Police Drones + Open thread

Not much today - just a link to this:

Police Drones Can Fly with Tasers, Tear Gas in N. Dakota,
by Tracy Staedter.

end, a, wedge, of, the, thin - Arrange these words into a common phrase or saying.

OPEN THREAD from here............

What did we do in the "war" (on terror) Daddy 'O'?

"We tortured some folks".

Using the royal "We" are we?

"We" also killed some folks, aka children and civilians, with "our" drones, didn't "we"?

What exactly are "we" then?

Monsters?

"Erm...uh..."

HERE.

"The handing over of all power"

I can only imagine how the people of the USA must have felt in the aftermath of 9/11. With hindsight it's easy to see that measures taken by the then president and administration were draconian and have led to, so far, 12 years of conflict known as "the war on terror" - not a war in the traditional sense, since Congress did not declare war on either Afghanistan or Iraq. The atmosphere in the USA after 9/11 must have been akin to a rolling boil, so I can kind of understand how the people, led by their representatives, mostly agreed to the invasion of Afghanistan. There was more protest to the invasion of Iraq if I recall correctly. However, legislation dating from those dramatic years, the AUMF (The Authorization for Use of Military Force) and The Patriot Act are pillars upon which President Obama relies to authorise drone assassinations from the skies of several nations, often resulting in the murder of innocents and children.

The threat of terrorism hasn't disappeared, it will never disappear. Terrorism, of one kind or another, has been part of human experience since the dawn of history. Countries need to be prepared to deal with terrorist threats, that's accepted, but the way the USA is acting currently is more akin to stirring up a hornets' nest. Al Quaeda isn't Nazi Germany, its strength is puny compared with that of the USA - or even the UK. The whole scenario reminds me of an elephant twitchy and paranoid trying to stamp on an ant.

The use of drones, now they have been developed, will be part of life from now on, drones in ever more sophisticated forms too. The argument that the damage, collateral and to US military personnel, is less than that which would be brought about by conventional bombing methods, might hold true. I could not argue against that in times of declared war. In current circumstances, though, the US would be unlikely to be using other styles of bombing where drones are being used as attack weapons in countries such as Yemen, Pakistan and others.

Drones will, in any case, continue to be of benefit in reconnaissance and surveillance during times of conflict and disturbance. Their use beyond that, except in times of declared war, declared by Congress against a nation state, ought to be a matter for new legislation written to address present day situations, not those present in the period immediately following September 2001 - legislation containing strict limitations on, and mandated accountability for, the use of drones, military or civilian.

There's another aspect to drone use which will surely become apparent over time: further de-sensitisation and de-humanisation of the operators. War will become little more than a video game, that is until drones from some source carry and drop powerful nuclear bombs, then it'll be "game over" for humanity.

From George Orwell's "1984":

"The social atmosphere is that of a besieged city. And at the same time the consciousness of being at war, and therefore in danger, makes the handing-over of all power to a small caste seem the natural, unavoidable condition of survival."

"...the average citizen of Oceania never sets eyes on a citizen of either Eurasia or Eastasia, and he is forbidden the knowledge of foreign languages. If he were allowed contact with foreigners he would discover that they are creatures similar to himself and that most of what he has been told about them is lies."

VARIOUS

I was interested to read (SEE HERE) that the late Hugo Chavez was a great fan of the writings of Victor Hugo, especially of his famous novel, Les Misérables. I'm almost halfway through that huge tome myself, enjoying it a lot.

From above link

As Daphnée Denis wrote the other day on Slate:

"[Chávez] spent a great deal of time quoting and analyzing Hugo's social novel, the story of the wretched of France -- Cosette, the orphan, Fantine, the prostitute, Jean Valjean, the well-intended convict -- at the beginning of the 19th century... He often evoked the book to defend his policies, reminding the public that his government was devoted to the lower classes, "those who spent much of their life in total misery, as Victor Hugo would say."

Senator Rand Paul can be hailed as be a hero for his stand (but for this stand only) : the anti-drone filibuster. His motives were dubious however. Democrats, even the best of 'em, all except Ron Wyden are war criminals for following in the blood-stained steps of our President.





Some DNA ancestry services akin to 'genetic astrology'
piece by by Pallab Ghosh Science correspondent, BBC News. "Some customers want to find Viking ancestry, but almost every Briton has some, say researchers....." - and Roman too! We knew that already though, didn't we?


Scientists have described some services provided by companies tracing ancestry using DNA as akin to astrology.Huh? Not sure I get that drift.






Another "Talking Picture" and caption from the husband's vintage collection:



Caption and a comment:

Halderman Seldom knew where he was.
Whenever Halderman spotted someone with a camera, he always managed to get into the picture. Here, while Myra and her mother, Philo and her Aunt Cadbury, posed on the steps of the family summer home, Halderman quietly slipped into the frame. He always smiled so no one ever objected. Someone at the Seldom household next door always came to get him and return him to his lawn-chair lookout position.

Comment: from ed ed (64 months ago): Myra's eyes are cast down. Aunt Cadbury looks stern. Myra's mother chortles. I am wondering if there is a rip in the seat of Halderman's pants?

anyjazz65 (64 months ago, in reply): Oh dear. Do you suppose? There was always the rumor that Halderman had no pockets either.

During my early teenage years, in a small English market town , I would regularly haunt the local library. It was there that I discovered a few books by some American writers whose style I admired greatly - enough to start dreaming of emulating them, and becoming a journalist or newspaper reporter myself. "Dream on" was the message of my headmistress (paraphrased) at a brief career interview. I guess she was right, for opportunities were few and far between.

Those writers who had so impressed me had something in common, something which I discovered later when looking more deeply into astrology. They were all born with Pluto in Gemini.

Sinclair Lewis 7 Feb. 1885 Sauk Center, Minnesota
Dorothy Parker 22 Aug. 1893 West End, New Jersey
James Thurber 8 Dec. 1894 Columbus, Ohio
Ogden Nash 19 Aug. 1902 Rye, New York
S.J. Perelman 1 Feb. 1904 Brooklyn New York
H. Allen Smith 19 Dec 1907 McLeansboro, Illinois.

Gemini and its ruler Mercury represent communication in all its forms. In writers it links to an abstract curiosity, seeking to form a picture of the world and to share perceptions with others. Pluto's transit through Gemini (1883-1912) brought a long period of intense energy to those engaged in this area. I'm tempted to go on about Gemini being basically lighthearted, carefree, but must not forget who else was born into the same generation: Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, Ayatollah Khomeini. These men too were communicators, but of a far darker persuasion. Not all writers born with Pluto in Gemini leaned towards light humour and satire either : T.S. Eliot, J.R.R.Tolkein, Ernest Hemingway, George Orwell, John Steinbeck all were of this same generation. Excellence in writing was a definite feature throughout Pluto's visit to Gemini, these authors were fortunate to have been born under what could be described as "a writer's sky".

Gemini connects also to transportation and other forms of communication as well as writing. During Pluto's transit of Gemini there were many fantastic achievements. The first subway was built in London, the first automatic telephone switchboard was introduced, Marconi invented radio telegraphy, and Zeppelin built his airship.

Hidden Wrongs and "The Essential American Soul"?

While news of the Pope's rather aptly timed resignation has knocked the issue covered in this post out of the headlines , I'll not replace my original theme because it's an issue closer to home and one which ought not to be sidelined.

There is, anyway, an element of hidden wrongs in both the Pope story and the issue brought up below.

As a commenter wrote under Saturday's post, current astrological configurations and transits make it a time ripe for the "outing" of many hidden wrongs. Saturn now transits Scorpio, Pluto transits Capricorn in mutual reception: Saturn is Capricorn's ruler, Pluto is Scorpio's ruler - this serves as a kind of underlining of all that the signs and planets represent to astrologers. Saturn and Capricorn = the establishment, institutions, law. Pluto and Scorpio = secrets, darkness, matters relating to sex and passion, death, the cleansing and transformation of areas where there is decay. The Roman Catholic hierarchy, especially this Pope, both now and before his elevation to Head of the R C Church, have been instrumental in keeping hidden rampant sexual abuse of children by their priests on a worldwide scale. The situation, and astrological time, is ripe for exposure and eventual transformation in areas related to old institutions such as the R C Church and to governmental bodies.

So.....back to my original theme:

Glenn Greenwald wrote last week in The Guardian, on the release of the "assassination white paper" a legal memo from the Obama Department of Justice seeking to justify the assassination of US citizens (not to mention unfortunate murders of non-American citizens) :

The most extremist power any political leader can assert is the power to target his own citizens for execution without any charges or due process, far from any battlefield..............If you believe the president has the power to order US citizens executed far from any battlefield with no charges or trial, then it's truly hard to conceive of any asserted power you would find objectionable.

And yet, according to The Hill's poll based on a nationwide survey of 1,000 likely voters conducted on Feb. 7 by Pulse Opinion Research (Note: Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research) ~~

.................of the 1,000 Americans polled (a bipartisan group of likely voters) most were "inclined to support the government in its lethal attacks on citizens and non-citizens it deems to be terrorists."
And continues:

The poll found that 53 percent of likely voters said it should be legal for the U.S. government to kill non-U.S. citizens who meet that description. Meanwhile, 44 percent said it should be legal for the U.S. government to kill American citizens who it believes are terrorists and present an imminent threat.

By contrast, 21 percent of respondents thought such an action should be illegal if the target is a non-U.S. citizen. A slightly higher percentage of voters, 31 percent, thought killing individuals whom the government believes are terrorists should be illegal when the target is an American citizen.

A significant proportion of respondents — 26 percent and 24 percent, respectively — said they were not sure if such attacks should be legal, regardless of whether the target was an American or not.

When asked whether they oppose or back the administration’s drone program, however, a significantly higher percentage of voters voiced their support. Sixty-five percent of respondents said they support the use of unmanned drones to kill “people in foreign countries whom the US government says are terrorists and present an imminent threat,” while just 19 percent of voters said they oppose the policy.

Is that poll trustworthy though? Isn't it possible that questions were skewed in such a way as to obtain a desired result - desired by those paying this polling company, who needed to have the public "persuaded"? The company conducting the poll is in business, making $$$$$$$$, their aim is not necessarily factual enlightenment of the public. People reading, tweeting and Facebooking this poll's results will likely be thinking/writing along the lines of "Look at this all of you doubters! You're wrong! You're extremists and you're anti-American.... see here how many people think it's okay!" Brainwashing par excellence! And the very reason why The Powers That Be (or those behind 'em) are so keen to have control over the Internet. They already have control of TV, yes both Fox and MSNBC - and the rest!

Well-meaning commenters often blame "US voters" or the ignorance of US citizens generally for the dire straits in which the US finds itself morally. Democracy here has been corrupted though, at least in the case of national elections. Voting does nothing but put a rubber stamp on something already designed by the oligarchs - the power behind the curtain. There is no real choice in national elections. US Citizens have, through passivity, apathy, fear or simple misunderstanding allowed things to go rotten, but this has been over a long period of time, more decades than are covered by this present generation of citizens. That, though, is no excuse for continued sleepy passivity and apathy going forward.

The only alternative to that "excuse" for the position of citizens of the USA on the issue involved here would have to be this, as written by D.H. Lawrence in his Studies in Classic American Literature:

The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has never yet melted.

There are, I'm certain, many, many - perhaps the majority of citizens of the USA who have never killed a fellow-human, or even a fellow-creature of Earth, and yet, if these citizens are willing to stand by without protest and allow their democracy to crumble, allow unjust killings to be carried out in their name....then, I'm sorry to say they really are killers by default. The idea that all's fair in love and war doesn't wash here. There is no declared war. The so-called War on Terror isn't a war - there is no Theatre of War, no battlefield. War on Terror has been nothing short of an excuse. An excuse to continue the attacks and occupations originally being retaliation to the attacks on the World Trade Centre on 11 September 2001.

Peter G. Cohen wrote, concluding his piece CIA Drone Killings Don’t Make Us Safer:

Finally, we must face the fact that many nations are now acquiring drones and some are arming them. If they follow our example, we are creating an international situation in which any nation can kill people in other nations whom they dislike. By destroying the restraints of law, we are encouraging a lawless age. This is a terrible heritage to pass on to our children. Remember, you may not be able to see or hear the drone that is aiming a missile at your home. The smart way to handle drones right now is to pass national and international laws forbidding the use of armed drones away from a battlefield.

Drones: "most brutal weapons of all"

It was announced on Friday that Germany is about to acquire armed drones.
From the full Associated Press report HERE

Defense Minister Thomas de Maiziere said Friday that Germany would work with France to develop a new generation of unmanned aerial vehicles.

"We have a gap in our capabilities that we would like to close," he said.

Germany already has unarmed drones, including the Israeli-built Heron 1 model, which it uses for reconnaissance purposes in places such as Afghanistan. Officials said Germany might consider purchasing an armed version of the Heron 1 for use after 2014, to bridge the gap until 2020 when the system being developed with France becomes available.

(Photograph from RP Defense blog)

I had been labouring under the mistaken idea that Germany would nevermore have the option to become fully militarised, after having been instrumental in lighting the blue touchpaper for two horrendously devastating world wars within a ridiculously short time span 1914-1918, 1939-1945. Some generations had the misfortune of living through both bloodbaths. I'm not sure where I got the idea in the first place - probably kidding myself. Wikipedia has a page outlining the real situation.

It doesn't take an over-active imagination to see where a potential drone-fest will end, as more and more countries acquire the technology. We used to think our greatest danger lay in nuclear weaponry. That supposition ought now to be updated to include armed drone use. Potential for human error has always been present, now an added possibility of techno-error - even without planned intention of attack. Can you imagine World War 3? Skies dark with competing drones over cities throughout the world....need I write more?

For any passing reader who still thinks drones are "a good thing", keeping the operator and "our heroic troops" safe and sound in underground bunkers far, far away - continents away - from the action, would do well to read an essay by a German guy, Dirk Kurbjuweit, translated into English by Christopher Sultan, and dated August 2012:
Fear the Reaper: 'Humane' Drones Are the Most Brutal Weapons of All

I'll copy some brief snips, but the full essay is essential reading:

....... According to the traditional concepts of combat, a war waged with drones is a cowardly war. The coward, in this equation, is the one who takes little or no risk to fight against those who take great risks........................

To date, the most humane of all weapons is the one that is potentially the most gruesome -- the intercontinental ballistic missile, equipped with multiple nuclear warheads, which is capable of wiping out a city of a million people. It has zero victims, because no one has dared to use it.........................

The "good" drones, on the other hand, have a much more tragic track record. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism in London found that the United States used drones in Pakistan 337 times between 2004 and 2012, killing between 2,524 and 3,247 people. The casualties included 482 to 852 civilians, of whom 175 were children. Of the many evils of war, civilian victims are the worst.

The high rate of civilian casualties stems from the fact that the Americans are not using their armed drones in the battlefield, but in the vicinity of people who are considered to be terrorists. Of course, this means that there will sometimes be civilians nearby who, despite the precision of drones, will lose their lives.................

The most precise weapon for hunting down terrorists is still an intelligence agent like James Bond, but he has to risk his life during his missions, which is why the drone is preferred in real life.

A humane approach to war is a complex issue. Drones seem relatively humane, but that perception only increases the temptation to use them. They spare one's own troops, which is good, but they pose a great threat to civilians, which is terrible. As a result, the humane approach gives rise to a special form of inhumanity....................

A weapon also has a psychology, meaning that it affects the disposition of its users in its own, unique way. The drone is especially tempting for politicians of a gentle, humanitarian nature. Former US President George W. Bush, who does not fall into this category, used armed drones in Pakistan 52 times in the last four years of his presidency. His apparently gentler and more humanitarian successor, Barack Obama, has already deployed drones 285 times. Just as the drone suits Germany, it also suits Obama. Because it doesn't seem as terrible as other weapons, the barriers to its use are relatively low.

DRONES & PREDICTIONS

During Monday's presidential debate (the last of the season) the topic of drone warfare was mentioned but skated over with no in-depth discussion, and both candidates voicing support. It was from an unlikely source that essential comment has come: Joe Scarborough, a former Republican member of Congress who hosts a morning political talk-show. Please note Democrat-supporting Joe Klein's stance on the matter!




As Glen Greenwald has writtten HERE:

Obama has led all sorts of progressives and other Democrats to be the most vocal supporters of unrestrained aggression, secret assassinations, and "crippling" the Iranian people with sanctions. It is completely unsurprising that the most sociopathic defense of drones comes from one of the most committed Obama supporters, and that it's now left to a former GOP Congressman to raise objections. As much as anything, that is the Obama legacy.

And, as William Astore wrote in his piece America Lost Last Night's Presidential Debate

The U.S. will continue to escalate drone strikes on assassination missions of dubious legality, all in the name of killing the bad guys. Neither candidate bothered to address civilian casualties, blowback, or whether they accept the right of other countries to launch their own drones on assassination missions. (In this case I'm guessing that imitation by China or Russia or Iran would not be considered the sincerest form of flattery.)

For anyone keen on election predictions there's a page at a blog called The Moderate Voice: Real Psychic Predictions 2012 - Politics and More (updated October 2012).

Having scrambled through it, I'm no wiser, but it was fun!

I decided to fish out my tarot deck from the back of a drawer where it has rested for quite some time, undisturbed. Shuffled, mentally asking, "Who will be the next president of the USA?" Drew 3 cards. 6 of Swords, 8 of Rods, Ace of Cups. I'd rather hoped to see one of the royal cards emerge, but my tarot deck is in enigmatic mood....it ain't sayin'. Yet those three cards seem to me to offer a reassuring omen indicating that things will not be nearly as bad as many expect or are predicting, whether President Obama retains his hold on the White House, or Gov. Romney takes over. In view of the opening topic of this post, it's hard to be convinced.

6 of Swords = a moving away from danger. 8 of Rods is a card of movement - swiftness, completion, fulfillment, progress and action. Ace of Cups represents the start of something good and positive. I was surprised to see these cards emerge - really! But emerge they did. I guess each person could interpret them as an indication that their own chosen candidate will win. I have no chosen candidate, so the message for me is that whatever happens, the outcome of the 2012 election will not turn out to have been disastrous for the country and the world.

Gut-feeling: I've thought for a while that the President will gain another 4 years in power because, of the two candidates, he's in a better position to be able to get done what The True Powers That Be need to be done. He will be Their preference. With Romney in the White House there'd be heavy opposition from the left against certain propositions which The Powers That Be see as essential. Obama has the left tamed, therefore he is, as one writer has put it "the more effective evil". Absent a landslide for Romney, which isn't likely, I'm sure there are ways and means to tweak a close-run thing so that the desired result is obtained.

The Obscenity of Drones

Why is the subject of drone use in countries with whom the USA or UK are not at war not prominent in political discussion? A few blogs and internet news sources have carried good pieces on the topic of drone warfare, but only infrequently. I was heartened to see a video clip from a recent Rachel Maddow show on MSNBC where she asks a variation of that question. She frames it along the lines of "why isn't Mitt Romney bringing up the topic in his campaign speeches?" She admits to seeing the President's stance on the issue as being "hair raising" - which is as close as anyone on MSNBC is likely to get to criticising He Who Must Not be Criticised. That's why I stopped watching MSNBC.

Here's the clip from Rachel Maddow's show. For any passing reader without 7+ minutes to spare, scoot in to around the halfway point, after she stops talking about Paul Ryan.

I've looked around the net to see what others are thinking on this issue, found a Pew Poll SEE HERE which shows that in 17 of 20 countries, more than half disapprove of U.S. drone attacks targeting extremist leaders and groups in nations such as Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. Americans are the clear outliers on this issue – 62% approve of the drone campaign, including most Republicans (74%), independents (60%) and Democrats (58%).

A 62% approval?.... of exercises which result in often killing unarmed civilians and children?.... in countries with which the US or UK are not at war? So....would this 62% be willing to accept reciprocal behaviour from other countries on the US or UK?

Some comments around the net state the view that, in a nutshell, "war is dirty, people will be killed". We are not at war - that is the crux of this issue. If drones had been available during World War II (doodlebugs were their precurser I guess) well then, perhaps the use of drones would have been acceptable as a form of self defence. Had that war been lost, Nazi rule would have spread world wide. War has not been declared.

This from

http://www.pri.org/stories/world/asia/new-report-finds-u-s-drone-warfare-is-traumatizing-innocent-civilians-11581.html
.....The United States government doesn't acknowledge that civilians have been killed in drone attacks. Making matters worse, aid workers, first responders and even locals tend to wait several hours before going to the scene of a drone strike to help the wounded, for fear of a second strike following.

Clive Stafford Smith, the founder and director of Reprieve, a nonprofit organization based in the United Kingdom that sponsored the report, said the academics visited 130 places in Pakistan, talking to survivors, to create their report.
"Drone warfare is traumatizing the entirety of Waziristan," he said. "Of the 800,000 people in Waziristan, the vast majority are not extremists. These folks have these drones flying round and round over their heads, 24 hours a day. And it's causing serious psychological trauma." Among those victims, he said, are children.

Smith said, in addition to witnesses who talk about their trauma there are doctors who are treating people for those sorts of illnesses and an "exponential increase" in the use of psychiatric drugs for treating anxiety and depression.

"We're talking common sense. My mother was in London in 1944 when there were various drones fired overhead at London. She's 85 today and she still remembers very vividly the effect of these things coming down," Smith said. "That's the same thing that's going on in Pakistan today."

Mentioned in that piece was someone who lived through the London blitz. As a young child I lived through the blitz too, not in London but in Hull, an east coast port bombed regularly by the Germans. The experience possibly helps to understand and empathise with the ordinary people of territories being drone-attacked by the US/UK . Though very young at the time of World War II, I retain clear memories and shallow-buried fears. The sound of a siren still makes my blood run cold almost 70 years after. I remember blocks of houses disappearing overnight - their occupants, including some of my little firends, blasted to kingdom come. I remember, after being evacuated to live with grandparents, watching from an upstairs window at night, the far horizon red with the fires in my parent's home city after more bombings. Young as I was, I understood that the morning could bring devastating news.

People who consider current drone use to be just and necessary ought to "walk a while in the shoes" of those civilians who live in fear because of what we in the US and UK are allowing our governments to do in our name.

What about the people actually doing the remote killing?
FROM HERE

Drone operators see their intended targets 'wake up in the morning, do their work, go to sleep at night,' explains Dave, another high-tech murderer who killed from an office cockpit at Nevada’s Creech Air Force Base and who now trains new recruits to the cyber-killer corps at New Mexico’s Holloman Air Force Base.

When instructed to kill someone he has stalked from the air for a prolonged period:
"I feel no emotional attachment to the enemy. I have a duty, and I execute my duty." When the deed is done, he points out, nobody "in my immediate environment is aware of anything that has occurred."

Another drone operator named Will insists:
"There was a good reason for killing the people that I did, and I go through it in my head over and over and over."

All very heroic, isn't it? (Irony)

I'll summarise in a single sentence.
Use of drones outside of a legitimate war is obscene.