High Flying Circus

--Obama's Red Tails,
David Fay/Hruska

The arrows of death fly unseen at noon-day;
the sharpest sight cannot discern them.
God has so many different unsearchable ways
of taking wicked men out of the world
--Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,
Jonathan Edwards

We breed wars.
We carry it like syphilis inside.
Dead bodies rot in field and stream
because the living ones are rotten
--The Lion in Winter (1968)

Much casual death had
drained away their souls
--More Light, More Light,
Hannah Arendt and
Heinrich Blucher

Bend them trucks
We do it for fun
Stack them bucks
We do it for fun
--Shake Ya Tail Feather,
Nelly
________________

The recent New York Times' mephitic paean to President Obama's death-dealing drone program notes the president's recourse to the thoughts of Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine.

We understand Obama is being painted as an intellectual, but he is also supposedly a Constitutional law scholar, so why would he not seek precedence in the current legal thought and treaties? Why is our secular Chief Executive being presented as someone seeking guidance from ancient and medieval Catholic Church theologians? It could not be the result of any realpolitik, could it?

Augustine's Just War theory does not vindicate preemptive war anyway -- only defensive; it should not be the standard of current war behavior, anyway. It does not address the killing of civilians. Augustine and St. Thomas have been superseded by the U.S. Constitution, the Hague Conventions, the Geneva Conventions and many other legal precedents (including the Nuremberg Principles and the U.N.Human Rights Declaration, which celebrated its 64th anniversary today.)

By what authority does a United States President authorize the Central Intelligence Agency -- a civilian agency -- to kill citizens under the false rubric of war?

Thomas Aquinas twisted the teachings of Jesus to justify the Church's support of monarchs which then send Christians off crusading for mortal causes benefiting both institutions . The Church's apotheosis of the monarchs strengthened the Church's cause, as both could then rule over the interests of man via God's investiture. This nod to St. Thomas and Aquinas as directing doctrine for Obama's drone policy violates the principle of separation of Church and State.

Obama is not even the least of prelates, possessing no divine right to rule or to arbitrarily advocate for the killing of someone he deems a fit target. As a nation, the U.S. has left God and the Church out of our national planning process Wars of aggression are criminal ventures.

If the President must seek recourse to religious thought, why not turn to the 20th century's Martin Luther King, Jr., a minister who turned against war as an expression of American philosophy? King saw that killing was not the way to weave the fabric of a just American power.

Speaking of realpolitik, perhaps Obama's team does not see use in borrowing the ideas of a black reverend -- Obama already has that race card punched, and incendiary reverends like his own mentor Rev. Wright have not done well for securing Obama's legacy.

Mr. Obama is staring down even younger potential Republican opponents, like Florida's junior Senator Marco Rubio. Talking demographics: Obama can never be younger, Latino or Catholic. He may have New School music on his iPod, but how to cast the re-election net wide enough to win? He has Eva Longoria and Ricky Martin; maybe his handlers feel that appealing to Catholi
theologians provides him another foot in the door.

--by Lisa and Jim

Befehl ist Befehl

--Why don't you go to the police?
--I'm my own police
--This Gun for Hire (1942)

His hope was to remind the world
that fairness, justice, and freedom
are more than words,
they are perspectives
--V is for Vendetta (2005)

It's just murder. All God's creatures do it.
You look in the forests and you see
species killing other species,
our species killing all species including the forest,
and we just call it industry, not murder
--Natural Born Killers (1994)
________________

Commissar Order (Hitler):

"As a matter of principle, they will be shot at once, whether captured during operations or otherwise showing resistance."

Partisan Order (Field Marshal Keitel):

"This fight has nothing to do with the soldierly gallantry or principles of the Geneva Conventions."

"If the fight against the partisans in the East as well as the Balkans, is not waged with the most brutal means ..."

________________

Using the "N" word may not be politically-correct, but the President's kill orders are Nazi in origin, concept and execution. Like the Nazi Commissar and Partisan orders, both create a class of persons deemed unfit to live.

In our post-Nuremberg world, war lords like Slobodan Milosevic and Charles Taylor face imprisonment for their crimes against humanity. Meanwhile, President Obama plays dice with people's lives by conducting extrajudicial killings. It is Ranger's contention that killing one man unjustly is the same as killing six million -- it is simply a matter of magnitude rather than morality.

Murder can only be justified by State action if it has a legitimate end that gains more than than it loses. Drone warfare does not accomplish that. From today's Slate: "The politics of drone war drains the proverbial sea of America’s ideological supporters and undermines the only basis for waging effective war: popular support of the people who feel threatened" (Hatred: What Drones Sow.)

The question for the continuance of drone warfare is a simple one: By what authority, be it legal or moral, does the U.S. President oversee targeted kills? Obviously, as Commander in Chief, he must provide oversight for military killing (= "warfare"), but Predator marauding is not warfare.

The Central Intelligence Agency is a civilian intelligence agency without a legitimate mandate to kill anyone. The authority vested in the office of President as C-in-C does not extend to non-military applications of violence.

Further, what is the reason for launching missiles in places like Yemen? Do we believe that the people being vaporized are threats to the national interests of the United States? Have we lost the ability to prioritize threats, and the brain power to realize that near and far threats are not the same thing?

Al Qaeda in Yemen is a a Yemeni and Saudi problem. When did the U.S. become their hired gun? The U.S. is not at war there, and the might and power of the U.S. war-making machine cannot legally be applied to individuals or non-State players. The definition of war precludes the use of State death-dealing.

Hitler's and Keitel's orders were issued during a declared and clearly-defined war. Commissars and partisans were not soldiers, but they were enemy personnel openly carrying arms. These orders were illegal but the intent was based upon military logic, even if a perverted logic. Where does the U.S. logic lie?

Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. reported that President Truman was physically sickened by his decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, by making the decision Truman was acting within his authority during a general war scenario. Truman was also a World War I artilleryman and familiar with death in an up-close and personal way; his decisions were presumably not made blithely.

In a democracy we need civilian leaders with humanity at their core, rather than the coolness of a mafia don. We fete Obama's detached coolness when he nods his head sanctioning another official murder, but how are Obama's actions different from Hitler's? How different from those of Milosevic or Taylor?

How did men like Cheney, George W. Bush, Obama and Romney gain their lust for killing? What is my role in this deadly drama, as my tax dollars help pay for the missiles that rein death from the skies?

When Hellfire missiles become the symbol of America, and when our Democratic party leaders embrace assassination, then where are we as a nation? Why are we o.k. with our leaders acting like the Partisan Order is the standard operating procedure for our nation?

When neither political party will demand Enlightenment values, then we are walled up in a town called Nuremberg.

Freakonomics

When [the interstate highway system] was built in the 1950s,
it was called the national defense highway system
because when you do anything in the United States
you have to call it defense.
That’s the only way you can fool the taxpayer into paying for it.
--Noam Chomsky (on human intelligence)

Actual happiness always looks pretty squalid
in comparison with the over-compensations for misery
--Brave New World, Aldous Huxley

Boring damned people. All over the earth.
Propagating more boring damned people.
What a horror show. The earth swarmed with them.
--Charles Bukowski
___________________

Advocates of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) tout them as ushering in a new age of warfare, one in which the soldier is kept remote and safe from bodily damage. They say the drones protect us by flying the friendly skies of an unfriendly world.

Pakistani tribesmen carry the coffin of a person
allegedly killed in a 2011 U.S. drone attack.
They claim that innocent civilians died.

Photograph by Thir Khan/AFP/Getty Images

One result of embracing our drone technology is that we define ourselves as a predatory, high-tech nation which will eliminate anyone and anything that seems to array itself against the United States in an unseemly manner. These drones make us appear alert and on the ball, if somewhat to the left of democratic legalisms:

In Pakistan, Mr. Obama had approved not only “personality” strikes aimed at named, high-value terrorists, but “signature” strikes that targeted training camps and suspicious compounds in areas controlled by militants. But some State Department officials have complained to the White House that the criteria used by the C.I.A. for identifying a terrorist “signature” were too lax. The joke was that when the C.I.A. sees “three guys doing jumping jacks,” the agency thinks it is a terrorist training camp, said one senior official. Men loading a truck with fertilizer could be bombmakers—but they might also be farmers, skeptics argued (Secret ‘Kill List’ Proves a Test of Obama’s Principles and Will.)

The other drones which define our society are the low-tech variety: Those people stuck in daily slave-wage positions without hope of a better life. These tragic drones remain barely sentient of their sentence, hidden below the radar, save for when they don the national colors and participate in fighting our endless wars. Because they may watch reality t.v. and people have yellow ribbon magnets on their cars, they imagine themselves to be fully enfranchised members of the Republic.

The U.S. spends to the point of insolvency to ensure the best military technology while ignoring the needs of the more ubiquitous, human variety drones. Attaining an advanced degree has been the usual way out for most, but the value of the diploma in a nation without jobs is questionable. Statistics reported today show that more student loan borrowers (29%) are dropping out of school sans diploma but still with lots of unpaid debt (Debt But No Degree).

Which drone exemplifies the real America? Which has the ability to enhance the state of the nation? The drone which magnetizes the money is the one we value most.

Thrill Seekers

My fantasy has turned to madness
All my goodness has turned to badness
My need to possess you has consumed my soul
My life is trembling, I have no control
--Obsession, Animotion

A part of me has just been ripped
The pages from my mind are stripped
--Centerfold, J. Geils Band

What's important at this time is to re-clarify
the difference between hero and villain
--J. Edgar (2011)
__________________

There are as many serial killers as terrorists on popular crime shows -- both jobs must have growth potential in today's economy.

Just to re-hash the job descriptors:

Terrorists use symbolic violence to reach an audience beyond the immediate target. They are trying to impose a remote agenda through their actions. Serial killers, or thrill killers, are usually motivated by sexually deviant pathology, and killing serves their fantasy; for serial killers, the killing is the goal.

Pathology is not good in a person, and much less so in a government. The Central Intelligence Agency, at the U.S. government's behest, seems to be indulging in thrill kills, as the actions are within the parameters of deviant behavior.

Last Tuesday armed U.S. drones in Yemen killed some "suspected militants":

"U.S. airstrikes targeting leaders from Yemen's active Al Qaeda branch killed four suspected militants, including a man suspected of involvement in the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, officials said Tuesday."

When individuals execute such deviant actions, we employ the full force of the police establishment to bring them to justice. However, when CIA operatives do the same thing, we call this the War on Terror; who is watching the watchers? Assassination is not a war fighting tactic. It is an act as nasty and abominable as any act of terrorism. The delineation between the two and their attempted justification rides on whose ox is being gored.

Let us look at the terms in the news release: If a militant is worthy of liquidation, what of militia members in the U.S.? Aren't members of militias, militants? Does being a militant deem one worthy of elimination as an existential threat to one's government?

Moreover, these were "suspected" militants. When did civilized nations start killing "suspects" as a matter of policy? How does killing a suspect differ fro a thrill kill? Nothing in U.S. case law justifies the killing of a non-adjudicated person. These killings are fulfilling someone's darkest fantasies ... but whose?

"Missiles struck a school and a car late Monday in the southern Abyan province, Yemeni security and military officials said. They identified one of the dead as Abdel-Monem al-Fathanim, who was believed to be involved in the USS Cole attack in October 2000, which killed 17 U.S. sailors and injured 39 others."

So the missiles struck a school to kill someone suspected of involvement in the 2000 USS Cole attack. The rules of war prohibit attacks on schools -- especially when the target is so murky. In addition to the legal and moral concerns, it is not cost-effective to run a worldwide Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) program raining costly sophisticated missiles from the sky on dubious targets.

Disappointingly --though not surprisingly -- not one candidate in the midst of a presidential campaign questions these murders. When did the U.S. President become an omnipotent dictator, and when did the American people lose faith with their justice system? What makes the U.S. different than a Nazi Stuka pilot over the cities of London or Warsaw? We differ in scale, but perhaps not in kind.

Whether terrorism is warfare or criminality, there is no justification for murder.

Drone Zone

A hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness,
a desire to kill, to torture,
to smash faces in with a sledge hammer,
seemed to flow through the whole group of people
like an electric current
--1984, George Orwell

Number nine, number nine,
number nine, number nine
--Revolution 9, The Beatles
__________

Earlier this month we were provided the happy news that another #3 was gone:

"Amid environmental disaster in the Gulf of Mexico and diplomatic disaster in the Mediterranean comes this piece of welcome news from western Pakistan: Al-Qaeda confirmed that its No. 3 leader, Mustafa al-Yazid (also known as Sheik Saeed al-Masri), was killed in an unmanned drone strike last month" (Drones Take Toll on al-Qaeda leaders).

But why would anybody see this as Good News, sufficient to counteract the grinding destruction of the Gulf that we euphemistically call an environmental disaster, as though another unfortunate but unpreventable happening like a hurricane? Sure, we killed another guy with a towel wrapped around his head and the media is ecstatic -- but meanwhile, back at the ranch, we still have high unemployment, failing mortgages and myriad other serious issues supposedly eclipsed by a useless drone-induced death.

Who are we kidding: ". . .al-Yazid was, by some counts, the 10th third-ranking al-Qaeda leader killed since Sept. 11, 2001, while Osama bin Laden (No. 1) and Ayman a'-Zawahri (No. 2) Ayman al-Zawahri remain at large. Individual deaths do not summate to victory; there must be identifiable goals associated with the carnage. The purpose of war is not to kill, but to kill with a purpose.

It is doubtful that that the al-Qaida of 2010 is the same organization that executed the 9-11 attacks, since men like al-Yazid may simply be fighting a defensive battle against foreign invaders. Ranger lacks the intel to definitively state this, but numerous indicators suggest this is a reasonable assumption.

"Since 2004, U.S. airstrikes have killed 15 senior and 15 mid-level al-Qaeda leaders, plus four senior and five mid-level Taliban leaders, according to the Long War Journal, which tracks the war on terror."

"The death of al-Yazid, who acted as al-Qaeda's chief operating officer, also is the latest proof of the value of the controversial but effective CIA program that has become the centerpiece of that strategy."

These figures may be correct, but so what? The replacement pool is adequate fill leadership voids, and nowhere do we see a cost/benefit analysis of this U.S. application of violence. It is premature to believe this program is effective; races and wars are gauged by the final outcome.

The editorial continues, "Drone attacks convey unmistakable messages: U.S. forces are always watching, and someone close to the leaders might be betraying them. With luck, this distracts and destabilizes al-Qaeda." Luck is not a military concept, and if the U.S. is hanging it's hat on that "hopey-changey thing" -- as the inimitable Ms. Palin calls it -- we are in dire straits.

In the Vietnam War, the Phoenix Program killed 20,000+ hardcore Vietnamese Communists, yet they achieved victory. If killing the VC infrastructure did not work then, why should it work now just because we are using drones? The final outcome on the ground is the yardstick, and all the salutary Op-Eds won't change that fact.

"The strike on al-Yazid, for example, is reported to have killed his wife and at least one of his three children. The drone strikes enrage many ordinary Pakistanis, both there and in the U.S. ..." Forget Pakistan's reaction to the killing of al-Yazid's wife, kids and (unmentioned in this piece) grandkids, MY reaction is one of revulsion. Why aren't other Americans similarly affected?

The drone program is justified as "[the enemy has] no compunction about hiding among civilians." This is not a justification for accepting collateral deaths. Collateral civilian deaths are only acceptable IF the targeted al-Qaeda assets are in the execution phase of an operation and the civilian deaths are essential to kill or capture the active terrorist elements.

Killing is killing, whether done by terrorists or U.S. agents. We can only control our side of the equation, and our failure to do so will ultimately lead to our unsuccessful campaign in Afghanistan. Killing must lead to a greater good; if we do not believe this, then we are not a Christian nation (as so many of the die-hards believe), and are as criminal as the al-Qaida leadership.

The editorial falsely concludes: "[T]he drones deliver the essential message of the war on terror: Attack the United States, and you'll regret it. If al-Qaeda is neutered and its leaders are killed or captured, others won't be eager to repeat its mistake."

Others will always be ready to assume leadership in a struggle in which they see themselves as justified in opposing foreign invaders. Ask yourself how you'd react if the shoe were on the other foot?

Death Dividends

,

We can find meaning and reward by serving
some purpose higher than ourselves—
a shining purpose,
the illumination of a thousand points of light
--George H. W. Bush,
State of the Union Address (1991)

Let us tend to our garden
--Candide, Voltaire

Dilli Doorsth (Dehli is a long way off)
--Sufi saint Nizam-ud-din Auliya to his followers,
assuring them that though impending attackers
had the will, they had not the means

If we're here to "help others,"
what are the others here for?
________________

The Serve America Act which just passed in the House would triple the current number of positions in the AmeriCorps volunteer program, adding 175,00 new participants. The cost will be $5 Billion, and the Senate votes on it next week (Hatch-Kennedy Service Bill Clears House.)

Of the act President Obama said, "If you are willing to volunteer in your neighborhood or give back to your community or serve your country,we will make sure you can afford a higher education."

AmeriCorps partcipants are paid a weekly living stipend equal to that of the members in their service community. Generally, this amounts to a year living at or below the poverty level, and is similar to a Peace Corps assignment in this way. Occasionally, barracks housing is provided, and members may avail themselves of community health clinics for health care needs.

Following the completion of a year of 40-hour/week service, the volunteer is awarded a $4,725 voucher to be applied to college tuition (within seven years of separation from AmeriCorps.) This amount is prorated for part-time work.

Those volunteers in Americorps/VISTA who do not wish to attend college will instead receive the equivalent of $100/month for each month of service. However, this option is not available to non-VISTA Americorps workers (Americorps.org).

Despite Obama's assurance, $4,725 will not cover a year of college costs in most places. The program itself is a noble one, but was gutted under George Bush's tenure, and some Republicans argued that a "volunteer" program should not be paying any funds at all to the participants. At least funding may be returned to the program to get it back on its footing in the Clinton administration.

But back to the funds, or lack thereof.

While both parties now generally support the bill, the problem is funding. When the money is for killing, emergency funding bills sail through Congress. Money for warfare is always somewhere to be found, but social programs always go begging.

On the same day, papers reported:

"A missile fired by a U.S. drone killed at least four people late Sunday at the house of a militant commander in northwest Pakistan, the latest use of what intelligence officials have called their most effective weapon against Al Qaeda (Drones: The Weapons of Choice in Fighting al Qaeda.)

The U.S. killed people at the home of a "militant commander," he without any proven ties to al-Qaeda. Yet in the same sentence, we are told these drones and missiles are our "most effective weapon against Al Qaeda." One does not follow the other in this case, but the weasel words "terrorist" or "al-Qaeda" must always be dropped into a sentence to justify U.S.-imposed casualties.

We know how to kill them at millions of dollars a pop, yet their link to international terrorism is questionable at best. We are using million dollar missiles to kill the human equivalent of a coyote.

"U.S. Air Force officials acknowledge that more than a third of their unmanned Predator spy planes — which are 27 feet long, powered by a high-performance snowmobile engine, and cost $4.5 million apiece — have crashed, mostly in Iraq and Afghanistan."

". . .13 of the 70 Predator crashes have occurred over the last 18 months."

One third of the birds are lost, at $4.5 million each. This seems a low-ball estimate, but Ranger will accept the figure on faith. 70 x $4.5 Million = $315 Million.

The exact cost of the missiles is unknown to Ranger, so $1 Million will be my SWAG guesstimate. Add on the 244 times these Air Forces critters fired in Iraq and Afghanistan and you come up with an additional $244 Million. (These figure exclude CIA-funded missiles and Predator losses in Pakistan.)

Adding it up, you get $569 Million -- that's right folks, over half of the way to a year of funding for over 260,000 volunteers to help patch up America.

There ain't anything in Iraq or Afghanistan worth a plugged nickel. Let us rearrange our priorities and spend money to help Americans help other Americans, paid for by American taxes. Now that would be something Made in America.

Instead,

And as the Obama administration prepares its first budget, officials say they plan to free up more money for simpler systems like drones that can pay dividends now..."

Uhhh, does anyone actually believe that weapons systems which kill people by remote-control "pay dividends"? Dividends are about money, not killing. Nobody asks what goes undone and who goes wanting, that might actually pay dividends if attended to.

The article indicates the fighting in Afghanistan and Pakistan is intensifying, and of course it is. However, it is the provocation of the U.S. sending more fighters into the fray that causes this intensification.

A nation must prioritize its energies in order to survive economically and militarily. It must ask how and why killing people is in the service of the nation's better interests. The current crop of video game weapons are dealing death at an extravagant cost.

The military tech sites say "Wow", but we ask, "Why"?