A Game of Drones
Torture, Guantanamo, Kill Lists, Unconscionable Casualties, and Obama's Second Term
Tyler Streeter
Tools
It's hard to take a protest seriously when it consists of 10 protesters. The fact that some of those protesters are dressed in orange jumpsuits intended to evoke Guantanamo doesn't really help, especially considering they're protesting across the street from a Cheesecake Factory. The Cheesecake Factory makes everything seem ridiculous—the people stuffed impatiently into the lobby, the waitstaff in their impractically all-white uniforms, the homeless kids begging for specific types of cheesecake out front. The Cheesecake Factory makes me think of Trouble, the little white Maltese dog that belonged to disgustingly wealthy hotelier Leona Helmsley, who tabloids called "The Queen of Mean." When Helmsley died in 2007, she left Trouble $12 million in a trust, more than she left any of her grandchildren—hell, more than she left to any other human being. She willed her poor chauffeur a hundred thousand dollars, placing his value at exactly 120 times less than Helmsley's dog.
The sight of customers enveloped in the huge booths of the Cheesecake Factory, pawing through their gigantic menus and poking their forks into their enormous entrées—an Over the Top Meatloaf Sandwich, say, washed down with a Twisted Salted Caramel Pretzel shake off the "Spiked Milkshakes" menu—is always hilarious. They look less like humans and more like, say, small hypoallergenic dogs that have had all the life intentionally bred out of them.
Stranger Personals
Outside, it's a frigid Friday night in downtown Seattle. Very few pedestrians take any notice of the protesters. A few stop to shout angrily ("Impeach Obama!" or "Waterboarding works!"), but only a handful even bother to take a flyer or ask what the protesters are doing. What they're doing is representing activist group The World Can't Wait, shouting at passersby about torture, assassinations, and murders committed by robots on the other side of the planet. They're standing on the corner of Seventh Avenue and Pike Street in front of the Regal Meridian 16 movie theater, ostensibly protesting the movie Zero Dark Thirty, although none of the protesters I talk to have even seen the movie. A couple of them admit that they want to see it, even as they hand out flyers accusing the movie of "represent[ing] the CIA's view of the world," which is to say that it justifies torture and the illegal detentions of innocent human beings.
When I mention to ringleader and spokeswoman Emma Kaplan that this is more like a protest against President Obama, she says she's heading to Washington, DC, with The World Can't Wait next Tuesday to protest the inauguration. That inauguration has been on my mind a lot lately. On the one hand, it's the celebration of a resounding victory over the Paleolithic conservative movement that has erupted in this country like a bad case of thrush. On the other hand, it's a national confirmation of a president who has done a lot of things in his first term that I find morally repugnant.
Almost every day that I covered the 2012 presidential election for The Stranger, I would get at least one e-mail, tweet, or comment on a story asking me how I could justify planning to vote for President Obama. These messages would mention one or two selections from a long menu of his misgivings: drones, Guantanamo, the kill list, the perpetuation of the Patriot Act, the war on drugs, the TSA's pointless and humiliating security theater. A good number of these queries came from concern trolls—Republicans trying to foment discord among Democrats by pretending to be outraged about the continuation of these (largely) Bush-era policies—but most of them came from progressives who were struggling with their conscience.
Here's the basic math that I did: An Obama presidency would be less morally reprehensible than a Romney presidency. Let's for the purposes of this essay set aside the domestic issues (where Obama's positions were clearly superior). When you looked at Obama's weakest moral points—most of which relate to foreign policy—he still wielded more moral authority than Romney, who surrounded himself with George W. Bush's foreign policy advisers. Whereas President Obama has mostly stayed within the (grossly extended) boundaries established by the Bush administration, a Romney presidency might likely push those boundaries out even further. The Obama administration seemed likelier to use diplomacy in a foreign policy crisis, whereas Romney was banging the drums of war against Iran back when he was an obscenely wealthy piece of political trivia in Iowa in the fall of 2011.
When I present this math to Kaplan on the sidewalk in front of the movie theater, she isn't so sure. She doesn't see any discernable difference between Romney and Obama, and she thinks that in many ways, an Obama presidency could be more harmful than a Romney presidency because liberals tend to become complacent when liberals are in power. Kaplan believes that at least Democrats would care about the erosion of civil liberties under a Republican. "I talk to liberals all the time who think that Guantanamo is already closed, just because President Obama is in office and he promised to close Guantanamo" when he was running for president, she says. As for drones, the New York Times reported that as the 2012 election neared, President Obama's staff "accelerated work... to develop explicit rules for the targeted killing of terrorists by unmanned drones, so that a new president would inherit clear standards and procedures." (The story proves both my point and Kaplan's: Obama's people didn't trust Romney not to broaden the drone program, but they were apparently blind to the hypocrisy of their own power mongering.) Kaplan didn't vote in the 2012 election, and she believes that voting isn't going to bring about the changes that need to take place.
Kaplan isn't alone in believing that Obama is a criminal on a global level. In a video posted Saturday by Al Jazeera, Noam Chomsky declared that President Obama "has no moral center... if you look at the actual policies [of the Obama administration], they're pretty shocking." Chomsky explained, "The drone assassination campaign is... just a global assassination campaign."
If it's an assassination campaign, it's a terribly inexact one. Drone strikes begin as lists—I imagine them as clean lines of names on white pieces of paper—presented to President Obama by his national security team a few times a month. The president looks at the names, he listens to the cases against these people he'll never meet, and then he decides who should die. More than 300 drone strikes have been launched in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia under his command, and the death toll is estimated at higher than 2,500. This is more power than any one human being should possess.
On December 11, a graduate student from New York University named Josh Begley started tweeting every recorded US drone strike in chronological order under the name @dronestream. On February 2, 2010, to pick a day at random, a cluster of eight drones in North Waziristan launched at least 17 missiles, killing dozens and missing their intended target. Two vehicles filled with rescue workers trying to help victims of the strikes were also destroyed, with an unknown number of casualties. There are plenty more like that. A lot of innocent people, including children, have died. We know some of their names, but some of them are (and probably always will be) anonymous. This is the sort of thing that will keep you up nights, if you let it.
You can make the argument that if radio-controlled airplanes weren't doing the killing, air force pilots would be, or soldiers on the ground. A lot of Americans favor drones because it takes our troops out of harm's way. But that presupposes that American lives are more valuable than the lives of innocent people in other countries. If you believe that, if you believe that a 3-year-old girl from Minnesota has intrinsically more value to the world than a 3-year-old Pakistani girl, you probably don't have a problem with any of this. And I probably wouldn't be able to talk to you for more than two minutes without wanting to vomit.
There are others who argue that the moral dirtiness of drones is the price we pay for being a global superpower. The majority of people who die in drone strikes, the argument goes, are planning to take the lives of other human beings; we're just hitting them before they can kill others. But wouldn't it send more of a message to capture these criminals and put them on trial for conspiracy to murder? Doesn't the idea of blowing people to smithereens from a remote-controlled airplane send the message to younger generations in these nations that brutal, seemingly random violence is how you get your way? Isn't this the same sort of thing we marched against George W. Bush for, back in 2003?
But then, can you show me an American president who doesn't sign his name in blood? If you really look at the record, doesn't every one of the 44 men who've had that job have a Waco, a Japanese internment program, a Trail of Tears, a popular war built on false evidence, a secret Cambodian bombing on their conscience? Abraham Lincoln is the closest thing we have to a secular American saint, and his legacy is built on the 750,000 deaths of the Civil War.
Some of the protesters outside Zero Dark Thirty believe that a second American revolution is required to cleanse our national shame, that we need to tear the whole system down and start over. But as long as we're (almost) all fed and employed and inconceivably comfortable when compared with almost every other human being who ever lived, that simply isn't going to happen. Most of us vote for the person we believe to be morally superior and hope for incremental change toward the good. There is historical evidence for this; politics isn't the story of leaps and bounds, but of hesitant steps. Where we are now as a nation is a destination at which we could not have arrived without the work of millions of people who slowly ground themselves to dust for us. The angriest among us can scoff at this idea as the mincing moral equivalence of a sellout, but to ignore that we move toward betterment by crawling for thousands of miles is to ignore the elephant of history sitting square on your chest.
Besides, are any of us really clean? To live in America right now is to be the beneficiary of untold suffering. Just because we've outsourced our slave labor doesn't make slave labor less real. One of the protesters flashes anti-torture signs on a tablet computer that was surely made by an impoverished person working for pennies in an unsafe, unregulated factory. At least some of the shoes that the protesters wear were made by children in a factory somewhere you have never heard of. Across the street, in the warm, eggnog-colored glow of the Cheesecake Factory, diners are tucking into meals made from the suffering of animals that can definitely feel some form of pain. If the moral high ground were the most important requirement for the survival of our species, we would have fallen into extinction a long time ago. Instead, we walk around in our shiny coats with our big dumb smiles and we eat our Skinnylicious® Chicken Enchiladas, followed by the guilty pleasure of a Chocolate Tuxedo Cream™ Cheesecake, which we totally deserve because we've been so good lately.
I bet President Obama thinks about this a lot. He's demonstrated the ability in his writing to walk into tangled thatches of philosophy and to delineate a clear, if circuitous, path through to the other side. But I'm glad that Kaplan is going to be there at the inauguration with The World Can't Wait, holding up a big sign about drones and civil liberties. I hope the president catches a glimpse of her sign out the window of his limousine when he's in the motorcade heading down Pennsylvania Avenue. I hope it makes him think about what he does, one more time, before he takes the oath. And I hope the rest of the country sees her, too. Without people like this, the noisy ones, the dissatisfied ones, the rowdy ones who are willing to throw themselves headfirst into the jeers and disapproving glares of the pedestrians in a hurry to get to Gameworks or H&M, we'd never get anywhere at all. ![]()
This article has been updated since its original publication.
There is no mention or explanation of "signature strikes", which target people (whose identities are unknown) based on a pattern of behavior, such as loading a truck with fertilizer, regular calisthenics or target practice, etc.
There is only an oblique mention of "double-tap" strikes, in which one drone strike is followed by another, under the logic that those who run out to help the people hit by the first strike must be terrorists as well. (there is another variation on this where a drone targets the funeral of a deceased Taliban member, which will be presumably attended by other Taliban figures...and civilians)
Finally, there is no mention that the adminitration's definition of militant is "any military-age male in the strike zone."
You can do better, Paul.
It would have shorter and simpler for Paul to write 'Meh' and be done with it, but then we'd have missed the America-as-Cheesecake-Factory-across-the-street part. Chris Hedges should employ some analogies like that.
8
@3: Okay, so you can vote your conscience because you live in a state that votes for the candidate who you seem to share more beliefs with out of the big two. But if enough progressives voted their conscience the way you did in Washington State, the vote could have been tipped to Romney's favor. Third party candidates don't win the popular vote. And even if they win the popular vote, they'll never win the electoral college. We can argue about this all day long, but that just isn't going to happen without a seismic shift in American politics, and as I argued in the piece, seismic shifts don't happen that often. Isn't it better to agitate to make the party that appeals more to your belief system into a better political party?
@5: Maybe you should read the piece more carefully, because I think you're making shit up about it.
Paul, you magnificent bastard.
13
And as much as people will "blame the third party candidate" or say "that's the way it is" remember, the voters allow this to go on. Blame Obama or Bush all you want to but look in the mirror first.
14
At the end of the day this is on the voters who embrace the "two party only system". So before you blame Obama or Bush look in the mirror first and understand your contribution to the problem.
Reponsibility starts at home..and with yourself.
16
Also note that the Talibans have killed thousands more Pakistani than the drones.
1. Doesn't your dismissal of revolution (of some sort) as an actual option--based on people in the US being relatively well fed, clothed, with access to particular privilege, etc. -- doesn't this just displace the revolutionary justification to outside US borders? This is what's called the "third worldist" hypothesis in revolutionary theory, which argues that we have a "labor aristocracy" in the 1st world that makes it impossible to instigate revolution or real (positive) world change of any sort. I mean, I disagree with this (on an empirical and anecdotal basis, since I am from one of the many parts of the US that are basically abandoned zones, "wastelands" of the type described by Chris Hedges in his recent book--and these areas are larger and closer than liberals like you make it seem). But still, do you think that revolutions (including against US Imperialism) are justified overseas, but just not here?
2. I think you're misportraying the revolutionary argument about historic change -- the idea isn't that there are there massive "jumps" that occur after revolutions (if anything, every revolution begins with a material step BACKWARD as people rebuild from the revolutionary war). The argument is that revolutions are necessary points of abrupt discontinuity, where that graduated, snails-pace of actual historic movement CHANGES TRAJECTORY. At certain points this change in direction involves a (relatively quick) restructuring of "productive forces." Today that would mean, for example, the immediate start of a process toward entirely dismantling coal and oil energy networks, paired with massive projects to build up new energy sources and decrease/redistribute existing productive capacity throughout the world--including more localization of agriculture. All of this comes through ABRUPT breaks in political power--breaks in which people directly assert themselves, which often means some degree of violence against the police/military/pinkertons/etc. suppressing those people and against the material conditions (such as prisons, military installations, sweatshops, etc.) aiding this suppression. It doesn't mean there is some magical "jump ahead," just a kind of torsion which changes the ultimate arc of history.
So do you actually think you have historical examples which contradict this (the actual) revolutionary argument? If so: WHAT? What real basic changes in productive forces or fundamental social relations actually came out of simple slow growth with no abrupt discontinuity in trajectory, with no people directly rising against injustice and (often violently) destroying it?
I also want to point out that I think much of your portrayal of Obama (and even his differences with Romney) is inaccurate even according to the liberal-progressive metric you seem to be using. Here's more data on that in the best (that I've read) of the "progressive" critiques against Obama by Matt Stoller:
http://www.salon.com/2012/10/27/the_prog…
Finally: Though I don't think it's reasonable that you offer a straw-man argument for revolution here, I also want to emphasize that I have little interest in defending the particular revolutionary arguments of World Can't Wait -- an organization which is simply a front-group for the wingnut RCP Bob Avakian cult. But if you're looking for a straw man to burn, they're a goddamn good one.
19
tl;dr "Pooh-pooh protestors. Let us know when you want to get serious and sit at the grown-up table of change."
Melissa Parson
40 fuckin years after the summer of love!! They should've been flipping over cop cars and buttfucking in Starbucks. The only reason these mass shootings don't happen TEN-FOLD is because the populace is being drugged en-masse. My point is that this system has slow boiled your critical thinking skills and isn't worth protecting. Let the anarchists have their A.K. 47's and maybe we can re-structure into smaller, denser, self-sustainable communities that don't create adam lanzas.
Down with the globalists.
24
@23: sure, or fucking devour each other like the Cultural Revolution. lupus est homo homini
But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night.
26
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l64zFyTu…
FYI to Constant: slave labor is still alive and thriving in America, sonny!
Responding to a Paul Constant article is beneath me. It isn’t that I have such a high opinion of myself, but such a dismal opinion of the drivel Constant writes.
Once upon a time, the book reviewers and that sort represented the unbridled conscience of a newspaper or journal, while today they represent the worst. (Note the statistically improbable number of book reviews which have appeared in the Sunday edition of the New York Times Book Review section, written by neocon members of PNAC, during the years 2000 to 2010!)
Frizzelle recently blogged on the “irony” that the only one to face jail time for US torture was the CIA whistleblower who had sought to expose it, John Kiriakou.
No doubt Frizzelle thought his a clever observation, whereas it didn’t even reach the sophomoric level. There is nothing “ironic” of any of the nefarious actions of the neocon administrations of Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
There was nothing ironic about Reagan establishing the Office of Privatization --- to privatize everything --- within the OMB with his Executive Order #12615, just as there was nothing ironic about Clinton and Obama advisor, Robert Rubin, establishing the Hamilton Project --- to promote the privatization of everything --- within the Brookings Institution.
There was nothing ironic when Reagan appointed William Casey to be CIA director, when Casey’s first action was to privatize the earth resources data garnered from CIA spy satellites, once available to the public, thenceforth only available to Casey’s Wall Street cronies.
There was nothing ironic when George H.W. Bush failed to pass NAFTA, so they brought in Clinton to accomplish that bankster task.
There was nothing ironic about Clinton appointing billionaire and Rockefeller lackey, Peter G. Peterson (expelled from MIT for massive cheating), to Clinton’s commission to “…end welfare as we know it…”, since Peterson’s life mission has always been to end Medicare/Medicaid, privatize (steal) Social Security, and offshore all American jobs (Peterson’s day job was private equity LBOs; buying oil refineries, then closing them to drive up the price of oil, investing in the privatization of prisons, cornering the telecom market [please recall the original Rockefeller ownership of AT&T], cornering the Anthrax vaccine market, etc.).
There wasn’t anything ironic about Clinton and the dramatic increase in the privatization of the American intelligence establishment, fully realized under George W. Bush’s administration, just as there’s nothing ironic about Obama’s continuation and expansion of George W. Bush’s War On Whistleblowers.
There’s nothing ironic about the US Congress wasting so much time and taxpayer monies in their pursuit of sports types like Barry Bonds or Lance Armstrong --- after all, the sports types don’t own the government, it’s the banksters which have the monopoly on the government, on congress, on the Supreme Court.
There is, therefore, nothing ironic about federal prosecutors hounding to death Aaron Swartz, who successfully sallied forth against AT&T and the others, just as there’s nothing ironic about the amoral imprisonment of Gov. Don Siegelman, Bradley Manning, John Kiriakou and Shakir Hamoodi, and anyone else in America who does the right thing, the good deed, the moral undertaking.
The only irony is why anyone would employ the likes of a Paul Constant?
When President Obama falsely claims the banks didn't break any laws, and faux newsies like David Brooks, Thomas Friedman, Malcolm Gladwell, Sorkin et al., make similarly false claims, then why is the SEC always fining the banksters! (True, they are the smallest, most insignificant fines possible, but it bears reflection.)
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litrelease…
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litrelease…
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litrelease…
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litrelease…
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litrelease…
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litrelease…
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litrelease…
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litrelease…
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litrelease…
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litrelease…
And your comments on the drone strikes? That they presuppose that American lives are more important that those overseas? That is a ridiculous assertion. Your answer that the US should go in on the ground and arrest those on the hit list is even more absurd. That would almost surely result in more deaths, both of Americans and foreigners. And one of the reasons we don't do so is because the countries we are operating the drone program in specifically deny our use of ground forces there. Your article assumes that foreign affairs is a simple and safe slate; it isn't. Likewise it does that same in assuming that the President has unlimited power in closing Gitmo; he doesn't.
The crime is not in what the president has done. It is us insisting that in his place we would make the perfect moral decision.
We had an American citizen killed in another country because he preached. Key word preached against us. And it is OK? The real issue is the rhetoric used to keep 3rd party candidates down. Like "A vote for Ron Paul or whoever is a vote for the other side"







RSS
Comments (40) RSS