MEDIA ROOTS — Judi Bari was an activist, a person of conscience, who exercised her First Amendment rights toward socioeconomic justice for much of her life.  She was one of the leading organisers to popularise environmental activism with Earth First!, which influenced the environmental activism contributing to the historic 1999 WTO resistance in Seattle, as well as the more recent Occupy Movement.  On May 24, 1990, a motion-triggered car bomb exploded under Judi’s car seat, as she and Darryl Cherney drove through Oakland en route to Santa Cruz during the Redwood Summer organising tour.

Judi Bari’s story, one of solidarity and collective action, has been documented in an important new film by Mary Liz Thomson (Director/Editor) and Darryl Cherney (Producer) entitled “Who Bombed Judi Bari?”  The documentary film will have its world premiere next week at the 2^nd Annual San Francisco Green Film Festival taking place March 1-7.  The world premiere screening will be on Friday, March 2, at 5pm (1746 Post Street, SF).  With the full production team in the house, this screening will likely be filled to capacity.  So, advance tickets are recommended for those interested in attending.

This is an important film for all because it speaks directly to our human rights in the face of state belligerence.  If we don’t care to question culpability when our neighbours are attacked, particularly where the state has motive to repress, we are unlikely to encourage future generations to take principled stands for socioeconomic justice.  From JFK, X, Ché, MLK, Fred Hampton, and countless others to 9/11, as the state obfuscates and destroys evidence outright, lack of curiosity becomes erosive to our humanity. 

Perhaps, we are learning.  In the case of the 1990 attempt on Judi Bari’s life, the FBI was thwarted in its plans to destroy all of the evidence.

According to Democracy Now:

“A U.S. federal judge in California has ordered the FBI to preserve evidence in a 1990 car bombing that nearly killed two members of the environmental group Earth First! The FBI was planning to destroy all evidence in the case, even though agents had never determined who carried out the attempted assassination of environmental activists Judi Bari and Darryl Cherney. The FBI initially arrested the activists for building the bombs themselves, but the pair later sued the FBI and won more than $4 million in damages.”

Messina

***

“Who Bombed Judi Bari?” trailer

***

SFGFF — This is a raw, personal and at times abrupt film, with a protagonist and story vitally important to American justice and the struggle for the environment.  Judi Bari was an environmental and social justice activist who popularized protests against clear-cutting (e.g. at Headwater Forests) together with the organization EarthFirst! in the 1980s and ’90s.  At times, she (and others) proceeded despite threats of death and violence.  Then, on May 24th, 1990 in Oakland, CA, a bomb explodes in Judi’s car and she suffers debilitating injuries along with confidant, and the film’s producer, Darryl Cherney.  In the aftermath FBI and local police accuse the team of bombing themselves.  It chronicles the rise of a powerful movement as well as the circuitous court cases that followed the blast.  Chock full of archival news footage, interviews and statements by Bari, viewers follow a path from non-violent eco protests to an ostensible assassination attempt on Judi’s life with an associated cover-up – ending with a surprising resolution.

***

“Redwood Summer: Where the 90s Begin,” by Mary Liz Thomson, et al. (1990)

***

Photo by Flickr user Gary Soup

MEDIA ROOTS — Last month, President Obama claimed that there has not been a significant amount of civilian deaths in Pakistan from unmanned US drones.  Yet, more than a dozen Pakistani families of dead civilians have petitioned to the United Nations for an intervention to immediately cease U.S. drone attacks.  The UN’s Human Rights Council (HRC) is expected to review the complaint soon.

Considering the fact that Pakistan possesses nuclear weapons, this issue is of great concern for human rights as well as international security.  Last year, the UN HRC recognized that while 40 countries have drone technology, the United States is the dominant user of drones for targeted killings.  Additionally, the Government of Pakistan has previously stated that the continued use of drones in their airspace, without prior consent, is a direct violation of their sovereignty.  Imagine Pakistan, or any other foreign military, flying drones, without consent, over U.S. airspace.

Reprieve, a UK-based legal charity, is formally delivering the complaint.  Activist Shahzad Akbar explains, “the international community can no longer afford to ignore the human rights catastrophe which is taking place in North West Pakistan in the name of the ‘War on Terror.’”

Shockingly, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism reveals that, during the year the United States increased its drone operations, multiple civilians were specifically targeted as, either, rescuers or for simply attending the funerals of the slain.  The Bureau adds, since Obama took office three years ago, 60 of these victims have been children.

The increased use of drones is the latest example of industry fueling military expansion.  Earlier this month, Congress approved a $63 billion spending bill for the Federal Aviation Administration to test and license domestic drone use.  As many as 30,000 drones could be in use over U.S. skies by 2020.

Oskar Mosquito is a writer for Media Roots and producer at truth-march.

Photo by Flickr user the US Army

MEDIA ROOTS — Doubtless, many have heard of the U.S. targeted killing of U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki under Obama.  But many may not know that al-Awlaki wasn’t the last U.S. citizen arbitrarily killed by the state, as investigative journalist Jeremy Scahill recently reported:

“You know, President Obama authorised strikes that resulted in three U.S. citizens being killed within less than a month in Yemen:  Anwar al-Awlaki, who was born in New Mexico; Anwar al-Awlaki’s 16-year-old son; and then Samir Khan, who was another U.S. citizen from North Carolina and was the editor of Inspire magazine, the English-language publication of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.  All three of those U.S. citizens were killed within one month.” 

Obama drone strikes have arbitrarily killed hundreds of civilians worldwide including three U.S. citizens without conviction, trial or due process.  One might expect more public outcry.  Yet, in light of a recent Washington Post ABC News poll revealing that 77% of self-proclaimed liberal Democrats approve of Obama’s drone policy, it seems most progressives are prepared to re-elect Obama or sit idly by as he purchases a second term. 

But while we’re all indignant about the profoundly disturbing killings by the U.S. under Obama in Yemen and elsewhere, we forget the U.S. establishment is killing many more in the U.S.  Many U.S. citizens, such as Kenneth Harding and Oscar Grant, are gunned down daily by the state, igniting uprisings of a different sort in this country. 

Jeremy Scahill recently joined Amy Goodman to discuss U.S. intervention in Yemen and the arbitrary state killings of U.S. citizens.  However, it seems important to broaden discussions to allow investigative journalists to reflect upon U.S. violence abroad as well as state violence domestically.  The state killings of Anwar al-Awlaki and Oscar Grant are related, because they are all manifestations of the police state violence necessitated by U.S. imperialism under capitalism.

Mickey Huff, of Project Censored, has recently noted how the rise of U.S. targeted killings stems from the rise of torture perpetrated by the U.S., as the citizenry becomes increasingly complacent toward its continued use in a post-9/11 sociopolitical climate.  It may also be argued the rise of torture is, really, a continuation of poorly reported domestic torture of U.S. citizens, particularly people of colour and/or low-income.

The bold-faced tyranny of the state shows itself quite plainly, if we observe the historical record against labour, civil rights, and activists throughout U.S. history.  As Naomi Klein noted, it’s important to look at history and roots to survive the shocks intended to derail nations.  But then what are the people to do?  Protest or petition our masters?  Petitions are easily ignored, but also part of proving the futility of working through the system.  Protests are ignored, downplayed, or distorted by the United States’ mostly corporate-owned media machine, which reaches the most U.S. minds.  Protesters are intimidated, bullied, beaten, arrested, and worse for exercising their inalienable rights.  Yet, they must endure. 

Voltaire wrote:

“So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannise will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men.”

Something is glaringly amiss beyond the Election 2012 hyperbole—our political discourse sorely lacks a culture of resistance to the two-party electoral system underpinning U.S. imperialism.  Today, many seem to enjoy an apathetic stance toward electoral politics because the only two choices are owned by the same corporations.  Yet, political parties rule this nation, in the Legislative and Executive branches, some would even say in the Judicial.  And although the people need a grassroots people’s party to pose a serious Left challenge, U.S. progressives throw their lot in with their chosen political organisations, which may focus on advocacy but leave electoral politics in the unchallenged hands of Wall Street. 

A serious debate about U.S. democracy must be undertaken.  Virtually everyone says they want democracy, but few vote and less do so from an informed perspective.  Progressives put their faith in the Democrat Party and get swindled every time.  We lack a culture of reflection to learn from the past.  Perhaps, new generations of progressives are fooled by Democrat Party promises because older generations do not own up to the consequences of supporting the two-party system.  We have a captured political system or, perhaps, a subservient and brainwashed body politic.  Both yield similar results.

Observing the U.S. in its youth, Alexis de Tocqueville wrote:

“The instability of the administration has penetrated into the habits of the people: it even appears to suit the general taste, and no one cares for what occurred before his time. No methodical system is pursued; no archives are formed; and no documents are brought together when it would be very easy to do so.”

They say, in a democracy, the people get the government they deserve or allow.  If one doesn’t like the choices one can work to change them, or open up the process to consider alternative candidates like Rocky Anderson of the Justice Party in 2012.  Otherwise, how can one complain about the next Democrat’s policies when one supported, or acquiesced in, that candidacy?  In the U.S., too many are more committed to their favourite celebrity or sports team, than they are to the political candidates or parties they choose or ignore and which impact their working lives. 

Progressives must analyse this question of apathy towards electoral politics or leave the task of influencing electoral politics to the highest bidder, which always hedges its bets between either side of the same two-party coin.

Written by Felipe Messina for Media Roots

Photo by Flickr user Mark Z

***

MEDIA ROOTS – Several hundred psychologists, as well as numerous psychological associations around the country, are united in calling for the annulment of the American Psychological Association’s report on Psychological Ethics and National Security (PENS).  The 2005 report is an APA endorsement of the highly suspect intelligence-gathering procedures used in US military detention sites such as Guantánamo Bay and Bagram, Afghanistan.  The demand for its immediate suspension and public review is called not by the APA Board or Ethics Committee, but by its general membership as well as several scholar-activists such as Daniel Ellsberg and Noam Chomsky.

Flaws in the PENS process have been apparent from its inception.  The creation of a presidential task force consisting of nine psychologists was specifically assigned to adopt the official psychological guidelines for interrogation by US intelligence agents.  Unfortunately, the task force was composed primarily of psychologists already working within the military and intelligence communities, and many have been involved in instances of suspected prisoner abuse.  Additionally, PENS was never offered for discussion among the APA membership, the press, or the general public, and it was approved in a highly suspect emergency vote that deviated from standard APA procedures.

The closing of Guantánamo Bay is on hold, and Bagram is expanding in size to incarcerate up to 5,500 suspected ‘terrorists’ by the end of 2012.  Both detention sites do not offer detainees due process as outlined in the Constitution and violate international laws, such as those outlined in the Geneva Conventions.  As these criminal gulags continue to operate unabated, psychologists worldwide are becoming increasingly aware that the APA was simply used as a promotional propaganda tool by the White House in order to justify its rendition and torture program.

MR

***

COALITION FOR AN ETHICAL PSYCHOLOGY – Over the decade since the horrendous attacks of 9/11, the world has been shocked by the specter of abusive interrogations and the torture of national security prisoners by agents of the United States government. While psychologists in the U.S. have made significant contributions to societal welfare on many fronts during this period, the profession tragically has also witnessed psychologists acting as planners, consultants, researchers, and overseers to these abusive interrogations at Guantanamo Bay Detention Center, Bagram Air Base, CIA “black sites,” and elsewhere. Moreover, in the guise of keeping interrogations “safe, legal, ethical and effective,” psychologists were used to provide legal protection for otherwise illegal treatment of prisoners.

The American Psychological Association’s (APA) 2005 Report of the Presidential Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security (the PENS Report) is the defining document endorsing psychologists’ engagement in detainee interrogations. Despite evidence that psychologists were involved in abusive interrogations, the PENS Task Force concluded that psychologists play a critical role in keeping interrogations “safe, legal, ethical and effective.” With this stance, the APA, the largest association of psychologists worldwide, became the sole major professional healthcare organization to support practices contrary to the international human rights standards that ought to be the benchmark against which professional codes of ethics are judged.

Read more about the Coalition for an Ethical Psychology’s call for annulling the APA’s PENS Report.

© 2011 Coalition for an Ethical Psychology

***

Photo provided by Flickr user The National Guard.

MEDIA ROOTS — Project Censored has become a centrepiece at KPFA, free speech radio, the flagship motherstation of the national Pacifica Radio network.  During this season’s fund drive, on Friday, February 17, 2012, Project Censored broadcast a two-point-five-hour special programme entitled ‘Brought to Justice? The Indefinite Detention and Targeted Killing of the Rule of Law’ with music by David Rovics.  Abby Martin and Mickey Huff speak with Center for Constitutional Rights attorney, Pardiss Kabriaei.  Also, author and investigative journalist Andy Worthington and organiser Stephanie Tang of World Can’t Wait join the dialogue, raise public class-consciousness, and encourage support for KPFA free speech radio.

MR

***

PROJECT CENSORED — “Welcome to a KPFA Fund Drive Special with Project Censored.  I’m Mickey Huff, in studio with Dr. Peter Phillips and, Associate Director of Project Censored, Andy Roth.  We’ll also be joined for the next two and a half hours by Abby Martin of Media Roots. 

“Today’s special programme is:  ‘Brought to Justice? The Indefinite Detention and Targeted Killing of the Rule of Law.’  Again, welcome.  This is a special broadcast by Project Censored on Pacifica Radio.  Joining us, each half-hour segment, we’ll have a special guest. 

“We’ll begin with investigative journalist Andy Worthington, author of The Guantánamo Files and Co-Director of the film, ‘Outside the Law: Stories from Guantánamo.’

“At 1:30pm, we’ll be joined by Pardiss Kabriaei, an attorney for the Center for Constitutional Rights, who has represented a number of the men detained at Guantánamo and is also counsel in al-Awlaki vs. Obama.  That will be a pre-recorded interview that we did with Pardes last week.  [See transcript below.] 

“We will also have music and commentary from one of the most notable and political folk musicians of our time, that would be the one and only David Rovics.  You just heard David Rovics’ music; that was [his song] “Guantánamo Bay” [you heard opening this broadcast].  We’ll be playing David Rovics’ music today; and it will be available for a premium.  We’ll also be interviewing him later on this afternoon. 

“We’ll also hear from Dr. Almerindo Ojeda, professor of linguistics and Director of the Guantánamo Testimonials Project [of the Center for the Study of Human Rights in the Americas] at the University of California, Davis. 

“And we will round out today’s special with Stephanie Tang, of World Can’t Wait, talking about indefinite detention and targeted killings.  And when we wrap up today, we’re going to be focusing on who is working on trying to stop these types of things.  What can be done about it?

“So, today’s programme is not simply to bemoan the evisceration of the rule of law.  It’s also to be looking at positive ways that we can be confronting these types of measures.”

PARDISS KABRIAEI, ATTORNEY, CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

Mickey Huff (c. 32:46):  “That’s the music of David Rovics.  You can get his new CD, ‘Red Sessions’ with a $50 pledge [to KPFA].  You can get [the] Andy Worthington [film] ‘Outside the Law’ on Guantánamo; you just heard from Andy Worthington in the first segment of today’s special fundraiser here at KPFA.  We’re talking about, essentially, the evisceration of the rule of law and the rise of targeted killings stemming from the rise of torture.  You can call and pledge your support to free speech radio anytime this afternoon; but we have a lot of content.

“This show originally sprang from a programme we did about a month ago with many of the guests you’re hearing today.  But there was so much to cover that we expanded this into a two and a half hour fundraising special because you’re not gonna hear this information on any other media outlet.  You’re gonna hear it here on KPFA. 

“Again, I’m Mickey Huff, joined by Peter Phillips of Project Censored, Andy Roth and Abby Martin, again, of Media Roots.  Please call in 510.848-5732, 800.439-5732.  You can pledge online at KPFA.org.  And here’s Abby Martin to tell you about the interview we did with Pardiss Kabriaei, of the Center for Constitutional Rights.”

Abby Martin (c. 33:55):  “This is Abby Martin with Project Censored.  Pardiss Kabriaei is an attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights, specialising in the Center’s Global Justice Initiative.  She’s represented men from Yemen, Syria, Algeria, and Afghanistan who have been detained at Guantánamo Bay working on their habeas corpus challenges.  Her work includes seeking accountability for torture and arbitrary detention at Guantánamo, including representing the families of two men who died there in June 2006.  We spoke with her last week about the targeted killings in light of Obama’s expansive global drone killing apparatus.  And here’s the interview with Pardiss Kabriaei.”

Mickey Huff (c. 34:30):  “Welcome to the show Pardiss Kabriaei, attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights.  We’re very happy that you could join us again today on our two and a half hour special covering issues from torture to the evisceration of the rule of law in the United States.  Could you please remind our audience a little bit about our discussion we had a few weeks ago, stemming from the Guantánamo programme we did?”

Pardiss Kabriaei (c. 35:00):  “Sure.  And thank you for having me back.  We were talking before, around the time right before the tenth, unfortunate, anniversary of the opening of Guantánamo, the day in January of 2002 when the first men were flown to the prison camp, and the fact that 171 people still remain, despite President Obama’s promises to close the prison.  It is alive and well and will remain open for the foreseeable future.  So, we were discussing the issues around Guantánamo and the unjust detentions of the people still there and some of the challenges to closure that the [Obama] Administration has put out that we actually feel are not difficult.  That’s the problem of closure; it’s actually a simple one, but it’s become a political issue.  That’s why it remains open.”

“I’ve worked on Guantánamo at CCR since I’ve been here, since 2007, and have represented a number of men there and have gone to the base and met with them.  Some of them, thankfully, have been released.  And, as an extension of that work, challenging unjust detention policy by the United States, in this context of terrorism, have, from that work, started looking at other manifestations of abusive Executive [or Presidential] policy in this context.  And, specifically, have been looking at the policy of targeted killing by the [Obama] Administration.”

Mickey Huff (c. 36:26):  “And the website, by the way, for listeners, is CCRjustice.org.  And if you go to that site, the Center for Constitutional Rights, there is a  fact sheet, Government Kill Lists Target U.S. Citizens Far From Any Armed Conflict.  And we actually covered this at Project Censored in the 2012 book when we talked about the Executive Branch claiming the right to assassinate U.S. citizens abroad and the complete evisceration of the rule of law, again, and due process.

“Could you talk a little bit about what are the government kill lists?  And why would you say this is illegal.  I mean, it seems obvious; but you could explain that for us.”

Pardiss Kabriaei (c. 37:07):  “Sure.  The basic policy we’re talking about in our concerns within it are, you know, if we were all worried about a policy of global detention, indefinitely, without review, of hundreds of people held at Guantánamo and elsewhere that the [U.S.] government said were all the worst of the worst and that we know now, after judicial review, we’re not, in fact, terrorists or whose detentions were not founded, we’re talking now about a, effectively, a global assassination policy of killing people who are only suspected of being involved in terrorism.  Our concern is that many of them were actually not involved in any fighting, even if it were lawful to kill individuals wherever they may be found who are engaged in terrorism.  Our concern, in part, is that many of them are actually not even involved in terrorism. 

“We have questioned the standards the government is using to determine who is and who is not targetable.  But the policy we are now talking about, and this is a policy that existed under Bush, but that has very much escalated and expanded under President Obama.  And it is, effectively, killing individuals wherever they may be found who are unilaterally deemed to be dangerous to the United States, unilaterally deemed without any outside meaningful check on what criteria are being used, what evidence supports those targeting decisions.  And these are targeting decisions and targeting practices that are happening outside of recognised war zones.  So, we’re not talking about the use of drones or airstrikes against individuals fighting in Afghanistan or, previously, in Iraq.  We’re talking about people who are being killed far from those battlefields in places like Yemen; Somalia, there was a reported strike in the Philippines, reportedly, that was assisted or led by the United States.  There are many concerns we have about the policy.

“Our particular focus, and the focus of the al-Awlaki case, was targeted killings that are occurring outside of ‘war’ zones and questions and concerns we have about what criteria are being used, where these targeted killings are being carried out.  What was not at issue in the al-Awlaki case, but we’re very much worried about is the issue of civilian casualties resulting from these strikes.  So, there are many issues we could talk about.”

Abby Martin (c. 39:34):  “Pardiss, this is Abby Martin.  You were talking about the unfounded claims behind the global assassination campaign and the indefinite detention; a recent poll that just came out in a Washington Post/ABC News talks about how 70% of respondents approve of Obama’s decision to keep Gitmo open and 83% approve of the U.S. drone policy that he’s expanded.  I wonder if you could speak to those [statistics] and the rebranding effort and the danger of the conditioning.”

Pardiss Kabriaei (c. 40:00):  “M-hm.  I guess I have to believe that those poll numbers are what they are because people still don’t know.  I have to hope that that’s the reason why we’re not authorising or sanctioning the [U.S.] government to go after people who are innocent and should not be killed.  Despite what I think is fair, and in fact there is plenty of evidence to show, at least in Guantánamo, that of the almost 800 people that were held there most of them have been released by the Bush Administration or the Obama Administration, the government themselves.  And others, one there was an opportunity to have their detentions reviewed by courts, courts have found most of their cases, the majority of those cases found that the detentions were unjustified.  But I have to hope that people still believe, as the government has, as the Obama Administration has, either been perpetuating this myth of ‘dangerous’ people still being held at Guantánamo or just failing to educate the public about the truth and reality of who’s still there.  But that they believe the 171 people still there must actually have been involved in fighting and need to be there.  And that Guantánamo is necessary for the national security of the United States. 

“But, again, in fact, if you break down the number of the 171 people only about 30 of them were, according to the [U.S.] government itself, only about 30 of them, according to the government itself will ever actually be charged with anything.  89 of them have been cleared by the Administration, by every government agency with a stake in the matter has been cleared.  So, I have to believe that people don’t know that and we just have to continue educating.”

Mickey Huff (c. 4134):  “This is a Kafkaesque black hole to be sure.  And you’re really on to something.  There’s been a relentless and endless propaganda campaign under the Orwellian guise of the nebulous war on ‘terror.’  And people really, sort of, throw their own projected beliefs and ideas, sort of a motivated reasoning:  ‘There must be a reason that they’re there.’  And, again, that’s among the people that are aware of it, as you pointed out.  There’s many people that really don’t know what goes on and what’s going on here.

“And, going back to the Bush years, George W. Bush, in a rare joint press conference with then-Prime Minister, at the time, Tony Blair of Great Britain, when asked by a seemingly intrepid reporter about how they knew these were the most dangerous people, right?  Because as you said, there’s this endless rhetoric about how:  ‘These are the most dangerous people. These people are gonna get us. We have to lock ‘em up. And they’re so especially dangerous that they absolutely need to be put in Guantánamo. Never mind about what we did after World War II in Nuremberg and put the Nazis on trial. These people are in a special class all of their own, outside of any real judicial system or oversight.’

“And Bush was asked, well, how do you know they’re dangerous?  And this is after he just got done saying that the most dangerous people in the world are in Guantánamo.  And the answer to that question was:  ‘Well because they are at Guantánamo Bay.’  It’s that circular kind of reasoning that comes from the top down and reverberates throughout our culture. 

“Just to be more specific with our listeners—again, we’re talking to Pardiss Kabriaei, of the Center for Constitutional Rights, CCRjustice.org—what laws are the [U.S.] government actually violating in these procedures, in these policies?”

Pardiss Kabriaei (c. 43:17):  “For talking about the issue of targeting, our legal position is that when you are in recognised war zones, we are talking about Afghanistan.  A situation of war triggers a different set of rules, it triggers the laws of war within that context. 

“Factually, and within that legal framework, there is greater leeway in terms of detaining people and even killing them.  It doesn’t mean that every detention is lawful, every killing is lawful, but the rules are different.  And that’s because in situations of immediate fighting the exigencies of war time ordinary Constitutional provisions just don’t apply the same way.  They can’t apply the same way. 

“But what we’re talking about is, for example in the al-Awlaki case, a targeting that occurred in Yemen and, despite conflict in Yemen and a certain level of violence, certainly, there’s a high bar to call something a war and an armed conflict.  And the United States is not ‘at war’ in Yemen.  It is not ‘at war’ with Yemen or within it.  There may be a presence of Al Qaeda, but, again, there are legally defined criteria that need to be satisfied to call something an armed conflict to trigger those different set of rules.

“So our position in the case, and the position that we continue to take is that outside of immediate battlefields and zones of active hostilities, the law that should apply is the Constitution and international human rights law.  And under that framework you can only kill someone, and what we were talking about in the al-Awlaki case is a U.S. citizen with respect to whom, clearly, the Constitution applies.  And on that point the majority of the people who are bearing the brunt of these policies are not actually U.S. citizens.  They are non-citizens, foreign citizens. 

“So, the government could make arguments; and they would try to in court about the fact that the Constitution does not apply, maybe, to non-citizens.  But it is, at least, clear that vis a vis U.S. targeting and killing by the U.S. government of its own citizens, that due process and the Constitution applies.  According to that standard, the government can only kill someone if they’ve been afforded process, there’s been a conviction for a capital crime, and there’s been a sentence of death.  Outside of that process, you can only kill in self-defence.  And that means that there has to be an imminent threat, an immediate threat, of deadly harm.  And lethal force has to be a last resort. 

“And what happened in the al-Awlaki case was that this person, despite what the government was saying about him, was on a kill list of some kind, maintained by the CIA and secret military forces.  But, reportedly, these lists maintain these people’s names for months at a time; they are reviewed periodically every few months, reportedly.  And this is what ‘credible’ news sources, like the New York Times, the L.A. Times, the Washington Post, have reported.  Just that very fact of keeping people on lists that are reviewed months at a time undermines this idea of immediacy.

“And what we know in the actual killing that took place against al-Awlaki in September of last year, September 30, 2011, was when the U.S. actually carried out the strike, is that they had been surveilling him for weeks, potentially before he was actually killed.  That also undermines this idea of an imminent, immediate, threat.  And that the killing was, based on facts that have been reported, in cooperation and in coordination with Yemeni officials, which undermines the idea that there couldn’t have been, potentially, other measures taken, non-lethal measures taken.

“I think what’s important for people to remember is even if you think, and if you believe the government’s story about who this person was and that he presented a threat, killing, again, really has to be a last resort.  And when we don’t accept that, and that’s another standard we’re putting forward.  It’s a Constitutional standard.  When we don’t accept that it leads to a very slippery, very scary slope of what is possible.  And that’s our concern looking forward; and when there are reports of the CIA’s drone programme expanding, what they are doing in Pakistan expanding to places like Yemen, and hearing reports of potential U.S. involvement in strikes in the Philippines and definitely in Somalia and who know where else, there’s a real concern about the escalation and the expansion of war and violence led by the United States in the name of national security.”

Abby Martin (c. 47:51):  “Pardiss, exactly.  And I wanted to touch upon Pakistan.  I just read, you know, it seems like every time I read about the drone strikes under Obama it’s just getting more expansive more far-reaching.  I was wondering if you could speak upon these signature strikes and the indiscriminate group targeted assassinations that are happening in Pakistan.”

Pardiss Kabriaei (c. 48:14):  “Yeah, the signature strikes, I think part of the problem with this programme is the secrecy and the lack of transparency.  And just to be clear about some factual things, the strikes, the drone strikes and strikes carried out in other ways that we’re talking about outside of situations of wars—so, outside of Afghanistan, for example—are mostly carried out by the CIA and the Joint Special Operations Command, which is a secret unit of the military. 

“In Afghanistan, because our military forces carry out these strikes, the rules by which we operate are known.  There can be, and there often is after the fact of a killing, an investigation and some kind of accounting and, in some cases, compensation, even. 

“What we are talking about in Pakistan and Yemen and Somalia and wherever else is an entirely, well, bizarre situation where we know the drone strikes are occurring—we see the deaths; we see drone pieces—we certainly have independent researchers documenting, or trying their best to document what’s happening, we still have an [Obama] Administration that officially refuses to acknowledge that this programme even exists, let alone disclose any meaningful information about the criteria they use, or the rules that govern the procedures, or where it operates, who’s being killed, how many are being killed.

“So, just going back to the signature strikes, there’s very little known exactly about the criteria that are used or how the strikes are governed and what procedures are used.  My understanding of the signature strikes is that they are strikes carried out based on observing patterns of behaviour and patterns of life.  And they are not necessarily people who are on kill lists.  They are just individuals who, based on unknown criteria, are deemed to be engaging in threatening behaviour or conduct and that are killed.”

Mickey Huff (c. 50:08):  “Well, you mentioned, Pardiss Kabriaei, you mentioned that ‘scary slippery slope.’  And here we are sliding further into it.  And this was reported in Wired magazine.  There was a piece in the Wall Street Journal, even.  Again, these are pretty mainstream, even corporate, media sources here.  One article, ‘CIA Drones Kill Large Groups Without Knowing Who They Are.’  This is a quote from the Wall Street Journal:  ‘Men believed to be militants associated with terrorist groups, but whose identities aren’t always known.’ 

“So, the CIA is killing people without even knowing who they are on suspicion, suspicion of association ‘with terrorist groups.’  I mean how many degrees away from certainty are we here?”  

Pardiss Kabriaei (c. 51:00):  “Right.  Many degrees.  And just in terms of context, too, on these signature strikes, when you consider just family relationships and the context in Pakistan where sometimes you’ve got 30, 40 people in one home, family members living together, or entire communities living under one roof, if you’ve got one individual the government has been tracking and deems to be a threat, when they are in that home and a missile strikes everyone dies.  And that is how we’ve got, then, the numbers that have been reported.  And according to, sort of, moderate estimates, for example the New America Foundation that is, I think, even by the [Obama] Administration, perceived to be a non-partisan, non-biased, group that has been documenting these strikes there have been hundreds of civilian deaths in Pakistan alone just over a period of years that were strikes that have actually been documented.  If you talk to the government, though, amazingly, a U.S. official said there were zero civilian casualties in Pakistan for the year of 2011.

“I mean there is something wrong between how the United States is defining civilian or militant and how the rest of the world and people who actually are on the ground documenting this stuff, what they are seeing.”

Mickey Huff (c. 52:19):  “It’s simply propaganda and deception.”

Pardiss Kabriaei (c. 52:22):  “I agree with you.  But I think wherever you stand I think there is growing consensus, at least on the need for some transparency.  And the [U.S.] government says, well, we’ve given transparency.  Well, how can there be transparency when you still have an [Obama] Administration that still doesn’t officially acknowledge that this programme exists?”

Abby Martin (c. 52:37):  “Right.  It seems like whatever the [U.S.] government says, this is an insurgent—that must be true; anyone we just killed with a drone must be an insurgent without any sort of due process or evidence against him.  Can you expand upon now the Congressional approval of the domestic use of drones in the United States and the surveillance that we are going to be seeing in a couple of years?  What do you think about that?”

Pardiss Kabriaei (c. 53:03):  “Well, I know that the drone technology is another piece of this.  The legal issues with drones to the extent that there may not be legal issues—the [U.S.] government’s talking about how ‘they are more precise’ and ‘actually as a method of killing they are not problematic, legally’—there are certainly ethical issues, at least.

“These Drone operators sit in rooms thousands of miles away, for example in Nevada, watching targets and people on video screens and with the press of a button kill, make decisions to kill people.  And then drive home to their families, pick up their kids from soccer practice and have dinner.  There is something very scary and concerning about how the use of drones is further dehumanising the act of killing and war.  I think that’s something people should be thinking about, separate from the legal issues, just the ethical and moral issues with that and how much easier it makes killing and warfare.”

Abby Martin (c. 53:58):  “Yeah.  Just the chilling effect, just curbing political activism, knowing that there are these drones surveilling the country.”

Pardiss Kabriaei (c. 54:06):  “Absolutely.”

Abby Martin (c. 53:58):  “And there’s certainly a privacy issue.”

Pardiss Kabriaei (c. 54:08):  “Yeah.  And then there are billions of dollars being poured into research and drone technology and advancements for drones.  And the way we’re seeing them being used in the United States so far is, as far as what’s been reported, they’ve been used and are being used for surveillance along borders.  There’s talk of them being used by law enforcement, by police departments for surveillance purposes.  I mean the capacity for drones is really limitless.  And we know that there’s a lot of money that’s being poured into research and technology to further advance the technologies.  So, what’s possible and what may come in the United States is unknown.  So far they are being used for surveillance by law enforcement, for border patrol.

I know that there are some groups in the United States that have filed Freedom of Information Act requests to get more information on exactly how these things are being used and the basis for authorising them in the United States.  But, certainly, they are present here.  They are in the skies in the United States.  And it’s really a question and a concern about what may come here to the extent that people are not concerned about what the United States is doing abroad.”

Mickey Huff (c. 55:20):  “That’s right.  Pardiss Kabriaei, you were also talking about priorities.  And when we hear these cries of austerity coming from on high, they ring pretty hollow when one sees so much is being sunk into these incredibly dubious and problematic policies of targeted killing, of surveillance, not just abroad, but here at home [in the U.S.], potentially. 

“We have one minute left, Pardiss.  Could you tell us, what are you trying to accomplish, then, through the courts?  Why is this important?  Why should people get active?  And where can they get more information?”

Pardiss Kabriaei (c. 54:06):  “M-hm.  What we were trying to do with the courts in our last case was just to impose a process of review over these decisions and to force some level of transparency.  And we will continue those efforts in the courts and take them as far as we can.

“What I would say is, with Guantánamo and the poll numbers, what they are in the United States, there are still a lot of people, I think, who are outraged by Guantánamo because it was so known.  And I think we still talk very much about the detentions there.  I think what people need to do is educate themselves about this killing policy as well.   And we need the same level of outcry and the same demand for transparency and information.  People should know, at a minimum, what the United States government is doing in their name and with their money.

“I think that, for more information, please go to our website CCRjustice.org.  We have information about the prior case we fought on behalf of al-Awlaki.  And we’ll be putting out more information.  And I think, at this point, just the basic minimum is educate yourself about what the United States is doing in your name.”

Mickey Huff (c. 56:56):  “That’s the voice of Pardiss Kabriaei from the Center for Constitutional Rights.  And that’s certainly what we’re trying to do here at [KPFA] free speech radio.  We are trying to get the word out and get people to really understand what’s going on and understand what’s at stake.

Pardiss, thanks so much for your time and for taking time out of your very busy schedule and your important work.  Thank you, again.”

Abby Martin (c. 57:15):  “Thanks, Pardiss.”

Pardiss Kabriaei (c. 57:16):  “Thank you so much.  Bye-bye.”

Transcript by Felipe Messina

Photo by Flickr user Art Makes Me Smile 

***