted killing, John Brennan, before appointing him director of the CIA in 2013. Under Brennan’s drone warfare watch, Anwar al-Awlaki had been successfully branded as “the Bin Laden of the internet”, and many Americans concluded that the extrajudicial execution of a US citizen, too, was therefore just. No matter that Al-Awlaki’s complaints about the US war on Islamists were not without substance. No matter that Al-Awlaki appears to have shared the US government’s conviction that death is the solution to political conflict and revenge killing fully justified.

As the probability of big inter-state wars à la World War I and World War II has become ever more remote, given the disproportionate size and wealth of the US military, and as 9/11 fades from memory, dwarfed by the carnage committed in retaliation to those crimes, it should start to seem obvious why unbridled military responses are being made to any- and everything. Financial supporters of dissident groups have been targeted, as have “propagandists”, and now hackers. In the olden days, such persons would be considered criminals, not warriors, for they bear no arms. In the Drone Age, they are being executed without trial. Presumption of innocence is so twentieth century.

Playing the Bin Laden card may work politically as a public relations strategy for the people paying for drone strikes. It is much less effective for the people of other lands who witness the extent of damage caused and are traumatized by the killing machines hovering above in the sky. But there’s no need for policymakers to regroup and, say, read the Stimson Center report. Why not? Because killing people is much easier than doing anything else. Simple, satisfying and, above all, excellent for politicians’ ratings.

Junaid Hussain was about six years old on September 11, 2001. He was about eight years old when the United States, with Britain’s blessing, waged a preemptive war on a sovereign nation at peace. Somehow during his adolescence, Junaid Hussain became an accomplished hacker and allied himself with ISIS, a group which did not even exist until after the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Clearly this young man was intelligent and talented—that’s why he was labeled a “high-value” target. But why did he direct his considerable talent to the cause of ISIS?

The same question can be asked of Anwar al-Awlaki, who publicly decried the attacks of 9/11. A decade later, he was taken out by a drone, as was his son, Abdulrahman, just after his sixteenth birthday. No one claimed that Abdulrahman was a “high-value target”, so perhaps he was killed preemptively, to avoid his transformation over the next five years (when he would have been Junaid Hussain’s age) into a sympathizer with radical Islamist groups such as ISIS. Or maybe it was just a mistake. “Mistakes are made.” “This is war.” Well, sort of.

The reasoning of the people running the US drone program appears to be that, if killing innocent people in attempts to kill evil people ends by causing the ranks of terrorists and their sympathizers to swell, then so be it. They will be killed as well. There will always be plenty of Hellfire missiles to go around, so long as someone profits from their production. Many people have issued warnings about what has grown to be the military-industrial-congressional-media-academic-pharmaceutical-logistics complex. I would suggest that we have now moved beyond oligarchy and plutocracy to something closer to necrocracy: rule by death.

Not satisfied with simply eliminating the architects of 9/11, the Pentagon continues to cast about for more and more people to kill. Why? Because that’s what they do: kill people. Hackers? Been there, done that. Who will be next? Antiwar protestors? Or perhaps they’ll come over to William Bradford’s way of seeing things and target legal scholars who step out of line.

IMG_20150814_065628

For more information and related criticism, see We Kill Because We Can, Chapter 4: Lethal Creep; Chapter 5: Strike First, Suppress Questions Later; Chapter 9: Death and Politics; Chapter 10: Death and Taxes; and Chapter 12: Tyrants are as Tyrants do