My Letter re DRONE KILLINGS

Dear Friend,

I am sending you a copy of the letter I just sent to my "elected representatives" (yeah, right!) about drone killings. I had resolved not to write any more to the paid Political Whores in DC, but I am so mad about this issue that I finally decided to write them anyway. I have NO CONFIDENCE WHATSOEVER that they will heed my words, or even hear them. If anything, this letter will might merely land me on some list of people disloyal to this country (i.e. its fascist government). If so, my name on such of list of people with conscience would be an honor.

At any rate, I am sending you this letter in the hopes it will inspire you to some action yourself. If you are an American citizen, you are free to "borrow" anything from it for your own letter to your own PW in DC, although you will not, of course, want to borrow the personal history at the beginning of the letter, which is merely intended to establish my bona fides, and possibly even (if they have any conscience at all) shame them a little.

May God have mercy on the innocent people who are suffering because of this evil policy!

Best,
Romi Elnagar

Congressman Cassidy, Senator Landrieu/Vitter,

I am an American citizen. My father fought in WWII. He was a tail gunner and photographer in the Army Air Force, stationed in Bari, Italy, and flew 53 missions over the oil fields of Vienna and the ball bearing plants of Germany. My grandfathers both fought in France in WWI, and my great-great-grandfather was a surgeon in the Civil War. His commission was signed by "A.Lincoln."

My maiden name is on the Declaration of Independence. I am descended from the Wythe family of Worchestershire county, England, the only family that bears that name, and am related to George Wythe, who was the leader of the Virginia delegation to the Continental Congress, America's first law professor (William and Mary College), and teacher of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.

So, I feel I have some small stake in this country, and that is why I am so OUTRAGED at America's practice of DRONE ASSASSINATIONS.

It is no wonder to me that Pakistanis are angry at America. It's bad enough that America has killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan. America has poisoned the soil and water for all time in the Middle East with DEPLETED URANIUM, has tortured, raped and murdered thousands of innocent men, women and children and continues to incarcerate men and boys without trial at Guantanamo.

Now, we kill in the most cowardly, despicable way. We do not even see the people we kill, much less bring them to trial. Instead, we assume that they are guilty BECAUSE THEY ARE MUSLIMS, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.

Our forefathers--Jefferson, Madison and my own ancestors--would be ashamed that the country they fought for and risked their lives to create could do such MONSTROUS DEEDS.

I am attaching, below, an explanation of why these drone attacks are illegal. I hope you or the aide who reads this will take a look at the list. Even if you are wholly committed to the maintenance of the State of Israel, I think you owe some small consideration to the rights of the people of the United States, some of whom will DIE to uphold the Constitution of this country, and others of whom will DIE to continue the war on Arabs and Muslims which is draining our country of its resources and destroying the good will toward it of the international community and the GRACE OF GOD.

Because I am indeed convinced that God will punish America for its immoral killings of so many innocent human beings.

Cordially,
Romi Wythe Elnagar

l. Assassination by the US government has been illegal since 1976.

Drone killings are acts of premeditated murder. Premeditated murder is a crime in all 50 states and under federal criminal law. These murders are also the textbook definition of assassination, which is murder by sudden or secret attacks for political reasons. In 1976 Gerald Ford issued Ex. Order 11905, sec. 5 (g) which states, "no employee of the US government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in political assassination". Pres. Reagan followed up to make the ban clearer in Ex. Order 1233, Section 2.11 of that Order states,
"No person employed by or acting on behalf of the US Government can engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination, secrecy of the Intelligence Community shall participate in 2.12 further states, "indirect participation". No agency of the Intelligence Community shall participate or request any person to undertake activities forbidden by this Order". This ban on assassination still stands.

The reason for the ban on assassinations was that the CIA was involved in attempt to assassinate national leaders opposed by the US. Among others, US forces sough to kill Fidel Castro of Cuba, Patrice Lumumba of Congo, Rafael Trujillo of the Dominican Republic, and No Dinah Diem of South Vietnam.

2. United Nations report directly questions the integrity of US drone killings.

May 2010 report by NYU law professor Philip Alston, UN special rapporteur on extra judicial, summary or arbitrary executions, said, drone killings maybe lawful in the context of authorized armed conflict (eg Afghanistan) where the US sought and received international approval to invade and wage war on another country). However, the use of drones "far from the battle zone" is highly questionable legally. "Outside the context of armed conflict, the use of drones for targeted killing is almost never likely to be legal. Can drone killings be justified as anticipatory self defense? Applying such a scenario to targeted killings threatens to eviscerate the human rights law prohibition against arbitrary deprivation of life". Likewise, countries which engage in such killings must provide transparency and accountability, which no country has done.
"The refusal by States who conduct targeted killings to provide transparency about their polices violated international law framework that limits the unlawful use of lethal force against individuals."

3. International law experts condemn US drone killings.

Richard Falk, professor emeritus of international affairs and politics at Princeton thinks the widespread killing of civilians in drone strikes may well constitute war crimes. "there are two fundamental concerns. One is embarking on this sort of automated warfare in ways tat further dehumanize the process of armed conflict in way I think have disturbing implications for the future'. Related o that are the concerns I've had recently with my pre-occupation with the occupation of Gaza as a one sided warfare where the high tech side decides how to inflict pain and suffering on the other side that is, essentially helpless".

Human rights groups in Pakistan challenge the legality of US drone strikes there and assert that Pakistan can prosecute military and civilians involved for murder.

While stopping short of direct condemnation, international law expert Notre Dame Professor Mary O'Donnell seriously questions the legality of drone attacks in Pakistan. In powerful testimony before Congress and in an article in American magazine she points out tat under the UN Charter, international law authorizes nations to kill people in other countries only in self defense to an armed attack, if the UN authorized by the UN, or is assisting anther country n their lawful use of force. Outside of war, she writes, the full body of human rights applies, including the Prohibition on killing without warning. Because the US is not at war with Pakistan, using the justification of war to authorize the killings is "to violate the fundamental human rights principles".

4. Military law of war does not authorize widespread drone killing of civilians.

Current US military law of War Deskbook, the law of war allows killing only when consistent with 4 key principles: military necessity, distinction, proportionality, and humanity. These principles preclude both direct targeting of citizens and medical personnel but also set out how much "incidental" loss of civilian life is allowed. Some argue precision guided weapons like drones can be used ONLY when there is no probable cause of civilian deaths. But the US military disputes that burden and instead directs "all practicable precautions" be taken to weigh the anticipated loss of civilian life against the advantages expected to be gained by the strike. Even using the more lenient standard, there is little legal justification of deliberately allowing the killing of civilians who are incidental to the killings of people whose identities who are not known.

5. Retired high ranking military and CIA, Veterans challenge the legality and efficacy of drone killings.

Retired US Army Colonel Ann Wright squarely denies the legality of drone warfare, telling Democracy Now: these drones, you might as well just call them assassination machines. That is what these drones are used for: targeted assassinations, extrajudicial ultimate death for people who have not been convicted of anything.

Drone strikes are also counterproductive. Robert Grenier, recently retired Director of CIA counter terrorism Center wrote: "one wonders how many Yemenis may be moved in the future to violent extremism in reaction to carelessly targeted missile strikes, and how many Yemeni militant, with strictly local agendas will become dedicated enemies of the West in response to the US military action against them".
Recent polls of the Pakistani people show high levels of anger in Pakistan at US military attacks there. This anger in turn leads to high support for suicide attacks against US military targets.

US Defense of Drone Assassination.

US officials claim these drone killings are not assassinations because the US has the legal right to kill anyone considered a terrorist, anywhere? If they can argue it is in self defense, AG Holder and White House counter terrorism adviser John Brennan recently defended the legality of drone strikes and argued they are not assassinations because the killings are in response to the 911 attacks and are carried out in self defense even when not in Afghanistan or Iraq.


Did Eric Holder just commit treason? Did John Brennan just submit to this administration to war crimes? You bet they have.
Article written by: Bill Quigley