FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

US to Drone Victims: Shut Up

by CHARLES PIERSON

Rafiq ur Rehman would be entitled to a lawyer if he were a murderer.  But when a CIA drone kills your mother and wounds you and your two young children, you don’t warrant the same rights as criminals.

Rehman was scheduled to testify before Congress on October 1.  He will not be heard because the State Department has denied his lawyer a visa.

Representative Alan Grayson of Florida asked the Rehmans and their lawyer Shahzad Akbar to come to Capitol Hill.  This would have been the first time Congress has heard directly from survivors of U.S. drone strikes.

Akbar contacted the Rehmans a week after the October 24, 2012 drone strike in North Waziristan in Pakistan’s remote tribal areas which took the life of the children’s grandmother.  A prominent human rights attorney who has handled several high-profile cases against U.S. drones, Akbar is founder and director of Pakistan’s Foundation for Fundamental Rights and a legal fellow with the United Kingdom human rights NGO Reprieve.

Akbar has traveled to the United States several times.  For two years, he even held a US diplomatic visa while a consultant for the U.S. Agency for International Development.  Akbar told the London Guardian that he never had problems coming to the United States until he began representing drone victims.  In 2011, Akbar, who had been invited to speak at a human rights symposium at Columbia University Law School, was denied a visa.  No reason was ever given.  The next year, Akbar nearly missed the first drone summit in Washington, D.C. organized by CODEPINK because his visa was held up.  Now, in 2013, the Rehmans have received their visas, but Akbar, who put in his application two days before his clients did, has not.

You would almost think Akbar has enemies in high places.

In December, 2010, Akbar outted Jonathan Banks, CIA Station Chief in Islamabad.  Akbar named Banks as defendant in a $500 million lawsuit for wrongful death brought by Karim Khan, a journalist in North Waziristan; Khan’s brother and son had been killed in a CIA drone strike.  Khan’s brother had been a schoolteacher who had continued to teach despite threats from the Taliban.  Banks never answered the lawsuit’s charges; the CIA got him out of Pakistan fast.

Britain, too, has reason to be displeased with Akbar.  Britain conducts no drone strikes but facilitates U.S. strikes through sharing intelligence.  On March 17, 2011, a U.S. drone killed 40 members of a jirga, or tribal council, in Datta Khel, North Waziristan.  One of the victims was the father of Noor Khan (no connection to Karim Khan) who subsequently sued Foreign Secretary William Hague for Britain’s aiding and abetting his father’s killing.  The lawsuit (which has been dismissed) was carried on by British firm Leigh Day & Co., but it was Shahzad Akbar who was first in touch with Khan and who was the motivating force behind the suit.

Akbar is not the only opponent of drones who has had a monkey wrench thrown in his travel plans.  Baraa Shiban, Reprieve’s project director for Yemen, was detained at London’s Gatwick Airport in September under schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act.  (Schedule 7 had been used to detain David Miranda at Heathrow Airport for nine hours, the maximum amount of time allowed under the Act.  Miranda is the partner of journalist Glenn Greenwald who broke the story of Edward Snowden’s revelations of NSA electronic spying on Americans.)

One high-profile incident involved Imran Khan.  Khan, an internationally famous former cricket star, ran unsuccessfully for Prime Minister of Pakistan earlier this year.  Last October 26, while flying to a fundraising dinner in New York, Khan was taken off his international flight by U.S. immigration officials and grilled about his views on drone strikes and jihad.  A major plank in Khan’s campaign had been his promise that, if elected, he would shoot down U.S. drones.

***

All this legal activity takes place against a backdrop of lethal U.S. drone strikes which Pakistan has been unable to stop.  The United States justifies the strikes’ invasion of Pakistani sovereignty with the claim that Pakistan secretly consents to drone strikes while objecting to them publicly in order to placate its citizens.  This may have been true at one time.  General Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan’s military dictator from 1999 to 2007, now disgraced and facing murder charges in Pakistan after foolishly returning from exile in Britain, told CNN in April that he had secretly consented to some drone strikes.

Whatever may have been true in the past is true no longer.  Pakistan’s Parliament has passed three unanimous resolutions demanding an end to U.S. drone strikes.  And in a landmark decision handed down in May, the High Court of Peshawar condemned drone strikes as war crimes.  The High Court pointed to the United Nations Charter’s prohibition of the “threat or use of force” except as authorized by the Security Council or in self-defense.  Citing the requirement of proportionality under international humanitarian law, the Court called the number of militants killed by drones “negligible” when contrasted with the “shockingly considerable” numbers of casualties among civilians.

The lawyer who argued the case was Shahzad Akbar.

If the High Court’s decision left any doubts as to Pakistan’s feelings about drones, they were laid to rest on June 5.  On that day, Nawaz Sharif, who had held the office twice in the 1990s, was sworn in as Pakistan’s new Prime Minister.  Sharif unambiguously called for a halt to U.S. drone strikes, telling Parliament that “this chapter shall now be closed.”

The U.S. signaled its compliance two days later with a drone strike which killed nine people.  Like a rapist, the U.S. continues to believe that “no” means “yes.”

The attack followed President Barrack Obama’s promise made to great fanfare during a speech at the National Defense University on May 23 that the U.S. would use drones with more restraint.

The silencing of Shahzad Akbar demonstrates that the victims of drone strikes have no voice in the United States.  Think about it.  Have you ever seen an image of a bleeding survivor or a charred drone victim in our media, much less the victims’ devastated homes and villages?  That is no accident.  The cases of Shahzad Akbar, Baraa Shiban, and Imran Khan prove that the U.S. government and its allies are determined that drone victims will have no voice.

The victims must be heard.

Charles Pierson can be reached at: chapierson@yahoo.com.

Charles Pierson is a lawyer and a member of the Pittsburgh Anti-Drone Warfare Coalition. E-mail him at Chapierson@yahoo.com.

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

Weekend Edition
January 20, 2017
Friday - Sunday
Paul Street
Divide and Rule: Class, Hate, and the 2016 Election
Andrew Levine
When Was America Great?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: This Ain’t a Dream No More, It’s the Real Thing
Yoav Litvin
Making Israel Greater Again: Justice for Palestinians in the Age of Trump
Linda Pentz Gunter
Nuclear Fiddling While the Planet Burns
Ruth Fowler
Standing With Standing Rock: Of Pipelines and Protests
David Green
Why Trump Won: the 50 Percenters Have Spoken
Dave Lindorff
Imagining a Sanders Presidency Beginning on Jan. 20
Pete Dolack
Eight People Own as Much as Half the World
Roger Harris
Too Many People in the World: Names Named
Steve Horn
Under Tillerson, Exxon Maintained Ties with Saudi Arabia, Despite Dismal Human Rights Record
John Berger
The Nature of Mass Demonstrations
Stephen Zielinski
It’s the End of the World as We Know It
David Swanson
Six Things We Should Do Better As Everything Gets Worse
Alci Rengifo
Trump Rex: Ancient Rome’s Shadow Over the Oval Office
Brian Cloughley
What Money Can Buy: the Quiet British-Israeli Scandal
Mel Gurtov
Donald Trump’s Lies And Team Trump’s Headaches
Kent Paterson
Mexico’s Great Winter of Discontent
Norman Solomon
Trump, the Democrats and the Logan Act
David Macaray
Attention, Feminists
Yves Engler
Demanding More From Our Media
James A Haught
Religious Madness in Ulster
Dean Baker
The Economics of the Affordable Care Act
Patrick Bond
Tripping Up Trumpism Through Global Boycott Divestment Sanctions
Robert Fisk
How a Trump Presidency Could Have Been Avoided
Robert Fantina
Trump: What Changes and What Remains the Same
David Rosen
Globalization vs. Empire: Can Trump Contain the Growing Split?
Elliot Sperber
Dystopia
Dan Bacher
New CA Carbon Trading Legislation Answers Big Oil’s Call to Continue Business As Usual
Wayne Clark
A Reset Button for Political America
Chris Welzenbach
“The Death Ship:” An Allegory for Today’s World
Uri Avnery
Being There
Peter Lee
The Deep State and the Sex Tape: Martin Luther King, J. Edgar Hoover, and Thurgood Marshall
Patrick Hiller
Guns Against Grizzlies at Schools or Peace Education as Resistance?
Randy Shields
The Devil’s Real Estate Dictionary
Ron Jacobs
Singing the Body Electric Across Time
Ann Garrison
Fifty-five Years After Lumumba’s Assassination, Congolese See No Relief
Christopher Brauchli
Swing Low Alabama
Dr. Juan Gómez-Quiñones
La Realidad: the Realities of Anti-Mexicanism
Jon Hochschartner
The Five Least Animal-Friendly Senate Democrats
Pauline Murphy
Fighting Fascism: the Irish at the Battle of Cordoba
Susan Block
#GoBonobos in 2017: Happy Year of the Cock!
Louis Proyect
Is Our Future That of “Sense8” or “Mr. Robot”?
Charles R. Larson
Review: Robert Coover’s “Huck out West”
David Yearsley
Manchester-by-the-Sea and the Present Catastrophe
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail