FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Lament of the Drones

Frogs in the marsh mud drone their old laments.

— Vergil, Georgics

It is wonderful how a new weapon can rejuvenate a word that has long been something of a dullard.  The reinvigorated word is “drone.”

In days of yore among its more accustomed uses was to refer to a deep humming sound or monotonous speech.  It has now been promoted to one of the most discussed pieces of armament in the modern arsenal.  And a wonderful addition it is.  Its importance was highlighted by Senator Rand Paul (R. Ky.) who, in a refreshing moment of historical significance, engaged in a filibuster of the old fashioned variety.  Instead of saying he was filibustering, he actually filibustered and in so doing brought badly needed attention to the use of drones in modern warfare.

One of the drone’s problems (although this was not addressed by the Senator) is that like the bastard child, it is not always clear to whom it belongs and that may eventually lead to awkward international moments.  The sorts of moments to which I refer were most recently on display following drone strikes that took place in Pakistan in early February. On March 4 a New York Times headline read:  “U.S. Disavows 2 Drone Strikes Over Pakistan.” March 5 the headline was:  “Pakistan Rejects U.S. Disavowal of Drone Strikes.”  Pakistan did not want to take credit for these strikes even though, apparently successful, they killed two senior commanders of Al Qaeda together with seven other people who may have simply been incidental beneficiaries of the strike.

Senior Pakistani officials gave all the credit for the strikes to the United States but in an unusual display of military modesty, the United States declined to take credit.  A spokesman for the United States who spoke anonymously (because the drone program is secret and anonymous speech keeps it secret) insisted on giving all the credit to Pakistan.  The official said:  “We haven’t had any kinetic activity since January.”  (Those words are not meant to suggest that the military is moribund although it is not altogether clear what they do mean.) The Pakistanis were not pleased at being given credit for the strikes. That is because Pakistanis (whom we have favored with 330 drone attacks in the last five years) do not like manna from heaven when delivered by drones.

The United States did not want to take credit for the drone strikes even if it deserves the credit since it is not at war with Pakistan and there is little justification for going around using drones in countries with which it is not at war just because there are people in that country whom we consider enemy combatants whom we hope to kill employing drones.

The Pakistanis said the United States’ modesty about the successful strikes was “a distortion of the facts” and suggested the purpose was to dilute “Pakistan’s stance on drone strikes.”  That stance is officially one of not being appreciative of drone strikes by the U.S., believing that these strikes infringe on their sovereignty and are a violation of human rights.  (There is apparently a way that the United States can launch drone strikes in a country with which it is not at war without violating that country’s sovereignty.  In a discussion of drones that was reported in the New York Times we are informed that lawyers analyzing the legality of drone strikes in friendly countries explained that Yemen has “granted permission for Drone strikes on its soil as long as the United States [does] not acknowledge its role, so such strikes would not violate Yemeni sovereignty.”  Go figure.)

Senator Rand Paul’s filibuster pertained not to the use of drones in foreign countries but in the United States.  Its purpose was to obtain assurance from the administration that it would not use drone strikes to kill U.S. citizens on U.S. soil even if it considered them enemy combatants.  In the manner of a dentist dealing with a stubborn tooth, he was finally able to extract such an assurance from the attorney general of the United States.

Not everyone is as concerned with drones as Senator Paul.  An editorial writer at the Wall Street Journal observed that the use of drones is limited to “the remotest areas of conflict zones like Pakistan and Yemen” (with neither of which countries are we at war) and went on to conclude that a U.S. citizen designated an enemy combatant could be targeted if found in the United States, presumably, although not articulated in the editorial, by a drone strike.   The writer suggests that if U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki, an acknowledged terrorist, killed by a drone strike in Yemen had been living in Virginia, he could have been targeted there.   The writer pointed out that that’s what happened to the Nazis who landed on Long Island during the Second World War.  They were, said the writer, captured and executed.  One minor fact was left out of the editorial.  The Nazis were tried before they were executed.  The Journal obviously considers that a minor fact and its omission from the editorial is of no moment.

It is nice to know that we won’t use drone strikes on American soil.  Perhaps some day we won’t fly drones over countries with which we are not at war.

Christopher Brauchli is an attorney based in Boulder, Colorado. He can be reached at: brauchli.56@post.harvard.edu.

 

More articles by:
August 20, 2018
Carl Boggs
The Road to Disaster?
James Munson
“Not With a Bomb, But a Whimper” … Then More Bombs.
Jonathan Cook
Corbyn’s Labour Party is Being Made to Fail –By Design
Robert Fisk
A US Trade War With Turkey Over a Pastor? Don’t Believe It
Howard Lisnoff
The Mass Media’s Outrage at Trump: Why the Surprise?
Faisal Khan
A British Muslim’s Perspective on the Burkha Debate
Andrew Kahn
Inhumanity Above the Clouds
Dan Glazebrook
Trump’s New Financial War on the Global South
George Wuerthner
Why the Gallatin Range Deserves Protection
Ted Rall
Is Trump a Brand-New Weird Existential Threat? No.
Sheldon Richman
For the Love of Reason
Susie Day
Why Pundits Scare Me
Dean Baker
Does France’s Economy Need to Be Renewed?
Jeffrey St. Clair
A Mighty Voice for Peace Has Gone Silent: Uri Avnery, 1923-2018
Weekend Edition
August 17, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Daniel Wolff
The Aretha Dialogue
Nick Pemberton
Donald Trump and the Rise of Patriotism 
Joseph Natoli
First Amendment Rights and the Court of Popular Opinion
Andrew Levine
Midterms 2018: What’s There to Hope For?
Robert Hunziker
Hothouse Earth
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Running Out of Fools
Ajamu Baraka
Opposing Bipartisan Warmongering is Defending Human Rights of the Poor and Working Class
Paul Street
Corporate Media: the Enemy of the People
David Macaray
Trump and the Sex Tape
CJ Hopkins
Where Have All the Nazis Gone?
Daniel Falcone
The Future of NATO: an Interview With Richard Falk
Cesar Chelala
The Historic Responsibility of the Catholic Church
Ron Jacobs
The Barbarism of US Immigration Policy
Kenneth Surin
In Shanghai
William Camacaro - Frederick B. Mills
The Military Option Against Venezuela in the “Year of the Americas”
Nancy Kurshan
The Whole World Was Watching: Chicago ’68, Revisited
Robert Fantina
Yemeni and Palestinian Children
Alexandra Isfahani-Hammond
Orcas and Other-Than-Human Grief
Shoshana Fine – Thomas Lindemann
Migrants Deaths: European Democracies and the Right to Not Protect?
Paul Edwards
Totally Irrusianal
Thomas Knapp
Murphy’s Law: Big Tech Must Serve as Censorship Subcontractors
Mark Ashwill
More Demons Unleashed After Fulbright University Vietnam Official Drops Rhetorical Bombshells
Ralph Nader
Going Fundamental Eludes Congressional Progressives
Hans-Armin Ohlmann
My Longest Day: How World War II Ended for My Family
Matthew Funke
The Nordic Countries Aren’t Socialist
Daniel Warner
Tiger Woods, Donald Trump and Crime and Punishment
Dave Lindorff
Mainstream Media Hypocrisy on Display
Jeff Cohen
Democrats Gather in Chicago: Elite Party or Party of the People?
Victor Grossman
Stand Up With New Hope in Germany?
Christopher Brauchli
A Family Affair
Jill Richardson
Profiting From Poison
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail