Tag Archives: President Obama

Dr. Michel Chossudovsky: State Terrorism, Franco-American Style

16 Wed Mar 2016

Posted by in Anti-Capitalism, Anti-Fascism, Anti-Imperialism, Anti-War, Globalisation, Police State

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

LUMPENPROLETARIAT—Dr. Michel Chossudovsky is a Canadian economist and author.  He is a professor of economics at the University of Ottawa and the president and director of the Centre for Research on Globalization, known online as GlobalResearch.ca.

Dr. Chossudovsky has acted as an economic adviser to governments of developing nations and has worked as a consultant for international organisations, including the United Nations Development Programme, the African Development Bank, the United Nations African Institute for Economic Development and Planning, the United Nations Population Fund, the International Labour Organization, the World Health Organisation, and the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean. [1]

On this week’s episode of Guns and Butter, free speech radio host Bonnie Faulkner broadcast a recent interview with Dr. Michel Chossudovsky spanning a broad range of topics of contemporary political economy, police state repression, and imperial wars. [2]

Messina 

***

[Official programme summary from the KPFA audio archive webpage for Guns and Butter for Wednesday, 16 MAR 2016]

State Terrorism: Franco American Style with Michel Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky’s most recent research on the alleged ISIS terror in Paris, as well as the Radisson Hotel terror in Bamako, Mali, is discussed.  Analysis of current state sponsored terror in general, within a larger global geopolitical and economic framework, is addressed.  Topics include the fundamental contradiction in the official narrative of the War on Terror versus the Islamic state or ISIS; Islamic State, a creation of U.S. intelligence; the geopolitical agenda; the militarization of Africa; the Berlin Conference in the late 19th century; foreknowledge of the Paris terror; French military escalation against Syria planned before the attacks; replication of the 9/11 discourse as a pretext to justify a new wave of bombing against Syria; attack by a foreign power justifies a state of war; the Doctrine of Collective Security, Article 5 of NATO; the Muslim community subjected to a witch hunt; the criminalization of the state and the financial system; the end of the French Republic.

Links and Resources:

***

[Working draft transcript of actual radio broadcast by Messina for Lumpenproletariat and Guns and Butter]

michel chossudovsky-consulvenemontreal.orgGUNS AND BUTTER—[16 MAR 2016]  “This is Guns and Butter.  [intro theme music]

DR. MICHEL CHOSSUDOVSKY:  “But the thing is that to enforce an imperial agenda, you scrap the Republic.  Now, Julius Caesar understood that perfectly well.  I can’t remember the exact quote.  But he said:  You don’t build an empire with a republic.  And I think that, in effect, what’s happening is that the republic is being scrapped.  It’s not only being scrapped in France, it’s being scrapped in America.”

BONNIE FAULKNER:  “I’m Bonnie Faulkner.  Today on Guns and Butter, Michel Chossudovsky.  Today’s show:  ‘State Terrorism: Franco American Style.’

“Michel Chossudovsky is an economist and is a founder, director, and editor of the Center for Research on Globalization based in Montreal, Quebec.  He’s the author or eleven books, including The Globalization of Poverty and the New World Order, War and Globalization: The Truth Behind September 11th, America’s “War On Terrorism”, The Globalization of Terror: America’s Long War Against Humanity. [3]

“Today, we discuss his most recent articles on the alleged ISIS terror in Paris as well as the Radisson Hotel terror in Bamako, Mali, a former French colony.  We analyse current state-sponsored terror in general within a larger global geopolitical and economic framework.

“Michel Chossudovsky, welcome.”  (c. 2:09)

DR. MICHEL CHOSSUDOVSKY:  “I’m delighted to be on Guns and Butter.”

BONNIE FAULKNER:  “On November 13, 2015, shootings and suicide bombings were staged in five different locales in Paris, the capitol of France.  130 people were killed.  Less than a week after the Paris gun-and-suicide-bomb attacks, a group of heavily armed gunmen stormed the Radisson Blu hotel in Bamako, the capitol of Mali, a former French colony, in which 21 people were killed.

“There have been a string of recent high profile terror attacks, from bombings in Beirut and the downing of a Russian airliner over the Sinai desert.

“Where do you think we should begin in trying to address all of these recent terror attacks?” (c. 2:59)

DR. MICHEL CHOSSUDOVSKY:  “I think there’s a fundamental contradiction in the official narrative, both, of the United States and, of course, of France and its allies.  The United States is leading a War On Terrorism, which is directed against the so-called Islamic State.  Yet, the evidence amply confirms that the Islamic State and the various al-Qaeda-related terrorist organisations are creations of US intelligence. [4]  They’re what are called, in intelligence parlance, intelligence assets.

“And the other dimension, of course, is that, in effect, Obama is not waging a campaign against the terrorists because these terrorists are, in fact, the foot soldiers of the western military alliance in Syria.  And they are, in fact, protecting these terrorists.  This is amply confirmed.

“And it’s come to our attention, since the onset of the Russian bombing.  And the Russians are going after the real terrorists.  So, that when an occurrence, such as that of Paris or Bamako is presented, then, to the media, although the media analyses these events, what they do is simply copy and paste official narratives without presenting an understanding of who is actually behind these terrorist organisations. (c. 4:47)

“Almost immediately, in the wake of the terrorist attacks in Paris, the French media went into overdrive stating, unequivocally, and that was prior to the conduct, even, of a police investigation, that the Islamic State was indelibly behind these attacks.

“And, then, the president François Hollande ordered by decree a national emergency, the suspension of civil liberties, the right to enter homes and arrest people without a warrant, and, at the same time, he closed down the borders.

“Now, this, as I recall, was announced a few minutes before midnight on November 13th, local time, prior to any consultation with any of his cabinet colleagues.  He actually confirmed that the cabinet meeting was to take place subsequently.  And, in his speech, he says:  We know who they are.  And, immediately, the French media says: This is the French-style 9/11.  And they, in other words, say in French:  Le 11 septembre à la française.

“And following from that, the official story prevails.  But the official story is based with the fundamental contradiction.  You can’t, on the one hand, say you are the victim of the Islamic State, when, in fact, you are the creator of the Islamic State.  It’s a non sequitur.  You cannot say that the attacks—and he was very explicit—the attacks from outside France, from Syria, originating from Syria, you can’t say that the attacks originating from Syria, directed against the French Republic and, at the same time, support covertly these same terrorists.  And there’s ample evidence that, not only, the United States and its allies supported the I.S.I.S. and its affiliates, such as the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. [4]  So, is France, with weapons, with training, with financing, and so on.

“So, that is the situation.  And what the French public and western public, in general, have been led to believe is that these terrorists are involved in crimes against humanity, without realising that, in fact, their intelligence services, which are under the auspices of an elected government, are manipulating these terror organisations, are supporting them, are providing them with weapons.” (c. 8:09)

BONNIE FAULKNER:  “You write that: The Islamic State, ISIS, the alleged architect of the Paris Attacks, was originally an al-Qaeda-affiliated entity created by U.S. intelligence with the support of Britain’s MI6, Israel’s Mossad, Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), and Saudi Arabia’s General Intelligence Presidency (GIP).

“You write that, quote:  ‘From the outset of Obama’s bombing campaign in August-September 2014, the U.S.-led coalition has not bombed ISIS rebel positions.’

“Has the U.S. counter-terrorism campaign been fake?” (c. 8:54)

DR. MICHEL CHOSSUDOVSKY:  “Well, absolutely. (c. 8:57) [SNIP]  [Dr. Chossudovsky explains that the so-called War On Terror is only a false pretext to push for a regime change in Syria.  The initiative for the western military alliance was started by NATO.  The USA and its allies are involved in a criminal undertaking.  Now, the bombing campaign is really in response to the fact that government forces had managed to pacify large portions of territory.  So, the western bombing is actually designed to destabilise the region.  However, nations such as Saudi Arabia are allied with the western powers.  And the actual terrorists continue to be trained in Afghanistan and Pakistan.  In fact, the proclaimed architect of the bombing of the Hotel in Bamako, Belmokhtar, was recruited by the CIA in 1991, when the Soviet-Afghan War was already over.  Yet, the CIA was still recruiting intelligence assets, which it could exploit in the Middle East/South Asia.  Many of these assets have been used by NATO towards US/NATO imperialist ventures, including training from the CIA.]  There’s CIA all over the place. (c. 16:18)

“And they cannot deny, because the evidence is so compelling, that the intelligence services of western countries are supporting the terrorists and, at the same time, the governments of western countries are waging a campaign, allegedly, against the Islamic State, when, in fact, they are also supporting the Islamic State.  And they are using this as a pretext to bomb a sovereign country, resulting in tens of thousands of casualties, a refugee crisis, the destruction of entire cities, and so on, during a period of four years.”  (c. 17:02)

BONNIE FAULKNER:  “[inhales]”

DR. MICHEL CHOSSUDOVSKY:  “That is the picture.  And we don’t need to start engaging in any kind of conspiracy theories to underscore the fact that, if the intelligence services of France and the United States are supporting I.S.I.S., and I.S.I.S. is designated as the threat to the security of the French nation, there’s an obvious contradiction because you can’t support the I.S.I.S. and, then, make a speech at 12 o’clock at night—I’m talking about president Hollande saying: We know who they are.  They’re attacking us.  They’re killing our people.

“So, I think, to put it mildly, president François Hollande has blood on his hands.” (c. 17:52)

BONNIE FAULKNER:  “I’m speaking with economist and director of the Centre for Research on Globalization, Michel Chossudovsky.  Today’s show:  State Terrorism: Franco American Style.  I’m Bonnie Faulkner.  This is Guns and Butter.

“Now, you’ve been referring to the Bamako, Mali attacks, the most recent terror attacks.  News media report that the Bamako terror operation was coordinated by Mokhtar Belmokhtar, whom you have mentioned.  What do you think is the significance of the Bamako attacks?  And were the Mali attacks in Bamako related to the Paris terror?  For instance, what was France’s role in the Libyan War and the take-down of Muammar Gaddafi?  Is this all related?” (c. 18:46)

DR. MICHEL CHOSSUDOVSKY:  “Well, let me put it this way.  Both attacks, both, the Paris Attacks as well as the Bamako attacks, have geopolitical implications.

“First, with regards to Paris, it’s worth noting that one week before these attacks occurred, Paris, the Hollande government had ordered the deployment of the Charles de Gaulle Aircraft Carrier Group to the Mediterranean, to the east of the Mediterranean.  And this was in support of the alleged campaign against terrorism in Syria.  So, that they were, actually, even before these attacks occurred, they’d already been preparing to send their, this powerful Navy and Air Force deployment to the Middle East in support of Obama’s campaign against the I.S.I.S. (c. 19:44)

“And, in the wake of the Paris attacks, as we recall, the French Air Force went in and bombed the alleged headquarters of I.S.I.S.  And the official declaration from the Ministry of Defence was that they had actually targeted the command post.  We got information from Syria that, in fact, what they targeted were health clinics, a museum, and a stadium, in other words, the country’s civilian infrastructure.  And that has been persistent throughout the last year, since the United States started to bomb Syria. (c. 20:24) [SNIP]

[Dr. Michel Chossudovsky also elaborated on the geopolitical implications of the Bamako attacks, namely to “create a pretext and a justification for the intervention of France and the United States in Sub-Saharan Africa.”  Again, argued Dr. Chossudovsky, all of the so-called terrorists are western intelligence assets.  The end goal is a recolonisation and militarisation of the African continent via AFRI-COM.  Dr. Chossudovsky also argued that French president François Hollande is a U.S. proxy, who acts in a subordinate role on behalf of Washington, D.C. to pave the way toward the U.S. colonisation of the African continent, which was originally colonised by the European empires.  The Berlin Conference carved up the African continent amongst the European imperialists, France, Portugal, Belgium, et al.] (c. 23:56)  The dollar will eventually replace the CFA Franc, which is a proxy currency linked to the French—well, it’s linked to the French Treasury, but it’s tied in to the Euro.

“And, so, that is the—I think that is the scenario.  It’s the conquest of the African Continent, which is supported by the mandate, the self-proclaimed mandate of the Obama administration to go after the terrorists in Sub-Saharan Africa: Boko Haram, AQIM, and so on.

“And they’re doing that in all the various areas where they want to extend their zone of influence.  So, you have, of course, in south-east Asia you will have Jemaah Islamiyah, in Indonesia and Malaysia.  And, then, you’ve got, of course, various other jihadist organisations in the western parts of China, which are involved, again, in insurgencies.  And they’re also supported by western intelligence via Pakistan’s ISI.” (c. 25:04)

BONNIE FAULKNER:  “It sounds like the United States and France are working very closely together.  And that there is, then, evidence that the French military escalation directed against Syria was planned before the November 13th terrorist attacks.

“What evidence is there, if any, of official foreknowledge of the Paris terror itself?”

DR. MICHEL CHOSSUDOVSKY:  “Well, you’re absolutely right that France has been participating in the bombing raids right from the outset.  (c. 25:38)  [SNIP]

[Dr. Chossudovsky cautiously approached the question of foreknowledge, citing an article in 1994 in a “widely read” “tabloid”, which is somehow “authoritative”.  This tabloid, argues Dr. Chossudovsky, predicted a 9/11-like attack in France.  Dr. Chossudovsky argues that French authorities used the bombings as a pretext to engage in US/NATO imperialism in target regions, particularly in Syria, citing Article 5, even though France was not under attack by a ‘foreign power’, even though the bombings were a police matter, not a military matter.]”  (c. 29:11)

“But they’re doing exactly the same.  They’re replicating the discourse, the 9/11 discourse, the fact that this is an attack from a foreign power.  It just so happens that that foreign power is in northern Syria somewhere.

“And they’re using this as a pretext to escalate the war against Syria, not against their proxy terrorists in Raqqa, and to justify a new wave of bombing by coalition forces.  And I think that is, ultimately, the agenda.” (c. 29:51)

BONNIE FAULKNER:  “I’m speaking with economist and director for the Centre for Research on Globalization, Michel Chossudovsky.  Today’s show:  ‘State Terrorism: Franco American Style.’  I’m Bonnie Faulkner.  This is Guns and Butter.” (c. 30:09)

DR. MICHEL CHOSSUDOVSKY:  “Then they have to confront Russia because Russia is also—Russia is going after the real terrorists.  Okay? (c. 30:16) [SNIP]  [Dr. Chossudovsky goes on to argue that US/NATO imperialists need a pretext to undermine Russia’s endeavours, which consist of destroying the foot soldiers of the western military alliance, i.e., the intelligence assets, which are the terrorists supported perversely by the CIA, MI6, and the Mossad.  Isreal is also behind the terrorists, as they’ve admitted that “they have a facility in the Golan Heights, which provides hospital treatment to wounded terrorists.] (c. 31:45)

“So, the issue is that none of what we’re discussing here will be given coverage in the mainstream media.  And the public is drowned with a humanitarian discourse.  Innocent people are being killed.  And it’s those events, where terrorists attack innocent people, which, ultimately, creates within everybody this feeling of solidarity, of fear as well.  Ultimately, when people die we feel it.  Okay?

“And, then, what we do is we side with the government.  Okay?  That’s what they’re doing.  And everybody’s siding with the French government, even people who hate them—François Hollande.  They’re siding with the French government because the French government is there to protect them.  And they are shocked and concerned about the loss of life.  And that concept, or that procedure there, is well-entrenched, in fact, in U.S. military doctrine. (c. 33:03)

“I should remind listeners of what was called Operation Northwoods.  It was during the Kennedy administration.  It was a secret plan by the Joint Chiefs of Staff to start killing people in the Miami Cuban community as well as in Washington with a view to justifying a war of retribution against Cuba.

“And I quote from the official document.  They said, We kill people in Miami and that creates, quote, ‘a useful wave of indignation’—okay?—‘indignation of U.S. public opinion,’ which is a normal thing.  Everybody has indignation when people are killed.

“And, then, they say:  Well, Cuba, Fidel Castro, has attacked America.  We have to attack Cuba in retribution.  Now, that is the logic of these so-called false flags.

“And Operation Northwoods, the documents are there.  People can go and consult them because those secret documents have been declassified after half a century.  And we know that the U.S., that the U.S. military were contemplating this.  It was turned down by Kennedy.  And it was also turned down by the Defense Secretary McNamara, at the time.  Okay?

“So that, in effect, it was a plot from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, no doubt also supported by U.S. intelligence at the time. (c. 34:44) [SNIP]  (c. 36:05)

BONNIE FAULKNER:  “I’m glad you mentioned Operation Northwoods because we are actually recording this interview on November 22nd [2015], which is the 52nd Anniversary of the assassination of the president in the United States.  Of course, we have seen endless war ever since.

“In terms of the media coverage of the Paris terror attacks, it seems like the notion of revenge is being used as a motivating factor.  And, of course, this is a contradictory claim.  Right?”

DR. MICHEL CHOSSUDOVSKY:  “Well, you know, revenge, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, has been with us for several thousand years.  You need a pretext to wage war.  And war, in the modern context, and the political leaders know that war is the ultimate crime under Nuremberg.  Whatever is the underlying motive, the only war, which is allowed, is a war of self defence.  Okay?

“You are allowed to defend yourself against aggression.  But, under Nuremberg, any act of war against a foreign country is a criminal undertaking. (c. 37:19) [SNIP]

[SNIP]

[SNIP]  (c. 59:59)

Learn more at GUNS AND BUTTER.

[This transcript will be expanded as time constraints, and/or demand or resources, allow.]

***

[1]  For more on Dr. Michel Chossudovsky, see:

A bio of Dr. Michel Chossudovsky, published by the Venezuelan Consulate in Montreal:

Born in Canada in 1946. He graduated as an Economist from the University of Manchester, England, and obtained a PhD at the University of North Carolina, USA; he is professor of economics (emeritus) at the University of Ottawa.

Chossudovsky has been a visiting professor in countries throughout Western Europe, Southeast Asia and Latin America. Also, he has been involved with consulting several different international organizations and has been an advisor to governments of developing countries.

He was the President of the Canadian Association of Latin America and the Caribbean. He is an active member of the anti-war movement in Canada and has written extensively on the war in Yugoslavia. After the September 11 attacks, he has been involved in highlighting the historical events between the Government of United States, Bin Laden and Al Qaeda.

His most outstanding work titled “The Globalization of Poverty” was published in 11 languages. It is also a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. In 2003 Chossudovsky won the prize for human rights for the protection of civil rights and human dignity in Berlin. Profesor Chossudovsky is President and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), an independent research and media organization based in Montreal, Canada.  This centre maintains a website that promotes different views about policies and international relations between the United States and NATO.

*

A bio of Michel Chossudovsky, published in the Ottowa Citizen, “Battling Mainstream Economics” by Juliet ONeill.

The faint moans of his daughter’s cello practice barely break the hush of Michel Chossudovsky’s household.

The kitchen, bathed in winter light, is gleaming. It is here, at a well-worn wooden table, that the University of Ottawa economics professor wants to talk.

The sunken-leather sofas of the living room — with its gallery of African masks, Peruvian pottery, Chinese teapots and other treasures from some of the 100 countries he has visited –would be “too comfortable.”

Stiff-backed chairs do feel more appropriate for the subject at hand: How poverty is increasing around the world and how this is not by accident, but by the design of a small, powerful banking and business elite at whose behest the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have provoked “economic and social collapse” in many countries.

The discussion is about widespread complacency toward what Mr. Chossudovsky calls a global financial crisis — in which private speculators wield more power than governments over central bank coffers — that may swerve into a crash far worse than the Dirty Thirties, jeopardizing pension and retirement savings funds.

It is about how so many people, expert and layman alike, accept a dominant “neo-liberal” economic dogma which makes suffering and sacrifice — from unemployment and social service cuts in Ontario to mass destitution in Russia — seem inevitable, if not justifiable and acceptable.

“Absurdity,” he says. “I have difficulty in understanding why the dismantling or closing down of productive assets — hospitals and schools — could constitute the key to prosperity. But that is what is actually being conveyed. The official mainstream economic agenda is that you have to close down, downsize, lay off, and that is the key to prosperity.”

Mr. Chossudovsky, a 52-year-old author who has learned to speak 10 languages and writes in three (English, French and Spanish), has persisted for three decades with an increasingly unfashionable perspective on world events.

It keeps him on the margins of mainstream commentary in Canada but wins praise from such equally anti-establishment social theorists as American Noam Chomsky.

He agrees to being described as having a leftist perspective, but emphasizes that he is not allied with any political party, including socialists, at home or abroad.

“One doesn’t know who the socialists are any more because the socialists are all in favour of the neo-liberal agenda,” he says. “If you look at socialists in Europe, what are they doing? They’re adopting austerity measures. I wouldn’t want to put a political label on myself because the neo-liberal consensus is supported by right-wing and left-wing parties alike, including the New Democratic Party.”

Raised in Geneva, Switzerland, Mr. Chossudovsky followed in his father’s footsteps by becoming an economist. But his father, a Russian emigre, made a career as a United Nations diplomat, while Mr. Chossudovsky put his economics training to use as a teacher and analyst. He came to the University of Ottawa in 1968, attracted by the promise of a bilingual lifestyle.

It was as a young visiting professor at the Catholic University in Santiago, Chile, that Mr. Chossudovsky’s interest in “economic repression” was first pricked.

Augusto Pinochet’s military junta, which overthrew Salvador Allende in 1973, quadrupled the price of bread and introduced other measures that would now be referred to as “a structural adjustment program.”

Mr. Chossudovsky set out, with a doctor, to study the malnourishment resulting from the bread price hike. He wound up with a paper that held the Pinochet regime responsible not only for conventional forms of political repression but for “economic repression” that impoverished three-quarters of Chile’s population.

Since then he has documented the purposeful impoverishment of people in dozens of countries. His latest book, the Globalization of Poverty, contains case studies of the collapse of economies and social structures in Somalia, Rwanda, Vietnam, India, Brazil, Peru, Russia and the former Yugoslavia. In some of these countries, IMF/World Bank intervention preceded violent conflict.

He refers often to “the hidden agenda” of the big banking and financial organizations. They orchestrate collapses, he says, by demanding payment of debt service charges and then lending money to cover the charges but only on condition the recipient country impose such measures as austerity, privatization and currency devaluation. The impact is usually destructive: mass shutdowns, huge unemployment, a wipeout of savings and pensions and purchasing power, a loss of social services.

Such economic shock therapy, he says, has pushed Russia, for one, “back to the medieval era,” impoverishing millions of people, deepening the country’s foreign debt, driving more than half the country’s industrial plants into bankruptcy and allowing organized crime to flourish in the banking, real estate and other sectors of the economy.

Mr. Chossudovsky generally condemns “the criminalization” of the global economy in which increasingly large amounts of drug money and other illegally obtained funds are deposited in the world’s 55 offshore havens, escaping taxation. The funds are laundered through an international banking system in which capital movement is easier than ever owing to the revolution in digital communications.

“This critical drain of billions of dollars in capital flight dramatically reduces state tax revenues, paralyses social programs, drives up budget deficits and spurs the accumulation of large public debts,” he writes.

An end to offshore tax havens is one of the few solutions Chossudovsky advocates. He also says the World Bank, International Monetary Fund and commercial banks should not be allowed to “pillage” the central banks of troubled countries.

He is much stronger on description than prescription. But his descriptions alone constitute a defiance of mainstream economic scholarship in which “critical analysis is strongly discouraged.”

It has not, however, stopped him from teaching for 30 years at U of O and as a visiting professor in several other countries, as well as publishing several books, the latest appearing in nine languages. And while the mainstream media in Canada do not publish his commentary, he is published frequently in Le Monde Diplomatique and smaller magazines that don’t have investors or business advertisers.

Prof. Michel Chossudovsky has documented impoverishment of people in dozens of countries.

[2]  Terrestrial radio transmission, 94.1 FM (KPFA, Berkeley, CA) with online simulcast and digital archiving:  Guns and Butter, hosted by Bonnie Faulkner, for Wednesday, 16 MAR 2016, 13:00 PDT.

[3]  Also see a selected Chossudovsky bibliography here.

[4]  With regard to “the evidence”, of which Dr. Michel Chossudovsky speaks, perhaps, we should begin with the research available at his website for the Centre for Research on Globalization, or Global Research.

***

[17 MAR 2016]

[Last modified 23:29 PDT  17 MAR 2016]

 

Drone (2014) directed by Tonje Hessen Schei Screens in New York & Toronto

20 Fri Nov 2015

Posted by in Anti-Imperialism, Anti-War, Free Speech

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Drone_2014_film_posterLUMPENPROLETARIAT—During today’s Democracy Now! broadcast, Amy Goodman and company have taken on the issue of drone warfare and imperialism.  (See text below, or video here.)  Goodman and company interviewed former U.S. military drone pilots risking prosecution by turning whistleblowers and also introduced free speech radio audiences to the 2014 Norwegian documentary film, Drone, directed by Tonje Hessen Schei.  Drone paints a chilling human face to the otherwise anonymous identity behind the US military’s drone strikes, as the military refocuses its recruiting toward detached videogamers.

John DeFore, reviewing for The Hollywood Reporter, called Drone “an important contribution to debates over a means of warfare that is just in its infancy”. DeFore said the documentary had an “effective and clear-headed” presentation of “multiple sides of the debate”. The critic concluded, “Drone takes a quick look at realities of the warfare industry and asks the obvious question: How will Americans feel when another government (or non-governmental entity) has remote-controlled death hovering constantly over our heads?”

Messina

***

THE NEW YORK TIMES—[19 NOV 2015]  This probably isn’t the best moment to find a receptive audience for a film that questions the American use of drone strikes in the war on terror. Regardless of whether armed drones would have been useful countering the attacks in Paris, those events have many people locked into a “whatever it takes” mentality when it comes to fighting extremism.

But “Drone,” a documentary by the Norwegian filmmaker Tonje Hessen Schei, has a lot to say that needs to be heard. Some of it is already fairly familiar, though that makes it no less urgent. The morality of killing people without trial and the substantial civilian casualties caused by the so-called targeted strikes have been the source of debate and protest for some time. And others have argued, as this film does, that drone warfare is actually a recruitment tool for terrorist groups because of the resentment it is generating.

But this film examines some less familiar issues, too, including how the makers of traditional weapons will respond as the increasing use of drones reduces demand for heavy armaments. There is also a chilling nod to the fact that drones aren’t the exclusive province of the United States or its allies.

Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff to Colin Powell when he was secretary of state, says, “There has never been any technology of warfare that isn’t ultimately adopted by your enemy or enemies.” Then comes an aerial shot of Lower Manhattan.

There are no suggested solutions here to the difficult issues raised, but the film at least reminds us that it’s important not to accept this new way of warring without scrutinizing it.

Learn more at THE NEW YORK TIMES.

***

DEMOCRACY NOW!—[20 NOV 2015]  “Exclusive:  Air Force Whistleblowers Risk Prosecution to Warn Drone War Kills Civilians, Fuels Terror”

Has the U.S. drone war “fueled the feelings of hatred that ignited terrorism and groups like ISIS“? That’s the conclusion of four former Air Force servicemembers who are speaking out together for the first time. They’ve issued a letter to President Obama warning the U.S. drone program is one of the most devastating driving forces for terrorism. They accuse the administration of lying about the effectiveness of the drone program, saying it is good at killing people—just not the right ones. The four drone war veterans risk prosecution by an administration that has been unprecedented in its targeting of government whistle-blowers. In a Democracy Now! exclusive, they join us in their first extended broadcast interview.

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.  [accessed 20 NOV 2015 10:16 PDT]

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Since the Paris attacks one week ago, France has escalated bombings of Syria, and the U.S. has vowed an intensification of its war on the Islamic State. With only a small number of U.S. special forces on the ground, Iraq and Syria have become new fronts in a global drone war that has launched thousands of strikes in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen and Somalia.

But now an unprecedented group is calling for the drone war to stop. In an open letter to President Obama, four U.S. Air Force service-members who took part in the drone campaign say targeted killings and remote control bombings fuel the very terrorism the government says it’s trying to destroy. The four whistleblowers write, quote, “We came to the realization that the innocent civilians we were killing only fueled the feelings of hatred that ignited terrorism and groups like ISIS, while also serving as a fundamental recruitment tool similar to Guantanamo Bay. This administration and its predecessors have built a drone program that is one of the most devastating driving forces for terrorism and destabilization around the world.”

They continue, saying, quote, “We witnessed gross waste, mismanagement, abuses of power, and our country’s leaders lying publicly about the effectiveness of the drone program. We cannot sit silently by and witness tragedies like the attacks in Paris, knowing the devastating effects the drone program has overseas and at home.”

AMY GOODMAN: On top of the toll on civilian victims, the letter also addresses the personal impact of waging remote war. All four say they have suffered PTSD and feel abandoned by the military they served, with some now homeless or barely getting by. The letter brings together the largest group of whistleblowers in the drone war’s history. Three of the signatories operated the visual sensors that guide U.S. Predator drone missiles to their targets. Two are speaking out for the first time; three in a TV broadcast, they’ve never done it before. The other two have previously raised their concerns about the drone program, including in the documentary, Drone. The film, premiering in New York City and Toronto today, reveals how a regular U.S. Air Force unit based in the Nevada desert is responsible for flying the CIA’s drone strike program in Pakistan.

BRANDON BRYANT: We are the ultimate voyeurs, the ultimate peeping Toms. I’m watching this person, and this person has no clue what’s going on. No one’s going to catch us. And we’re getting orders to take these people’s lives.

MICHAEL HAAS: You never know who you’re killing, because you never actually see a face. You just have a silhouette. They don’t have to take a shot. They don’t have to bear that burden. I’m the one that has to bear that burden.

P.W. SINGER: There’s always been a connection between the world of war and the world of entertainment. The military has invested in creating video games that they’re using as recruiting tools.

UNIDENTIFIED: War is an unbelievably profitable business.

CHRIS WALLACE: The drones have been terrifically effective. They’ve taken out a lot of the al-Qaeda leadership. It’s cheap. It doesn’t involve putting troops on the ground.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: I believe the United States of America must remain a standard-bearer in the conduct of war. That is what makes us different from those whom we fight.

UNIDENTIFIED: United States is violating one of the most fundamental rights of all: the right to life.

UNIDENTIFIED: There’s a large number of innocent civilians who are being killed, and that has to be reported.

CHRIS WOODS: The majority of the secret drone strikes that have taken place have, we have always understood, been carried out by the Central Intelligence Agency.

BRANDON BRYANT: There is a lie hidden within that truth.

AMY GOODMAN: The trailer for the documentary Drone, premiering today in New York City and Toronto. In speaking out together, the four former servicemembers risk prosecution under the Espionage Act by an administration that’s waged an unprecedented campaign against government whistleblowers. They also set their sights on a cornerstone of President Obama’s national security policy just as it threatens to escalate in the aftermath of the Paris attacks. After being elected to office on a platform of Iraq War opposition and a vow to bring the troops home, President Obama has quietly expanded the drone war far beyond its size and lethality under President George W. Bush.

Today, in this Democracy Now! exclusive, these four war whistleblowers join us in their first extended broadcast interview. We’re joined by Brandon Bryant and Michael Haas, who have spoken out to a certain extent before, both former sensor operators for the U.S. Air Force Predator program. Stephen Lewis, a veteran of the U.S. Air Force, is also a former sensor operator for the Air Force Predator program and this week is speaking out for the first time. Also going public for the first time is Cian Westmoreland, a former Air Force technician who helped build a station in Afghanistan used to relay drone data.

But first, I want to turn to Jesselyn Radack, national security and human rights director at the Government Accountability Project, former ethics adviser to the U.S. Department of Justice. As an attorney, she is representing several former drone operators, including this group of four young men who are speaking out today.

Jesselyn Radack, how much do they risk in speaking out on Democracy Now! today?

JESSELYN RADACK: They’re taking an enormous and very brave public risk in speaking out. I have clients in the national security and intelligence communities who have done nothing more than tell the truth about some of America’s darkest secrets, like torture and secret surveillance—and now, in this case, drones—and those clients, a number of them, have been prosecuted under the Espionage Act—and Edward Snowden, of course, another one, is living in exile—not because they’ve done anything wrong or even revealed classified information, which they’re not here to do today, but because they have embarrassed the U.S. government. All of these men—a number of them, half of them, have complained internally, to no avail. They have gone through internal channels.

And we’re hoping that today, by going public, that this will have more of an influence in the debate, because somehow there’s a complete disconnect between these terrorist attacks in Paris and elsewhere and the fact that the drone program has fueled ISIS and al-Qaeda and a number of terrorist groups, and that really needs to be addressed.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And I’d like to ask Brandon Bryant—we’ve had you on Democracy Now! a couple of years ago, and these guys here worked with you, as well. Could you talk about the decision to come out as a group, how you came to that and why at this particular point?

BRANDON BRYANT: Well, you know, when I first started talking out about my experiences, it was more to get a bunch of stuff off my chest and to actually try to come clean with what I have done and reveal what exactly is going on. And I’m actually really honored to be with these gentlemen right here, is that I trust them. And this is their decision to come out, and I’m here to support them, because I’ve already been doing this for three years, and it’s time that we just get a bigger coalition of people together to attack this issue.

AMY GOODMAN: Why did you sign this letter? And what are you calling on President Obama to do?

BRANDON BRYANT: We want the president to have more transparency in this issue, and we want the American people to understand exactly what’s being done in their name. And I think that all this fear and hatred that keeps going on is just out of control, and we need to stop it somewhere.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Michael Haas, I wanted to ask you, in terms of your experience in the drone program and the culture that the military basically allowed to flourish in the drone program, you’ve talked about how your fellow servicemembers talked about the children that they were targeting, as well.

MICHAEL HAAS: Yes, the term “fun-sized terrorists” was used to just sort of denote children that we’d see on screen.

AMY GOODMAN: What was it?

MICHAEL HAAS: “Fun-sized terrorists.”

AMY GOODMAN: “Fun-sized terrorists”?

MICHAEL HAAS: Yes. Other terms we’d use would be “cutting the grass before it grows too long,” just doing whatever you can to try to make it easier to kill whatever’s on screen. And the culture is—that mentality is very much nurtured within the drone community, because these—every Hellfire shot is sort of lauded and applauded, and we don’t really examine who exactly was killed, but just that it was an effective shot and the missile hit its target.

AMY GOODMAN: When did you start to have questions?

MICHAEL HAAS: Shortly after I became an instructor and I started to see how much the mentality had shifted since I had been in. And the 11th hadn’t really changed how they had trained their sensor operators from a basic-level standpoint.

AMY GOODMAN: The 11th is?

MICHAEL HAAS: The basic training squadron up at Creech. They train all the sensor operators.

AMY GOODMAN: This is at Creech in Nevada.

MICHAEL HAAS: Yes.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And you were a video game addict as you were growing up. Can you talk about this whole impact of sort of the video game approach to war?

MICHAEL HAAS: The thing that makes the gamers a prime target for this job field is that ability to just multitask and do a lot of things subconsciously and just sort of out of reflex. And you don’t really even have to think about it, which is, you know, paramount to doing this job. But a lot of it is getting used to just seeing something on screen, killing it and then going about your business as though you don’t really—you don’t really pay it a second thought. It was just an objective to be completed.

Learn more at DEMOCRACY NOW!

***

DEMOCRACY NOW!—[20 NOV 2015]  “From Console to Trigger: How Pentagon ‘Exploits’ Video Game Culture to Wire Youth for War”

Among the issues tackled in the new documentary film “Drone” is the connection between video games and military recruitment. We air a clip from the film and speak to its director, Tonje Hessen Schei, as well as drone war whistleblower Brandon Bryant. “I think gamers should be offended that the military and the government are using to manipulate and recruit,” Bryant says. “We’re more interconnected now than at any time in human history — and that’s being exploited to help people kill one another.”

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.  [accessed 20 NOV 2015  12:43 PDT]

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: I want to turn to a clip from the film Drone about the connection between video games and military recruitment. This clip features Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Bryan Callahan and former U.S. Navy pilot Missy Cummings. But first, P.W. Singer, author of Wired for War.

P.W. SINGER: There’s always been a connection between the world of war and the world of entertainment. And I call this phenomenon “militainment,” where the military world is actually now pulling tools from the world of entertainment to do its job better. The military has invested in creating video games that they’re using as recruiting tools.

LT. COL. BRYAN CALLAHAN: How do we find our 18X pilots? There’s been a lot of different theories. If you can answer that question or I can answer that question, you can make a lot of money for the Air Force right now, because we don’t know. We’re trying to get our arms around what really does make the best candidate for unmanned airplanes and how do we identify these people early.

MISSY CUMMINGS: Video gamers do have a skill set that is very important and actually enhances the skill set of drone operators. So, when I talk to people about this, I say, “We don’t need Top Gun pilots anymore. We need Revenge of the Nerds.”

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: We’re also joined by Tonje Hessen Schei, the director of the film, of Drone.

Tonje, welcome to Democracy Now! Could you talk about this whole issue of the recruitment of gamers by the military?

TONJE HESSEN SCHEI: Yeah, the gamers have been incredibly important for the U.S. military, and they have been targeting gamers in their recruiting strategies for the last decade. And this has been very successful, and it is now also spreading around the world. It is done in Germany and in Sweden and also in Norway. You know, gamers, their brains are pretty much wired to handle the challenges in modern warfare. And, you know, their eye-thumb coordination, their multitasking, their team fighting, the target shooting—they are basically perfect for the drone war.

And the relationship between the military and the entertainment industry, I think, is very, very important to take a close look at here. Our children are basically growing up playing real war scenarios from a very young age. And this game fight, you know, strange perception of war, has a big impact on them. To them, war is made to look fun, killing is made to look cool. And it really shapes them. And I think this “militainment” has a huge cost. And working with the drone operators, too, just seeing, you know, how the gaming attitude maybe is bleeding into how the drone program is operating, has been very disturbing to me.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, of course, you guys know, in your own experience, that you’re involved in a war where you never actually meet or see the people you’re killing. You have no direct relationship—no real relationship to the war that you’re actually playing such a critical role in. I’m wondering what you—your thoughts on that?

BRANDON BRYANT: Well, I think that one of the big things that we should address is, like, there’s a lot of gamers that have been offended by stuff that we’ve talked about. And there’s a lot of gamers that are offended by, you know, talking about the correlation between violence and video games. And there’s a lot of studies that are out there that say that only certain video games cause certain aspects of this violence. And, you know, I’m an avid gamer—or I was, at least. I’m trying to get back into it. And I love this medium. It’s just the drone program destroyed my love of this medium, as well.

And I think gamers should be offended that the military and the government are using this type of thing to manipulate and recruit these guys. It’s a blatant misuse of power, abuse of power. It shouldn’t be something along the lines of, like, “Yeah, I want to play this game with my friends,” or even people that you don’t—you don’t see them face to face. You meet a lot of people instantaneously all over the world. We’re so interconnected. We’re more interconnected now than we’ve ever been in the entirety of human history. And that’s being exploited to help people kill one another.

AMY GOODMAN: And, Michael Haas, as we wrap up, what you want people to be left with today? And there’s a large military audience here, too. What you have to say to your fellow servicemen and women?

MICHAEL HAAS: On the other side of that screen, they’re very real. It feels like a video game, and it looks like a video game, but it’s very, very real. And to keep that in mind and not become disconnected from your own humanity and not to take away theirs—that’s what I’d want to leave them with.

AMY GOODMAN: Cian Westmoreland?

CIAN WESTMORELAND: We should all take responsibility for what we do at all times. I have a cellphone in my pocket. It has metals in there that were extracted from the Democratic Republic of Congo, where there’s been a war for 15 years and 4 million—I think 4.4 million people have died. I know that, and that bothers me.

AMY GOODMAN: You’ve all left the military. Were you—did they request you re-enlist?

CIAN WESTMORELAND: Yeah.

AMY GOODMAN: Were you offered a bonus to re-enlist?

CIAN WESTMORELAND: We all were.

AMY GOODMAN: How much?

CIAN WESTMORELAND: $50,000.

AMY GOODMAN: How much, Michael?

MICHAEL HAAS: $80,000.

AMY GOODMAN: Stephen?

STEPHEN LEWIS: Over $100,000.

BRANDON BRYANT: $109,000, plus a step promotion and safety evaluation upgrader.

AMY GOODMAN: What did you say?

BRANDON BRYANT: I said, “F— that. I’m getting out.”

AMY GOODMAN: Stephen?

STEPHEN LEWIS: “I’m done.”

AMY GOODMAN: Michael?

MICHAEL HAAS: I made my decision to get out long before that re-enlistment became even an option.

AMY GOODMAN: Cian?

CIAN WESTMORELAND: I burned my uniform in my boss’s grill, and I hitchhiked around the world.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: But for so many young people, that’s a lot of money, and they’re tempted. I guess—and they’re going to keep increasing the bonuses, obviously, as the situation in the war on terror continues.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, I want to thank you all for being with us, very important what you had to say today. Brandon Bryant, Cian Westmoreland, Stephen Lewis and Michael Haas, thank you so much. Tonje Hessen Schei, director of the film, Drone, as well, and Jesselyn Radack, with the Whistleblower & Source Protection Program, known as WHISPeR, at ExposeFacts.

And that does it for our show. An update right now on what’s happening in Mali as we speak, the ongoing hostage situation in Bamako, the capital: The U.S. military says U.S. special operations troops are working with Malian special operation forces to free the more than 140 hostages still inside the Radisson Blu Hotel right there in Bamako, which was seized by suspected Islamist gunmen this morning.

And that does it for our broadcast. For the whole show today, you can go to our website at democracynow.org. The video is there, the audio is there, the podcast and the transcript of our broadcast. We are hiring a director of development to lead our fundraising efforts. You can find out more at democracynow.org.

Learn more at DEMOCRACY NOW!

***

DEMOCRACY NOW!—[20 NOV 2015]  “Exclusive: 2 Air Force Vets Speak Out for First Time on Why They Want the Drone War to Stop”

In an unprecedented open letter to President Obama, four U.S. Air Force servicemembers who took part in the drone war say targeted killings and remote-control bombings fuel the very terrorism the government says it’s trying to destroy. Two of the signatories, former sensor operator Stephen Lewis and former Air Force technician Cian Westmoreland, tell us why they are speaking out for the first time about what they did. “Anybody in the Air Force knows that an air strike has collateral damage a significant amount of the time,” Westmoreland says. “I’m saying it wasn’t all enemies. It was civilians, as well.”

Cian Westmoreland is a former Air Force technician who helped build a station in Afghanistan used to relay drone data.
Stephen Lewis is a veteran of the United States Air Force, and former sensor operator for the Air Force Predator program.

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.  [accessed 20 NOV 2015  11:19 PDT]

 

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Stephen Lewis, I wanted to ask you—you made one kill, and then you immediately appealed to your superiors about—about what you were doing. Could you talk about your experience, who you killed?

STEPHEN LEWIS: It was late 2009, and I was tasked to go support a troop in contact. And that’s whenever our troops are taking fire.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And this was in which country?

STEPHEN LEWIS: Oh, this is in Afghanistan. And during this troops in contact, we were told to go to this specific location. It was four guys walking down a mountain path. And I didn’t see any weapons. I didn’t see anything. About five minutes goes by, and two Hellfires come in, and they kill three people. And there was one wounded guy left. I was given clearance to—we were given clearance to fire the missile. And that guy just—he just wasn’t there anymore.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: This is—you were given clearance to fire at the wounded guy on the ground.

STEPHEN LEWIS: Yes.

AMY GOODMAN: So what did you do next?

STEPHEN LEWIS: Seriously re-evaluated my life. Shortly after that, I ended up writing a very, very convincing letter to my leadership and told them that I didn’t belong there, I didn’t want to do it anymore, and I wanted out.

AMY GOODMAN: And what was their response?

STEPHEN LEWIS: Six months later, I was out of the Air Force.

AMY GOODMAN: How are you chosen as a drone operator?

STEPHEN LEWIS: I was chosen basically at random. I went to imagery analysis school, which I—I wanted to look at satellite photos. That’s what I wanted to do. And about halfway through it, they come up and they say, “You’re going to Las Vegas. You’re going to go to sensor operator school, and you’re going to do this.” There’s—

AMY GOODMAN: Did they say why?

STEPHEN LEWIS: They don’t have to. There is no argument there. It’s “Yes, sir, yes, ma’am, I’ll do whatever you tell me to.”

AMY GOODMAN: And now that you’re out of the Air Force, how has what you did in the Air Force, being a drone operator, engaging in that kill, affected you?

STEPHEN LEWIS: It makes any kind of relationship difficult. I can’t—I can’t communicate properly with my friends. I have to preface it with “I’m sorry, guys. I can’t hang out with you tonight. There’s too much going on right now.” It’s, in effect, killed every single relationship that I’ve had afterwards. I can’t—

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: What about this issue that you raise in your letter, how the drone program is actually helping to fuel or create more terrorism?

STEPHEN LEWIS: Well, it’s been noted in the film, Drone, that kids are afraid to go outside and play, or go to school during the day, whenever the sun is out, whenever the sun is shining, because they’re afraid that they’re going to get struck by a drone.

AMY GOODMAN: Why don’t we go to that—why don’t we go to that clip from the film? This is from the film Drone. In 2012, a 67-year-old Pakistani woman was killed by an alleged U.S. drone while picking okra in a field with her grandchildren. In 2013, we spoke to her grandchildren, Nabila and Zubair, who were then nine and 13. Both of them were injured in the strike that killed their grandmother. This begins with Zubair.

ZUBAIR UR REHMAN: [translated] I had gone to school that day, and when I came back, I had a snack, and I offered my prayers. And my grandma asked me to come outside and help her pick the vegetables.

AMY GOODMAN: You were hit by this drone that killed your grandmother?

ZUBAIR UR REHMAN: [translated] Yes, I had seen a drone, and two missiles hit down where my grandmother was standing in front of me. And she was blown into pieces, and I was injured to my left leg.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Nabila, you’re nine years old. How have things changed for you since the attack? How’s your—going out again, out into the fields alone, do you fear again other possible attacks?

NABILA UR REHMAN: [translated] Ever since the strike, I’m just scared. I’m always scared. All of us little kids, we’re just scared to go outside.

AMY GOODMAN: That’s Nabila and, before that, Zubair, her brother, the Rehmans, talking about the drone strike that killed their grandma in Pakistan. They also testified with their dad, who wasn’t there when they were picking okra with their grandmother. They testified in the U.S. Congress. Now, that happened in Pakistan. Your target was in Afghanistan.

STEPHEN LEWIS: I don’t think a matter of 500 miles makes a difference. The culture is very, very similar. And you’re creating an atmosphere of fear. And there’s an old saying in Texas: You don’t back a scared animal up against the wall. And if you do that, he’s going to come out fighting. And that’s exactly, I think, what’s happening now.

AMY GOODMAN: Has the VA provided mental help to you as you suffer?

STEPHEN LEWIS: I’ve been to the VA, but it seems useless. It seems useless for me. It’s been six months. They’ve said, “Hey, you need an MRI.” It’s been six months without an MRI. It’s “Hey, you need medication to manage this pain.” It’s been six months without medication to manage pain. If they’re not going to take care of you, then why should you even go?

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Cian, I wanted to ask you—you were a technician in the drone program. Could you talk about what specifically you did and how your duties differed from the operators?

CIAN WESTMORELAND: Right, so we built a site that was used as a relay station while we were there. The—

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: While you were in Afghanistan?

CIAN WESTMORELAND: While I was in Afghanistan, yes, at Kandahar. And we were taking in signals from all over Afghanistan, 250,000 square miles, like, essentially. And we were relaying it and sending it long haul, so from there to the Combined Air Operations Center. And, you know—

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Which is located where?

CIAN WESTMORELAND: In Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, and then to Ramstein. And pretty much, we had been building, you know, the site, and one day my boss came to me and everybody else, and he handed us a headset, and we were listening to, you know, an airplane talking to—it was an A-10 talking to a battle manager. And they—he smiled, and he said, “We’re killing bad guys now, boys.”

And I think—I think why it was so significant for me was my father was actually working at a headquarters in Kuwait during 9/11, and he was ordering the missile parts, too, for the initial bombing. And he was telling me some of the culture that was there and the people making command decisions. They would go after certain targets, and then they would have missiles left over, and they would find targets, which was essentially anybody who was wearing white. That was my first thought whenever he said, “We’re killing bad guys now, boys.”

AMY GOODMAN: Explain what you mean by anyone wearing white.

CIAN WESTMORELAND: Anyone wearing white.

AMY GOODMAN: Why white?

CIAN WESTMORELAND: Because of the stigma that people who wore white were Taliban. So, those were the thoughts that were running through my head while I was there. I started having nightmares about what I did, hurting children, and me trying to help them and not being able to.

AMY GOODMAN: What year was this?

CIAN WESTMORELAND: It was in 2009. And whenever—whenever we got back, we got a piece of paper. It was the enlisted performance report. And it said on it that we had supported 2,400 close air support missions and assisted in 200-plus enemy kills, which I knew was wrong, because anybody in the Air Force knows that an airstrike has collateral damage, you know, a significant amount of the time.

AMY GOODMAN: So you’re saying you knew it was much more.

CIAN WESTMORELAND: Well, I’m saying that it wasn’t all enemies. It was civilians, as well. And when I looked at the UNAMA report that came out early the next year, it was saying somewhere upward of 350 civilian kills. So, it’s kind of—it’s made me sort of re-evaluate what I was doing there, and try and figure out, you know, exactly how we—we got that on our piece of paper.

And we—well, I guess I’ve come to the conclusion that, you know, these are the people that were actually administering the strikes. You had pilots that pulled the trigger, you had imagery analysts that picked the targets, and the—you know, the decision maker. And all within the system, it’s—the responsibility for killing the person is divided, so nobody feels the full responsibility of what they’re doing. And I think that we’re moving towards a world where—in aerial warfare, where increasingly there’s going to be more technicians and less decision makers. And I think we should open up a new paradigm of, you know, ethics and what it means to do your duty as a technician. And I think one of the more influential voices for me was Oppenheimer, the—

AMY GOODMAN: J. Robert Oppenheimer.

CIAN WESTMORELAND: J. Robert Oppenheimer, yeah, exactly, who developed the atomic bomb. And, I mean, to see the effects of that must have been devastating. He must have felt like a destroyer of worlds. And I think, for me, that’s kind of how I feel, because all the signals were coming through there, and everybody who was making that system work was responsible. And I think how this applies to Germany is that the air base in Ramstein housing that data relay station, the people there are responsible for whatever signals that are going through there. And the German government, not communicating to the public or not knowing what we were doing, it was a big disrespect on America’s part and potentially the German government’s part. I’m not saying that they knew.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: I wanted to ask you—

AMY GOODMAN: We have to break—

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Oh, OK.

AMY GOODMAN: —but then we’re going to come back to your question, Juan. J. Robert Oppenheimer’s quote—I think he was quoting the Bhagavad Gita, “I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.” J. Robert Oppenheimer, one of the—he was the leading scientist that created the atomic bomb in New Mexico. And you live in New Mexico, right, Cian?

CIAN WESTMORELAND: Yes.

AMY GOODMAN: Cian Westmoreland, Stephen Lewis, Brandon Bryant and Michael Haas, four young men who are speaking out—between them, more than 20 years of experience operating military drones. They have all written a letter to President Obama. We urge you to stay with us as we continue this discussion. Back in a minute.

Learn more at DEMOCRACY NOW!

***

[Last modified 20 NOV 2015  12:43 PDT]