Hunting bin Laden: Part 2 - Regruping

After the mishandled attempt at capturing bin Laden so shortly after his attacks, al-Qaeda managed a bit of a resurgence. They began recruiting oversees, showing they can hit targets abroad and not just in their territory. The most notable attack was in 2005 when suicide bombers attacked the people of London on the trains for their morning commute, killing dozens. Especially in recent years, that's kind of the tone for terrorism; crazed individuals killing typically less than a hundred (well, at least in the Western world), but increasingly large amounts due to the fact that weapons are more dangerous than ever and the only major hinderance to committing atrocities is a sense of basic morality.

America's response to this has been to amp up the drone program, effectively increasing what Osama claimed he was trying to prevent - an increased presence of Americans in the Middle East. Eventually, around 2007-2008, America simply stopped asking Pakistan for permission to drone-strike certain areas and began doing it on their own accord. Bringing out more controversy was their decision to also do a cross-border raid that killed mostly women and children, damaging relations with Pakistan and covering the face of the Americans with many an egg. However, at the core of it all they were still eliminating al-Qaeda leaders left, right and centre all from the safety of places hundreds of miles away. It suddenly became very dangerous to be a leader al-Qaeda, but the most important one was nowhere to be found. All the while, terrorists were citing him as their major influence the way rock stars say they learned from some past musician. Osama was the Beatles of modern terrorism.

The search for him never died down, in spite of the fact that they had very little evidence on

Osama bin Laden's father; siring 55 kids. It was
his winning smile and devout religious extremism
that his wives just couldn't resist.

where he might be residing. It mostly came down to where he couldn't be. Initially they believed it couldn't be Yemen as he would be too recognizable, and most likely Afghanistan or Pakistan. From there they searched the history books. They searched where his father hid when he was on the run, hoping he would be in a similar situation (in searching up his father I discovered that bin Laden's dad had over twenty wives and 55 children, which would make keeping track of birthdays a tiresome issue). They discovered he had a network of safehouses everywhere, leading them to believe he could very well be in an urban centre.

From there, they looked for what they referred to as "four pillars" - his family, hints in his messages to the media (if there was a plant, a bird, voices in the background, anything that could lead them in a direction), communication with the other leaders, and his courier network. It was the lattermost of these pillars that eventually led to his capture.

Aguilera: proudly doing her part in the
war on terror.

We know now that bin Laden was holed up in a compound in a quiet town in Pakistan (more on that later). It was isolated; with cell phones being tracked, messaging was very slow in the al-Qaeda world. That meant that much of the messaging had to be done by a courier, transporting whatever had to be transported in and out of the compound to the beck and call of Osama. The courier himself, Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti, with his real name being Ibrahim Saeed Ahmed (we'll refer to him as the Kuwaiti for brevity, and so I don't have to keep double checking the spelling) had been close to bin Laden for ages. Eventually, the U.S. Jack Bower'ed just the right people - meaning torture - until a few coughed up information about the Kuwaiti and what he might be doing.

So, does that mean that torture works?
Sort of. First off, it was pretty brutal; one man was kept awake twenty hours a day, stripped nude, left cold and isolated, and, interestingly enough, subjected to hours of blaring Christina Aguilera music - a fate typically reserved for suburban fathers of white teenage girls in the 2000-2010 decade. Another man, also tortured (although not as heavily - perhaps with smooth jazz) led to the Kuwaiti as well. Certainly, it looks promising; that is, until you consider that another high ranking member was waterboarded almost two hundred times and still told the Americans the Kuwaiti had retired - another provided only disinformation. So, the answer to the original question is... maybe?

Barack, after being asked where the drone strikes
 are coming from.

It was right around this time finds the end of the George Bush era. New to the warfront is Barack Obama, the first black president that has one letter off the name of the terrorist he's hunting (considering how America looks currently, that's nothing short of a miracle). Being fiercely anti-war on the campaign trail and before, he shifts the tone from saying "war" to "policing", putting a fresh new spin on it. He then took the drone program, amped it up to never before seen levels, and declared stronger than ever that it's Osama season. After what seems like ages, they have their first real lead, and he was feeling like they just might get 'im. American style.

American Counter-Terrorism: Opinions

This is my third post putting my personal opinions on whatever subject I may be delving into up for you to read, and it's the first time I'm not entirely sure how to feel. Regardless, I'll do my best to put my spin on the tough questions, as who else would be more qualified than a twenty-five year old who has read one book on the subject? Well, at least that makes me more qualified than the average internet opinion.

Should the U.S. and the rest of the world continue to use drone strikes?

This is a complicated one. I hope I've helped show that drone strikes are left wanting in accuracy and purpose, frequently hitting targets they don't wish to hit and removing the valuable asset of information from captured terrorists, as capturing someone after a drone strike is far less beneficial. However...

Looking from the States' perspective, sending troops is bad for business. No one wants fallen soldiers and it's hard to deny a process that removes the risk. They are still effective at hitting their targets, just not so great at hitting only their targets. For that reason I'd say they should probably keep using them, but perhaps a little less recklessly and a little less often. The problem is they've put themselves in a tough position, lending itself to a drone-strike heavy option. Obama has been big on the idea of keeping soldiers out of the war zones, which, in a roundabout way, indirectly states they'll be up in the sky rather than on the ground. However, with fewer forces on the ground, accuracy for drone strikes decreases due to a lack of information coming in (coming back to the lack of prisoners, thus a lack of interrogation). It seems drone strikes are things to be used in tandem with regular forces. A weapon to be used to hit specific targets that cannot be safely (well, at least relatively) reached otherwise. Let's not ignore the fact that drones are high powered death machines that above all else get the job done.

Going all-out on drone strikes seems like it won't really solve the problem, and if anything, it'll perpetuate it. Taking out groups of people that may or may not be enemy combatants is going to inevitably rile up an already strong anti-American (anti-western world, really) sentiment. You may kill a terrorist, but you make him a martyr and two pop up in his place. Taking out soldiers who are shooting back is one thing, but a flying death machine wiping out a building is another. It'll breed hatred, and it's a nasty cycle. However, they can't really back out now so it looks like it'll just continue for a while.

Yeah, it's a downer.

Final answer? Yes. Use drone strikes. But stop using them all the freaking time. 

So what really is the civilian count on the death toll?

This seems to vary widely. Like, ridiculously widely. We're talking some sources saying 2% of the kills are terrorists, while others say 2% of the kills are civilians. This is due to a number of factors, and the answer probably lies in a middle, shady grey, as most things in life tend towards. First off, it's incredibly hard to actually count up who is being killed. Typically a drone strike is done because they don't have any forces near it, meaning they can't just waltz in afterwards and count out who's dead. That means it comes through other sources, often local ones, and numbers can be fudged to push an agenda - positive or negative, depending on where you sit. So, that's problem number one - the info is loose, at best.

Problem number two is deciphering who is a terrorist. In my first blog in this series I spoke on the The Economist. It's a year old now, but it details (with cool graphics!) the drone deaths in Pakistan from when they started to now (if now was a year ago). In case you can't read the picture on the right, the numbers at the end are as follows: 190 children, 534 civilian, 52 high profile, and - here's the big one - 2565 other. What the heck is other? Other could mean so many things.

The prettiest way to demonstrate a massive death toll.

fact that any male of a certain age that's caught talking to a terrorist and gets caught in the blast of a drone strike blast is labeled as an "enemy killed in action", or more honestly, "probably an enemy because of association."  The problem is that final category is massive, making up the majority of drone strike deaths and it's not really clear who exactly they are. Watch the video on this article from

From what I can tell, it's the vague "enemy killed in action" designation with maybe a few unclear hits mixed in. All of these numbers are fairly unreliable so they have to be taken with a grain of salt, but it does paint a fairly clear picture - they don't really know who they're killing, but they're probably bad. The question is, are they right to believe so?

Once more, it's a shade of grey. I'm going with a hardline stance on this one, and saying "yeah, probably".

Let's go through an example. They hit a terrorist training ground, hoping to kill one well known, verified terrorist. They blow it up, killing, say, fifty people. They're all males, between 18-35 years of age, and thus get tossed in to the "enemy killed in action" category, explaining why that's huge in comparison to the rest. If they're there, with a known terrorist, and they're all males of a certain age, there's a pretty good chance they're not exactly good-guys. Of course, this isn't always true - and they definitely make mistakes. Plenty of them. Once more, it's hard to form an opinion without all the information on the table - but I guess that's part of the problem, isn't it?

But they need to be verified or else it's an assassination. Right?

A big complaint is drone strikes shirk international law as the enemy is frequently not in a designated war zone and they're not brought to a full trial, deeming it an assassination and thus against whatever codes are in place for that. The response to this from the United States is a bit of a shrug, a bully on a schoolyard saying "well, what are you going to do about it?".

Anyways, I don't really buy this argument. There is always going to be collateral damage, always going to be unwanted, unjustified deaths and there will always be mistakes. It's the sad, terrible truth of war. The goal is to minimize these risks while still being able to achieve the goals the military is putting forth, but minimizing them is not a perfect science. (If I sound callous, remember I'm in favour of reducing drone strikes, just not eliminating them entirely.) Giving every enemy combatant a fair trial would be the ideal, but an impossible one considering the circumstances. As for hitting them outside of designated war zones... well, I hope they vet their targets well. Sadly that's not always true. But, that's not an inherent problem with drone strikes - that's a problem with using them too recklessly.

*I published this, thought on it harder, and immediately came back. To really make an educated statement on this, I feel you have to know so many outside factors. How do they designate war zones? What are the international laws in place? How are they enforced? Is the U.S. breaking them, and if they are do they do it brazenly? Battles are complicated, and nothing is ever as obvious as it seems. However, at the core, if they know a know there's a terrorist that's planning something and they have an opportunity to act on it... well... that's a tough one.*

Hey, we talked about surveillance, too.  What's up with that? Is it bad? Will Edward Snowden soon be canonized?

You know, I'm going to take an unpopular opinion here and say that much of the surveillance technology is overall positive, although not necessarily used particularly well. Yeah, I know, I'm a government shill.

I'm not in the slightest worried about anyone reading, storing, or hacking my emails, texts, or what-have-you. Mass data collection means that inevitably no one will actually read it, save for if they're searching for someone or something more specifically. The more information there is, the less likely someone is going to see me text whatever mundane garbage I'm sending that day to my friends or the emails I keep getting from that shoe store I got something from that one time. I know it could have deeper consequences later, but the fact of the matter is it's not there yet. It's not that much of an issue for the average person right now, and honestly, I don't believe it will be. Yes, slippery slope and what not, but we can cross that bridge if we get there. If it legitimately helps to keep the peace I'm all for it.

However, it does have to be kept in check. Warrants should be needed, laws should be made for it, blah blah blah. Anything new will come with difficulties. As for the eight year old who was the suspected terrorist? Well, people just need to use some common sense and we'll all be fine.



Closing it out, a summary:

Drones are effective military technology, used far too often.
Bombing the middle east isn't really going to solve anything, but we're pretty much all in on it now so there's no way out now.
The surveillance state issue is an unnerving one but ultimately it just doesn't effect me enough to care.
The United States is probably evil, but not as evil as we're making them out to be most of the time.

Admittedly, I'm probably wrong on all of this, but I'm blessed with the knowledge that no one really cares what I think on it anyways. Nice.

American Counter-Terrorism: Part 2 - Watchlists and Surveillance

In 2013 talking about government surveillance was all the rage. Edward Snowden had just spread leaks like a drunk at a urinal, and while the general public didn't really read any of the papers (there are thousands of them, so I hope there's a sparknotes somewhere) the main point of it was the American government is spying on you. Americans were angry, they felt betrayed, and the sales of George Orwell's 1984 shot up. (I looked it up - that's actually true.) Unbeknownst to the American public, the National Security Agency - the dreaded N.S.A. - has been collecting telephone messages, emails, and, I don't know, maybe Tinder profiles, all under the blanket purpose of fighting terrorism.

An American spy rocket chose this as their logo.
It looks like it belongs to the stereotypical evil
organization in a Michael Bay movie.

I'm talking about this in a drone strikes blog because finding terrorists at home and abroad falls to many of the same agencies with many of the same lists and programs. Further, military technology oftentimes gets passed down to local police departments, and counter-terrorism stuff is no exception. No, it's not the missiles (although taking out drug lords with drone strikes sounds kind of cool, albeit in a terrifying way). We're talking the surveillance equipment; they have the technology to retrieve deleted text messages, spy on SMS (essentially texts), eavesdrop on calls, extract media files, address books and notes, and so forth. Most of it is done through cell-site simulators (also called StingRays, if you want to sound cool) which function as a mobile cell tower that people can inadvertently use, thus allowing them to track the information coming in. Initially this was used to target the terrorists' devices, thus allowing for more information, locations, and so forth. However, since 2007 they've been used on American soil 4,300 times - and that's just the Baltimore Police Department. I'm glad the only text messages I send are either mundane or childish. I'm also glad I live in Canada.

The problem with this technology is it tends to drag a net across an area and brings in way more information than it wants or needs. They don't specifically target one phone; it'll sweep, meaning whomever happens to be using their phone around a StingRay will suddenly have their information put into the system. While that sounds pretty doom and gloom (I'll admit it's a little disconcerting) let's not forget that no one's really reading any of it, unless they're hunting you specifically. I sincerely doubt there are a bunch of CIA guys reading your stuff and laughing at you - unless you said something really embarrassing, (and you know what that is!) in which they totally are for sure.

So yes, a lot of data is being collected (all but an infinitesimal percentage surely completely useless). However, if they do find something about you - either at home or abroad - there's a chance you'll be placed on the terrorist watchlist. You've probably heard the terms "no-fly list" and that sort, and that's basically what we're talking about here. You would think that it would be fairly hard to get on the watchlist - and to be fair if you're a law-abiding citizen, again, the chances you'll be on it are so, so small - but in countries the States is casually bombing you have a pretty decent chance. The laws at home don't apply to the U.S. overseas (or more accurately they just kind of ignore them most of the time) so the whole "fair trial" idea doesn't really hold water. Concrete facts and irrefutable evidence would be nice, but they're far from necessary and pretty rare, meaning that if you're suspected in any way you're essentially seen as guilty enough to be placed on it. That's why there are so many on the watchlist; 680,000 as of 2014, 280,000 of them not belonging to a terrorist organization. The no-fly list is smaller, but rising at the same dramatic rate over the past ten or so years.

This is Marvel's logo for Hydra, the
fictional terrorist organization. Now, my
question is does this look more or less
evil than the world-consuming octopus?
My follow up question is how disturbing
is it that it's a tough call?

TIDE, or the Terrorist Datamart Environment, (not to be confused with the rise and falls of sea levels, or detergent) is even larger - holding over a million names. Basically everything gets funneled through TIDE, splitting into different organizations, groups, programs, etc. - some of them with names that are seemingly designed to sound as villainous as possible. The best example is Hydra, which "utilizes clandestinely acquired foreign government information" to find more info on TIDE members. Holy crap. Type "Hydra" into google and the first thing that comes up is the Marvel universe's terrorist organization of the same name. That's unfortunate.

So what we've established here is the databases are huge, the networks for collecting information are

Cub Scout Mikey Hicks immediately
regretted getting his merit badge in
bomb-making.

 massive and wide reaching, and reasonable doubt is an archaic method of justice. What we haven't talked about yet is how you get on the no-fly list while being a resident of the United States. Fortunately, it's not particularly easy to do, and I'm sure that most of the people on there are written up for a good cause - but errors do happen, like the case of Mikey Hicks. Hicks shared the name of a known terrorist and was mistakenly put on the no-fly list (so I guess there was a terrorist named Mikey out there) and was taken aside for a pat down at an airport. At first that sounds upsetting and inconvenient, but there's a troubling twist.

Mikey Hicks was two years old. They gave a pat down to an infant. (I really hope whoever gave the pat-down said "he's clean - except his diaper" once they were done.) By the time he was eight, he was still on it - and still receiving pat-downs at the airport - and that's mostly because once you're put on it it's awfully hard to get taken off. You can apply, get your information put through and so forth, but there's no actual confirmation if you're removed, leaving the possible watchlisted to sit in a state of unknowing whether or not the government sees them as potential mass murderers. Obviously with Hicks it was a case of mistaken identity, but it's not entirely uncommon if you share a name. If anything, that exposes a problem with the system where they're accepting so many names and not properly vetting them or knowing what exactly to do with them. In 2013, 468,749 "Known Suspected Terrorist" nominations were put forth, and all but 4,915 were accepted, putting it at about 99%. It certainly makes you wonder.

I know I've already used one picture of this poor kid,
but this has got to be the funniest picture I've ever seen.

Now, I tried to keep this neutral, although I'll readily admit that the book I got this information from is obviously leaning. Personal opinions on this will come in the next post, but at the very least it's information that the falls in that category of "you should probably know this is happening".

___________________________________



The information for this blog has been taken from "The Assassination Complex: Inside the Government's Secret Drone Warfare Program" by Jeremy Scahill. It's... OK. The problem is it's written as a number of news stories compiled into one volume, meaning plenty of the information doubles up and makes for a frustrating read. Nevertheless, it's an interesting one.