The Ethics of a Drone Contractor - Green Hills Software, Inc.

A continuing series of articles written for publication on Drone Free Zone in cooperation with PsychoBusters, a coordinated project carried out to awaken the public to the reality of those presently providing contracting services and products to the military and governmental agencies. 

 

by Melinda Pillsbury-Foster



Around January 21^st 1998 a meeting, or series of meetings, took place at Green Hills Software, Inc., between Dan O'Dowd and Glenn Hightower. The meeting included on their agenda approval of a false stock option agreement to replace the award of shares made to Craig Franklin in 1996.

This was the final step Dan needed to take before exercising the sudden death partnership agreement between himself and Hightower, who had provided the original funding which allowed Green Hills to open its doors in 1982. More on Hightower

Dan had cut a deal with Franklin, agreeing to help him evade characterization of the stock award as marital property in exchange for Franklin's assistance to prevent Hightower from exercising his right to buy out the company for 47 million, far less than the approximately 350 million it was actually worth.

Franklin's wife, Melinda, had no idea her husband was divorcing her, though later she would find out he had filed the day he returned from their Hawaiian vacation with the entire family of six children on January 1^st. It was planned not as a divorce but as take-no-prisoners war.

Melinda had every reason to believe their marriage was stable. The previous year she had saved Craig from the tax disaster his non-filing of returns had caused. He had, in fact, never filed until Melinda forced the issue the previous year when she discovered the reason they were bankrupt was Franklin's non-filing.

Other things she did not know came very close to killing her and the couple's son, Arthur. More

Hightower found out about the plan just after the meeting during which he was persuaded to sign off on Franklin's new share agreement. Dan informed him the sudden death partnership agreement had been exercised.

Shocked, Hightower returned to Pasadena and began to make arrangements to raise the capital. This, he believed, would not be difficult for him. He had started and still owned other companies. He was wrong only because he did not know Craig was to persuade the other vice presidents and critical employees to agree to walk out if he owned Green Hills. Craig did just this the next summer. When the due diligence team came to Green Hills a walk-out occurred. Lavish promises of additional stock and other benefits had been made to the senior personnel. Not all promises were kept, but after the fact there was little they could do about it.

Dan and Craig are both psychopaths. More about them here, “When psychopaths cooperate”

Over the next nearly two years the outcome of the Hightower buyout remained in question because Glenn, outraged by Dan's manipulations, which had begun with an restraining order keeping him from making contact with employees, filed a law suit after the orchestrated walk out. Law suit, Exhibit 7 “Morgan Pillsbury – Franklin Transcript”

Dan, who has all of the human skills of a piranha, evidently finally realized he needed someone to create a more human face for the corporation. Since Dan hoped to take Green Hills public this should also be someone with an impressive corporate resume able to make affirmative introductions to potentially useful board members, essential to acquiring credibility.

And thus entered a new member for the GHS Team.

John B. Douglas III, Unlikely Addition to the Green Hills Team

Douglas Bio from Green Hills Site

“Jack Douglas, Vice Chairman, joined Green Hills Software in 2003, after having worked with the company in a consulting capacity since 1998. Mr. Douglas was Senior Vice President and General Counsel at Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. from 1999 to 2003. Previously, he was Senior Vice President and General Counsel at Apple Computer where he played a key role in restoring Apple to financial health. From 1986 to 1997 Mr. Douglas held senior executive positions at Reebok International Ltd, helping Reebok grow to over $3 billion in revenue, and ending as Executive Vice President responsible for Legal, Human Resources, and Public Affairs. Mr. Douglas received his law degree, from Harvard Law School in 1978, and an BA in Economics, from Colgate University in 1975.”

Douglas' association with Green Hills Software actually began simultaneous with the time Dan was feverishly working to ensure he had the 47 million locked down to buy Green Hills himself. Reading the various and carefully worded resumes which abound on the Internet for Jack you find this phrasing at Bloomberg Business Week. “Mr. Jack Douglas has been Vice Chairman at Green Hills Software since April 2003. Mr. Douglas served as Chief Executive Officer to obtain multiple forms of debt and equity financing and on other strategic initiatives. Mr. Douglas also acts as a key advisor to other growing companies. ”

Chief Executive Officer of what, Green Hills Software, during the time they were attempting to go public? Of course, it could be a mis-statement by an online site which was perpetuated through reposting. But there are other indications money was tight during the period of 1998 – 2003 when Green Hills became a government contractor.

Dan borrowed a million dollars from Dr. Carl Franklin, Craig's father, supposedly to pay for Craig's stock options. It would have seemed reasonable for Craig to then use the generous dividends being paid from 1998 on to repay this, but evidently this did not happen. The money was extracted from Dan. Craig never repays loans since he has better uses for the money. This has been true his entire life, with only a few exceptions.

This 'loan,' for what ever reason it was made, was not repaid when expected and only firm action on the part of Dr. Franklin's other two sons, Sterling and Larry, both attorneys, resulted in extracting the money from Dan.

Someone with Jack's qualifications must have seemed like a dream come true for Dan at the time because along with Jack's connections he also brought a far more normal personal manner than either Dan or Craig had to offer as officers of the company.

Also, there was Dan, strapped for money, with Hightower suing and only Craig to provide him with comfort and ideas.

Craig at this time, late 1998 through 1999, had became obsessed with having a hit man kill his wife, according to affidavits given later by those talking to him every day. (Affidavit, Middle of Page 2) This came about because Melinda was, like Hightower, not following the carefully scripted plan he and Dan had laid out. She was supposed to die during the divorce from her heart condition, as Hightower was supposed to just go away. Therefore, it is doubtful Dan found their daily lunches together very comforting. Craig's public rantings probably made Dan, who is far more cautious, uneasy.

Craig Franklin    

Jack Douglas 

Craig looks far more normal here than he actually is. Despite appearances, he is highly intelligent with an I. Q. of 180, making him smarter than Einstein.

Jack not only looks normal, he looks charming, sophisticated, and intelligent. His resume, which includes his graduation, summa cum laude from Harvard Law, speaks for itself. Jack could be depended on not to shock potential investors with his table manners, too, an iffy proposition with Craig.

Additionally, Jack's masterful analysis for running an in-house division for corporate counsel, “The Reebok Rules,” is filled with sage advice, some of which Jack might have found useful himself. 

 

Now, what motivated John B. (Jack) Douglas III, to go to work at Green Hills, besides money? Jack had received stock when he was working for Apple and, presumably, his income from the stellar corporations, including Reebok, where he held senior executive positions , “helping Reebok grow to over $3 billion in revenue,” also provided substantial remuneration, as did Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

 

Each of these jobs seems to have grown shorter in duration. Jack was at Reebok for ten years, the others for far shorter periods, compressed into the time he had also assumed a consulting role with Green Hills. 

 

By all reports, if they are to be believed, it was not any problem with his professional performance which caused him to move on. That leaves personal considerations and, of late, we have had indications all was not normal with Jack's personal life. 

 

On April 17^th Jack was arrested for committing an act of, “Lewdness, open and gross, c 272 s16 (272/16)” in plain sight of a family seated for a meal at the Olive Garden Restaurant in Taunton, Massachusetts. The father of the children, an off duty police officer immediately confronted Jack, this leading to his arrest and arraignment. The event took place at 3:49pm. The facts are recounted in the POLICE REPORT.

 

Evidently, Jack is an exhibitionist, a form of sexual perversion, “known by several names including: flashing, apodysophilia, and Lady Godiva syndrome, according to Thrive Boston. 

 

According to the same site ”Some exhibitionists have a conscious desire to shock or upset the person or persons they are exposing themselves to. In contrast, a high percentage of exhibitionists hope or fantasize that the target of their exposure will become sexually aroused and want to engage in sexual activity with them.

In some cases an exhibitionist will masturbate while exposing him or herself.” 
 

The first part of this accords with Jack's reported activity. 

 

The Defense Human Resources Activity (DHRA) site provides the outcome of studies which state male exhibitionists may be sexually inhibited, or even impotent, this starting before age 18 in most cases. Most common in men in their twenties the impulse supposedly diminishes during the 30s and 40s, becoming less common. Another study found, “that the typical exhibitionist is married, has above average intelligence, is satisfactorily employed, and shows no other evidence of serious emotional problems.132  and that,” The absence of other emotional problems has been a consistent finding in a number of studies. 130 “

The condition is reported to be treatable and treatment programs are available which lower the rate of recidivism to 'rare.' Today Jack is entering his sixties, however, making him somewhat unusual for an exhibitionist.

It is therefore unlikely the incident in Taunton was the first time Jack exhibited himself, raising the possibility his changes in employment and frequent changes of address are not unrelated to this condition. 

 

It is conceivable Green Hills provided a safe harbor for Jack because events in his personal life had overcome him. By leaving Millennium and 'hiring on' at Green Hills he could continue to live in Massachusetts and still have an active professional profile, even if it was one which radically changed his previous, far more prestigious, trajectory. 

 

Also, he did not actually have to live in Santa Barbara and see very much of Dan and Craig but he knew, through his interactions with them, beginning in 1998, the company would cover for him if questions about his personal life were raised. Dan had certainly provided this service to Craig, who was guilty of raping women in his office during working hours, to say nothing of his after hours activities. 

 

And, given the arrest cited above, it is very likely he knew it would be well to have an understanding and helpful employer. 

 

Despite not inconsiderable research on the web there is actually very little to be found about Jack's personal life. Those with which he is associated are better understood as extensions of his professional life. 

 

Unlike his fellow Team members Jeff Hazarian and Jason Issacs, he appears to be uninvolved in his local community in any not-for-profit organization. Hazarian and Issacs both joined Green Hills after the events of 1998 and are in stable marriages. Hazarian is very active in his church. Issacs and his wife contribute and participate in local charities, which other members of the GHS management team, do not appear to do. 

 

In effect, Dan provided a sanctuary for those employees inclined to engage in personally unethical behavior. This became a perk of employment, where it obtained the services of individuals who otherwise would not have tolerated his unwillingness to share profits and a business strategy which included providing weapons used to commit human rights violations around the world.

The score card for the management team can be read like this.

Dan and Craig – Psychopathic.

Dave Kleidermacher and Dave Chandler – Caught by greed and their complicity in Dan's 1998 fraud.

Jack – Sexually Deviant, needs assistance in finding an effective treatment program.

Chris Smith – Unknown.

Tim Reed – Cal Tech graduate, still researching.

Jeff and Jason – Tolerant of the corporate culture which financially benefits them.

Next:

The genocides of the 20^th Century and how they link to America's present wars.

No! No! Jack, you have it all wrong - that's the Buchanan Tartan.

The future always holds the unexpected, moments which astound and change us, in ways no one anticipates until we reflect and someone says, "Oh, no, I wasn't really surprised, after all, he was wearing yellow Reeboks."

Listen, watch, and you can't miss understanding their values and limitations, if any. 

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.