Mercury Systems Announces Safety-Certifiable Multi-Core Solution for Avionics and Communications

From:  NasDaq

NOTE:  Along with polluting industries companies such as Green Hills Software, Inc. (GHS), will find themselves mentioned in the now coming online Lincoln's Risk-Registry.  Look for announcements.  

BUILTSAFE ROCK-2 SUBSYSTEM INTEGRATED WITH INTEGRITY-178 IS ALIGNED TO FACE STANDARD

ANDOVER, Mass., Oct. 20, 2017 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Mercury Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ:MRCY) (www.mrcy.com) announced that its BuiltSAFE™ ROCK-2 avionics subsystem is now available pre-integrated with the Green Hills Software safe and secure INTEGRITY-178 tuMP® (time-variant unified multiprocessing) real-time operating system (RTOS). INTEGRITY-178 tuMP enables the full multi-core capabilities of the ROCK-2 subsystem to be utilized for applications requiring DO-178C certification. The combined software and hardware solution is aligned with the Future Airborne Capability Environment (FACE™) V2.1 Technical Standard and was demonstrated at this week's FACE Technical Interchange Meeting.  MORE

ALEC Assembles "Most Wanted" List, and Oklahomans Say "ALEC Is Not OK"

From:  PR Watch 

COMMENT -  The overall action by the corporate structure which has controlled America for so long, of which GHS is a recent addition, will also, occasionally, be covered here as it directly relates to the GHS story.  Recent events at the ALEC conference in Oklahoma fall into this category.  

Although John Fund, a close associated with drone contractor Green Hills Software, Inc., was not at the ALEC event this year he routinely attends.  Here is information on him from Source Watch.  Also, find out about the slightly private but equally seamy side of his life HERE. 

by Brendan Fischer — May 6, 2013 - 7:44am

 -- by Brendan Fischer and Nick Surgey --

In anticipation of protests at ALEC's recent meeting in Oklahoma City, state legislators were handed a set of talking points that read "The American Legislative Exchange Council recognizes the first amendment rights of free speech and assembly, and asks that _____ do the same," apparently to prepare legislators for press questions about citizen activism. But ALEC didn't live up to those spoon-fed talking points: ALEC assembled a dossier of disfavored reporters and activists, kicked reporters out of its conference who might write unfavorable stories, and managed to boot a community forum critical of ALEC from its reserved room.
In what might be the biggest anti-ALEC rally yet, the ALEC legislators and lobbyists arriving at the Renaissance Hotel on May 2 were greeted by a wave of protesters that outnumbered the conference attendees.
More than 600 firefighters, teachers, environmentalists, and church leaders carried signs reading "ALEC is Not OK" and chanting "backroom deals are ALEC's game/sweetheart deals for corporate gain," while a giant inflatable pig wearing a banner reading "Hi, my name is ALEC" floated overhead. Two big rigs adorned with Teamsters logos circled the convention center, honking their horns and blowing air brakes. Harold A. Schaitberger, President of the International Association of Fire Fighters, told the crowd that ALEC's "sole purpose is to develop the most anti-worker, anti-employee, anti-union, anti-middle class, pro-business, pro corporation policies, legislation and agenda possible."
Inside, white men in dark suits milled in the lobby of the Renaissance Hotel and the neighboring Cox Convention Center. Laughter floated through the hotel bar as corporate lobbyists (with a "private sector" tag on their name badge) huddled with state legislators (wearing "public sector" tags).
Fresh-faced interns hustled through the crowds, appearing exhilarated to be in the midst of dealmaking and power brokerage. Oklahoma City Police Officers in full uniform -- but reportedly off-duty and paid by ALEC -- stopped anyone not wearing a name badge from entering ALEC's sections of the convention center.

"We Know Who You Are"

On the morning of May 3, Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin -- an ALEC "Legislator of the Year" in 2009 -- gave the ALEC meeting's keynote address. The short, relatively generic speech was the only portion of the ALEC event open to the press: the task force meetings where prospective "model bills" are discussed and adopted were entirely closed-door and guarded by police.
Center for Media and Democracy Research Director Nick Surgey obtained press credentials at the ALEC registration desk. As he ascended the escalator towards the room where Governor Fallin was speaking, though, he was spotted by two ALEC staffers, and within minutes approached by a uniformed Oklahoma City police officer.
"I need those credentials," the officer said.
"I registered," Surgey replied.
"No, you didn't," said a female ALEC staffer, who was accompanying the officer.
"I did, downstairs," he said.
"It was... you shouldn't have been able to."
The reason Surgey shouldn't have been allowed to register, according to the ALEC staffer:
"Because we know who you are."

ALEC's Most Wanted

How does ALEC know who Surgey is?
CMD later obtained a document titled "OKC anti-ALEC photos" at the ALEC conference.
The page featured the pictures and names of eight people, four of whom work with CMD, including Surgey, CMD's general counsel Brendan Fischer and its Executive Director Lisa Graves, as well as CMD contributor Beau Hodai.
It is not known whether the photo array of people who have reported on or criticized ALEC was distributed to ALEC members or shared with Oklahoma City law enforcement.
Other targets on the document included The Nation's Lee Fang, who has written articles critical of ALEC, and Sabrina Stevens, an education activist who spoke out in an ALEC task force meeting last November. Also featured were Calvin Sloan of People for the American Way and Gabe Elsner of Checks and Balances Project, both of whom are ALEC detractors.
The name of ALEC Events Director Sarah McManamon was in the top corner, indicating the document was printed from her Google account.

Press Cannot Attend ALEC Meetings Because They Are "Going to Write an Article about It"

Although ALEC knew Surgey's name, the courtesy was not reciprocated.
"Can I ask your name?" Surgey asked the ALEC staffer who challenged his press credentials.
"Erm, why?" she replied.
"Is there any reason you wouldn't want to tell me your name?"
"Yeah, because I know who you are," she said.
The staffer -- whose organization had developed talking points claiming to support the First Amendment, which protects a free and vibrant press -- added:
"Because you're going to write an article about it."
Less than ten minutes after registering as press, Surgey had his credentials revoked and was ejected from the ALEC meeting by a police officer. As he was escorted away, the ALEC staffer repeated: "We know exactly who you are."
Even before the Oklahoma meeting ALEC had been taking steps to keep its proceedings secret. It sent advance agendas to legislators via a Box.com link, making the records more difficult to obtain via public records requests, and most legislators told CMD they did not have a single ALEC-related record in their office that could be released under the public records law. In March, ALEC posted some of its model bills online in a shallow effort to appear "transparent," but its actions suggest the organization is far more committed to secrecy.

Does ALEC Really Support Freedom of Assembly?

ALEC's efforts to limit the rights it claims to support did not end there.
Months before the ALEC meeting last week, a coalition of Oklahoma workers and civil rights organizations organized a screening of the Bill Moyers "United States of ALEC" documentary and a community forum to take place on May 3. The film was to be screened during the ALEC meeting but in a separate section of the Cox Convention Center. Speakers included representatives of CMD, AFSCME, Common Cause, a local church, the ACLU, and other groups.
The screening and panel was open to the public. Even ALEC members could attend.
But less than 24 hours before the event -- which constituted a basic expression of free assembly -- ALEC gave the community meeting the boot.
The hotel told organizers that ALEC invoked a clause in its contract allowing it the right to any rooms within the convention center, even those reserved by other groups. The ALEC community panel was moved from a room appropriate for a movie screening and panel discussion, and onto the floor of a stadium typically used for ice hockey (and which was kept at a temperature more appropriate for ice hockey than a movie screening).
"We were shocked," said Debra Wojtek, communications director at the Oklahoma AFL-CIO, who planned the event. "We had a signed contract for that room, and thought that a contract was a contract. But apparently not for ALEC." Because ALEC didn't actually use the room after claiming a right to it, Wojtek said, the AFL-CIO is considering legal action against ALEC for interference with contract.

Oklahomans Say "ALEC Is Not OK"

Despite the change in venue and the room's frigid temperature, the May 3 screening and community panel attracted a sizable and engaged crowd.
Dennis Van Roekel, president of the National Education Association teacher's union, told the crowd via Skype that ALEC has a "systematic approach to pushing a corporate agenda in all aspects of public policy."
Ryan Kiesel, Executive Director of the Oklahoma ACLU, highlighted ALEC's support for bills to make it harder for Americans to vote through voter ID restrictions (and its promotion of sham "voter fraud" claims), and is not buying ALEC's claim that it has abandoned its voter suppression projects. "If ALEC were really withdrawing its support for voter ID, they could use their elected official proxies to announce that fraud is not a real problem, and that these laws are unnecessary," he said. "But they have not."
Jane Carter, an economist at AFSCME, identified the problems with the ALEC privatization agenda, particularly the Public-Private Fair Competition Act, a "forced privatization" bill that requires public services be turned over to corporate control if private industry claims they can do the service; this bill was recently introduced in Michigan. Phillip Martin of Progress Texas described how ALEC's healthcare agenda -- particularly its adoption of the Health Care Compact, which asserts state control over health care -- could be used to thwart federal healthcare reform.
Dr. George Young Senior, a Pastor at the Holy Temple Baptist Church in Oklahoma City, highlighted how ALEC is where the struggles of communities of color, workers, environmentalists and others converged -- and how people need to unite against the forty-year-old organization to fight back.
"If we let this go on for another forty years," he said, "next time they won't just move us out of our room, they will kick us out of the whole building!"

Civilian contractors playing key roles in U.S. drone operations

From:  Los Angeles Times 

COMMENT -  Dan was very happy to receive his medal for his Drone Activism and wears it

to all his favorite restaurants in Santa Barbara, proudly showing it to the waitpersons he does not tip.  You have to be careful of your money when you want to be richer than Bill Gates, and Dan and Amy are very cautious about spending money unnecessarily.

Why do you think the military is uneasy about drone contractors like Dan O'Dowd and his wife, Amy Chang.  

With thrift, fraud, and ruthless abandon they have become enormously wealthy.  That is good, right? 

ARTICLE:

Relying on contractors has brought companies that operate for profit into some of America's most sensitive military and intelligence operations. And using civilians makes some in the military uneasy.

December 29, 2011|By David S. Cloud, Los Angeles Times

Drone Contractor in his native environment

Reporting from Washington — After a U.S. airstrike mistakenly killed at least 15 Afghans in 2010, the Army officer investigating the accident was surprised to discover that an American civilian had played a central role: analyzing video feeds from a Predator drone keeping watch from above.

The contractor had overseen other analysts at Air Force Special Operations Command at Hurlburt Field in Florida as the drone tracked suspected insurgents near a small unit of U.S. soldiers in rugged hills of central Afghanistan. Based partly on her analysis, an Army captain ordered an airstrike on a convoy that turned out to be carrying innocent men, women and children.

"What company do you work for?" Maj. Gen. Timothy McHale demanded of the contractor after he learned that she was not in the military, according to a transcript obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.
"SAIC," she answered. Her employer, SAIC Inc., is a publicly traded Virginia-based corporation with a multiyear $49-million contract to help the Air Force analyze drone video and other intelligence from Afghanistan.
America's growing drone operations rely on hundreds of civilian contractors, including some — such as the SAIC employee — who work in the so-called kill chain before Hellfire missiles are launched, according to current and former military officers, company employees and internal government documents.
Relying on private contractors has brought corporations that operate for profit into some of America's most sensitive military and intelligence operations. And using civilians makes some in the military uneasy.
At least a dozen defense contractors that supply personnel to help the Air Force, special operations units and the CIA fly their drones are filling a void. It takes more people to operate unmanned aircraft than it does to fly traditional warplanes that have a pilot and crew.
The Air Force is short of ground-based pilots and crews to fly the drones, intelligence analysts to scrutinize nonstop video and surveillance feeds, and technicians and mechanics to maintain the heavily used aircraft.
"Our No. 1 manning problem in the Air Force is manning our unmanned platforms," said Gen. Philip M. Breedlove, Air Force vice chief of staff. Without civilian contractors, U.S. drone operations would grind to a halt.
About 168 people are needed to keep a single Predator aloft for 24 hours, according to the Air Force. The larger Global Hawk surveillance drone requires 300 people. In contrast, an F-16 fighter aircraft needs fewer than 100 people per mission.
With a fleet of about 230 Predators, Reapers and Global Hawks, the Air Force flies more than 50 drones around the clock over Afghanistan and other target areas. The Pentagon plans to add 730 medium and large drones in the next decade, requiring thousands more personnel.
The Air Force is rushing to meet the demand. Under a new program, drone pilots get 44 hours of cockpit training before they are sent to a squadron to be certified and allowed to command missions. That compares with a minimum of 200 hours' training for pilots flying traditional warplanes.  MORE

UAV NEWS Outside View: Drones: Say it with figures

From:  Space Daily

COMMENT -Ah, Amitai does not think people resent having their homes, family reunions, day care centers, weddings and funerals targeted with drones.  Well, it is likely he is self-referencing, that would be natural.  So, perhaps he enjoys seeing his own family blown up and gets a secret thrill out of collecting the pieces. Maybe he really, really likes jigsaw puzzles, perhaps. 

As they say, it takes all kinds.  

Honestly, who could think people would react negatively to being bombed?  How silly and small minded of them when they are assisting the booming economy for 2,500 eager drone companies. 

You like being droned, right? It sort of relieves the mundane round of life, livens up the day a bit.

Perhaps we should fund a study here in the United States....in an area which does not vote for the present administration, perhaps?  How about Wyoming?  Around Dick Cheney's place? Dick was very enthusiastic about the idea of war in Iraq, so this is a natural for him. 

Back to our reporter for a moment.  It is more likely just Amitai likes his job because  it pays well, has great perks and benefits, and he wants to keep it.  What do you think?  

     

Outside View: Drones: Say it with figures
by Amitai Etzioni
Washington (UPI) Apr 30, 2013

disclaimer: image is for illustration purposes only

Attacking drones, the most effective counter-terrorism tool the United States has found thus far, is a new cause celebre among progressive public intellectuals and major segments of the media.

Their arguments would deserve more of a hearing if, instead of declaring their contentions as fact, they instead coughed up some evidence to support their claims.

One argument that is repeated again and again is that killing terrorists with drones generates resentment from Pakistan to Yemen, thereby breeding many more terrorists than are killed. For example, Akbar Ahmed, a distinguished professor at American University, told the BBC on April 9 that, for "every terrorist drones kill, perhaps 100 rise as a result."

The key word is "perhaps"; Ahmed cites no data to support his contention.

Similarly, in The New York Times, Jo Becker and Scott Shane write that "Drones have replaced Guantanamo as the recruiting tool of choice for militants," citing as their evidence one line Faisal Shahzad, who had tried to set off a car bomb in Times Square, used in his 2010 trial seeking to justify targeting civilians.

At the same time, when HBO interviewed children who carry suicide vests, they justified their acts by the presence of foreign troops in their country and burning of Korans.

No such self-serving statements can be taken as evidence in themselves.

And Peter Bergen, a responsible and serious student of drones, quotes approvingly in The Washington Post a new book by Mark Mazzetti, who claims that the use of drone strikes "creates enemies just as it has obliterated them." Again, however, Mazzetti presents no evidence.

One may at first consider it obvious that, when American drones kill terrorists who are members of a tribe or family, other members will resent the United States. And hence if the United States would stop targeting people from the skies, that resentment would abet and ultimately vanish.

In reality, ample evidence shows that large parts of the population of several Muslim countries resent the United States for numerous and profound reasons, unrelated to drone attacks.

These Muslims consider the United States to be the "Great Satan" because it violates core religious values they hold dear; it promotes secular democratic liberal regimes; it supports women's rights; and it exports a lifestyle that devout Muslims consider hedonistic and materialistic to their countries.

These feelings, data show, are rampant in countries in which no drones attacks have occurred, were common in those countries in which the drones have been employed well before any attacks took place, and continue unabated, even when drone attacks are greatly scaled back.

As Marc Lynch notes in Foreign Affairs:

"A decade ago, anti-Americanism seemed like an urgent problem. Overseas opinion surveys showed dramatic spikes in hostility toward the United States, especially in the Arab world ... It is now clear that even major changes, such as Bush's departure, Obama's support for some of the Arab revolts of 2011, the death of Osama bin Laden, and the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, have had surprisingly little effect on Arab attitudes towards the United States. Anti-Americanism might have ebbed momentarily, but it is once again flowing freely."

The Pew Global Attitudes Project says anti-American sentiments were high and on the rise in countries where drone strikes weren't employed. In Jordan, for example, U.S. unfavorability rose from 78 percent in 2007 to 86 percent in 2012 while Egypt saw a rise from 78 percent to 79 percent over the same period.

Notably, the percentage of respondents reporting an "unfavorable" view of the United States in these countries is as high, or higher, than in drone-targeted Pakistan.

In Pakistan, a country that has been subjected to a barrage of strikes over the last five years, the United States' unfavorability held steady at 68 percent from 2007-10 (dropping briefly to 63 percent in 2008), but then began to increase, rising to 73 percent in 2011 and 80 percent in 2012 -- a two-year period in which the number of drone strikes was actually dropping significantly.

It is also worth noting that these critics attribute resentment to drones rather than military strikes.

Do they really think that resentment would be lower if the United States were using cruise missiles? Or bombers? Or Special Forces?

If they mean that we should grant these suspected terrorists a free pass if they cannot be brought to a court in New York City to be tried, they should say so.

Another frequent claim of drone opponents is that the use of drones greatly lowers the costs of war (at least for the United States) and, thus, promotes military adventurism.

For example, Mazzetti (as quoted by Bergen) claims that the use of drones has "lowered the bar for waging war, and it is now easier for the United States to carry out killing operations at the ends of the earth than at any other time in its history."

However, there is no evidence that the introduction of drones (and before that, high-level bombing and cruise missiles that were criticized on the same grounds) made going to war more likely or its extension more acceptable.

On the contrary, anybody who followed the American disengagement in Vietnam after the introduction of high-level bombing (which was subject to criticism similar to that of drones) or the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan -- despite the considerable increase in the use of drone strikes elsewhere -- knows better.    MORE

China's Drone Program Appears To Be Moving Into Overdrive

From:  HuffPost

COMMENT - Who do you suppose is supplying their software?  Nah, surely GHS would not do THAT.  Would they?  

By CHRISTOPHER BODEEN 05/03/13 04:03 AM ET EDT

VIDEO

BEIJING -- Determined to kill or capture a murderous Mekong River drug lord, China's security forces considered a tactic they'd never tried before: calling a drone strike on his remote hideaway deep in the hills of Myanmar.

The attack didn't happen – the man was later captured and brought to China for trial – but the fact that authorities were considering such an option cast new light on China's unmanned aerial vehicle program, which has been quietly percolating for years and now appears to be moving into overdrive.

Chinese aerospace firms have developed dozens of drones, known also as unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs. Many have appeared at air shows and military parades, including some that bear an uncanny resemblance to the Predator, Global Hawk and Reaper models used with deadly effect by the U.S. Air Force and CIA. Analysts say that although China still trails the U.S. and Israel, the industry leaders, its technology is maturing rapidly and on the cusp of widespread use for surveillance and combat strikes.

"My sense is that China is moving into large-scale deployments of UAVs," said Ian Easton, co-author of a recent report on Chinese drones for the Project 2049 Institute security think tank.

China's move into large-scale drone deployment displays its military's growing sophistication and could challenge U.S. military dominance in the Asia-Pacific. It also could elevate the threat to neighbors with territorial disputes with Beijing, including Vietnam, Japan, India and the Philippines. China says its drones are capable of carrying bombs and missiles as well as conducting reconnaissance, potentially turning them into offensive weapons in a border conflict.

China's increased use of drones also adds to concerns about the lack of internationally recognized standards for drone attacks. The United States has widely employed drones as a means of eliminating terror suspects in Pakistan and the Arabian Peninsula.

"China is following the precedent set by the U.S. The thinking is that, `If the U.S. can do it, so can we. They're a big country with security interests and so are we'," said Siemon Wezeman, a senior fellow at the arms transfers program at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute in Sweden, or SIPRI.

"The justification for an attack would be that Beijing too has a responsibility for the safety of its citizens. There needs to be agreement on what the limits are," he said.

Though China claims its military posture is entirely defensive, its navy and civilian maritime services have engaged in repeated standoffs with ships from other nations in the South China and East China seas. India, meanwhile, says Chinese troops have set up camp almost 20 kilometers (12 miles) into Indian-claimed territory.

It isn't yet known exactly what China's latest drones are capable of, because, like most Chinese equipment, they remain untested in battle.

The military and associated aerospace firms have offered little information, although in an interview last month with the official Xinhua News Agency, Yang Baikui, chief designer at plane maker COSIC, said Chinese drones were closing the gap but still needed to progress in half a dozen major areas, from airframe design to digital linkups. MORE

Tiny Device Will Detect Domestic Drones

From:  InfoWars 

COMMENT - Now, I do not know that Craig has a relative named John.  He has brothers named Sterling and Larry, but they are both lawyers.  Sterling did finally get his license to practice law back, I understand, after that unfortunate misunderstanding.  

Of course, perhaps this is a relative, or whom I was unaware or even Craig in another persona finding a way to augment profits for GHS.  Inquiring minds do want to know. 

Help Get John's Project off the ground! 

Jason Koebler US News & World Report

May 2, 2013

Worried about drones spying on you? Soon, a device might be able to send you text and email alerts that let you know when a drone is nearby.

A Washington, D.C.-based engineer is working on the “Drone Shield,” a small, Wi-Fi-connected device that uses a microphone to detect a drone’s “acoustic signatures” (sound frequency and spectrum) when it’s within range.

The company’s founder, John Franklin, who has been working in aerospace engineering for seven years, says he hopes to start selling the device sometime this year. He is using the Kickstarter-like IndieGoGo to finance the project.

VIDEO 

A young Yemeni writer on the impact and morality of drone-bombing his country

From:  The Guardian

COMMENT - Watch out for those smart bullets and drones, Ibrahim.  To complain, contact Green Hills Software, Inc., 30 W. Sola, Santa Barbara, CA 93101.  Phone: 805-965-6044.  I'm sure they will be delighted to discuss this issue with you!  Ask for Jack Douglas for a sensitive and emotionally available answer.  Drone Free Zone - Putting people together for dialog around the world.  

Follow Ibrahim on Facebook

He is not wearing a kilt. 

Glenn Greenwald guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 1 May 2013 08.51 EDT

 The 24-year-old Ibrahim Mothana speaks eloquently and insightfully about what the US is doing to his country. We should listen

Ibrahim Mothana Photograph: Facebook

Ibrahim Mothana is a 24-year-old Yemeni writer and activist. I first became aware of him when he wrote an extraordinary Op-Ed in the New York Times last year urging Americans to realize how self-destructive and counter-productive was Obama's escalating drone campaign in his country, writing:

Drone strikes are causing more and more Yemenis to hate America and join radical militants; they are not driven by ideology but rather by a sense of revenge and despair. . . .
"Anti-Americanism is far less prevalent in Yemen than in Pakistan. But rather than winning the hearts and minds of Yemeni civilians, America is alienating them by killing their relatives and friends. . . . Certainly, there may be short-term military gains from killing militant leaders in these strikes, but they are minuscule compared with the long-term damage the drone program is causing. A new generation of leaders is spontaneously emerging in furious retaliation to attacks on their territories and tribes. . . .
"Unfortunately, liberal voices in the United States are largely ignoring, if not condoning, civilian deaths and extrajudicial killings in Yemen — including the assassination of three American citizens in September 2011, including a 16-year-old. During George W. Bush's presidency, the rage would have been tremendous. But today there is little outcry, even though what is happening is in many ways an escalation of Mr. Bush's policies.
"Defenders of human rights must speak out. America's counterterrorism policy here is not only making Yemen less safe by strengthening support for A.Q.A.P. [al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula] but it could also ultimately endanger the United States and the entire world."

Since then, I've watched his work and have periodically spoken with him on various matters, and am unfailingly impressed by the thoughtful, smart and sophisticated way he thinks about these issues. Ibrahim was invited to travel to Washington to testify before a Senate sub-committee which met last week to examine the legality and wisdom of Obama's drone program. He was unable to attend, so one of his friends, Farea al-Muslimi, testified instead, and was eloquent and powerful.
But Ibrahim prepared what would have been his opening remarks to the Committee and has sent them to me (the Committee has also agreed to publish them in the Congressional Record). I'm publishing them here in full because they are remarkably insightful and poignant, and because Americans hear far too little from the people in the countries which their government continues to bomb, attack, and otherwise interfere in. I really hope as many people as possible will take the time to read his words:

Written testimony of Ibrahim Mothana for the United States Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights

Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member Cruz, and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide my written testimony on the critical issue of the increasing US targeted killings in Yemen.

Yemen and the United States of America

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I would like to tell you about my country. The people of our two countries share many of the same dreams although many Americans may not realize this, in part because of a media that focuses on terrorism to the exclusion of a broader understanding of Yemen. Al-Qaida and its associates in Yemen, at the most extreme estimates, number a few thousand members, no more than a tiny fragment of our 24 million people who hope and dream of a better future — one that offers them dignity, freedom, and economic stability.
We are the poorest country in the Middle East with over 50 percent of our people living on less than 2 dollars a day. We are running out of water and out of oil, our major source of foreign revenue. Our nation has been troubled by decades of conflicts and an irresponsible, corrupt governments. A lot of my childhood friends are unemployed and live a daily struggle to maintain their basic human needs. In 2011, millions of Yemenis who lived decades under one autocratic ruler rose up in a largely peaceful revolution calling for democracy, accountability and justice, the very values cherished in American democracy.
Many young people like me grew up looking to America and its people for inspiration. Among many other things my teenage years were enriched by Carl Sagan's Cosmos, Martin Luther King Junior's speeches, Mark Twain's sarcasm and American TV shows. The promise of equality and freedom seemed fulfilled when America elected its first black president. With an upsurge of happiness, many Yemenis celebrated the inauguration day and, at that point, President Obama was more popular among my friends than any other Yemeni figure. I was inspired by President Obama's promise of "a new era of leadership that will bring back America's credibility on human rights Issues and reject prioritizing safety to ideals."
But happiness and inspiration gave way to misery. My admiration for the American dream and Obama's promises has become overshadowed by the reality of the American drones strike nightmare in Yemen.

The Impact on Yemen and its People of the US Targeted Killing Policy

In the past few years, I have visited and worked in areas of Yemen that are the forefront of what the United States views as a global conflict against Al-Qaeda and associated forces. I have witnessed how the US use of armed drones and botched air strikes against alleged militant targets has increased anti-American sentiment in my country, prompting some Yemenis to join violent militant groups, motivated more by a desire for revenge than by ideological beliefs.

We Yemenis got our first experience with targeted killings under the Obama administration on December 17, 2009, with a cruise missile strike in al-Majala, a hamlet in a remote area of southern Yemen. This attack killed 44 people including 21 women and 14 children, according to Yemeni and international rights groups including Amnesty International. The lethal impact of that strike on innocents lasted long after it took place. On August 9, 2010, two locals were killed and 15 were injured from an explosion of one remaining cluster bomb from that strike.

After that tragic event in 2009, both Yemeni and US officials continued a policy of denial that ultimately damaged the credibility and legitimacy of the Yemeni government. According to a leaked US diplomatic cable, in a meeting on January 2, 2010, Deputy Prime Minister Rashad al-Alimi joked about how he had just "lied" by telling the Yemeni parliament the bombs in the al-Majala attack were dropped by the Yemenis, and then-President Ali Abdullah Saleh made a promise to General Petreaus, then the then head of US central command, saying: "We'll continue saying the bombs are ours, not yours." Such collusion added insult to injury to Yemenis.

Animosity has been heightened by the US use of so-called "signature strikes" that target military-age males and groups by secret, remote analysis of lifestyle patterns. In Yemen, we fear that the signature strike approach allows the Obama administration to falsely claim that civilian casualties are non-existent. In the eye of a signature strike, it could be that someone innocent like me is seen as a militant until proven otherwise. How can a dead person prove his innocence? For the many labeled as militants when they are killed, it's difficult to verify if they really were active members of groups like AQAP, let alone whether they deserved to die.  MORE

US drone strikes being used as alternative to Guantánamo, lawyer says

From:  The Guardian

COMMENT - Well, you have to give them credit for efficiency.  Is GHS also involved in Smart Bullets? 

Lawyer who drafted White House drone policy says US would rather kill suspects than send them to Cuban detention centre

Dan Roberts in Washington

guardian.co.uk, Thursday 2 May 2013 09.26 EDT

Poster of Yemeni officer Adnan al-Qadi, an al-Qaida operative allegedly killed in a US drone strike. Photograph: Yahya Arhab/EPA

The lawyer who first drew up White House policy on lethal drone strikes has accused the Obama administration of overusing them because of its reluctance to capture prisoners that would otherwise have to be sent to Guantánamo Bay.

John Bellinger, who was responsible for drafting the legal framework for targeted drone killings while working for George W Bush after 9/11, said he believed their use had increased since because President Obama was unwilling to deal with the consequences of jailing suspected al-Qaida members.

"This government has decided that instead of detaining members of al-Qaida [at Guantánamo] they are going to kill them," he told a conference at the Bipartisan Policy Center.

Obama this week pledged to renew efforts to shut down the jail but has previously struggled to overcome congressional opposition, in part due to US disagreements over how to handle suspected terrorists and insurgents captured abroad.

An estimated 4,700 people have now been killed by some 300 US drone attacks in four countries, and the question of the programme's status under international and domestic law remains highly controversial.

Bellinger, a former legal adviser to the State Department and the National Security Council, insisted that the current administration was justified under international law in pursuing its targeted killing strategy in countries such as Pakistan and Yemen because the US remained at war.

"We are about the only country in the world that thinks we are in an armed conflict with al-Qaida," Bellinger said. "We really need to get on top of this and explain to our allies why it is legal and why it is permissible under international law," he added.

"These drone strikes are causing us great damage in the world, but on the other hand if you are the president and you do nothing to stop another 9/11 then you also have a problem," Bellinger said.
Nevertheless, the legal justification for drone strikes has become so stretched that critics fear it could now encourage other countries to claim they were acting within international law if they deployed similar technology.

A senior lawyer now advising Barack Obama on the use of drone strikes conceded that the administration's definition of legality could even apply in the hypothetical case of an al-Qaida drone attack against military targets on US soil. 

Philip Zelikow, a member of the White House Intelligence Advisory Board, said the government was relying on two arguments to justify its drone policy under international law: that the US remained in a state of war with al-Qaida and its affiliates, or that those individuals targeted in countries such as Pakistan were planning imminent attacks against US interests.

When asked by the Guardian whether such arguments would apply in reverse in the unlikely event that al-Qaida deployed drone technology against military targets in the US, Zelikow accepted they would.

"Yes. But it would be an act of war, and they would suffer the consequences," he said during the debate at the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington. "Countries under attack are the ones that get to decide whether they are at war or not," added Zelikow.

Hina Shamsi, a director at the American Civil Liberties Union, warned that the issue of legal reciprocity was not just a hypothetical concern: "The use of this technology is spreading and we have to think about what we would say if other countries used drones for targeted killing programmes."

"Few thing are more likely to undermine our legitimacy than the perception that we are not abiding by the rule of law or are indifferent to civilian casualties," she added.

Zelikow, a former diplomat who also works as a professor of history at the University of Virginia, said he believed the US was in a stronger position when it focused on using drones only against those directly in the process of planning or carrying out attacks.

"Bush badly mangled the definition of enemy combatant to expand to anyone who might be giving support, which was very pernicious," he said.

Zelikow – stressing he was speaking in a personal capacity, not on behalf of the administration – added that he felt the US should be clearer in explaining that its targeted killing programme was responding to specific threats against national security.

• This article was corrected on 2 May to attribute to Philip Zelikow, not John Bellinger, the assertion that "countries under attack get to decide whether they are at war". Bellinger said the US needs to "explain to our allies" why drone strikes are legal.

An Answer is Received.

The Question is, who wrote it?

First General Answer to First General Question: LEGISLATIVE IMMUNITY IMMUNIZES US BECAUSE WE OWN YOUR LEGISLATORS AND LEGISLATIVE PROCESS

In addressing any Constitutional question, one must always begin with the most precisely relevant text of the Constitution.

Since there is no precisely relevant text of the Constitution with regard to “the killing of innocent civilians within a foreign nation” whatsoever, we must turn to the only specific grant of immunity in the Constitution, which clearly and generally covers all of Respondent (Greenhills’ and Affiliates’) Conduct hereinabove generally alleged.

Article I, §6, Clause 1 of the Constitution of 1787, adopted by a special Congress at the City of Philadelphia in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in one of the 13 newly independent American States, adopted “Parliamentary” immunity much as originally formulated in England during the Glorious Revolution of 1689:

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States. They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.

As you are well aware, if you have been “awake” at any time during the past twenty-five-to-thirty years, Respondent (Green Hills) has substantially augmented the salary received by the Senators and Representatives paid out of the treasury of the United States by private liquid and illiquid forms of compensation which really make the trivial pittance paid to these fine men and women appear like the trivial pittance it is, when compared with real money.

Furthermore, because we have “wired” all Congressmen and women in our direct or indirect service to our communications media at all time, literally everything that our Congressmen and Women do at all times concerns us. Therefore, neither we nor any of our agents or employees in the House of Representatives (we never speak of Senators because there are so few of them, but it goes without saying….generally, except that we never said anything specifically) ever do anything that is not privileged from arrest, because we are with our Representatives at all time in their “going to and returning from” “their attendance at the session of their respective houses.”

Because these Congressmen are “wired” to all our operations at all times, not merely any but every “speech or debate in either house” involves and concerns us, and accordingly, no one shall ever be questioned in any other place concerning our activities, so it is, in fact, impossible for anyone ever to determine whether our activities are felonious, treasonous, or breaches of the peace which, of course, they are not because we are immune, through the participation of our legislators in our activities and of our participation in all legislative activities, in general, through our “bribed and wired Representatives” program.

“Bribery” of course is not a violation of any law, arising from the Common Law, nor any state or Federal Statute, to the degree that there will never be any evidence, admissible or otherwise, to prove it. How stupid do you think we are, lady? We run the whole show here….

With regard to numbers, there are 435 members of the U.S. House of Representatives (remember we don’t count senators, not now, not EVER), and 53 of these come from California. It is a matter of, well, not exactly “public record,” of course, because it’s top secret, but certainly a matter of “general” knowledge, and after all this is a “general question,” isn’t it? It is a matter of general (secret) knowledge that a solid majority, 39 out of the 53 representatives from California are all on the (secret but liquid) payroll of your Respondent (Green Hills).

With regard to the remaining 382 Congressmen and women from other states, Green Hills can only claim direct employment of 125 representatives via “liquid” salaries.

However, when you consider how many other Congressmen and women receive illiquid gifts and services from your Respondent (Green Hills) you will see and it is clear that we control a solid majority of the U.S. House of Representatives, at all times sufficient to prevent any impeachment of any executive or judicial branch officers and, quite sufficient to quell any investigation of our activities whatsoever.

By “illiquid” gifts of course we mean that we provide yachts and private jet travel, credit cards which need not be reported, (off the record, always, never EVER reported), country club memberships, male and female escort services for single dates and ménages a trois, quatre, cinque, six ou sept depending on the interests, preference, general “vigor” and cardiac health of the Members of Congress involved (dead reps tell no tales….) as well as pleasant and relaxing nude massages and vacations all over the world for at least one or two of the overworked and underpaid legislative staff….of every Congressman and Woman in office today, and since 1999. We make these men and women happy and loyal (to us). We are also the sponsors of the most authentic Roman Senatorial Orgies since the reign of Caligula, all in the Good Old US of A…

It doesn’t matter what we do because everything we do is wired directly to individual members of Congress and their staffs so you can’t even investigate it because of Article I, Section 6, Clause 1, unless you can get proof to the contrary, which is about as likely as anyone actually learning why Hillary is still with Bill or how many shoes Michelle has bought since becoming First Lady. (We happen to know that the public rumors of $10 million are laughably low, because we gave her that much ourselves, just in alcohol and massages….feel pity for the woman…. Remember that the man she’s married to has been alleged to be a secretly gay misogynistic murderous communist when the truth is he never made any secret about being a communist at all….) So much for express immunity…