Be careful what you wish for

On this day that we celebrate declaring our independence from the English crown it seems appropriate to look at what's happening in Egypt.

In 2011 the Arab Spring reached its zenith as the US-backed dictator, Hosni Mubarak, fell from power. The army refused Mubarak's commands to fire on the protesters and forced Mubarak to step down. Over the course of the next 18 months secular and Islamist forces vied for control of post-Mubarak Egypt.

The Muslim Brotherhood, the outlawed opposition force during the days of the dictatorship, took both the presidency and the parliament (even after the original elections were invalidated). The Muslim Brotherhood also had a majority of the representatives in the assembly that was to draft the new constitution.

Dr. Mohamed Morsi, the standard bearer for the Muslim Brotherhood, did his best to force an Islamist state upon the people. Now, while his party did win a majority of the vote, there was still a healthy percentage of the population that voted in favor of the secular parties.

Over the past year Dr. Morsi's relationship with the political opposition deteriorated to the point that millions of Egyptians marched in the streets calling for Dr. Morsi to step down this week. That call was echoed by the leaders of the Egyptian military who told the president that if he didn't negotiate a political settlement with the opposition that they would step in.

And that is what happened on Wednesday evening. Dr. Morsi was removed from office by the military and placed under arrest - as were other members of his government and the Muslim Brotherhood. Those who had called for Dr. Morsi to resign were overjoyed after the coup.

But what is the price of victory?

Dr. Morsi was the first democratically elected president in Egypt's history. The parliamentary elections were the first free elections as well. While the secular parties and their supporters have legitimate grievances against the Morsi government, does it really serve the forces of democracy to have the military step in and remove a democratically elected president? What kind of precedent does this set for future governments?

Dr. Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood certainly didn't represent the views of millions of Egyptians who wanted Egypt to be a secular state. But he was elected. The Muslim Brotherhood, as an outlawed group, had, by far, the best organized party in the country. And it showed when it came time for elections.

The secular opposition wasn't happy. But Dr. Morsi played by the rules. The actions this week in Egypt were anything but democratic. Allowing the military to act as a sovereign branch of government is a very bad idea. Military rule is one of the worst possible forms of government as soldiers are taught to obey orders from above and not to question authority. Lest we forget, questioning authority is one of the cornerstones of a healthy democracy.

So now Egypt has a provisional president. At some point in the future new elections will be held and a new president will be elected. He may be better than Dr. Morsi. He may be worse. But what happens the next time there is public dissatisfaction with the government? Will the military step in once again?

In order for democracy to thrive there must be an understanding  that the people have the right to change their government. That right is exercised at the ballot box not by use of a rifle. The people in the streets of Egypt got what they wanted; but how will they feel when it's their ox that's being gored?

I have no sympathy for Dr. Morsi. I firmly believe that government and religion should be separate. But I also believe that you must accept the results of a free and fair election and fight your battles in the political arena. Organize your block. Organize your neighborhood. Picket. Shout. Protest. But be very careful what you wish for - because sometimes, in the long run, the price is more than you're willing to pay.

Murder, terrorism and hypocrisy

Britain is all atwitter over a supposed terrorist attack in London in which a British soldier was hacked to death by two men - one of whom was a Muslim convert. One of the men allegedly told onlookers that the attack was in retaliation for British soldiers killing Muslims in the Middle East.

Now my understanding of terrorism is that it is an act of violence committed against civilians in furtherance of a political goal. While the death of the soldier is certainly tragic for his family and friends - he is far from an unarmed civilian. He was part of a killing machine that took its marching orders from the British prime minister (and, ultimately, President Obama). The dead man was part of an organization that killed unarmed men, women and children in pursuit of political goals.

Where was the outrage about the thousands of Afghans and Iraqis who died at the hands of soldiers from the United States, Britain and the rest of the allied forces in the Middle East?

In related news, the United States has finally acknowledged it murdered four of its own citizens in drone attacks in the War on Everything Terror. According to a letter from Attorney General (and all-around Obama lackey) Eric Holder, US drones killed Anwar al-Awlaki in a targeted strike. He also admitted that Awlaki's 16-year-old son, Abdul Rahman al Awlaki, and two other Americans, Samir Kahn and Jude Mohammed were killed by drone attacks. Though he said those deaths were unintentional because the individuals were not "targeted."

These four men were murdered by their government without the benefit of due process. They were denied the right to a trial by jury. They were denied the right to confront the witnesses against them. They were denied the right to put on evidence in their behalf.

They are dead because the Obama administration created its own star chamber that acted as judge, jury and executioner.

The government has never presented any evidence to the American people that the allegations that Mr. Awlaki was in a leadership position in al Qaeda. We are being asked to simply accept the word of our government when it comes to the murder of our fellow citizens.

Anwar al-Awlaki was murdered by his government because he exercised his First Amendment right to speak freely. Our government may not have liked what he was saying, but that's far from justification for murdering him. And the order to kill came from a fraudulent winner of the Nobel Peace Prize who has escalated the Bush doctrine that the world is a battlefield.

So, who are the terrorists now?

We certainly can't let a bit of repression get in the way of a race

Stop me if we've been down this road before but the repressive government in Bahrain has launched raids to detain opposition activists prior to the annual motoring circus known as Formula 1 coming to town.

Last year the army, backed up by Saudi arms and American money, attempted to crush the revolt in the days leading up to the race leading for calls for the FIA to cancel the race. Ah, but the love of the filthy lucre was too much for Bernie Ecclestone and his cronies to pass up on and so they put on their dark sunglasses and looked the other way as much as possible and had a grand ol' time hanging out with the uber-wealthy set.

Once again those in charge of the Formula 1 franchise couldn't care less about a little repression here and there - just so long as it doesn't disrupt their little race. At least former World Champion Damon Hill has given the matter a bit of thought (even though he appears loathe to rock the boat too much).

Of course I would be remiss if I didn't mention that the US Navy's Fifth Fleet is housed in Bahrain and so the US government, despite its claims to be fighting for greater freedom and democracy around the world, has no problem with a bit of repression now and then.

I guess it shouldn't be unexpected given that those involved in the world of motorsport tend to lean toward the right. A good many of the drivers in Formula 1 came from wealthy families who bankrolled their expensive little hobby as they grew up. The team owners were exceedingly wealthy and had to have some serious coin to deal with the massive cost of replacing equipment on a regular basis.

Over the years Formula 1 marketed itself as having the best drivers in the best cars on the world's best racing circuits. And you couldn't possibly have the commoners getting tickets to sit and watch so the bosses jacked the ticket prices to the stratosphere so that only the truly wealthy could afford to tag along with the road show.

Add this all together and you come up with a sport that has much more in common with the repressive regime in Bahrain than it does with the folks out on the streets fighting for a voice. Is it any wonder the powers-that-be don't care about a little bloodletting here and there?

After all, the series ran its races in plenty of other repressive states over the years including Franco's Spain, the generals' Argentina and Brazil just to name a few.

FIA has no problem taking public money to put on its traveling circus around the world. Considering that money could have been used for other purposes that would have benefited more people, race organizers should be a little bit more attuned to what's going on in the streets.

The race only serves to benefit the ruling elite of Bahrain. The Bahraini government (and FIA) want the world to see an antiseptic race course with lots of money being flashed around by pretty people. Having to put up with those annoying folks fighting for democracy would only serve to spoil the show.

Anyway, they've got to get ready for the Chinese Grand Prix coming up later this year.

Droning on and on

Under the Obama Administration, the United States has upped the ante when it comes to unmanned drone attacks. And, along with the increased use of drones, come more innocents who end up dead.

President Obama defends his use of drones by claiming they are used to make targeted strikes at suspected terrorists on the other side of the world. What Mr. Obama, and other proponents of drone attacks, seem to forget is that bombs are not the most precise, discriminating killers. While you might very well be able to program a drone to drop a bomb on a particular building, you can't control who's in the building. You also can't control the collateral damage (read: innocent dead people) that results from an explosion.

The history of warfare can best be analogized as looking to see from how far away you can kill someone. We went from hand-to-hand combat to bows and arrows to guns to bombs to drones. War has become a video game for those who oversee the drone program.

But, for all the government's self-congratulatory backslapping after every death by drone, what would the reaction be if another country entered the United States and murdered one of their enemies of the state? What would the reaction be if another country conducted a "surgical strike" in the US that left innocent folks laying dead in the streets?

But, hey, we don't have to worry about that now, do we? I mean, we're talking about a bunch of brown-skinned people who worship their god in a different way. So what's the problem?

Calling someone an enemy combatant doesn't change the calculus. The US is entering another country for the purpose of killing someone without due process of law. In fact, without any consideration of any other country's laws. As Jeff Gamso is wont to point out, the United States is supposed to follow the rule of law - not the law of rule.

Where's the outrage? If it's okay for los federales to carry out extra-judicial (just love that term) murders overseas, what's to prevent another country from invoking the same principle and carrying them our in our streets? Oh, that's right - if someone were to do that here they would face the mighty wrath of the US military but since no one is willing to stand up to the big bully, the US is able to act with impunity.

Still the fact remains, murder is murder, no matter how much you might try to sugar coat it.

Click here to watch the live stream of the International Drones Conference this weekend.

H/T Democracy Now!

You gotta blame someone

Last March protesters took to the streets of Bahrain demanding a voice in the governance of the oil-rich kingdom. Imagine that - in this day and age of democracy busting out all over, we have the vestiges of an era in which someone grabbed a bigger stick and declared himself to be king. How could that cause any problems?

As is wont to happen when an authoritarian regime is challenged, the security forces (providing security for whom?) were whipped into a frenzy and went into a murderous rampage against their own citizens. Now let's just think about that for a moment. Armed personnel (thugs?) in the employ of the government are ordered to beat, maim, intimidate and kill anyone who dare speak out against the regime. The same regime that puts on its smiley face and tells the people to be patient - that reform is in the works.

Nope. Wrong answer. What we have is a government that has lost all legitimacy. Once a regime turns its armed forces on its own citizenry, it has lost whatever moral authority it may have had in the first place. And any member of the security forces (or police or army or whatever the hell you want to call the thugs) that follows an order to turn his weapon on a fellow citizen is guilty of a crime.

But there's more. You see the Bahraini government decided that it wasn't enough to beat, maim and kills its own citizens. After all, the victims who were still breathing had to get medical treatment somewhere. With all apologies to Shakespeare, the king decided the first thing he needed to do was kill the doctors.

Punish the doctors, that's right. Forget about the dead and the wounded. Forget about the army pointing its weapons at the people it's supposed to protect (well, that's what we're told the military and police do - in reality their job is to protect the chosen few.)

Twenty doctors, nurses and medics were convicted of inciting the people to overthrow the government and were sentenced to between five and 15 years in prison. Forget about the soldiers that shot, maimed and killed their fellow citizens - they went back to their barracks and got some commendation or ribbon to pin to their uniforms. But the medics who did what doctors do got the whip.

Maybe some of the medics wanted to see the government overthrown. Maybe some were part of the protests. Who cares? They were tried and convicted for tending to the wounded and trying to save their lives. They were punished for treating the citizens who were injured at the hands of their own government.

Bowing to international pressure (and to an international panel's report that found "abuses" in the government's crackdown on protesters -- I guess you could call killing protesters to be abusive. I prefer to call it murder), the medics were retried on Monday.

Maybe the regime tries to make nice and hope everything blows over. But you can't unring the bell. And, no matter how hard you scrub, you can't wash away the blood on your hands.

Shhh! It's a secret

Naturally the very existence of the document is a national security secret (or at least a pinkie-swear secret) - but what you expect when the document in question is used to justify the murder of an American by his own government?

Jeff Gamso had the right idea this past Sunday. Reading about the memo and what may, or may not, be contained within is the equivalent of one of those friend of a friend stories that Jan Harold Brunvand collected in his quest for urban legends.  

The memo, written last year, followed months of extensive interagency deliberations and offers a glimpse into the legal debate that led to one of the most significant decisions made by President Obama — to move ahead with the killing of an American citizen without a trial.

The secret document provided the justification for acting despite an executive order banning assassinations, a federal law against murder, protections in the Bill of Rights and various strictures of the international laws of war, according to people familiar with the analysis. The memo, however, was narrowly drawn to the specifics of Mr. Awlaki’s case and did not establish a broad new legal doctrine to permit the targeted killing of any Americans believed to pose a terrorist threat.

The Obama administration has refused to acknowledge or discuss its role in the drone strike that killed Mr. Awlaki last month and that technically remains a covert operation. The government has also resisted growing calls that it provide a detailed public explanation of why officials deemed it lawful to kill an American citizen, setting a precedent that scholars, rights activists and others say has raised concerns about the rule of law and civil liberties.

President Obama wasted no opportunity to claim credit for the killing of Mr. Awlaki (al-Zawahri in the original article) when he thought it might get him support for his upcoming re-election bid. But, once the criticism began rolling in, President Obama and his minions circled their wagons. And now we have this secret memo (that supposedly exists) written for the express purpose of justifying state-sponsored murder.

The legal analysis, in essence, concluded that Mr. Awlaki could be legally killed, if it was not feasible to capture him, because intelligence agencies said he was taking part in the war between the United States and Al Qaeda and posed a significant threat to Americans, as well as because Yemeni authorities were unable or unwilling to stop him.

See, that's all you need to know. Our intelligence agencies said so - therefore it must be the truth. Because he said some bad things and because some people did some bad things we must kill him. We must ignore the Constitution in order to protect ourselves.

Or some line of garbage like that. We live in a society in which a great number of folks don't believe anything the government tells them. President Obama could tell everyone today is Wednesday and there will be a segment of the population convinced he is lying. Yet these same folks have no problem believing the government after it orders the killing of an American citizen.

But, if I were the president, maybe I'd rather deal with the muted backlash after ordering a hit on an American citizen rather than questions about how poorly the economy is performing.

Death without due process

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. -- 5th Amendment

The United States has killed two of its own. On Friday, under orders from President Obama, a US military airstrike resulted in the death of Ayman al-Zawahri, an American-born cleric who had become a vocal critic of US policy. Killed alongside Mr. al-Zawahri was Samir Khan.

In July, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said al-Awlaki was a priority target alongside Ayman al-Zawahri, bin Laden's successor as the terror network's leader.

The Yemeni-American had been in the U.S. crosshairs since his killing was approved by President Barack Obama in April 2010 — making him the first American placed on the CIA "kill or capture" list. At least twice, airstrikes were called in on locations in Yemen where al-Awlaki was suspected of being, but he wasn't harmed.

Mr. al-Zawahri and Mr. Khan weren't arrested for anything. They weren't charged with anything. They were never indicted. They were never tried before a jury of his peers. They were never convicted of any crime against the United States.

There was no due process of law. Mr. al-Zawahri and Mr. Khan, were deprived of their most basic rights because they dared to voice criticism of US policy in the Middle East.

President Bush (the Younger) created a shitstorm when he ordered suspected terrorists and their supporters to be held indefinitely in prison. People were also up in arms (at least those who knew what was going on) about the expanded powers given to the government to spy on its own citizens. But neither of those policies holds a candle to ordering the death of American citizens without affording them due process of law.

As flawed as the Troy Davis situation may have been, at least he was afforded his day in court. That's more than Mr. al-Zawahri and Mr. Khan were given. If los federales had the goods on Mr. al-Zawahri and Mr. Khan, why not obtain an indictment? Why not seek to extradite them? Why not put them on trial? If their deeds were serious enough to warrant death - then let's see the evidence. What are you afraid of, President Obama?

Is it because their "crimes" involved being vocal critics of your foreign policy? Is it because of the words they spoke and wrote?

Thus far President Obama has caught flak for the state of the economy on his watch. Now it's time he catches it for ordering the deaths of two American citizens and depriving them of their constitutional rights. When President Obama was sworn into office, he took an oath to defend the US Constitution.



President Obama, you just violated that oath. You were not only part of a conspiracy to deprive two American citizens of their constitutional protections - you were the man in charge of the conspiracy. In depriving them of their constitutional rights, you also conspired to murder the two men.

See also:

"Ron Paul calls US killing of American-born al-Qaida cleric in Yemen an 'assassination.'" Washington Post (Sept. 30, 2011)

"Obama praises al-Awlaki killing," Time (Sept. 30, 2011)

What twisted webs we weave

In the end all you have is your name and your credibility. Once you've besmirched those two things, you have nothing left.

The internet, the blogosphere, the 24-hour news cycle and satellite and cable television have made it easier to obtain information -- but they've also made it easier deceive the public.

Thanks to the miracles of the internet, I was able to time the release of blog posts while I was on Edisto Island in South Carolina last week. Not knowing when I'd get the chance to update the blog I wrote a week's worth of pieces in the days before we set out.

Tom MacMaster, a 40-year old American student studying in Scotland, used the internet to perpetuate a hoax. I'm sure it didn't start out that way. He created an online persona that he used to comment on other blogs about the situation in the Middle East. This online persona, in his words, then took on a life of its own. He developed a back story of a half-American, half-Syrian lesbian struggling to come to grips with culture, religion and sex.

First came a Facebook page then came the blog. Then it all snowballed.

Journalists, academics, activists and others began following the saga of Amina Arraf. No one questioned whether she was a real person. No one questioned whether the events depicted in the blog even occurred. I mean, it's the Internet -- why wouldn't it be true?

Then Ms. Arraf was tossed in the clink. An online campaign protesting her arrest and demanding her release was born. Newspapers, both print and on-line, ran articles about her detention.Then someone decided to do a little fact-checking.

The gig was soon up.

Was Mr. MacMaster right or wrong? I don't know. He "misled" people who followed his tale of Amina online. But how does that differ from any work of fiction you pick off the shelf or any television drama you sit down to watch? He never asked for money. He never asked for anything. He created a story that people followed because they found it interesting.

Now Mr. MacMaster is a pariah. There are a lot of journalists and other so-called experts who have egg on their faces because they took what they read on the internet as the truth. Mr. MacMaster has apologized for the hoax -- my guess is he's more sorry he got "caught" than he is for creating the story.

Has he harmed the cause of those seeking change in the Middle East? Does this mean that journalists might begin checking their facts before publishing stories? Will we begin taking what we see on the internet with a healthy grain of salt?

In the meantime, Mr. MacMaster walks away with both his name and credibility sullied.