I Am Appalled - Why Aren't You?

Where is the Outrage? 

So, after many recommendations, I watched the first season of Homeland, and found the finale disturbing and disheartening. I was angry, not because the villain is free, or the heroin does not triumph, but because of the basic premise (spoiler alert) - that the CIA and vice president are trying desperately to cover up an intentional drone attack on an elementary school that killed 82 students, because they don't believe the American public will stand for this atrocity.

This is disturbing to me, not because of the valid, justifiable, reaction of the American public in a fantasy television universe, but the real life lack of conscientiousness of the American public in the world today. I was incredibly disappointed and ashamed to learn that the American public does not have the morality or indignation to be righteously appalled by horrific, shameful, killings of innocent civilians on our behalf.  

Over the last two months, we learned that, according to an American Senator with privileged information, 4,700 people have died as a result of American drone strikes in the Middle East.  Now, we don't know how many of the victims were children. But we do know that these drone strikes have hit school, mosques, wedding parties and funerals. And given these locations, I think it is safe to assume that far more than 82 children have been killed.

Here is a sample of some of the more appalling drone reports that have been leaked:

•          18 Afghan civilians (including nine children) at a wedding in a village in Logar Province of Afghanistan. Damadola airstrike kills 18 civilians, in Bajaur area of Pakistan, but misses Ayman al-Zawahri (the intended target), five women and five children are among the dead
•          An airstrike in Chenagai, Pakistan, allegedly aimed at Ayman al-Zawahri, destroys a madrassa in Bajaur area and kills 70–80 people. Pakistani military officials claim there were militants while provincial minister Siraj ul-Haq and a local eyewitness said they were innocent pupils resuming studies after the Muslim Eid holidays. Ayman al-Zawahri is not one of the dead.
•          Makeen airstrike kills at least 80, but misses Baitullah Mehsud, in the town of Makeen, Pakistan, many of which were attending the funerals of people killed in the air strikes earlier in the day.
•          In Pakistan, on March 30, 2010, US drone fired three missiles, killing 5–6 civilians and injure two, among the dead are two women and one child.
•          In Pakistan, on 12 April 2010, missiles fired by a US drone kill 13 people in North Waziristan, village elders said all thirteen killed were civilians.
•          In Pakistan, on 18 October 2010, A drone strike in the Datta Khel area of North Waziristan kills 6 militants. The strike may have also killed the 10-year-old son of Naeem Ullah, who lived next door.
•          In Pakestian, on 21 April 2011, at least 25 people, including 4 women and 5 children, were killed and about 10 other wounded in drone attacks in the Mir Ali area of North Waziristan. The target was a compound of houses belonging to the Hafiz Gul Bahadur group, a pro-army group in the tribal area. The women and children were in nearby houses.

This list of course, is much longer. But this is a representative sampling of our latest imperialistic misadventures, now enhanced with drone technology.

The justification given for our wanton attack on people in their own country is that "we were attacked".  Just to be clear, in 2001, 19 men, 15 Saudi Arabians, two men from the UAE, one Egyptian and one Lebanese, coordinated to hijack and crash four planes in an attack that killed 2,977 people.   The people immediately responsible for these attacks were killed along with their victims. Osama Bin Laden, the mastermind behind these attacks is dead.  Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, coordinator of these attacks, is in indefinite, lifelong, captivity in Guantanamo Bay Prison.

Despite the death or capture of everyone involved in these attacks, despite the fact that all attackers came from allied countries to the United States, in revenge for this crime, the US started a war that killed over 16,000 people in Afghanistan, with the flimsy excuse that the Afghan government was tolerant of Al Qaeda (as are the government of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, our "allies"). We started a war in Iraq that killed over 111,000 people, with absolutely no justification considering that Iraq was not supportive of Al Qaeda in anyway and had zero connections in personnel or support to the September 11th attacks. Now, we have killed over 4,700 in drone attacks in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yemen, with the supposed justification that those that we are attacking are individuals who are intent on attacking the United States. (The actual wording from the DOJ memo is a "senior operational leader of al-Qa'ida" or an "associated force" (i.e. anyone) who "poses an imminent threat", "but does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future" (which obliterates the definition of “imminent threat”).

So, without an actual investigation, we are acting as judge, jury and hangman to enact capital punishment on people who are accused of acting militantly and aspiring to do harm against the United States. Why then, are we not bombing the population of North Korea? They are militant, they hate the US, and they would attack us if they could...  The same goes for the civilian population of Iran, and, when I was in China in 1999, there were riots in the streets against Americans (or any Westerners) with mobs of Chinese citizens wishing to kill us in retaliation for the bombing of a Chinese Embassy in Belgrade.

We do not bomb the citizens of North Korea, Iran or China, because it would be pointless and absolutely futile. Because while people may be convince (or brainwashed) to hate the US, while they may train in armies or militias, while they may plan or fantasize about taking on US soldiers, they have absolutely no ability or feasibility of attacking us. To attack these people would solve nothing and only exacerbate their passion against Americans.

So, what would make local militias and paramilitary groups in the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan any different?  These are angry, unemployed, young men, who have absolutely no capacity to do any actual damage to the US.  How can I be so sure of this? They are living in camps in the mountainous back country of Pakistan. To damage a country would require some actual ability to get to it. The fact that we have to send drones halfway around the world just to find them is a pretty good indication they aren't coming here any time soon.

The other reason the US is choosing to attack these people with drones is that the charges against them are so flimsy, and the evidence so limited, that it would never stand up in court.  They are being essentially accused of plotting against the US, a crime of thought, since ability to execute is not a consideration, and the evidence that they are even committing this "crime" is absurdly thin. One official told the New York Times about a joke that for the CIA, “three guys doing jumping jacks,” was a terrorist training camp.

And yet, despite not having enough evidence or justification to even arrest someone, we are comfortable sentencing them to death, executing them, and killing their family and neighbors as "justifiable" collateral damage.

I don't know about anyone else, but I am, personally, angry that we even killed Osama Bin Laden without a trial. 

Of course, the official story is that he couldn't be brought in alive. No, I haven't seen Zero-Dark-Thirty, but I do not find this excuse even remotely plausible. Firstly, the White House has admitted he was unarmed and asleep when his house was attacked by Navy Seals. An unarmed man can be shot in the leg, the foot, to prevent escape.  Navy Seals are highly trained professional marksmen; considering their extensive, expensive, training, one would expect they have the capacity to take a target without killing it.  And yes, I believe that they were told to capture him "dead or alive", but the strong, strong preference should have been alive.

Did Bin Laden deserve to be killed?  Absolutely. He masterminded attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people in 2001. He coordinated the bombing of US Embassies in 1998 that killed hundreds. I wanted to see him arrested, and hauled in for justice. There, in a court of law, his crimes could have been declared, formally, for all to hear. Then he could have been dealt justice - capital punishment, or (my preference) life in solitary confinement, leader of no one.  No, it wouldn’t have given the blood lust of immediate revenge, but it would have allowed us to stand with dignity, knowing we did not allow the horrors of a war criminal to dissuade us from pursuing deliberate, fair, impartial, justice. He would have paid his price in the end, and we could have stood with our heads held high knowing we did it right.

Were we honestly concerned that we could not get a conviction? Considering the documentation of his crimes, the mountains of evidence against him, is the US government’s faith in its own justice system so low they truly felt they couldn't get a conviction against Osama Bin Laden?

The US wishes to be seen as a model for the world, a place of moral high ground, but when we lose the right to a fair trial, when we no longer believe in our own ability to act just, in a court of justice, what distinguishes us from the "unjust" countries and regions we condemn?  Or are we just the biggest, immoral, lawless bully in a world of immoral, lawless, bullies?

The victims of our drone attacks certainly will think so.  Prior to our bombings of their homes and villages, we could make the argument that people were unjustified in their hating of Americans, that the prejudices of under-employed, oppressed, and repressed, young men had been manipulated into aggression against the US by shameless Imams, wanting to direct young men’s anger away from the real tragedy of their oppressive lack of opportunities and towards a foreign boogeyman. But, when you lose family members to a bombing, when the killing of your friends, family and children is considered justified collateral damage against someone you had the misfortune of sharing a village with, your anger becomes very real and very justified. Just look at our own American anger - one crime committed by a few over a decade ago continues to be our justification to kill thousands.

The irony is that for every "militant" we kill, we are militarizing their entire surrounding community. And our expensive and bloody war will continue to feed off itself, as we create more enemies for our drones to kill for generations to come.

This is not the world I want to live in, this is not the America I grew up believing in. I want my country to make me proud, to be a shining example to the world of freedom and justice, that believes that one innocent death, anywhere in the world, is one too many, and that justice can be obtained against any criminal through a court of law.

I had high hopes that the election of Barack Obama, a constitutional law scholar, as president of the United State, our faith in the law, and the justice it provides, could be restored. Despite his election, nothing appears to have changed, except, perhaps, instead of sending people to Guantanamo without a trial, we are more likely to execute people without a trial. And there is no justification this president, or any else, can give that can excuse this breach of our own moral code.

We don't know how many of the 4,700 people killed were children or other innocent civilians, but from the reports we do have, it could be as high as half (2,350), and it is certainly more than 82.  So, where is the anticipated, righteous and just, outrage from my fellow Americans about the actions of our government? I am appalled, and I hope you are too.