In the fall of last year I traveled to Pakistan. Reports of civilian drone casualties were beginning to permeate through American news outlets, prompting myself, and Brave New Foundation, to launch a full-length documentary investigation into the claims coming out of the tribal regions. In interview after interview I heard the stories of numerous victims and families who had relatives killed and maimed by drones.

Signature Strike Investigation

It was then that I discovered the term ‘signature strike.’ These strikes are an exercise in profiling, absent of evidence or even names of targets — effectively acting as judge, jury, and executioners of tribal Pakistan. The confluence of testimonials from tribal people, and a new understanding of signature strikes brought me to one particular drone strike on the village of Datta Khel, North Waziristan and resulted in Brave New Foundation’s latest investigatory video.

On March 17, 2011 a CIA-controlled drone fired as many as four missiles at what they thought was a large group of militants in the village of Datta Khel. In fact, they targeted a peaceful Tribal Council, or Jirga, massacring over 40 tribal leaders and devastating entire communities… At Datta Khel, the CIA saw a large group of armed men gathering for a meeting and summarily nominated them for execution.

The self-deceit within the administration, and by extension the CIA, reached new heights when two months after 40 civilians were brutally slaughtered John Brennan stood up and claimed that there had been no civilian casualties in the past year.

Four tribal elders, first responders, and survivors of the attack were able to help me uncover the truth about the drone attack at Datta Khel. Tribal leader Jalal Manzar Khail remembers seeing the drones hovering in the sky that entire morning — sizing up their target. Minutes into discussions, drone strikes rained down on the gathering, recalls tribal Malik Ahmed Jan, rendering him unconscious and permanently injuring his legs. Relatives and neighbors rushed to the scene to encounter burning mass of bodies and dismembered limbs. Noor Khan had trouble recognizing his father, Malik Daud Khan, because of the severe burns to his body. Their testimonials are featured in Brave New Foundations investigation into the true cost of America’s Drone War.

As I listened to the stories of the survivors and victims, it became strikingly apparent that the CIA simply had no idea whom they were targeting. These strikes may be technically accurate, but the intelligence on which they are based is damningly flawed. Following President Obama’s Counter-terrorism speech last month, major news outlets mistakenly or wishfully reported the end of signature strikes. Make no mistake, they will continue in Pakistan. The Obama administration has altered its policy towards Pakistan in rhetoric only. Signature strikes account for the majority of the CIA’s attacks in Pakistan. And as long as they continue we will see more strikes like those Datta Khel, and more innocent civilians killed. In doing so they make each of us in United States and Pakistan less safe, and less secure, as we once more attempt to kill our way to security.

This investigation is the first step in a campaign to end signature strikes, and the first piece of a full-length film documenting the true cost of the U.S. drone war. Myself, and Brave New Foundation will be presenting a series of videos exposing the U.S. drone program’s failed policies. Sadly, minus a few voices, our political leaders have come to a bipartisan consensus to eschew debate of our unmanned systems program. By signing this petition, we can move on congress and present a broad-based consensus to end signature strikes.

From the Boiling Frogs Show Podcast, with FBI Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds and Radio Host Peter B. Collins:

In this bombshell episode of the Boiling Frogs Post Podcast Show NSA whistleblower Russ Tice joins us to go on record for the first time with new revelations and the names of official culprits involved in the NSA’s illegal practices. Mr. Tice explains in detail how the National Security Agency targets, sucks-in, stores and analyzes illegally obtained content from the masses in the United States. He contradicts officials and the mainstream media on the status of the NSA’s Utah facility, which is already operating and “On-Line.” He reveals the NSA as a Deep State that targets and wiretaps US political candidates for its own purposes. We discuss the latest controversies involving the NSA, PRISM, Edward Snowden, and the spins and lies that are being floated by the US mainstream and pseudo-alternative media.

Source: http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2013/06/19/podcast-show-112-nsa-whistleblower-goes-on-record-reveals-new-information-names-culprits/

Update: Tice says that NSA wiretapped Senate candidate Barack Obama (contra my original title that said “Then-Senator”)

Add’l Source: PBC News & Comment: Bombshell NSA Revelations from Russell Tice (The Peter B. Collins Show website)

Full BFP Podcast available here (.mp3)

There are more things in heaven and earth, Barack, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Not that presiding over Bush’s 3rd and 4th terms requires much of a philosophy, all it requires is a nice suit, a Pretty Words Dictionary, an abundant supply of drones, and a functioning website

Having helpful friends at the helpful NSA and helpful FBI is also a helpful help when controversy rears its unhelpful head and decision points must be reached regarding when and how and where to catapult the propaganda so the terrorists won’t win.

For example . . .

In solemn testimony to Congress on behalf of the Powers That Be, Inc., NSA Director Keith Alexander and FBI Deputy Director Sean Joyce reassured Americans that their civil liberties would never ever be violated by the NSA or the FBI or the CIA or the DIA or by any police or sheriff’s departments anywhere for any reason whatsoever. Alexander’s closing remarks were especially solemn and fully restored the trust of the American people in the entire intelligence community, particularly in the leadership of the NSA and FBI . . .

The director of the National Security Agency was overheard offering a round of beer to the FBI’s second-in-command following Tuesday’s congressional hearing on the NSA’s controversial surveillance programs. The three-hour hearing had just wrapped up around 1 p.m. when NSA Director Keith Alexander turned to FBI Deputy Director Sean Joyce and praised him for his testimony. ‘Thank you, Sean,’ Alexander said, according to a clip of the exchange that was first reported by Ben Doernberg. ‘Tell your boss I owe him another friggin’ beer,’ he added. Yeah?’ Joyce responded. ‘Yeah,’ said Alexander. Alexander and Joyce sat side-by-side during the hearing and took turns answering questions from lawmakers about the recently disclosed government surveillance programs.

Call me a radical anarchist Firedog worshipping nihilist America hater, but I solemnly think this Shakespeare quote should be flashed at the bottom of the screen every time an NSA or FBI or White House hack “testifies” about those enhanced surveillance techniques they’re being so transparent about . . .

“We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us.”

If they actually believed in transparency, they’d put up billboards all over the Beltway emblazoned with another relevant observation from Shakespeare . . .

HELL IS EMPTY AND ALL THE DEVILS ARE HERE

We don’t have a government any more, it’s become a national security cult of schizophrenic, egocentric, paranoiac prima-donnas . . .

Before I head to the comment thread to answer questions from lawmakers, I’m going to post Edward Snowden’s concise summary of the new reality confronting them . . .

The US Government is not going to be able to cover this up by jailing or murdering me. Truth is coming, and it cannot be stopped.

Edward Snowden’s actions have inspired several protests worldwide.

Because he’s using non-violent direct action, and not merely blowing the whistle in the traditional sense.

What’s the difference?

Traditional whistleblowers raise concerns internally–to an Inspector General, to one’s boss, to Congress–and only then do they go to the media. Their identities get exposed, their lives come under scrutiny for a few days or weeks, and then they’re left to fend for themselves in court while the rest of us have moved on. If they followed the rules so far, the issue gets aired, debated, and then forgotten. The public shows somewhat-abstract concern, but most of us don’t have a dog in the fight, if only once the issue gets resolved at some level or the whistleblower moves past the crisis stage.

Snowden, by contrast, is using a different playbook. If you despise how he blew the whistle but condemn what the government is doing, you’re probably going through cognitive dissonance that you’ll have to resolve. If you don’t mind (or you admire) how he blew the whistle and condemn what the government is doing, you feel inclined to defend him to others. If you hate what he did and you support the government’s actions, you’re inclined to defend the government to others.

In others words, you have to pick a side. There are no bystanders here.

There’s a name for this kind of strategy: creative tension.

Americans are hysterical. This was evident in the reaction to Chris Hayes’ thoughtful question whether we should be calling American service-people “heroes” in knee-jerk fashion. We neither think straight on many issues nor are we prone to thinking slow and relying on what we know.

This hysteria is just now beginning to be questioned. In The Terror Con, Robert Scheer points out that that the official National Security apparat isn’t populated with dedicated public servants, those “extraordinary professionals” President Obama demands we praise and admire, but career revolving-door bureaucrats intent on keeping the national security gravy-train running full bore. More to the point is the Council on Foreign Relations article pointing out that the chances of any American dying or being injured from an act of terror on US soil is infinitesimally small.

So let’s examine this. As it happens, courtesy of the Global Terrorism Database, we have real data which is easily downloaded from The Guardian (hint: Go to “Spreadsheet View”, then click on “File/Download as . . “). The two far-right columns list the numbers of killed and injured, which I summed separately, then added them together. My manipulations of this spreadsheet consisted solely of resizing column widths, filling in the empty cells in these columns with zeros and performing the addition.

So what do we find? Well, in the 41 year period stretching from 1970 to 2011, a grand total of 8,276 Americans were killed AND injured in terror attacks on American soil. While that’s tragic, is it really that immediate a threat? Let’s compare.

That 8,276 figure of killed and injured over a 41 year period comes in just shy of the 8,593 Americans who were murdered by guns in just 2011 (FBI Statistics of Crime in the US – Expanded Homicide Data Table 8).

That 8,276 figure is way less than the 33,808 Americans who died in auto accidents (xls – Source: census bureau).

Seniors are also at much elevated risk. 20,400 elderly Americans died in just 2009 from falls (Center for Disease Control).

About 2000 – 3000 Seniors are also starving to death in America, and this is nothing short of outrageous.

As I’ve said many times, we must ask ourselves some questions and be honest about the answers. What is the actual threat? Where should our resources go? Now that we know for certain that the surveillance state exists, should we accept the threat to our civil liberties this represents? Is the $5 trillion we spent on the global war on terror as of 2011 anything but a colossal waste of money? A colossal waste of lives and effort?

Washington passed the Patriot Act in October, 2001. Were we fully rational then?

Are we behaving rationally now, or just conning ourselves?

This article is co-authored by Ben Jealous

One of our most important rights as Americans is the freedom to express ourselves. This takes the form of voting, it takes the form of activism, and it takes the form of our First Amendment right to free speech.

This summer, the 9th Circuit Court in California is weighing the question of whether companies have the right to take preemptive legal action against peaceful protesters for hypothetical future protests. This will be an extraordinary decision that could have a significant impact on every American’s First Amendment rights.

The case, Shell Offshore Inc. vs. Greenpeace, was filed by Shell Oil Company. Last summer, Shell assumed –based on conjecture — that Greenpeace USA would protest the company’s drilling in the Alaskan Arctic.  Shell asked the 9th Circuit court for a preemptive injunction and restraining order against Greenpeace USA [Full disclosure: Philip Radford is the executive director of Greenpeace USA].

Despite Greenpeace’s appeal, the court granted the injunction for the entire duration of the drilling period, a decision which effectively gave a federal blessing to the company’s wish to do its controversial work in secret.

Greenpeace has asked the court for a full review, and this summer, the court will decide the ultimate fate of the case.

If the court rules in Shell’s favor, it would have a profound chilling effect on First Amendment rights across the country. Nothing would stop other corporations from taking similar preemptive legal action against anyone they deem to be likely protesters. That could be an environmental group, it could be a civil rights group, or it could be a Tea Party group — or anyone in between.

Even if the most frivolous of these suits were eventually overturned on appeal, it would still set a dangerous precedent. Anyone who wants to silence a protest outside a convention, a disaster site, or any political space would have legal precedent to do so for as long as their lawyers could keep the case in court.

This case isn’t just about the fate of the Arctic. It is about the state of our democracy.

Entrenched power, whether corporate or governmental, wants to keep things just the way they are. For generations, ordinary people of social conscience who see injustice in the status quo have exercised their First Amendment rights in order to make the changes necessary for progress.

It isn’t always easy.

In 1965, after years of dedication to the Civil Rights Movement, Julian Bond was one of the first African-Americans since Reconstruction elected to the Georgia House of Representatives. Even though Bond won his election fairly and took a legally binding oath of office, his colleagues voted to deny him his right to speak in the Assembly. Despite the clear racial motivations, Bond was undaunted. He filed a federal lawsuit claiming that the Georgia House had violated his First Amendment rights, and the case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court. Bond’s right to speak was ultimately upheld.

In his decision, Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote that the case was central to the function of the First Amendment. Warren wrote:

Just as erroneous statements must be protected to give freedom of expression the breathing space it needs to survive, so statements criticizing public policy and the implementation of it must be similarly protected.

As Bond and Chief Justice Warren recognized, the right to protest is a foundational American right. In fact, this tradition, forged by Henry David Thoreau, Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks, and countless others, is the only thing that puts the power of the people on any kind of scale relative to the power of multibillion dollar corporations or entrenched government power.

Our power as citizens lies in our ability and willingness to protest.  Without the right to speak and protest, the civil rights, environmental, and other movements would never have accomplished the great things we have. Right now Shell is trying to set a precedent to restrict Americans’ First Amendment rights. If they succeed, it will have a devastating and chilling effect on our democracy.

We are Robert and Jenn Meeropol, son and granddaughter of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg. We are acutely aware of the political lessons to be drawn from the conviction and execution of the Rosenbergs (60 years ago today) at the height of the McCarthy period. The charge was conspiracy to commit espionage, but our family members were presented as traitors who gave the Soviet Union the secret of the atomic bomb.

The Rosenberg Foundation tries to give activists’ children a better future than the offspring of the famous couple.

The US government used the Rosenberg case to attempt to prove to the public that the international communist conspiracy threatened the American way of life, and claimed fighting communism required that human rights and civil liberties take a back seat to national security (more information about the case is available).

Today, the US government asserts that danger from the international terrorist conspiracy and their weapons of mass destruction justifies massive surveillance, indefinite detention and even torture. Authorities say we must guard national secrets even more securely to avoid destruction. Today, the issues raised by the Rosenberg case resonate from the Oval Office of the White House to Bradley Manning, who is being tried under the Espionage Act of 1917, as were Ethel and Julius.

But there are other, more personal, lessons to draw as well.

From the ages of three to seven, I, Robert, lived a nightmare. After my parents’ arrest, relatives were too frightened to take my brother Michael and me into their homes, so we were dumped in a shelter. After the executions, we were thrown out of the New Jersey state school system when local residents found out about our parentage.

In 1954, in a politically motivated attempt to separate us from Rosenberg supporters, Michael and I were seized by New York City police from the home of our prospective adoptive parents and placed in an orphanage. But Abel and Anne Meeropol won the ensuing custody battle, our last name was changed to theirs, and we dropped from public sight for almost two decades. During those growing-up years, I dreamed of revenge.

I, Jenn, was two years old when my father and uncle decided to reclaim their heritage by mounting a public campaign to force the US government to release secret files relating to the Rosenbergs case. My dad worried that his actions might expose me to trauma and fear, similarly to his childhood experience. I was safe in my family but profoundly aware of what had happened to my grandparents. I grew up with sadness and anger about what was done to Ethel and Julius, as well as a fierce pride in who they were and what they stood for.

As I entered college in 1990, my father started the Rosenberg Fund for Children (RFC, www.rfc.org), a public foundation to help children who are experiencing similar nightmares to what he lived through as a child. The RFC is a way to transform the destruction placed on his family into a positive force to benefit a new generation of families, the way a community of support rallied to aid him and his brother after their parents were killed.

As a young adult, I watched the RFC help hundreds of children who grew up with political targeting in their families. I realized that they probably endured a similar stew of emotions – sorrow and anger, pride and obligation – to my dad’s, and my own. Growing up, I also dreamed of getting retribution from the forces that killed my grandparents before I could know them.

I joined the RFC’s staff in 2007 as granting coordinator. Now, during this 60th anniversary year of my grandparents’ execution, my father will retire as executive director and I will take over the helm of the organization he founded.

We both think of the RFC as our revenge – our constructive revenge. When bad things happen to people, to families and communities, it is natural to want to strike back, to settle the score. The wish to avoid being a passive victim is healthy, but revenge itself is usually destructive. For us, harnessing our desire to strike back and focusing it on creating a positive response is personally satisfying, and our contribution to making a positive difference in the world.