The Drone “Debate” and Friendly Fire

Last week, Spencer reported on an Air Force contract for software to move towards self-piloted drones.

The Air Force recently gave Stottler Henke Associates $100,000 to deliver a software package that can keep drones from colliding into human-piloted planes as they take off and land. Stottler’s proposal, called the Intelligent Pilot Intent Analysis System, models pilots’ behavior in manifested and predicted scenarios: how they take off, how they land, how they maneuver in between. It also incorporates information from Air Traffic Control and guidance for specific runways. All that will tell the drone how to react when a plane veers close or the trajectory of the two planes might portend a crash.

Put simply, it’s analogous to getting a drone to think like a pilot, getting into his head. And it’s a big step for drone autonomy. “We’re encoding that knowledge that human pilots have, what they’re going to do,” Stottler says.

Then on Friday, Walter Pincus had an article describing discussions in the UK and here about whether using drones desensitizes their users to the death they cause.

The British study noted that drones are becoming increasingly automated. With minor technical advances, it said, a drone could soon be able to “fire a weapon based solely on its own sensors, or shared information, and without recourse to higher, human authority.” It cautioned that the Defense Ministry “currently has no intention to develop” such systems.

Nonetheless, the aircraft, piloted by people far from the battlefield, represents an approaching technological tipping point “that may well deliver a genuine revolution in military affairs,” according to the Joint Doctrine Note, which was conducted under the direction of the British Chiefs of Staff. Titled “The United Kingdom Approach to Unmanned Aircraft Systems,” it was first disclosed last week by the Guardian newspaper.

[snip]

Retired Lt. Gen. David Deptula, former Air Force deputy chief of staff for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, acknowledged that the use of drones comes with potential problems with public perceptions. “Our adversaries have interjected this as a question in [people’s] minds, as an attempt to limit the use of what is very, very effective,” he said.

Though, as FAIR notes, while the lede of Pincus’ article referred to “debates,” what he described in his article was really a chorus of drone supporters.

Readers of the Washington Post can see this headline in today’s edition (4/25/11) about the U.S. drone airstrikes:

Debates Underway on Combat Drones

But there is no actual debate in the article. Reporter Walter Pincus cites a British military study that calls the use of missile-firing drones “a genuine revolution in military affairs,” adding that the “use of unmanned aircraft prevents the potential loss of aircrew lives and is thus in itself morally justified.”

Pincus goes on to explain:

At a Washington conference of the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) last week, the issue of drones was also widely discussed.

That “wide discussion” would seem to have involved drone proponents from the CIA and the military.

Aside from any real debate, though, this discussion about all the lives that drones save seem to be missing one more detail: the recent news that two Americans were killed in a friendly fire drone strike.

Which is why I find it particularly tragic that our abstract certainty about who is and who is not a terrorist has led to this: the friendly fire death of two Americans last week–including Navy medic Benjamin Rast from Niles, MI–in a Predator drone strike in Afghanistan.

The investigation is looking into the deaths of a Marine and a Navy medic killed by a Hellfire missile fired from a Predator after they apparently were mistaken for insurgents in southern Afghanistan last week, two senior U.S. defense officials said Tuesday.

[snip]

Marine Staff Sgt. Jeremy Smith of Arlington, Tex., and Seaman Benjamin D. Rast of Niles, Mich., were hit while moving toward other Marines who were under fire in Helmand province.

Perhaps appropriately, the LAT just laid out in chilling detail the ways in which our drone targeting is prone to human error (the LAT article appeared after Smith and Rast were killed but before DOD admitted they were killed by a drone strike). In an effort to bypass unreliable Afghan partners, we have moved increasingly to targeting people who act or look like insurgents. But from 15,000 feet above the ground, with analysis conducted 7,000 miles away, it seems Americans own troops can look like insurgents, too.

It is clear that we’ve reached a point in our use of drones where the experts who use them are considering what relation they have on our own humanity. But if we have that discussion without, at the same time, talking about not just the “lives saved” but those tragically lost, haven’t we also lost our humanity?

image_print
  1. emptywheel says:

    I should have said that the debate also seems to eschew discussion of the civilian deaths, too. I’ve just been struck by the coincidence of this “debate” over humans and drones and the near silence that we’ve just killed two of our own with one.

  2. 1der says:

    Pincus cites a British military study that calls the use of missile-firing drones “a genuine revolution in military affairs,” adding that the “use of unmanned aircraft prevents the potential loss of aircrew lives and is thus in itself morally justified.”

    What bs, why do I feel like those that make the decisions are either stupid or think that we are?
    On saving aircrew lives, especially those that drones would replace: a few examples from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aviation_shootdowns_and_accidents_during_the_Iraq_War

    – USAF Roundel November 12, 2008 – A USAF F-16 caught fire on takeoff. The pilot survived
    – USAF Roundel July 16, 2007 – A US F-16, serial 92-3901, from the 35th FW crashed. The pilot survived. The crash was attributed to under-inflation of the landing gear tires.
    – USAF Roundel May 2, 2005 – Two F/A-18C Block 39/40 Hornet fighter jets of VMFA-323, BuNos 164721 and 164732, collide over south-central Iraq, during a sortie from USS Carl Vinson, killing the two pilots.
    – USAF Roundel November 27, 2006 – F-16CG, serial 90-0776, from the 524th Fighter Squadron crashes near Fallujah while on a low-altitude ground-strafing run. The pilot, Major Troy Gilbert, was killed.

    God, how lame can you be. Our Best and Brightest. Foster kids should wear thrift shop hand-me-downs, that’ll cut the deficit of the Greatest Nation Evah, that Beacon-On-the-Hill. shit.

  3. manys says:

    Something about drones strikes me as kind of mustard-gas-y. “The drone malfunctioned,” we’ll probably hear eventually.

  4. behindthefall says:

    Put simply, it’s analogous to getting a drone to think like a pilot …

    Oh, good. It’s a Turing Test, but in a life-or-death situation. That’s sure to work. s

  5. DWBartoo says:

    What is a little “lost” humanity among the elites?

    As for the rest of us, those in whose name the killing, maiming, and destruction is done, what’s it to us, really, EW?

    It simply does not bear thinking about.

    Again, one wonders just how long everyone else on planet Earth will patiently bear our collective inhumanity and increasing brutality?

    Ah well, that also does not, apparently, bear thinking about … or even considering, “looking forward”, for that matter, except among a conscious few, who are all studiously ignored.

    Who can possibly imagine that the people living so callously, so very comfortably free from pondering their own lack of humanity, here, in America the Uniquely Exceptional, might EVER face consequence?

    DW

  6. CTuttle says:

    More food for thought… From ’08…

    Predator Pilots Suffering War Stress…

    …The Air National Guardsmen who operate Predator drones over Iraq via remote control, launching deadly missile attacks from the safety of Southern California 7,000 miles away, are suffering some of the same psychological stresses as their comrades on the battlefield.

    • DWBartoo says:

      Not to worry, CTut, for there is a cadre of younger joy-stickers, in desperate need of jobs and filled with the sense of wanting to “contribute” something … especially as they are assured that it “must” be done.

      The violence of video games will enure many of them … for a while … and then, a younger, even more “comfortable” with violence “set” will replace them. The “interest” that many among America’s young are showing in torture and death, in the “chain-saw massacre” perspective seems to be going unnoticed, below the radar as it were, except for the manufacturers of the games that children now play.

      Individuals may, some, on occasion, feel the sickness deep in their souls, however, the “collective”, now, is akin to a corporation … it feels no pain and admits to no conscience, its only concern is the “task” at hand and NO human considerations may be allowed, as a matter of pride and the prejudice of comfortable hubris, which is the essence of this nation today, to interfere or dissuade …

      DW

  7. bmull says:

    $100,000 doesn’t buy much of a collision avoidance system. Can’t wait to see the finished product.

    • BoxTurtle says:

      That’s about what it would cost to spec out a system. If they like the specs, lots more money will flow.

      Boxturtle (You think politicians lie? You should see the folks who do those specs!)

  8. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Imagine how many more drones could be airborne all over the world if they did not each require a pilot/observer team, a dedicated intel officer and a supervisor. I wonder which contractor(s) pushed the Air Force to give that small, publicly acknowledged contract.

    We could have Drones L.A., LLC; Westchester Drone Security Corp. The permutations are endless, as is the revenue stream and the intel – just from onboard sensors. Imagine the surcharges for munitions and for support, data downloading and analysis one might charge for ops in West Africa, the Caucuses, off an Indonesian, oil/mineral rich archipelago. All advertised with no boots on the ground, nothing tangible to tie the oppressor and his oppression.

    What’s that they say about icebergs? Four-fifths of them lie below the surface.

  9. earlofhuntingdon says:

    It is clear that we’ve reached a point in our use of drones where the experts who use them are considering what relation they have on our own humanity. But if we have that discussion without, at the same time, talking about not just the “lives saved” but those tragically lost, haven’t we also lost our humanity?

    I wonder if DynCorp could give us an answer without the twang from the synthesized voice.

  10. MadDog says:

    As they continue blindly sliding down the slipperly slope, for too many in service to our government, that service is not an adventure, but merely a job.

    It never dawns on them that their efforts contribute to the continued erosion of our ideals, morals and principles. After all, they’re only doing their job.

    In their eyes, drones are used because they can. If they ever focus on the legitimacy of using drones, it is with the simplistic view that something that doesn’t directly risk our own lives must, simply must be a better way to kill others.

    Left unthought of is the effect such deeds have on those who become targets for our “risk-less” technology.

    And their then willingness to return the favor.

    • BoxTurtle says:

      The heck of it is, the drones are a quantum leap in military technology. They could be the best thing that has happened to our military since the gatling gun.

      But our wars have to be just. And we have to follow the rules of warfare wrt targetting civilians. Currently, we’re doing neither.

      Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

      Boxturtle (Can’t believe I’m the first person to say that on this thread)

      • MadDog says:

        …They could be the best thing that has happened to our military since the gatling gun…

        Such a pregnant statement.

        The gatling gun of course, made the killing of many by the few easier than it had ever been before. Our own Civil War saw its introduction, but it really rose to prominence in the butchery of tens of thousands of human beings in World War I.

        Drones of course, don’t do massive killing (yet). Their “scalpel-like” precision and perceived “risk-less” deployment is their own claim to fame.

        While I agree that our wars have to be just, I can’t help but find that drone technology makes our warfare far easier to undertake, and nothing in drone technology posits a greater requirement for thoughtful consideration of its usage.

        Rather, the opposite seems to be the case. Ease of use in more ways than one.

        • MadDog says:

          And BT, my comment wasn’t meant as a criticism of your comment or of you.

          I was just trying to express what I thought drone technology unfortunately brings to the war table.

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        A phrase about power that Lord Acton composed at the height of the British Empire. A phrase, moreover, followed by the less often quoted line, “Great men are almost always bad men.”

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          It’s also worth noting that Acton’s most famous comment,

          All power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or certainty of corruption by full authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it.”

          was written in opposition to the Catholic papacy’s 1870 declaration that on matters of church doctrine, the pope was infallible – a last “intellectual” redoubt as the Church ceded its temporal power to a newly unified Italian state.

          That sentiment should commend itself to Mr. Obama, his Congress and their military-industrial-surveillance complex. It’s already obvious to their opponents.

          • DWBartoo says:

            Yes, Eoh, and as well to the Judiciary … especially SCOTUS.

            (One do hope the Big “O” doth have his minions check these threads, although who might dare pass this raw ‘intelligence” along” is a definite “looky forwardy” question.)

            DW

  11. orionATL says:

    tjbs@1

    perhaps “looking down the wrong end of the gunbarrel”

    would serve your purpose. :>)

  12. orionATL says:

    i, too, thought of the atomic bomb attacks on japan when i read ew’s post.

    those acts were rationalized as militarily necessary (“saved lives”, they said).

    in fact, if i recall correctly, the bombs were used, were intended, as effectively weapons of terror- the first wmd’s, whose use would persuade japanese leaders that they needed to handover (or fall on) their swords without delay.

    what a bright future:

    at some point, police robots for suppressing riots.

    at some point, military robots for operating in tienanmen or tahir square or benghazi against what the corporate media love to refer to as “rebels, “insurgents”, “jihadists”.

    why send a human soldier who might not want to kill a fellowcountryman, when you can send a military robot to do the job without compunction – or memory?

    no more ptsd, no more quadriplegics, no more multiple brain and burn surgeries, no more mre’s.

    what a deal.

    • DWBartoo says:

      The “fictitious persons” and their “stockholders” cannot find a “better” deal, orionATL.

      You have seen the future and it IS appalling, heartless, and cruel.

      If people are perceived to be the “problem”, then “solution” is clear and most obvious to … some.

      DW

  13. MadDog says:

    If one really looks clearly at the history of our species and our development of weaponry, each advance in weaponry has made it more effective and efficient to kill other members of our species.

    Sadly, it has also made it easier to decide to kill other members of our species.

    That corresponding “ease of usage” is a fact that never really gets examined, certainly not by the promoters of such weaponry advances, and sadly, rarely by our leaders.

    This fact is obvious to any with even a modicum of intelligence. And yet there is little if any acknowledgement of this fact, much less a reasoned discussion.

    The fact that we won’t, or at least don’t, deal with this issue should inform us of something dangerously important about ourselves, but alas that too is something we all too often avoid thinking about.

    • DWBartoo says:

      Concisely well said, MadDog, to the very heart and soul of the species regarding its tenure here, on planet earth …

      DW

  14. CTuttle says:

    Two notable news articles… First, the WaPoo has this steaming pile…

    AP sources: Obama likely to reunite Crocker-Petraeus Iraq ‘dream team’ in Afghanistan

    Next, get a load of Bahrain’s Ambassador’s testimony to Tom Lantos’ HR Committee’s investigation of Bahrain…

    Bahrain is a progressive Arab nation and a longtime ally of the United States. Historically, Bahrain has been at the forefront of ensuring civil liberties and democratic reforms in the Middle East. Bahrain respects and protects all religions and ethnic groups.

    The political unrest exhibited in Bahrain was characterized by violent sectarianism. Bahrain’s situation is unique from our neighbors in the greater region like Syria, Libya, and Egypt and it is wrong for the commission to treat the situation in Bahrain as indistinguishable. Actions in response to the protests went to stabilize the duress in our country and preserve our multicultural, multi-ethnic society.

    The protesters did not use peaceful tactics and during the height of unrest, protesters overran our main thoroughfare and threatened our infrastructure. Bahrain was under siege and any sense of normal life was brought to a halt. Schools, businesses and ministries could not operate. The financial harbor was temporarily shut down due to road blocks and the main hospital was transformed into an opposition political command center.

    Bahrain’s protests had turned violent and the government was forced to respond. In order to bolster security at our critical infrastructure and to maintain national stability, Bahrain called on our regional neighbors. The nation exercised its sovereign right to invite in the Gulf Cooperation Council’s (GCC) Peninsula Shield Force to aid in our peacekeeping efforts.

    This was not an act of external force or a foreign invasion. This was a necessary step to ensure Bahrain return to a state of normalcy. Since then, Bahrain’s hospitals, schools, banks and shopping centers have opened for the public and we continue to make strides to resume normal life.

    *whew* What a crock o’shit…! Incidently, Crocko’shit was my pet name for Crocker back during the ‘Surge’…! *gah*

  15. thatvisionthing says:

    “Our adversaries have interjected this as a question in [people’s] minds, as an attempt to limit the use of what is very, very effective,” he said.

    Dude, we are losing every war. More drones, more stupid.

  16. thatvisionthing says:

    The British study noted that drones are becoming increasingly automated. With minor technical advances, it said, a drone could soon be able to “fire a weapon based solely on its own sensors, or shared information, and without recourse to higher, human authority.”

    Now THAT’S plausible deniability we can believe in!

    Now if the things could really learn — I was looking at War Games (the movie) youtubes last week trying to find something (didn’t — but). The kid who started the trouble (ew, it’s for you, he hacked into DOD by mistake and started playing a game: “Let’s play global thermonuclear war”) was trying to get the computer to learn before it was too late. And Joshua the computer (named after the creator’s lost 5-year-old child) started running through every possible global scenario — bang – bang – bang – bang – bang – bang — until he learned: “Strange game. The only winning move is not to play.”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeOHEU7Ykyg

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Without recourse to higher, human authority. What time, was it, that Skynet became self-aware?

      This s/w is a long way from such an event, but our military is headed in that direction; I’m sure they’ve figured out already how to avoid their fictional fate.

      • thatvisionthing says:

        I had to look up Skynet — I’ve never seen any of the Terminators, my mind flipped to ? the Astute, which is kinda perfect in its own way (see the diary it’s in — “We’ve never lost complete command and control and functionality of 50 ICBMs”) — I’m laughing again at the Taliban Improvised Sandbank Device that did the Astute in. I mean, Stanley Kubrick would laugh, right?

        Sky can exclusively reveal that, if the contact with the Improvised Sandbank Device or ISD had caused an explosion in the nuclear reactor on board HMS Astute, it could have wiped out the two hundred million people living on the North West Coast of Scotland.

        Astute!!! Win!!!

      • thatvisionthing says:

        Without recourse to higher, human authority. What time, was it, that Skynet became self-aware?

        Without recourse to higher, human authority. What time, was it, that the United States lost self-awareness?

        I say when corporations became superpersons and juries could no longer learn that part of their function was to judge the law as well as the accused, to find justice per their conscience. Citizens lost their constitutional function as the living conscience of their government. No longer checked and balanced the actual real actions of government, just vote and hope for the best. Shop. There’s really no set date, but 1886/1895 works as a guidepost for me.

        You’ll have to help me write this comment because it’s that one that’s so big it always comes out garbled. It’s the conscience one.

        I listen to podcasts a lot, even years out of order when I put an old thumbdrive in. Just this morning I was fluke listening to an old KCRW one where the guests were Phillip Zelikow, Jane Mayer, Glenn Greenwald and Cliff May. Subject was prosecuting torture. To Cliff May, it was just a matter of difference of opinions between lawyers in different administrations — a political matter, a Constitutional horror to dream of prosecuting — and the thing he pulled out of his butt to “prove” his point was that M (Michael Hayden? Mitch McConnell? some other M?) said the test was “self-evident.” It all comes down to that. I mean I agree with self-evident, I think people/citizens/juries pretty much know it when they see it and torture is self-evident. But to him, it was proof of pointlessness because he watches 24 and torture seems reasonable and prudent. Self-evident. Self. That’s the nutshell. Look there. Please write my comment for me, I never can say this perfectly. Not that I don’t try.

        (P.S. Me: Got kicked out of California court when I told the judge “I would vote my conscience” during jury selection.)

        • thatvisionthing says:

          (P.S. Me: Got kicked out of California court when I told the judge “I would vote my conscience” during jury selection.)

          I’d be in good company if this guy came up for jury duty in California:

          JOHN ADAMS (1771): It’s not only … (the juror’s) right, but his duty, in that case, to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgement, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.

        • thatvisionthing says:

          I listen to podcasts a lot, even years out of order when I put an old thumbdrive in. Just this morning I was fluke listening to an old KCRW one where the guests were Phillip Zelikow, Jane Mayer, Glenn Greenwald and Cliff May. Subject was prosecuting torture. To Cliff May, it was just a matter of difference of opinions between lawyers in different administrations — a political matter, a Constitutional horror to dream of prosecuting — and the thing he pulled out of his butt to “prove” his point was that M (Michael Hayden? Mitch McConnell? some other M?) said the test was “self-evident.”

          Have to set the record straight — I got it wrong! Went back and listened. Test wasn’t “self-evident,” it was “shock the conscience.” And it was CIA director Michael Hayden. Here’s what Cliff May said:

          KCRW To The Point
          The Torture Memos: Truth and Consequences
          THU APR 23, 2009

          At 28:32:

          WARREN OLNEY: What do you say to the question of whether people ought to be prosecuted, or at least investigated – CIA agents, Justice Department lawyers, anybody else?

          CLIFFORD MAY: Well, I think, I certainly agree with President Obama that the CIA agents who were told that what they were doing was legal, was authorized, should by no means be investigated, should by no means be prosecuted. I think it would be a terrible example going forward. If you want to encourage an adversion to any risk taking at all, which is already prevalent in the intelligence community, go ahead and do that, but then don’t ask them why they didn’t get any good information before the next 9/11.

          I think it’s, Warren, Orwellian that we’re sitting here calmly discussing whether attorneys in the current administration should prosecute attorneys in the past administration because they disagree with their opinions. And that’s what we’re really talking about. You can say their legal opinions made no sense, I disagree with them, but it’s – but that is not a crime.

          And again, what do you say to people in the future who want to give their opinions and write their opinions as freely as they can if they know the may be prosecuted and go to jail if they come up with the wrong answers? Don’t forget the lawyers are not saying what you should do, they’re saying, “Here’s what you may do, as we read the law.”

          And various people read the law differently, understand. General Michael Hayden, who was CIA director, pointed out recently that the American standard is that which shocks the conscience. Well, you know, Warren, what shocks your conscience, what shocks my conscience, what shocks Glenn’s conscience, may be different, and it maybe be different under various circumstances. It would shock my conscience a lot to cause discomfort to somebody to get a false confession, but in a ticking time bomb scenario where people’s lives are at risk, to get rough with somebody short of torture and use coercive methods, what used to be called by interrogators “stress and duress” but do not cross the line into torture – it would shock my conscience if you didn’t, if you simply sent the terrorist back to his cell, gave him a good meal, and then let him know after his terrorist plot had slaughtered Americans. That would shock my conscience.

          So I think though – ho – that’s basically what I – look, if you want to – let me say one more thing if I may. If you want to be serious going forward, here’s what you would do. It’s not hard. You would have a blue ribbon commission come up with a list of what techniques of interrogation are effective, and then the President with a red pen would say, “Here. These we’ll never do no matter what, and these we’ll do only with my permission in the most extreme circumstances, and these the Director of National Intelligence can authorize under my guidelines only, and these any interrogator in the CIA can use, and these any military interrogator can use, and that becomes the Army Field Manual. That would be a way to correct what has been wrong in the past, which is that we don’t have simple, clear rules on all this.

          Glenn Greenwald rebutted,

          GLENN GREENWALD: He’s criticizing an opinion that absolutely nobody anywhere is expressing. Nobody thinks that Justice Department lawyers should be prosecuted for opining incorrectly about the law. But there are lawyers who get punished in our court system every single day based on the distinction that he is ignoring between legal opinions that are simply wrong and ones that are so blatantly wrong that they could have only been issued in bad faith.

          I mean, what he’s basically saying is that the President said one day, “Look, I’d like to murder innocent people on purpose in order to put fear in the domestic population.” And Justice Department lawyers then issued an opinion justifying and legalizing that, something that everybody knows would be illegal, but they nonetheless opine that it was legal. What he’s saying is, “Well, when lawyers participate as active conspirators in a crime that way, they ought to be immunized.” And that is nowhere the law. It has never been the law.

          And in fact if you go and look at the trials that took place after World War II at Nuremberg, several of the defendants who were put on trial at Nuremberg for war crimes, by the United States, were lawyers who essentially did what the Justice Department lawyers did, which was legalize, write memos legalizing war crimes. They didn’t order the war crimes. They didn’t authorize them. They didn’t participate in them. What they did was they gave legal cover to things that have long been considered crimes. That in itself is a crime.

          And to say that lawyers ought to be immunized from that is to basically say that political leaders are above the rule of law, because you can always have government lawyers who work for you justify anything that you want to do, and that’s what clearly took place here.

          and then Cliff May restated:

          CLIFFORD MAY: I think that’s just a dreadful slander of the various attorneys we’re talking about, who did not just write, “Oh you can do anything.” They said very clearly, “Look, the American standard is what shocks the conscience. How do we define what shocks the conscience? Here’s how we define it. The idea that all these lawyers acted in bad faith, that all these lawyers said, “I’ll say whatever anybody tells me to say, it doesn’t matter,” that’s really crazy.

          Look, and most of the – I would also argue that most of the – there is a difference, it seems to me, and I guess others disagree – between what is torture, what crosses the line, and what is a coercive and harsh interrogation technique that does not constitute torture. You know, one report from ABC: “Detainees were forced to listen to rap artist Eminem’s ‘Slim Shady’ album. The music was so foreign to them it made them frantic, sources say.” Are you telling me that’s torture? I don’t think it is. I think that was within the realm of what you can do. Is sleep deprivation torture? I don’t think it is for two or three nights. I think it is for three months.

          So a good attorney would say, “Here’s how you know when you cross the line.” And that’s why there were physicians and psychologists and others there to stop the process if it became – if it went over the line into torture. That’s why the wall that was used to throw Abu Zubaydah against was a flexible wall and why there was cushioning around his neck so he couldn’t get whiplash!

          Let me just quote you one thing from Abu Zubaydah, which was in the released CIA memos. He says, “Brothers,” by which he means Al Qaeda members, “who are captured and interrogated are permitted by Allah to provide information when they believe they have reached the limit of their ability to withhold it in the face of psychological and physical hardship.” In other words, if they talk too quickly, they would be traitors. But if they went to the end of their ability to face the hardships, then they could give you the information you need to save lives.

          So what you want to do is give them an excuse, give them reason to say, “You know what, I can’t take the hardship any more. Now I can give them the information they need and save lives.”

          Don’t forget that every method we’re talking about stops – the minute – the subject says, “I’ll tell you what you need to know.” We’re not talking about – I hope! – we’re not talking about using any of these techniques for a confession, or for revenge, or for punishment – that absolutely is a war crime, but when you’re talking about using this information, using this technique to get information to stop terrorist attacks and save lives, I think you should be able to do more than say, “You have the right to remain silent.” These are – by the way, these are not criminal defendants. As Eric Holder has said, “Geneva does not apply to them.” He said that on CNN in 2002.

          So I think we are to depend upon the “consciences” of blue ribbon commissions, attorneys, psychologists, physicians, look there for shock? Or upon a President’s red pen after reviewing a report or memo from a commission, attorneys, psychologists, physicians? Do we even get to a jury that’s had anyone screened out who would vote his/her conscience?

          Pardon the length of this, I transcribed it — no other transcript online as far as I know.

          • thatvisionthing says:

            …And a President hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest…

            Before May and Greenwald were on, Philip Zelikow and Jane Mayer were interviewed. This was when news had come out that Zelikow, while in the State Department under Condoleezza Rice, had written a memo advising that it was his opinion that the torture program was unconstitutional and illegal, and then Bush’s White House had tried to collect and destroy all copies of that memo.

            At 20:20:

            WARREN OLNEY: It would be interesting just to hear your comments on what we just heard from Philip Zelikow.

            JANE MAYER: Well, you know I think he’s been a very interesting force because he was trying to – he’s one of a procession of people who tried to fight to do the right thing from inside the Bush administration. And I think one of the interesting things going on right now is that if you take a look at the Armed Services Committee report, which Senator Levin’s committee just released, it’s filled with other people who like Zelikow, maybe in lesser ways, tried to warn the Bush administration that what they were doing was not just going to be ineffective but was also probably illegal in terms of using these kinds of torture techniques.

            And so at this point where Obama is now saying, “Well if people were acting in good faith and they were being told that this was necessary and it was legal” – well, to some extent they were warned – at least the top people in the administration were warned – quite the opposite early on and all the way through that what they were doing was wrong and probably criminal.

            And if you look at my book – I mean, you know, it’s too hard to sort of summarize it all here in a quick conversation – but there were so many people in so many different directions telling them this. There were lawyers in their own administration like Philip Zelikow and James Comey, and there were people in the FBI who warned them and who said that – in fact there’s a fantastic piece in the New York Times today. It’s an op-ed piece by an FBI agent who’s spoken out in public for the fist time. He was right there when Abu Zubaydah was being interrogated. And what he says is that he refused to participate because what he saw was probably criminal. He didn’t think that what the CIA was doing was legal, and he didn’t want to have any part of it. And he was gratefully told to leave the scene by the FBI so that they wouldn’t participate in something that they thought might be illegal.

            WARREN OLNEY: Abu Zubaydah, who was waterboarded 83 times, as I recall.

            JANE MAYER: That’s right. I mean you know – for something that they have been touting all these years as being so effective, you would think it wouldn’t take 83 or 183 times, whatever, to make it work if it really worked so well.

            Tell me again what due process the drones need to go through to be approved/legalized? What test of effectiveness/morality/legality? Checks, balances — any?

            • harpie says:

              Thank you, thatvisionthing.

              …And a President hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest…

              Honoring Those Who Said No; Jameel Jaffer and Larry Siems; NYT; Op-Ed; 4/27/11

              […] Throughout the military, and throughout the government, brave men and women reported abuse, challenged interrogation directives that permitted abuse, and refused to participate in an interrogation and detention program that they believed to be unwise, unlawful and immoral. The Bush administration’s most senior officials expressly approved the torture of prisoners, but there was dissent in every agency, and at every level.

              […]

              President Obama has disavowed torture, but he has been unenthusiastic about examining the last administration’s interrogation policies. He has said the country should look to the future rather than the past. But averting our eyes from recent history means not only that we fail in our legal and moral duty to provide redress to victims of torture, but also that we betray the public servants who risked so much to reverse what they knew was a disastrous and shameful course.

              Those who stayed true to our values and stood up against cruelty are worthy of a wide range of civilian and military commendations, up to and including the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Honoring them is a way of encouraging the best in our public servants, now and in the future. It is also a way of honoring the best in ourselves. […]

              • thatvisionthing says:

                He has said the country should look to the future rather than the past.

                I had an exchange on DKos the other day with someone who countered my frustration with Obama by likening him to the little rudder on the Titanic. And I’m thinking… shouldn’t there have been someone on the Titanic looking forward? Like– a captain? Because all I see is iceberg and I ain’t seen no captaining going on. Puts me in mind of a review of a New Yorker article on Obama’s leadership:

                The richest portrait in this regard is unsigned: a senior official describes the president’s doctrine as “leading from behind.” I am not making this up.

                Little rudder I guess is as good as we get.

                (Visual depiction of Obama looking forward.)

          • thatvisionthing says:

            Don’t forget the lawyers are not saying what you should do, they’re saying, “Here’s what you may do, as we read the law.”

            Zelikow:

            The OLC “torture memos”: thoughts from a dissenter

            Posted By Philip Zelikow Tuesday, April 21, 2009

            2. Measuring the value of such methods should be done professionally and morally before turning to lawyers.

            …Which underscores the importance of moral analysis. There is an elementary distinction, too often lost, between the moral (and policy) question — “What should we do?” — and the legal question: “What can we do?” We live in a policy world too inclined to turn lawyers into surrogate priests granting a form of absolution. “The lawyers say it’s OK.” Well, not really. They say it might be legal. They don’t know about OK.

            So, Obama — moral adviser? I don’t think he has one.

  17. thatvisionthing says:

    And I remember, I called this one:

    FDL Book Salon Welcomes Malcolm Nance, An End to Al-Qaeda: Destroying Bin Laden’s Jihad and Restoring America’s Honor

    thatvisionthing May 23rd, 2010 at 4:07 pm
    98
    In response to Malcolm Nance @ 7 (show text)

    Sorry everyone, I always come across these salons late and miss what’s already been said in the comments. But I got this far and my heart stays sunk:

    Technically, we could fight there for a century and with Pakistan acting as a tough sanctuary, its more difficult to defeat the entire Taliban/TTP/AQ alliance militarily, but the can be delegitimized in the eyes of the Muslim world … there is a need for some kenetic operations, like drones, but if I could get the dates seller in Peshawar to never ever sell them anything because they are NOT considered legitimate Muslims and really considered evil and un-Islamic, then our mission would end in 24 months…

    We’re not delegitimizing Al Qaeda, nor do I think if we thought it through should we want to. We are legitimizing Al Qaeda beyond their wildest dreams and delegitimizing ourselves. Osama bin Laden didn’t destroy the Constitution, we did it to ourselves. We’re monsters now. WE deserve to be delegitimized, because we have betrayed our best self, and we’re doing it all ourselves.

    DRONES SUCK. People with their head in the sky and no soul at all may think they’re fine, but people on the ground, the people this Constitution was written for and about, we know that DRONES SUCK. And assassination sucks. And that’s what drones are, war by assassination.

    Amy Goodman had an author on a while back who had written a book about drone warfare and he said the Pakistanis had a hit song about how we see them as insects. God bless America. Corporations are persons, and people are insects.

    The whole point about the Constitution is as Americans we see all people as created equally, and we make our way by reasoning together. NOT by might makes right, not by fiat, not by king. Yet that’s where we’ve gone. What’s the difference between a fatwah and an executive order? Not a lot as far as I can tell. Congress doesn’t check and balance, the Supreme Court is captured by psychopath/sociopath corporations, and people are disenfranchised. There is no check and balance except by the crudest resistance by the voiceless, which could be me and which could be Al Qaeda and which could be well, anybody, really, who isn’t a corporation or a Goldman or a king. If we wanted to change the world by being the change we want to see in others, we should want to legitimize those voices and hear everybody equally and respectfully and let ideas compete.

    • thatvisionthing says:

      …with cartoon:

      thatvisionthing May 23rd, 2010 at 9:43 pm
      120
      In response to Mary @ 119 (show text)

      Haven’t read the book, don’t have the cliff notes, but I do have a Mr. Fish cartoon that reads:

      Contrary to the pacifying jingoism currently ping-ponging through this nation’s most patriotic sectors, the following sentence can be translated into every language on the planet without losing any of its meaning:

      IF ANOTHER COUNTRY DROPS A BOMB ON MY HOUSE AND KILLS MY CHILDREN AND THEN SAYS THAT IT DID IT TO SPREAD DEMOCRACY I WILL WANT TO SEE THAT COUNTRY COMPLETELY DISMANTLED THROUGH INTERNAL REVOLUTION OR EXTERNAL ANNIHILATION AND I’LL WANT TO MAKE AS MANY FRIENDS AS I CAN WITH MY SAME EXACT INTERESTS.

      Would Congress get it?

      • thatvisionthing says:

        The end.

        thatvisionthing May 24th, 2010 at 1:34 pm
        121
        In response to Malcolm Nance @ 57 (show text)

        I wish to God AQ was gone and OBL was dead, but they are not.

        That’s so Roman Empire, if we could only kill Jesus everything would be fine. How’d that work out?

        I wish to God OBL was debating Obama.

        I wish to God Obama had the guts.

  18. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Should we also discuss the obvious: If successful, such s/w would be worth many, many millions. Variations would be used in commercial and possibly military aircraft. Its development from concept to test to operational form would cost several million. $100,000 pays for a fleshed out design or a down payment.

  19. dustbunny44 says:

    I can’t help but think of armed “drones” as ultimate terrorist weapons.
    Not weapons against terrorists, but weapons employed by terrorists: if deployed, they are always nearby, can potentially strike any time, do serious deadly damage, while the deploying forces remain untouched.
    Cowardly, cold, terrorizing things.

  20. Xcroc says:

    I saw this question on another site, and I’d appreciate any informed comment or opinion:

    is there any legal precedence or internationally accepted rulings in for declaring those on the joystick end exempt from being legit targets, seeing as how they are engaged in the act of war and, therefore, combatants? from the little i understand of the rules of warfare, they should be legitimate targets for retaliatory exchange…

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Controllers of drones would be deemed to be doing what the drone is doing. If they are uniformed soldiers engaged in killing the uniformed soldiers of a state with which we are at war, their conduct might well be legal under the laws of war.

      If they are civilians, contractors or CIA employees, then in that scenario, they are not soldiering and their conduct might well be illegal.

      If those same civilians are doing that against civilians with whom we are not at war, they and their acts would be criminal. Good luck, however, trying to elicit from the government who hired them their names and current addresses so that you can sue them or ask prosecutors to investigate and indict them.

      The use of s/w instead of manned pilots and observers makes accountability harder to enforce. Actors and action become faceless and more diverse. Banal bureaucrats would maintain the drones, program them, send them on their mission, choose the mission, and maintain the quality control systems to make sure all that goes according to plan.

      Who’s responsible now? Who has the requisite criminal intent, the depraved indifference, the reckless disregard or negligence? Unmanned drones are the DoJ’s perfect never-go-to-jail card. The surveillance, death and maiming could grow exponentially, with a directly inverse decline in accountability. What’s not to like?

      • lysias says:

        The criminal law knows the concept of depraved indifference murder, which in jurisdictions like California counts as second degree murder.

      • DWBartoo says:

        The suspicion of the people of the world will, first, and likely correctly, assume that “America” is behind the killing, however attractive this drone warfare might be to America’s DOJ/DOD, and I’m certain that you are correct that it is.

        Drones may let specific individuals off the hook, in the short run, EOH, yet the collective “responsibility” will NOT be much in question … even if the drones self-destruct utterly, everyone will “know” who sent them. At some point, “why” the drones were sent will not matter in the least, to anyone, nor should it. What great American genius once said, “The absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence”? Human beings will be dead or injured, whether intended victims or mere “collateral damage”. When a certain “point” arrives, increasing consequence will follow.

        America has a many decades-old pattern of murderous behavior, which, while it may not be clear to the American public is VERY clear to most every one else.

        Thus the “distinction” between the truly guilty and the merely acquiescently “guilty” will become so blurred as to commend to its victims the American plan of “killing them all and allowing Dog, or Halla, (or whatever supreme deity is worshiped) to sort ’em out”. Which becomes the fairest turn-about of “play” imaginable … even if few Americans can imagine such a thing, today or even tomorrow … that day WILL come.

        DW

  21. DWBartoo says:

    Oh my!

    Now, Xcroc, if the joy-stickers are considered “legitimate targets” under SOME kind of legal or human “theory”, then those who direct the joy-stickers, including the President AND the political class generally, are also “legitimate targets” and ,then, it is but a small step for man-unkind to include EVERYONE in whose name the joy-sticking is done.

    We simply CANNOT have that, can we?

    When a society goes out of its way to destroy its own rule of law, ANY discussion of legitimacy even the “rules of warfare” and, presumably you mean “civilized” warfare become nothing but absurd.

    The “rules” of engagement are meaningless when, as they say, “All’s ‘fair’ in (something) and war” …

    Only bullies, terrorists, and Americans (perhaps, now, one and the same?) have the unmitigated hutzpah, the sheer gall, to claim the exemption being on the “moral high-ground” and outrage at the very idea.

    We have sown the seeds of tyranny and shall reap the whirlwinds of consequence … even as we claim to be doing Gawd’s work and merely, simply … defending ourselves when what we really seek to “defend” ourselves “from” is the truth of our own hubris and inhumanity while seeking comfort and hegemony over everyone and everything else.

    Any claims we might ever make about “justice” or “fairness” or even “conscience” are hollow and meaningless.

    However I’m certain that the unitary Executive’s DOJ (since it no longer belongs to the people) and the political class (who no longer represent the genuine interests of the people) will decry the very idea of “legitimate retaliation”.

    If we say and behave as a society, overtly or merely by the roaring silence of assent, as if “might” were the ultimate “right”, then ’tis only right, and quite “proper” should we suffer the might of others … each and every one of “us”, ultimately … for the “distinction” between the joy-stickers and ourselves is but one of “degree”.

    Let the wailing and gnashing of teeth begin … it changes the real truth not one iota.

    (I’m rather certain that you agree, Xcroc.)

    DW

  22. Xcroc says:

    I appreciate the responses and continue to be interested if anyone has any more thoughts on this subject. I guess the Obama doctrine, or DoJ/DoD legal argument, is our old friend might makes right. And as a result, a hard rain is gonna fall on the just and the unjust alike.

  23. thatvisionthing says:

    Mike Malloy Show 4/5/11, Brad Friedman guest hosting, interviewing Tim DeChristopher.

    Hour 2 at 24:20:

    TIM DeCHRISTOPHER: And, you know, even though there were a lot of things that most people view as injustices in this trial where the jury wasn’t allowed to hear much evidence and they were really specifically repeatedly told that they weren’t allowed to use their conscience in making their decision, that they weren’t there to judge whether it was right or wrong, that’s really the status quo for our legal system at this point. And so it may or may not be a successful appeal process. Because that– that’s what our legal system has evolved into, where the jury is just there to really rubberstamp the decision that the government has already made.

    • DWBartoo says:

      Thank you for those links, TVT.

      Yes, “conscience” is now a “blue-ribbon” committee “decision” …

      And the “justness” of “justice” of a thing or of an “action” is strictly the purview of the “insider” who knows what the rest of us cannot, ever, be permitted to be privy to …

      And EVERYTHING is, simply and merely, a matter of “opinion” …

      Nevertheless, as Xcroc says, “… a hard rain is gonna fall …” on us, all …

      DW

      • thatvisionthing says:

        Thank YOU DW… and you harpie… didn’t know who would wade through the long post but it’s the thing that keeps pushing and pulling me — Dude, where’s my country? Where’s our conscience? Why are we insane?

        Hayden says the (constitutional?) test in the Yoo/Bybee memos is “shock the conscience” — as if they had one — but when will it ever be tested? That’s the thing, it never can. It’s a dead end. Courts threw out conscience testing a long time ago. I think the courts are unconstitutional and my country is conscienceless. @44 is news to me — how do they test it in California if the California Supreme Court ruled that jurors may not vote their conscience? It’s all circuitous nonsense. Fake. See? Don’t see.