• Monthly
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $other
  • use PayPal

ONE WEEK TO DOUBLE YOUR DONATION!

We are inching along, but not as quickly as we (or you) would like. If you have already donated, thank you so much. If you haven’t had a chance, consider skipping the coffee this week and drop CounterPunch $5 or more. We provide our content for free, but it costs us a lot to do so. Every dollar counts.
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

The Drone Apologists

Istanbul.

The Washington Post recently justified the use of drone strikes by the US government in combatting what it determined was an Islamic Jihadist “threat in at least half a dozen countries”.   In the Post piece, titled “Drone Strikes are bad; no drone strikes would be worse”, the editors set out general and ill-defined reasons that drone strikes should be continued.  In an astounding statement prompted by the accidental deaths of an American and Italian hostage in Pakistan, the Post writes, “What shouldn’t be up for review is whether drone attacks will continue to be a weapon in the U.S. counterterrorism arsenal.”  This is precisely the issue American citizens and policy makers should be discussing as a drone program shrouded in secrecy has allowed two US presidents to assassinate between 2449 – 3949 individuals according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism. These numbers include 423-962 civilians and six US citizens.  The Bureau cites the depressing figure of 172-207 children killed.  This is proof that the “signature strikes” the Post lauds are not always killing terrorists.

Rather than make vague and contradictory statements about the success of drone strikes in eliminating the jihadi threat, journalists should concentrate on the concrete damage drones are doing to both US security and rule of law.  It is necessary and natural that a nation that opposes tyranny and advocates for the rule of law would examine the danger inherent in giving the president the power to determine life and death based on questionable intelligence.  But the Post confirms without a hint of indignation that signature strikes “do not require a finding that the targets pose an imminent threat to the United States, though they must still involve a judgment of ‘near certainty’ that no civilians will be killed.”  In the least US citizens should demand what “near certainty” means and to whom the term “civilian” applies.  The slope becomes very slippery when the president labels those targeted and all military age males collaterally killed as terrorists.  A 2014 analysis conducted by The Guardian found that 41 targeted drone assassinations had led to 1,147 deaths.  Contrary to limiting the terrorist problem, these numbers would indicate that terrorist ranks might be filled with those seeking revenge against arbitrary US assault.

The sour fact is that the many innocents killed by drone strikes are dark skinned Muslims that generate little sympathy even if their deaths are reported.  For example, the targeted killings of six US citizens overseas – legal according to the Obama Administration’s notions of justice – have also not elicited much of a response.  Why?  One explanation is that the men killed were Muslim-Americans though last I checked Muslim-Americans’ rights, like all Americans’ rights, are protected under the US Constitution. But Anwar al-Awlaki, Samir Khan, Jude Kenan Mohammad, and Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, Ahmed Farouq, and Adam Gadhan were never officially charged with a crime, given a lawyer, or presented with the evidence against them.  Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was the 16-year-old son of Anwar and, seemingly, guilty for the alleged sins of his father.  Even a cursory understanding of US constitutional law would demand that drone strikes should be up for review.

As an Arab-American working overseas I have been following the legal justification for the extrajudicial killing of American citizens carefully.  In fact, discussing this issue at the Istanbul International Community School, where I teach International Baccalaureate History, has given students a greater understanding of the threat strikes pose and the Orwellian language used to justify them.  Many of our discussions center on the fact that I am a potential target for assassination and my teenage students of “military age in the strike zone” would be classified as terrorists.  According to Jameel Jaffer, ACLU’s deputy legal director, the US government “has the authority to carry out targeted killings of US citizens without presenting evidence to a judge before the fact or after, and indeed without even acknowledging to the courts or to the public that the authority has been exercised”.   This should make US citizens cringe and demand more accountability from the Obama Administration and papers like the Post that recklessly support such policies.

Lastly, the argument that drone strikes make us safer is fraught with danger.  To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, when one gives up his liberty for security he often ends up with neither.  It appears that the US populace and mainstream media are fine with this as long as unnamed terrorists and those hapless souls who happen to be in the vicinity are killed.  They also seem content with American Muslims being killed without the writ of habeas corpus.  Presently, we are willing to let our government take this right and our lives away as well as the lives of thousands of other innocents in the troubled lands of the Middle East and South Asia.  US citizens need to ask if the assassination of individuals without due process is a policy any nation that purports to be free should champion.

Dana E. Abizaid teaches European History at the Istanbul International Community School I have written extensively about Eurasian Affairs, including articles in the San Francisco Chronicle, Baltimore Sun, and Moscow Times.

More articles by:

Dana E. Abizaid teaches European History at the Istanbul International Community School.

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550
October 22, 2019
Gary Leupp
The Kurds as U.S. Sacrificial Lambs
Robert Fisk
Trump and the Retreat of the American Empire
John Feffer
Trump’s Endless Wars
Marshall Auerback
Will the GOP Become the Party of Blue-Collar Conservatism?
Medea Benjamin - Nicolas J. S. Davies
Trump’s Fake Withdrawal From Endless War
Dean Baker
Trump Declares Victory in China Trade War
Patrick Bond
Bretton Woods Institutions’ Neoliberal Over-Reach Leaves Global Governance in the Gutter
Robert Hunziker
XR Co-Founder Discusses Climate Emergency
John W. Whitehead
Terrorized, Traumatized and Killed: The Police State’s Deadly Toll on America’s Children
Evaggelos Vallianatos
A World Partnership for Ecopolitical Health and Security
Binoy Kampmark
The Decent Protester: a Down Under Creation
Frances Madeson
Pro-Democracy Movement in Haiti Swells Despite Police Violence
Mike Garrity
Alliance for the Wild Rockies Challenges Logging and Burning Project in Methow Valley
Chelli Stanley
Change the Nation You Live In
Elliot Sperber
Humane War 
October 21, 2019
Jeffrey St. Clair
The Wolf at the Door: Adventures in Fundraising With Cockburn
Rev. William Alberts
Myopic Morality: The Rehabilitation of George W. Bush
Sheldon Richman
Let’s Make Sure the Nazis Killed in Vain
Horace G. Campbell
Chinese Revolution at 70: Twists and Turns, to What?
Jim Kavanagh
The Empire Steps Back
Ralph Nader
Where are the Influentials Who Find Trump Despicable?
Doug Johnson Hatlem
Poll Projection: Left-Leaning Jagmeet Singh to Share Power with Trudeau in Canada
Thomas Knapp
Excuses, Excuses: Now Hillary Clinton’s Attacking Her Own Party’s Candidates
Brian Terrell
The United States Air Force at Incirlik, Our National “Black Eye”
Paul Bentley
A Plea for More Cynicism, Not Less: Election Day in Canada
Walter Clemens
No Limits to Evil?
Robert Koehler
The Collusion of Church and State
Kathy Kelly
Taking Next Steps Toward Nuclear Abolition
Charlie Simmons
How the Tax System Rewards Polluters
Chuck Collins
Who is Buying Seattle? The Perils of the Luxury Real Estate Boom
Weekend Edition
October 18, 2019
Friday - Sunday
Anthony DiMaggio
Trump as the “Anti-War” President: on Misinformation in American Political Discourse
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Where’s the Beef With Billionaires?
Rob Urie
Capitalism and the Violence of Environmental Decline
Paul Street
Bernie in the Deep Shit: Dismal Dem Debate Reflections
Andrew Levine
What’s So Awful About Foreign Interference?
T.J. Coles
Boris Johnson’s Brexit “Betrayal”: Elect a Clown, Expect a Pie in Your Face
Joseph Natoli
Trump on the March
Ashley Smith
Stop the Normalization of Concentration Camps
Pete Dolack
The Fight to Overturn the Latest Corporate Coup at Pacifica Has Only Begun
Jeremy Kuzmarov
Russophobia at Democratic Party Debate
Chris Gilbert
Forward! A Week of Protest in Catalonia
Daniel Beaumont
Pressing Done Here: Syria, Iraq and “Informed Discussion”
Daniel Warner
Greta the Disturber
M. G. Piety
“Grim Positivism” vs. Truthiness in Biography
John Kendall Hawkins
Journey to the Unknown Interior of (You)
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail