Gradual Injustice by David Swanson

2014 Global Day Of Action Against Drones DC 13

Image by Stephen Melkisethian via Flickr

by David Swanson
Writer, Dandelion Salad
warisacrime.org
April 23, 2015

Chris Woods’ excellent new book is called Sudden Justice: America’s Secret Drone Wars. The title comes from a claim that then-President George W. Bush made for drone wars. The book actually tells a story of gradual injustice. The path from a U.S. government that condemned as criminal the type of murder that drones are used for to one that treats such killings as perfectly legal and routine has been a very gradual and completely extra-legal process.

Drone murders started in October 2001 and, typically enough, the first strike murdered the wrong people. The blame game involved a struggle for control among the Air Force, CENTCOM, and the CIA. The absurdity of the struggle might be brought out by modifying the “Imagine you’re a deer” speech in the movie My Cousin Vinny: Imagine you’re an Iraqi. You’re walking along, you get thirsty, you stop for a drink of cool clear water… BAM! A fuckin missile rips you to shreds. Your brains are hanging on a tree in little bloody pieces! Now I ask ya. Would you give a fuck which agency the son of a bitch who shot you was working for?

Yet much more attention has gone into which agency does what than into how best to pretend it’s all legal. CIA team leaders began getting orders to kill rather than capture, and so they did. As of course did the Air Force and the Army. This was novel when it came to the murder of specific, named individuals as opposed to large numbers of unnamed enemies. According to Paul Pillar, deputy chief of the CIA’s Counter Terrorism Center in the late 1990s, “There was a sense that the White House did not want to put clearly on paper anything that would be seen as authorization to assassinate, but instead preferred more of a wink-and-nod to killing bin Laden.”

In the early months of Bush-Cheney, the Air Force and CIA were each struggling to impose the drone murder program on the other. Neither wanted to end up in a heap of trouble for something so illegal. After September 11, Bush told Tenet the CIA could go ahead and murder people without asking for his permission each time. One model for this was Israel’s targeted murder program, which the U.S. government denounced as illegal up until 9-11-2001. Former U.S. Senator George Mitchell was the lead author of an April 2001 U.S. government report that said Israel should cease and desist, and criticized its operation as failing to distinguish protests from terrorism.

How did the U.S. government get from there to a “Homeland Security Department” that trains local police to consider protesters to be terrorists? The answer is: gradually and fundamentally through a change in behavior and culture rather than through legislation or court ruling. By late 2002, the U.S. State Department was being questioned in a press conference as to why it condemned Israeli murders but not similar U.S. murders. Why the double standard? The State Department had no answer whatsoever, and simply stopped criticizing Israel. The U.S. government kept quiet for years, however, about the fact that some of the people it was murdering were U.S. citizens. The groundwork had not yet been prepared sufficiently for the public to swallow that.

Some three-quarters of U.S. drone strikes have been in supposed battlefields. As one weapon among many in an existing war, armed drones have been deemed legal by lawyers and human rights groups across the full spectrum of the tiny percentage of humanity whose governments are engaged in the drone murders — plus the “United Nations” that serves those governments. What makes the wars legal is never explained, but this sleight of hand was a foot in the door for the acceptance of drone murders. It was only when the drones killed people in other countries where there was no war underway, that any lawyers — including some of the 750 who’ve recently signed a petition in support of allowing Harold Koh (who justified drone murders for the State Department) to teach so-called human rights law at New York University — saw any need to concoct justifications. The UN never authorized the wars on Afghanistan or Iraq or Libya, not that it actually could do so under the Kellogg Briand Pact, and yet the illegal wars were taken as legalizing the bulk of the drone murders. From there, just a little liberal sophistry could “legalize” the rest.

The United Nations Human Rights Council’s Asma Jahangir declared non-war drone murders to be murder at the end of 2002. UN investigator (and law partner of Tony Blair’s wife) Ben Emmerson noted that in the U.S. view, war could now travel around the world to wherever bad guys went, thus making drone murders anywhere only as illegal as other wars, the legality of which nobody gave a damn about. In fact, the CIA’s view, as explained to Congress by CIA General Counsel Caroline Krass in 2013, was that treaties and customary international law could be violated at will, while only domestic U.S. law need be complied with. (And, of course, domestic U.S. laws against murder in the United States might resemble domestic Pakistani or Yemeni laws against murder in Pakistan or Yemen, but resemblance is not identity, and only the U.S. laws matter.)

The growing acceptance of drone murders among Western imperialist lawyers led to all the usual attempts to tweak the crime around the edges: proportionality, careful targeting, etc. But “proportionality” is always in the eye of the killer. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed, along with various innocent people, when Stanley McChrystal declared it “proportionate” to blow up a whole house to murder one man. Was it? Was it not? There is no actual answer. Declaring murders “proportionate” is just rhetoric that lawyers have told politicians and generals to apply to human slaughter. In one drone strike in 2006, the CIA killed some 80 innocent people, most of them children. Ben Emmerson expressed mild displeasure. But the question of “proportionality” wasn’t raised, because it wasn’t helpful rhetoric in that case. During the occupation of Iraq, U.S. commanders could plan operations in which they expected to kill up to 30 innocent people, but if they expected 31 they needed to get Donald Rumsfeld to sign off on it. That’s the sort of legal standard that drone murders fit into just fine, especially once any “military aged male” was redefined as an enemy. The CIA even counts innocent women and children as enemies, according to the New York Times.

As drone murders rapidly spread during the Bush-Cheney years (later to absolutely explode during the Obama years) the rank and file enjoyed sharing the videos around. Commanders tried to halt the practice. Then they began releasing select videos while keeping all the others strictly hidden.

As the practice of murdering people with drones in nations where mass-murder hadn’t been somehow sanctioned by the banner of “war” became routine, human rights groups like Amnesty International began stating clearly that the United States was violating the law. But over the years, that clear language faded, replaced by doubt and uncertainty. Nowadays, human rights groups document numerous cases of drone murders of innocents and then declare them possibly illegal depending on whether or not they are part of a war, with the question of whether murders in a given country are part of a war having been opened up as a possibility, and with the answer resting at the discretion of the government launching the drones.

By the end of the Bush-Cheney years, the CIA’s rules were supposedly changed from launching murderous drone strikes whenever they had a 90% chance of “success” to whenever they had a 50% chance. And how was this measured? It was in fact eliminated by the practice of “signature strikes” in which people are murdered without actually knowing who they are at all. Britain, for its part, cleared the way for murdering its citizens by stripping them of their citizenship as needed.

All of this went on in official secrecy, meaning it was known to anyone who cared to know, but it wasn’t supposed to be talked about. The longest serving member of Germany’s oversight committee admitted that Western governments were depending largely on the media to find out what their spies and militaries were doing.

The arrival of Captain Peace Prize in the White House took drone murders to a whole new level, destabilizing nations like Yemen, and targeting innocents in new ways, including by targeting the rescuers just arrived at the bloody scene of an earlier strike. Blow back against the U.S. picked up, as well as blow back against local populations by groups claiming to be acting in retaliation for U.S. drone murders. The damage drones did in places like Libya during the 2011 U.S.-NATO overthrow was not seen as a reason to step back, but as grounds for yet more drone killing. Growing chaos in Yemen, predicted by observers pointing to the counterproductive effects of the drones strikes, was claimed as a success by Obama. Drone pilots were now committing suicide and suffering moral stress in large numbers, but there was no turning back. A 90% majority in Yemen’s National Dialogue wanted armed drones criminalized, but the U.S. State Department wanted the world’s nations to buy drones too.

Rather than ending or scaling back the drone-murder program, the Obama White House began publicly defending it and advertising the President’s role in authorizing the murders. Or at least that was the course after Harold Koh and gang figured out how exactly they wanted to pretend to “legalize” murder. Even Ben Emmerson says it took them so long because they hadn’t yet figured out what excuses to use. Will the dozens of nations now acquiring armed drones need any excuse at all?


David Swanson is an author, activist, journalist, and radio host. He is director of WorldBeyondWar.org and campaign coordinator for RootsAction.org. Swanson’s books include War Is A Lie. He blogs at DavidSwanson.org and WarIsACrime.org. He hosts Talk Nation Radio. He is a 2015 Nobel Peace Prize Nominee.

from the archives:

US-backed Criminal Slaughter in Yemen Revealed by Finian Cunningham + Houthi Arms Bonanza Came From Saleh, Not Iran by Gareth Porter

Stop Smoking the Democrack by Cindy Sheehan and David Swanson

Obama Administration Considers Assassinating Another American Overseas + Death By Metadata + Is a Policy a Law? Is Murder Murder? by David Swanson

Drone Strike Served CIA Revenge, Blocked Pakistan’s Strategy by Gareth Porter

4 thoughts on “Gradual Injustice by David Swanson

  1. Pingback: Jeremy Scahill: Drone War Exposed + Secret Kill Chain | Dandelion Salad

  2. US “foreign policy” is so utterly criminally insane, I find it almost impossible to comment on it any more.

    The thundering silence of the world’s intelligentsia in general is absolutely astonishing. Short memories and myopic self-delusion seem to dictate the agendas of all those “respectable” people who know how very comfortably their proverbial bread is “buttered” ~ like so many successful Nobel Laureates and their ilk.

    Maybe we should all just reflect on how we might be responding to former Nazi atrocities or Japanese war-crimes in China, had we the capacity to travel back to those days…would we be enthusiastically applauding on the sidelines, or just pretending there was something else far more important to concern ourselves with?

    The brutal vulgarity of drone diplomacy in an era when the population of Gaza, most especially children, have become target practice for new weapons systems, should make any healthy person physically sick, writhing from outrage. But no, the wealthy divines just look away, preach and prattle on about piety and democratic freedoms, whilst sagely nodding complacently toward their self-replicating fiefdoms “carry on!” and then go away to count their assets, or rather less strenously bask in the glory of the haloed heads of the countless minions who do their calculating for them.

    How vile and despicable this life of abundant toxic riches has become, how banal and callous the indifference of this default class of despotic strutting beasts.

    • You hit the nail on the head, David! Are we here in the IPA (Imperial States of America) really any better than were the Nazis or Imperial Japanese soldiers not only in China, but in Korea as well? Murder and mayhem, rape and torture, plundering and pillaging has the same harmful and painful effect on all sentient beings regardless of the type of implementation used by the henchmen of the ruling-classes of governments. (some governance!)

      RT reported on the massacre in Gaza and the destruction of that open-aired zionazi concentration camp. The U.S. msm didn’t touch it, not wanting to be labeled as a foe of Israel, lest their names be blackened in the big corporate media outlets.

      The US and the NATO death squads have made a mockery of not only the Nuremburg Tribunals, international laws in regard to war crimes and crimes of aggression, and the execution of some Japanese soldiers for “water boarding” enemy combatants – which the Republican-Democratic Party finds acceptable in the 21st century as part and parcel of the psychopathic “Full Spectrum Dominance” strategy for world domination.

      This is not the country I grew up in, and I’m sick of hearing about 9-11 this and after 9-11 that, 24/7. One can only “cry wolf” only for so long until the day of reckoning arrives. The Law of Karma, or “we reap what we have sown.” The “reaping” part has unintended consequences which cannot be known until it’s time is ready to manifest itself in the Law of Retribution.

      Anyway, I love David Swanson’s honest assessment and condemnations of war and violence. He doesn’t beat around the bush with rationale.

Comments are closed.