Book Review: “My Notorious Life” by Kate Manning – posted 1/12/2014 and published in the Concord Monitor 2/9/2014
This book review was published in the Concord Monitor on 2/9/2014 under the title “Rags to Riches Tale of an Abortionist”. Jon
Kate Manning’s novel “My Notorious Life” grabbed me from the start and it did not let go. It was one of those rare books you hate to see end.
Manning tells the story of Axie Muldoon, a young orphan girl growing up in 19th century New York City. The story tracks Axie from her early life as an utterly impoverished street urchin to her later evolution becoming a wealthy 5th Avenue midwife serving women of all social classes. It is a rags to riches story but that is hardly all it is.
The novel is based on the true story of Ann Trow Lohman, later known as Madame Restell. Lohman developed an interest in women’s health and medicinal cures. She advertised and sold female products through the newspapers. Women came to her with all types of reproductive problems, but especially birth control and abortion. She practiced as a “female physician” for almost forty years in New York City from approximately the early 1840’s to her death in 1878. Lohman’s business was under constant attack from yellow journalists, criminal courts, and prudish reactionaries. Called “the wickedest woman in New York”, she went to jail for a year on an abortion-related charge.
Axie’s story has some definite parallels. She too achieved notoriety after apprenticing as a midwife and starting her own business under the name Madame DeBeausacq. She also went to jail for her practice. Scurrilous newpapers referred to her as “notorious she-devil”, “hag of misery”, “Evil Doctress”, and “Foul Murdress”. She faced repeated criminal prosecutions with biased judges, hostility from the male medical profession and threats from mob violence that were instigated by vicious, lying press.
In the story she also has her run-ins with Anthony Comstock, Crusader Against Vice. He was a Rick Santorum-type except far worse. Comstock was a holy roller hell bent on confronting sin and smut. Through his political connections, he became a Special Agent of the Unites States Postal Service, a post he used to carry on his personal jihad. Unfortunately for Axie, she got into his crosshairs. For those unfamiliar with Comstock, he was a real 19th century guy with expansive ideas about what constituted obscene, lewd, and lascivious behavior. When not putting people he considered smut peddlers behind bars, he pursued midwives and abortionists. He proudly claimed he drove 15 people whom he opposed to suicide. He was a warrior against sin or as Axie called him “a rat terrier for Christ”.
As for for what I liked about the novel:
The heroine of the story, Axie aka Ann Jones, aka Madame DeBeausacq, is a feisty big-hearted character who you have to root for. She is not left alone by all the needy women who beg her for help. Women were really between a rock and a hard place in the 19th century. Sexuality was so castigated and stigmatized. When Axie gets into trouble, it is because she could not stand to see women suffer when she was in a position to help. Axie, a reject on the orphan train, ends up overcoming so much. The novel does an excellent job of evoking the extreme poverty of 19th century America. Book One of the novel artfully begins this way:
“In the year 1860, when the Western Great Plain of America was the home of the buffalo roaming, the cobbled hard pavement of New York City was the roofless and only domicile of thirty five thousand children. In our hideous number we scraps was cast outdoors or lost by our parents, we was orphans, and half orphans and runaways, the miserable offspring of Irish and Germans, Italians and Russians, servants and slaves, Magdalenes and miscreants, all the unwashed poor huddled slubs who landed yearning and unlucky on the Battery with nothing to own but our muscles and teeth, the hunger of our bellies. Our Fathers and Mothers produced labor and sweat and disease and babies that would be better off never born.”
The politics of the novel are dead on and the comparison to our era is not far off. Just as in 19th century America, women today continue to fight the same battle for reproductive rights, including facing off against the same type enemies.
I personally find America’s backsliding around reproductive rights almost incomprehensible. How can it be that in 2014 Roe v Wade hangs on by a thread, that abortion becomes almost impossible to obtain for poor women in many states, that abortion providers are actively persecuted and even murdered and that even birth control becomes an issue?
Twenty states now have unconstitutional and unenforceable bans that could outlaw abortion as early as the twelth week of pregnancy with no exception to protect a women’s health. There are numerous further efforts to chip away at abortion rights including efforts to eliminate insurance coverage of abortion. Some states like Texas are also trying to regulate abortion providers out of business. The anti-abortion movement has politically out-organized the pro-choice forces and it is hard to know where it will end. Pro-choicers remain on the defensive. It is better now than Axie had it but it would be a lie to deny that every inch of territory around reproductive rights is contested terrain.
One other observation i would make: poverty remains an almost unalterable fact of life both in the 19th century and now. As a society, we show callous disregard for the life circumstances of the poor. More often than not, we look the other way or we blame the victim. How can we want more poor children born, when our citizens neglect and abuse so many kids that do make it into this life? Don’t we have some societal obligation to the children already born? There is a remarkable obliviousness to the real lives of children. The sanctimoniousness of the pro-life movement is matched only by its silence about poor and victimized kids who are already born.
Manning succeeds in putting you inside the shunned orphan child. Reading the novel, you feel Axie’s distrust, her suspicion of any good fortune (because it will probably disappear), her desire for a stable family life and her anger at the world. There is a suicide at the end of the novel with some surprising twists and turns. Manning did not remain entirely true to the historical record of Madame Restell. She gave herself the novelist’s liberty to revise. Without saying more about the events at the end of the novel, I will leave the last words for Axie:
“It was the hounds of hell drove me to it. Mr. Comstock with his underhanded sneakery and Mr. Greeley and Mr. Matsell with their lies, and Dr. Gunning that sanctimonious snake. You never NONE of you did care about a WOMAN, no matter how misfortunate, and all of society shall think of its uncharitableness toward the fair sex when they think about me, who only tried to give sanctuary and comfort to your poor afflicted daughters and sisters, your mothers and discarded sweethearts. I can’t no more face the canker of your laws or waste away in your Tombs. So thus I choose to spare my family the pain of the trial about to start at Jefferson Market Court. It’s nothing but a charade. Farewell, and may my death be on the conscience of my false accusers for the rest of their days.
Signed,
Mrs. Ann M. Jones, April 1, 1880”
The Importance of the Bachelet Victory in Chile – posted 12/ 29/2013
When Michelle Bachelet won her December run-off election for the presidency of Chile, I was surprised how little attention the story received in the United States. Maybe it is because Americans generally pay little attention to any foreign news.
Bachelet, leader of the center-left coalition and the first female ever elected president of Chile (from 2006 to 2010) won an overwhelming victory over Evelyn Matthei, the right-wing candidate. Bachelet garnered over 62% of the vote. I think it was the first Latin American election where both major candidates were women.
This was not any old election. The story is deeply rooted in the history of Chile from the era of Allende and Pinochet and it has the flair of an epic novel. The candidates, Bachelet and Matthei, grew up living across the street from each other. They played together as little girls, riding bikes.
The girls’ fathers were best friends. Albert Bachelet and Fernando Matthei both had Air Force jobs. They shared a love of classical music and loved to talk sports, politics and philosophy. Bachelet gave Matthei two olive trees and a flowering cherry. Those trees are still in front of the Matthei house.
When President Salvador Allende was overthrown by the military in 1973, very tragic events were set into motion. Shortly before the coup, another Chilean general, Gen. Gustavo Leigh, who was a coup supporter, forced Gen. Bachelet to step down from his high ranking position in the Air Force. Apparently this happened because Gen. Bachelet was an obstacle to coup planning. Bachelet was loyal to President Allende and the democratically elected government.
After the coup on September 11, 1973, the military detained Bachelet and he was subjected to months of daily torture. Bachelet died in custody in March 1974 due to a heart attack almost certainly related to his torture. He wrote his son Alberto:
“I was detained incommunicado for 26 days. I was subjected to torture for 30 hours and finally sent to the Air Force Hospital. They destroyed me inside; they were exhausting me mentally.”
In early January 1975, the military also detained and tortured both Michelle Bachelet and her mother. They were taken blindfolded to Villa Grimaldi, a notorious detention center in Santiago. Because of sympathetic connections in the military, unlike thousands of others, Bachelet and her mother were exiled instead of being murdered. They first moved to Australia and then East Germany. Bachelet started study to become a doctor when she lived in East Germany. She moved back to Chile in 1979 and continued her medical studies, ultimately becoming a pediatrician.
Fernando Matthei rose to a higher position three months after the coup. He became head of the Air Force War Academy. Four years after that Matthei became the head of the Air Force.
Matthei’s office was not at all far from the place his former friend was being interrogated and tortured. Matthei did nothing to save his friend. He says he raised his friend’s treatment with Gen. Leigh. In 2009, Matthei wrote:
“He told me not to get involved in issues which were none of my business. I confess that I never went to see him in the basement of the academy nor in prison, something which I am ashamed of. Perhaps on that occasion prudence superceded courage.”
As for Evelyn Matthei, she moved into the private sector before launching her political career. She was a Pinochet defender late in the day. In 1999, when Gen. Pinochet was arrested in England for crimes against humanity, she and a small faction of right wing Chileans flew to London to publicly support the dictator.
Ariel Dorfman, the Chilean writer, added a further dimension to this story of which I was not aware. Also part of the recent presidential campaign was Marco Enriquez-Ominami, who was a candidate of the Progressive Party, a smaller party on the left. His father Miguel Enriquez had been a famous militant leader of the Movement of the Revolutionary Left (MIR), a group that favored an insurrectionary approach to achieving socialism. Miguel Enriquez had been MIR General Secretary from 1967 to 1974 and he was a critical supporter of the Allende government. The military found Enriquez’s safe house in Santiago, surrounded it and shot him dead in October 1974. Miguel Enriquez had been organizing opposition to the coup from underground.
The 2013 Chilean election brought all this history center stage again. It also offered up continuing differences and visions about Chile and how to address its problems.
For someone who observed from the United States the devastating tragedy that was Pinochet’s coup, the victory of the Chilean Left is both deeply satisfying and inspirational. I wanted to say a bit about the lessons I see coming out of the election.
For leftists and progressives of my generation, the election of Salvador Allende in 1970 was electrifying. At that time, it was popular wisdom that no socialist could ever win a democratic election. Allende won in 1970 and then again in 1973. Allende proved the pundit class wrong.
I remember Henry Kissinger’s quote from 1970:
“I don’t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist because of the irresponsibility of its own people.”
The background role of the U.S. in the Pinochet coup remains a shameful episode in our history.
Allende provided the positive example of democracy and socialism that inspired Bachelet. Allende showed it was possible to win. I do not minimize any of the questions provoked by the coup about Allende’s strategy and whether the end result was inevitable. Those debates are important but I do think democracy remains the essential precondition for social change in both advanced capitalist countries and in countries like Chile which have a profound democratic tradition.
I think Americans can learn from the Chilean example. Instead of pursuing armed struggle, which likely would have guaranteed their extermination, Chile’s progressives redoubled their democratic efforts. Now on their agenda is addressing economic inequality, creating greater access to higher education and raising corporate taxes.
All these items could easily be on an American agenda. We face the same issue of extreme economic inequality. Nobody defends the economic interests of working people these days. Higher education has become ridiculously expensive. How about an agenda that stood for addressing unemployment, free higher education, health care as a human right, reasonable gun control, support for womens’ rights including abortion rights, opposition to racism and support for immigrants’ rights, support for LGBT rights, and an anti-imperialist foreign policy? Enough with the stupid wars that maim new generations.
I think American progressives and leftists need to learn how to engage electoral politics far more effectively. We give up too easily. I think we could learn from the Right on this score. I do give the Right credit for persistence. Their efforts to influence the Republican Party have been far more successful than the Left’s efforts to influence the Democrats. In saying this, I can hear the litany of complaints on the Left about the impossibility of electoral politics, Citizens United, and the power of money to buy elections.
Although it is about a decade old, the perspective I would advocate was outlined in James Weinstein’s book The Long Detour. To quote Weinstein:
“Building a national movement requires commitment to continuous electoral activity, year-in and year-out…In organizing such a new movement the left will have to think nationally – especially in terms of its program and critique of current government policies – but act locally and start modestly.”
I will write more about this but I did not want to get too far away from Chile. For those who would like to learn more about Chile and its history over the last 40 years I would suggest reading Ariel Dorfman. I am indebted to Dorfman for his articles in the Guardian and the Nation. He has a fine new memoir Feeding On Dreams which I would recommend. I also would recommend the wonderful Costa-Gavras movie Missing which starred Jack Lemmon and Sissy Spacek. It tells an important story well and conveys a feel for the time.
It will be interesting to see how Bachelet and her progressive agenda fare.
“Angel Face” by Uri Avnery – posted 12/21/2013
I am reprinting a piece written by Uri Avnery, chair of the Israeli peace movement, Gush Shalom. Avnery writes regularly about Israel and the Middle East. He has a perspective you do not see in our media. I would encourage readers to check him out at his own website http://www.avnery-news.co.il/english/ Jon
SEEING HER face on the TV screen, one is struck by her beauty. It is the face of an angel, pure and innocent.
Then she opens her mouth, and what pours out is vile and ugly, the racist message of the extreme right. Like seeing a cherub parting its lips and revealing the teeth of a vampire.
Ayelet Shaked may be the beauty queen of the present Knesset. Her name is enticing: Ayelet means gazelle, Shaked means almond. But she is the instigator of some of the most outrageous right-wing initiatives in this Knesset. She is also the chairwoman of Naftali Bennett’s Jewish Home faction, the nationalist-religious party of the settlers, the most radical rightist party of the current government coalition.
Her latest exploit is a bill which is now being debated in the Knesset, which would levy a huge tax on donations given by foreign “political entities” to Israeli human rights associations, those who advocate a boycott of Israel (or of the settlements only), the indictment of Israeli officers accused of war crimes in international courts, and more.
All this while immense sums of money are flowing from abroad to the settlements and their supporters. A large share of these sums is practically donated by the US government, which allows their exemption from US income tax as philanthropic. Much of it comes from American Jewish billionaires of dubious repute.
IN A way, this Gazelle is the face of an international phenomenon. All over Europe, extreme fascistic parties are flourishing. Small despised fringe groups suddenly expand into large parties with a national impact. From Holland to Greece, from France to Russia, these parties propagate a mixture of super-nationalism, racism, xenophobia, Islamophobia, anti-Semitism and immigrant-hatred. A deadly witches’ brew.
The explanation seems to be simple. All over the place, the economic crisis has hit the people hard. Unemployment is high. Young people cannot find jobs. The victims look for a scapegoat on which to vent their anger. They choose the foreigner, the minority, the helpless. That has been so since antiquity. That’s how a failed painter named Adolf Hitler became a historic figure.
For politicians without vision or values, this is the easiest way to success and prominence. It is also the most despicable.
An Austrian socialist said more than a century ago: “Anti-Semitism is the socialism of the fools”.
Social reformers may believe that the whole thing is instigated by the world’s billionaires, who are concentrating an ever larger part of the world’s assets in their hands. The gap between the upper 1% and everybody else is growing relentlessly, and the beneficiaries are financing radical right-wingers to divert the anger of the masses in other directions. Stands to reason.
HOWEVER, TO my mind the economic explanation is too simple. If the same phenomenon appears at the same time in so many different countries, with different economic situations, there must be more profound reasons. There must be some elements of Zeitgeist in it.
I think that we are witnessing a basic cultural breakdown, a crisis of accepted values. This kind of upheaval generally accompanies social changes, often caused by economic and technological breakthroughs. It is a sign of social dissonance, of disorientation. On the eve of the Nazi revolt, the German writer Hans Fallada wrote an immensely successful book called “Kleiner Mann was nun?” (Little Man, What Now?), expressing the despair of the newly disinherited masses. Many little men and women around the world are in the same situation now.
In Israel, too.
LAST WEEK, we saw a spectacle that would have shaken our grandparents to the core.
Some 300 black people, many of them barefoot in the biting cold of an exceptionally severe winter, were walking dozens of kilometers on a central road. They were refugees who had managed to flee from Sudan and Eritrea, to walk all the way through Egypt and the Sinai and had crossed the border into Israel. (Since then, a wall has been erected along the Sinai border, and this stream has practically stopped.)
There are now about 60,000 such African refugees in Israel. Thousands of them are crowded in the most run-down slums of Tel Aviv and other cities, causing deep resentment among the locals. This has proved a fertile breeding ground for racism. The most successful agitator is another beautiful member of the Knesset, the Likud’s Miri Regev, a former army chief spokeswoman, who is inciting the inhabitants and the country in the most primitive and vulgar manner.
Looking for a solution to the problem, the government built a large prison in the middle of the desolate Negev desert, unbearably hot in summer and unbearably cold in winter. Thousands of black refugees have been crowded there without trial for three years. Some called it a concentration camp.
Israeli human rights associations – the same as above – applied to the Supreme Court, and the imprisonment of the refugees was declared unconstitutional. The government thought again (if thinking is the right word) and decided to circumvent the decision. Not far from the forbidden prison a new prison was built, and the refugees were put there for one year each.
No, not a prison. Something called “Open Live-in Facility”. We are good at naming things. We call that “verbal laundry”.
This “open” desert prison is closed during the night, but inmates are free during the day. However, it is far from anywhere. The inmates must register three times during daytime – thus making it impossible to go anywhere, not to mention finding work.
It is from this “open” prison that the valiant 300 have walked out and marched all the way to Jerusalem, some 150 kilometers, in order to demonstrate in front of the Knesset. It took them three days. They were accompanied by a few Israeli human rights activists, mostly female, their light faces very conspicuous among all the black heads.
In front of the Knesset they were brutally attacked by specially trained riot police. Each demonstrator was surrounded by half a dozen bullies and violently thrown into a bus, which brought them to the old non-open prison.**
I AM dwelling on this incident because I am profoundly ashamed.
Racism is not a new thing in Israel. Far from it. But whenever we accuse
our gazelles of racism, they answer that this is pure libel. There is a conflict between us and the Palestinians, strict security measures are called for, this has nothing to do with racism, God forbid.
This is a very dubious argument, but at least it has some plausibility.
But we have no national conflict with the refugees. No security considerations are involved.
It is racism, pure and simple.
Let’s imagine that suddenly, in a remote corner between Eritrea and the Sudan, a Jewish tribe had been discovered. Its 60,000 members want to come to Israel.
The country would be in a delirium. The red carpet would be rolled out in Ben-Gurion airport. Both the President and the Prime Minister would be there, ready with their most banal speeches. They would receive an “absorption subsidy”, free housing and work. ***
So it’s not an economic problem, nor a question of absorption, housing or employment. It’s not even a question of skin color. Black Jews from Ethiopia are readily welcomed.
It’s simply THAT THEY ARE NOT JEWISH.
No room here for other people. They would take away our jobs. They would change the demographic balance. This, after all, is a Jewish State!
OR IS it?
If this were a Jewish State, would it treat refugees this way?
A hundred memories float into our minds. Of Jews being hounded from country to country. Of the mighty United States of America rejecting Jewish refugees on a German ship, fleeing from Nazi persecution. And later exterminated in the death camps. Of the Swiss pushing back Jews escaping from the concentration camps who had made it to their border.
Remember “The Boat Is Full?
If this really were a Jewish state, would it try to bribe African states to accept these refugees without asking what would happen to them there? For a refugee from the hell of Darfur, Zimbabwe is as foreign as New Zealand (unless one subscribes to the theory that “all blacks are the same”.)
If this really were a Jewish state, would the Minister of the Interior, a Likud functionary, send his force of goons to go hunting for refugees in the streets?
No, this is not a Jewish state. The Bible commands us to treat the stranger in our midst as we would want to be treated ourselves. “Also, thou shalt not oppress a stranger, for ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt!” (Exodus 23:9)
Amen!
Book Review (longer version): “They Were Soldiers” by Ann Jones – posted 12/15/2013
I wanted to follow up on my earlier post about “They Were Soldiers”, written by Ann Jones. Due to space limitations in the Concord Monitor, I had to make my original piece very brief. I did have more to say about this book.
“They Were Soldiers” tries to do something I have not seen before in war books. Dispensing with the heroic narrative, the book tries to capture the cumulative effects of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars on American soldiers. Most war books tell the story of battles or focus on the heroic details of soldiers’ war-time experience. Jones is up to something very different.
The end of the war for the soldiers is the beginning of the story for Jones. She looks at outcomes for the individual veterans. Not that it should come as a big surprise but what she finds is horrifying. The accumulation of damage done to soldiers has been minimized by the mainstream media.
Jones appropriately starts with those who died in the wars or as they are called “the fallen”. She debunks this polite euphemism. She describes the process for how the specialists of Mortuary Affairs do their job. The job is often ghastly. “The remains” are often that: bodies blown apart where the specialists are searching to identify which pieces belong to which soldier. Contrary to the idea that a battle death will be heroic, she describes a different reality.
“Most will simply put a foot down in the wrong place, or drive over a bomb that leaves only an upper torso wedged behind the steering wheel, or fall into a lake in the dark wearing full body armor.”
Jones quotes a Mortuary Affairs specialist Jessica Goodell who summed up her view of the war:
“War is disgusting and horrific. It never leaves the people who were involved in it. The damage is far greater than the list of casualties or cost in dollars. It permeates lifestyles. It infects cultures and people and worldviews. The war is never over for us. The fighting stops. The troops get called back. But the war goes on for those damaged by war.”
Jones then moves to an extensive discussion of the wounded. She argues that American counterinsurgency tactics especially in dismounted patrols have caused many casualties. The military command has forced soldiers to get out of their vehicles and walk in areas strewn with old landmines left by the Russians as well as newly designed improvised explosive devices (IEDs). Jones says many American casualties have occurred as a result. Because of its history. Afghanistan has more buried landmines than probably any country and it has never been de-mined.
She says IEDs have grown bigger and the injuries they cause are worse. Soldiers have been losing more of their bodies in these blasts. Jones says that more than half the soldiers hit by IEDs lose both legs and often fingers, a hand or an arm. She also describes the frequency of smashed genitals.
Jones says the number of the these injuries have not been presented straight up. By early 2012, 3000 soldiers had been killed by IEDs in Iraq and Afghanistan and 31,394 wounded. Among the wounded were more than 1,800 with severe injuries to their genitals. When Jones asked for an update on these numbers in July 2013, the Department of Defense would not answer. They told her she would have to file a formal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. It is wrong to speculate about the number but they did not want to give it up. As Jones says, it is hard to think the number is small.
An ER nurse stationed at Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan tells Jones that catastrophic cases pass through the ER four days out of seven and she sees quadruple amputees “often”. When asked to describe a typical case she sees in the ER, she replies: “Amputees up to the waist. No arms. No legs. No genitals. Age 21 or 22. We cry.”
The other side of the severity of the injuries is the impressive effort made by the military to provide emergency care for the grievously wounded. More soldiers survive horrific injuries and return home as single, double, triple or quadruple amputees. Jones writes about the formidable challenges facing these veterans. As noted, many are in their early 20’s and their lives are just starting.
Jones highlights the signature injuries of these conflicts, traumatic brain injury (TBI) and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). TBI is controversial and the military wants to get invisibly wounded soldiers back to work. Jones raises difficult questions about how TBI has been handled. After an explosion, it is not clear how many soldiers even report a blast to their head. If their comrades have been killed or seriously wounded by an IED, the soldier may just suck it up. They may feel like their injury is nothing compared to the dead or seriously wounded person. The long-term consequences may not be apparent.
This is a bit analogous to the problem NFL players who have suffered concussions have later in life. The scope of TBI is hard to quantify initially.
As for PTSD, Jones looks at the special circumstances of Iraq and Afghanistan soldiers and notes the more profound suffering of veterans who experience not a single catastrophic event but repeated traumatic events over an extended period of time. Multiple deployments have been a common feature of this prolonged military conflict. The traumatized soldiers then ultimately return home to traumatize their partners and children.
Jones mentions the matter of veterans’ suicides. Before a 2008 CBS news investigation, the VA was not even collecting data on the incidence of soldier suicides. In 2012, a Texas paper, the Austin American-Statesman, investigated Texas Iraq and Afghanistan veterans’ health issues. It found suicide was the fourth leading cause of death behind illness, accidents, and drug-related deaths. No one knows how much war experience impacted the soldiers who were dying in all these categories.
Along with the suicides are acts of violence committed by former Iraq and Afghanistan soldiers. A large number return as disturbed, violent and destructive men who struggle with reintegration into civilian society. Jones tells some of these stories.
Jones suggests googling “veterans homicides” or “veteran crimes” in your area. She says the stories are not collected anywhere. Many soldiers are from small isolated towns in rural areas, She says that murders and violent incidents are not well-covered and the Iraq and Afghanistan link is typically missed in connection with these cases. To the extent they are covered, it is usually in small local papers.
After reading this book, it is impossible to see the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the same lens as previously. The accumulated harm done to American soldiers has been staggering but it has been insufficiently acknowledged. In numbed out fashion, we move on to the next war and the next without critical assessment.
For anyone thinking about whether it was worth it, that is an excellent question that is not asked enough. This book forces the question. I hope it obtains a wide readership. It exposes how glorification of war is such a sham. War should be obsolete but as Jones shows, there is no evidence that is happening.
Tip of the Day: Wooten Brothers Band -posted 12/14/2013
Last night I went to the Flying Monkey in Plymouth NH and saw Victor Wooten and his 3 brothers play. All I can say is “WOW!”. The Wooten Brothers are on tour. They play in Boston at the Paradise tonight. Then they go to Albany, Buffalo and Chicago. If you have a chance and can possibly make it, do yourself a favor and go. They did a retrospective that featured many influences including Sly Stone, James Brown, and John Coltrane. The show is a very high energy knockout. Trust me on this: if you can go, you will not regret it. Victor Wooten is the best!
Book Review: “They Were Soldiers” by Ann Jones -published in the Concord Monitor 12/13/2013
I wrote this brief review for the Concord Monitor holiday book gift suggestion issue published today. A longer review of “They Were Soldiers” written for this blog will be forthcoming. Jon
This book is not for the faint-hearted. “They Were Soldiers” explores the multiple harms done to American soldiers by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. So far, the story has been inadequately told to the American public but in her short book, Ann Jones goes far to remedying that deficiency.
Put briefly, the harm is much worse than has been publicly acknowledged. The fallen aside, you have the post-deployment suicides, the catastrophic wounds, the traumatic brain injuries and all the PTSD. It is an endless amount of suffering that goes on lifetimes.
You might think this is an anti-war book but I think it is more a book of witnessing. Jones embedded with our troops in a forward operating base and she follows the wounded soldiers through all stops as they come home.
I think the book is essential reading. Really we do not support the troops. If we did, we would never let them engage in these awful, endlessly destructive wars. Does anybody know the point now? Jones graphically shows the futility and extreme cost incurred.
Deena Baird, 3 Years Later – posted 12/7/2013
It will soon be the third anniversary of my mom’s death. I got one of those blue notices from Levine’s, the funeral place in Philadelphia, announcing that yahrzeit for my mom is observed today, December 7. They suggested lighting a candle along with saying kaddish.
I remember going out to Roosevelt Memorial Park in north Philadelphia along with my brother Rob after my mother died. The lady behind the counter who was a no-nonsense type said, “You again?”. I had to say “yes”.
I personally find the time around holidays like Thanksgiving particularly hard. Not that I always went home to my parents for Thanksgiving but their apartment was a bit of a sanctuary. It was so homey and it offered the reassurance of family ritual. My mom knew how to do up holidays and her Thanksgivings were no exception.
When she cooked a turkey, there was no chance it would be dried out. She did a chicken liver stuffing that was uniquely her own. She had all the side dishes down. She usually had been working for a week non-stop to make it all possible. My mom was organized and she ran family events with a disciplined efficiency.
She always used to say she wasn’t going to do it anymore. It was always the last time she was going to do the week long cooking marathon. But then it wasn’t the last time. That happened so many times.
Without even trying, my mom (and my dad really) were good at creating genuine warmth and a sense of family togetherness. I miss that Wynnewood world and it is sobering to know those moments are gone. It is easy to take family and family gatherings for granted – until they are gone.
In my family, food has always been central. It wasn’t just special holidays like Thanksgiving. I think about Sundays when my mom would do a lox and bagels spread. My dad would send my Pop-pop off to Hymie’s Deli in Merion after he dropped us kids off at Hebrew School. My dad would give my Pop-pop money to buy lox, nova, kippered salmon, white fish and bagels. My mom would slice up bermuda onions and tomatoes along with the poppyseed and sesame bagels. That era did not have the great variety of bagels we now see.
Since my dad liked sweet things, there might be cherry or cheese danish. That usually got served with coffee. In the fall, this was usually a prelude to football. We were either off to the Eagles game or we were getting ready to watch the Eagles on TV.
My mom’s role in our family makes me think of a very Jewish word: rachmones. The word came up recently when a vocational expert I know mentioned the word in a different context. Rachmones is a Jewish word which translates literally as “compassion”. It also connotes soulfullness and wisdom.
In his book, The Joys of Yiddish, Leo Rosten had this to say about rachmones:
“This quintessential word lies at the heart of Jewish thought and feeling. All of Judaism’s philosophy, ethics, learning, education, hierarchy of values, are saturated with a sense of and heightened sensitivity to rachmones…
Note that the hebrew root rechem, from which rachmones is derived , means a mother’s womb.” The rabbis taught that a Jew should look upon others with the same love and feeling that a mother feels for the issue of her womb. “He is in such straits one can only have rachmones on him.” “The least one can show is rachmones”.
I think my mom would laugh that I used that word in connection with her. She was a critical thinker, not especially religious, and she wasn’t always easy on people. However, I think she embodied kindness and giving. She was thoughtful toward others and she was generous to a fault.
She cared for family and friends with unassuming devotion. Besides my sister, my dad and my Aunt Arline, in later years, my mom cared for Jane and Bud Fried and Ellie and Mort Keiser. All had health issues and periods of demoralizing decline. My mom spent countless hours visiting, caring, bringing food and talking to them. It was a labor of love. My mom was a hardcore friend and she demonstrated true loyalty. All that caring is part of the reason I do think my mom had rachmones. Even though she tended to be restrained, she was a deeply feeling person.
I don’t want to paint her in too saintly a light though. My other grandfather, Harry Keiser, known as Kize, used to call my mom “the Russian”. I always thought that was funny because i never saw my mom as too left. She and my dad were mainstream liberal Democrats. I am not sure if she ever was radical in her earlier years. I don’t think so. My sister and I pushed our parents. We did get them both to go to the massive Washington moratorium demonstration against the war in Vietnam in the fall of 1969. I always thought it was cool they did that because it probably was way out of their comfort zone.
My mom was a quiet person but she could be hilarious. She was well known for having a biting sense of humor. I have a funny memory of her commenting on a lawsuit in which she was a party. My mom was driving on Montgomery Avenue in Haverford on the Main Line. My friend Hank Fried and I were passengers in my mom’s Oldsmobile. At a pretty low speed, my mom’s car skidded on wet leaves and ran into the back of the car in front of us. That car had been at a standstill. I think it was very near the Merion Cricket Club. I remember skinning my knee but there was no big impact. The guy in the car my mom hit worked for a car dealer and he was delivering a new car. The guy sued my mom and he alleged impotence as a result of the accident. I remember my mom had a lot to say about that guy. The lawsuit got settled.
I am sorry my mom and my dad are not around to appreciate Nick Foles. My mom would be a fan. I know for a fact she would be rooting for the Eagles to beat the Lions tomorrow.
My mom was a drinker. It used to annoy the hell out of my sister Lise but my mom usually made martinis when my dad got home from work. I would say two martinis was the norm. My parents enjoyed drinking together.
I miss my mom, really everything about her. I wish she was around. She was great company. She did not sugarcoat anything. She knew how to “keep it real” long before that phrase became famous.
Mandela – posted 12/5/2013
I had no intention of writing about Nelson Mandela but then I heard he died today. I was driving home from work tonight when I heard the news on NPR. I was surprised how emotional I felt about it. There really has not been any leader on the world stage in my lifetime who matches Mandela. I tried to think about that and i could not come up with any names that I thought were comparable. Mandela put himself on the line in a way you never see from any American politician.
I know there must be many TV shows commemorating Mandela. I have tried to avoid those since i heard the news. These are my own thoughts.
What I think is most remarkable about Mandela is how one principled man can make a difference. Recognizing the evil of South African apartheid and racism, he and his movement the African National Congress (ANC), figured out creative strategies to oppose and ultimately overcome a hideous dehumanized system that denied the humanity of all people of color. He worked on this project for almost a lifetime. He had to confront awful adversities. He stuck to it. He endured 27 years in prison. Robben Island was no picnic. Persistence ultimately delivered results even though it must have seemed hopeless many times. Mandela is an example for activists of the importance of having a long range perspective. Change does not come easily, ever. It is amazing to think about a person going from being a prisoner to being president of his country.
As Mandela showed, the battle to create a more human South Africa was a lifetime affair. That perspective is grounding. It enabled Mandela to deal with the many defeats that inevitably accompany any political life. We here in America expect instant results. To give a contemporary example, activists here have been fighting for universal health care and recognition that health care should be a right. We are not there yet. The Affordable Care Act is the latest step in the direction of universal coverage. The focus on the failings of the healthcare.gov website are misplaced even if the website could be better. Really the question about Obamacare is how many more uninsured people obtain coverage. It is a single reform in an effort that goes back many many years. As a sophisticated politico, Mandela would have certainly understood the political limitations facing progressives now. I expect he would have applauded the health care reform while pushing for more universal coverage. Mandela’s perspective allowed him to keep going because he did not get too bent out of shape when things went wrong as they always do.
I am impressed by the fact Mandela never dehumanized his political opponents. He maintained relationships with everyone including the racists who put him in jail. I think this is one of his greatest contributions. He treated all people with respect. This must have been very hard to do. So often people lose their values when they fight an injustice. The typical sins are numerous: self-righteousness, hatred, fanaticism for starters. The fact that Mandela maintained this perspective probably had a lot to do with how South Africa avoided a bloodbath in the aftermath of apartheid. There could have been huge score settling. Mandela channeled the rage into more constructive approaches like the truth and reconciliation commission.
Mandela is a role model example of the lawyer-activist but I am sure he would not like all the attention being focused on him. He was the leader of a movement and it was the movement that ultimately took down apartheid – not one man. I guess the other side of the argument is that the leader is critical in guiding the movement so it does not go off the rails down wrong directions.
In our era, the fight against racism remains a central fight. Racism is structural. It remains rooted in our institutions. That was true in South Africa and it remains true in America. Popular understanding of this struggle remains weak. Mandela provides a positive example of a successful struggle against racism. That does not mean the race problem in South Africa has been eliminated. The struggle now has a different form and different approaches are required. America seems lost in a collective delusion that racism has been solved and the answer is color-blindedness. There are ongoing issues with the distribution of wealth and power in America. Poor people of all races have been harmed. it is the challenge for American activists to figure how to unite all kinds of people to struggle against economic inequality while recognizing the special harm caused by racism in America. That sin is not expiated.
I will stop for now. I may write more about Mandela as he deserves a more reflective piece. i just did not want to let today go by without acknowledging both the magnitude of his loss and the wonderfulness of his example. I will end with a poem from Langston Hughes:
Black Workers
The bees work.
Their work is taken from them.
We are like the bees —
But it won’t last
Forever.
Movie Review: “Dirty Wars” featuring Jeremy Scahill – posted 11/29/2013
Before I ever saw this documentary, I had admired Jeremy Scahill as an investigative reporter. Unlike so many reporters who do not deviate from the pack, Scahill has repeatedly demonstrated courage. He investigated Blackwater, a shadowy mercenary outfit and wrote a best-selling book about it. More recently, he has worked as a national security correspondent for The Nation. In that role, he has demonstrated a willingness to go to difficult places in pursuit of a story. He spent a considerable part of the last ten years covering the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It seems to me that journalists like him are rare today. So many journalists aspire to be rich courtiers to power, embedded with those they are supposed to be covering. The trade-off for continuing access to power is the superficial, play-it-safe, gossip-mongering form of conciliationist journalism. These days there is a ton of that.
Real investigative journalism is practically dead and it has been dying for some time now. Which is crazy when you think about it because we need it now more than ever. For all the media we have, so much is an inside the bubble affair, guaranteed not to offend.
So it was with a high level of interest that I viewed Scahill’s documentary, Dirty Wars. The movie shines a light on the War on Terror, a war Scahill describes as “hidden in plain view”.
The movie opens with Scahill travelling into the countryside outside Kabul, Afghanistan into an area on the edge of NATO control. He had to get back before dark because the Taliban controlled the road at night and they had kidnapped journalists there before. Scahill investigates a February 2010 incident that occurred in Gardez where American soldiers made a 4:00am raid looking for Taliban. The soldiers killed five Afghans, including Mohammed Daoud, a senior Afghan police commander, and two pregnant women.
Scahill interviews family members and locals about the incident. It appeared innocent people unrelated to the Taliban were murdered for reasons that were murky at best. The Afghan locals interviewed by Scahill claim that the Americans dug bullets out of bodies afterwards, apparently in an effort to hide their role. Scahill wanted to find out more about the perpetrators.
Returning to the U.S., Scahill tried to drum up interest in the Gardez incident. He managed to appear before Rep. John Conyers’ (D-Mich) House Committee but no other Congressperson showed at the public hearing. Congress was not willing to investigate.
Scahill appeared on TV talk shows which he described as like a boxing match. He was not able to arouse any interest. He did wrangle an interview with General Hugh Shelton, who had been Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Not surprisingly, Gen. Shelton felt there should be no investigation into Gardez. Shelton argued that he had previously been shot at by women. While he felt it was too bad pregnant women were shot, he felt it was impossible to know if the murdered women were Taliban.
A subsequent UN investigation into the Gardez incident confirmed Scahill’s account. The Afghans in Gardez had described the Americans involved as “American Taliban”. The soldiers had beards. This was the beginning of Scahill’s awareness of JSOC, the Joint Special Operations Command. JSOC was the most covert unit in the military. Later JSOC became famous for killing Osama Bin Laden.
Scahill followed up on JSOC. He interviews two guys with JSOC connections. What he finds out is newsworthy. JSOC is conducting many raids in many countries (Scahill says 75 countries) looking for alleged terrorists. They have target lists like the famous Iraq playing cards. They drop into hot spots around the world and kill people who are on their apparently endless kill lists. This is a far broader mission than killing off some Taliban in Afghanistan.
The second half of the movie is devoted to looking at the War on Terror in its most recent incarnation. Scahill shows the War on Terror has become a limitless, unending mission where lists of alleged bad guys in many countries are targeted for death. When the last name on the list is reached, a new list with new names appears.
Sometimes there is “collateral damage” i.e. people murdered in the kill effort who were not on the kill list but who were in the wrong place at the wrong time. This is typically because the key killing tool is the drone. Anyone nearby a target is likely a goner. The extent of collateral damage is a matter of some controversy. While numbers are minimized by the Obama Administration, Scahill paints a worrisome picture. He worries drones and the covert war are creating more enemies than we are eliminating.
Scahill focuses on the case of Muslim cleric, Anwar Al-Aulaqi and his 16 year old son Abdulrahman. The Executive Branch targeted Anwar Al-Aulaqi for assassination and he was, in fact, assassinated in Yemen in 2011. A drone killed him after he was publicly added to the kill list. The son’s killing came two weeks after the father. The son was eating at an open air restaurant at the time of his death also by drone.
What makes the case of the al-Aulaqis’ unusual is that both were American citizens. The constitutional question does jump out: what about the extrajudicial assassination of an American citizen? What are the rules about that? Do Americans who are suspected terrorists have any rights under the Constitution and due process of law?
At least in the movie version (there is a companion book of the same name by Scahill I have not read) Scahill doesn’t go too heavily into the legal side. Maybe that is because he is not a lawyer. To his credit though, he sees what is at stake. He does note that Al-Aulaqi”s father, Nasser, filed a lawsuit against the killing of his son after it was learned the son was on the kill list. The court dismissed the lawsuit, in part, on lack of standing. The drone attack on Anwar Al-Aulaqi came after this court action.
The ACLU and the Center on Constitutional Rights filed a second lawsuit about the legality of the assassination. Although these issues are of great legal significance, they have received far less attention than they deserve. I believe the case, Al-Aulaqi et al v Panetta et al., filed in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia is still pending. The government has filed a Motion to Dismiss. I have included a copy of the complaint prepared by plaintiffs’ counsel at the end of this post. I think the plaintiffs’ legal arguments have merit.
Scahill provides some very limited background on Al-Aulaqi. He had been a popular preacher among English-speaking Muslims. After 9/11, he had initially expressed feelings of sympathy for the victims. Things changed though. After an arrest for passport fraud, and spending some time in jail, Al-Aulaqi left the U.S. and went to the U.K.. He lectured frequently especially to ultraconservative young Muslims. Increasingly he was seen as The Guy translating the jihad into English.
A major question in the case is the degree Al-Aulaqi was operational Al-Qaeda as opposed to whether he was simply a preacher. Scahill says there is no evidence he was operational. That is highly disputed. Al-Aulaqi moved to Yemen in 2004 and he went into hiding in the Shabwa mountain region.
It is hard to imagine a more consequential legal case. I would not be surprised if the issues presented do not eventually land in the U.S. Supreme Court.
Based on what I have read, I think Scahill minimizes how sketchy Anwar Al-Aulaqi was. The FBI had identified him as a senior recruiter for Al-Qaeda and I would not find that surprising. He is on record saying horrible stuff including praising Palestinian suicide bombers, praising the Somali group, Al-Shabaab, and praising the Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan.
I would factually distinguish his case from the case of his son. Using a drone to kill a 16 year old boy is morally disgusting and it flies in the face of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Roper v Simmons 593 US 551 (2005) which held it is unconstitutional to impose capital punishment for crimes committed under the age of 18. Here is it not clear that Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi committed any crimes. It was more a matter of the sins of the father being visited on the son.
The government has been ambiguous about whether the killing of Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi was a mistake. I have seen no official apologies.
Scahill ends by saying that this war has no end in sight and that the whole world is a battlefield. It is hard to argue with this bleak assessment. I hope we are not in a world where presidential kill lists and drone strikes are the routine American response to terrorism. I expect we would all live to regret such a dehumanized, legally questionable response.
The complaint filed by the plaintiffs in the Al-Aulaqi lawsuit is below:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIACOMPLAINT (Violation of Fourth and Fifth Amendments and Bill of Attainder Clause – targeted killing)
Al-Aulaqi et al v. Panetta et al
INTRODUCTION
1. Since 2001, and routinely since 2009, the United States has carried out deliberate and premeditated killings of suspected terrorists overseas. The U.S. practice of “targeted killing” has resulted in the deaths of thousands of people, including many hundreds of civilian bystanders. While some targeted killings have been carried out in the context of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, many have taken place outside the context of armed conflict, in countries including Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, Sudan, and the Philippines. These killings rely on vague legal standards, a closed executive process, and evidence never presented to the courts. This case concerns the role of Defendants Leon C. Panetta, William H. McRaven, Joseph Votel, and David H. Petraeus (collectively, “Defendants”) in authorizing and directing the killing of three American citizens in Yemen last year. The killings violated fundamental rights afforded to all U.S. citizens, including the right not to be deprived of life without due process of law.
2. In late 2009 or early 2010, Anwar Al-Aulaqi, an American citizen, was added to “kill lists” maintained by the Central Intelligence Agency (“CIA”) and the Joint Special Operations Command (“JSOC”), a component of the Department of Defense (“DOD”). On September 30, 2011, unmanned CIA and JSOC drones fired missiles at Anwar Al-Aulaqi and his vehicle, killing him and at least three other people, including Samir Khan, another American citizen. Defendants authorized and directed their subordinates to carry out the strike.
3. On October 14, 2011, Defendants authorized and directed another drone strike in Yemen, this one approximately 200 miles away from the strike that had killed Anwar Al-Aulaqi and Samir Khan two weeks earlier. The October 14 strike killed at least seven people at an open-air restaurant, including two children. One of the children was 16- year-old Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi, who was Anwar Al-Aulaqi’s son and also an American citizen.
4. Defendants’ killing of Anwar Al-Aulaqi was unlawful. At the time of the killing, the United States was not engaged in an armed conflict with or within Yemen. Outside the context of armed conflict, both the United States Constitution and international human rights law prohibit the use of lethal force unless, at the time it is applied, lethal force is a last resort to protect against a concrete, specific, and imminent threat of death or serious physical injury. Upon information and belief, Anwar Al-Aulaqi was not engaged in activities that presented such a threat, and the use of lethal force against him was not a last resort. Even in the context of an armed conflict, the law of war cabins the government’s authority to use lethal force and prohibits killing civilians who are not directly participating in hostilities. The concept of “direct participation” requires both a causal and temporal nexus to hostilities. Upon information and belief, Defendants directed and authorized the killing of Anwar Al-Aulaqi even though he was not then directly participating in hostilities within the meaning of the law of war.
5. Defendants’ killing of Samir Khan and Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi was also unlawful. Upon information and belief, neither Samir Khan nor Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi was engaged in any activity that presented a concrete, specific, and imminent threat to life; nor was either of them directly participating in hostilities. The news media have
reported, based on statements attributed to anonymous U.S. government officials, that Samir Khan was not the target of the September 30 strike and that Abdulrahman Al- Aulaqi was not the target of the October 14 strike. If the Defendants were targeting others, they had an obligation under the Constitution and international human rights law to take measures to prevent harm to Samir Khan, Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi, and other bystanders. Even in the context of an armed conflict, government officials must comply with the requirements of distinction and proportionality and take all feasible measures to protect bystanders. Upon information and belief, Samir Khan and Abdulrahman Al- Aulaqi were killed because Defendants failed to take such measures.
6. Plaintiffs are the personal representatives of the estates of Anwar Al-Aulaqi, Samir Khan, and Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi. They seek damages from Defendants for their role in authorizing and directing the killings of Plaintiffs’ sons and grandson in violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments and the Bill of Attainder Clause.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
7. This complaint is for compensatory damages resulting from the conduct of Defendants, all of them U.S. government officials, in violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments and the Bill of Attainder Clause.
8. This Court has jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question) and the U.S. Constitution.
9. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1).
PARTIES
10. Plaintiff Nasser Al-Aulaqi is the father of Anwar Al-Aulaqi and the grandfather of Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi. He is a citizen and resident of Yemen. He
brings this suit as the personal representative of the estates of his son and grandson, American citizens who were killed by missile strikes authorized and directed by Defendants.
11. Plaintiff Sarah Khan, an American citizen, is the mother of Samir Khan. She brings this suit as the personal representative of the estate of her son, an American citizen who was killed by missile strikes authorized and directed by Defendants.
12. Defendant Leon C. Panetta is the Secretary of Defense, a post he has held since July 2011. As Defense Secretary, he has ultimate authority over U.S. armed forces worldwide, including over JSOC. He authorized Anwar Al-Aulaqi’s continued placement on JSOC’s kill list after July 2011 and authorized and directed the missile strikes that killed Anwar Al-Aulaqi, Samir Khan, and Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi. Between February 2009 and June 2011, Defendant Panetta was the Director of the CIA. As CIA Director, he authorized the addition of Anwar Al-Aulaqi to the CIA’s kill list. He is sued in his individual capacity.
13. Defendant William H. McRaven is Commander of the U.S. Special Operations Command (“USSOCOM”), a post he has held since August 2011. As Commander of USSOCOM, Defendant McRaven has authority over JSOC, a subordinate unified command within USSOCOM. He authorized and directed the missile strikes that killed Anwar Al-Aulaqi, Samir Khan, and Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi. Between June 2008 and June 2011, he was the Commander of JSOC. In that capacity, he authorized the addition of Anwar Al-Aulaqi to JSOC’s kill list. He is sued in his individual capacity.
14. Defendant Joseph Votel is the Commander of JSOC, a post he has held since June 2011. As Commander of JSOC, he has authority over JSOC operations. He
authorized and directed the missile strikes that killed Anwar Al-Aulaqi, Samir Khan, and Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi. He is sued in his individual capacity.
15. Defendant David H. Petraeus is the Director of the CIA, a post he has held since September 2011. As CIA Director, he has ultimate authority over the CIA’s operations worldwide. He authorized and directed the missile strikes that killed Anwar Al-Aulaqi, Samir Khan, and Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi. He is sued in his individual capacity.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
“Targeted Killings” by the United States 16. The first reported post-2001 targeted killing by the U.S. government outside
Afghanistan occurred in Yemen in November 2002, when a CIA-operated Predator drone fired a missile at a terrorism suspect traveling in a car with other passengers. The strike killed all passengers in the vehicle, including an American citizen. The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions later stated that the strike constituted “a clear case of extrajudicial killing” and set an “alarming precedent.”
17. Since 2002, the United States has continued to carry out targeted killings outside the context of armed conflict. The pace of these killings has increased dramatically since 2009. In the course of carrying out these killings, the government has killed many hundreds of civilian bystanders. In December 2009, a U.S. missile strike in the village of al-Majalah, Yemen, killed 41 people, including 21 children.
18. In April 2012, Deputy National Security Advisor John Brennan acknowledged publicly that the United States carries out targeted killings of suspected terrorists “beyond
hot battlefields like Afghanistan,” often using “remotely piloted aircraft” known as “drones.” Both the CIA and JSOC are involved in authorizing, planning, and carrying out these killings; both the CIA and JSOC have carried out such killings in Yemen; and, according to a December 2011 report in the Washington Post and other news sources, the CIA and JSOC “share intelligence and coordinate attacks.” Greg Miller, Under Obama, an Emerging Global Apparatus for Drone Killing, Wash. Post, Dec. 27, 2011.
19. Both the CIA and JSOC maintain “kill lists” setting out the names of the individuals they intend to kill. See Jo Becker & Scott Shane, Secret ‘Kill List’ Proves a Test of Obama’s Principles and Will, N.Y. Times, May 29, 2012. Upon information and belief, the inclusion of an individual on one or both of the lists represents a standing order authorizing and directing certain government personnel to kill that individual. In a February 2011 interview with Newsweek, the CIA’s former acting general counsel John Rizzo described the CIA’s list as “basically a hit list.” He stated that there are approximately 30 individuals on the list “at any given time,” and that “[t]he Predator [drone] is the weapon of choice, but it could also be someone putting a bullet in your head.” Tara McKelvey, Inside the Killing Machine, Newsweek, Feb. 13, 2011.
20. Senior government officials, including then-Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair and Deputy National Security Advisor John Brennan, have made clear that the government’s claimed authority to carry out the targeted killing of suspected terrorists, including killings executed outside the context of armed conflict, extends to American citizens. However, government officials have offered incomplete and inconsistent explanations of the legal standards that govern the placement of U.S. citizens on the kill lists. Some officials have suggested that the U.S. government targets its
citizens only if they present “imminent” threats, but they have defined the term “imminent” so broadly as to negate its meaning.
Defendants’ Decision to Authorize the Killing of Anwar Al-Aulaqi 21. Plaintiff Nasser Al-Aulaqi is a Yemeni citizen who moved to the United
States in 1966 to study as a Fulbright scholar at New Mexico State University. He and his wife lived in the United States until 1978, when they moved back to Yemen. In Yemen, he served as Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and president of Sana’a University, and founded and served as president of Ibb University. He currently resides in Yemen with his wife, who is an American citizen, and their family.
22. Plaintiff Nasser Al-Aulaqi’s son, Anwar, was born in 1971 in New Mexico. He moved to Yemen with his parents in 1978. In 1991, he returned to the United States to attend college at Colorado State University. He obtained his master’s degree from San Diego State University and then enrolled in a Ph.D. program at George Washington University, which he attended through December 2001. While living in the United States, he married and had children, including Abdulrahman. He left the United States in 2003, first for the United Kingdom and then for Yemen.
23. In January 2010, the Washington Post reported that JSOC had added Anwar Al-Aulaqi to its kill list and had tried unsuccessfully to kill him in December 2009. Dana Priest, U.S. Military Teams, Intelligence Deeply Involved in Aiding Yemen on Strikes, Wash. Post, Jan. 27, 2010. Other media organizations reported the same information. In March 2010, the Wall Street Journal reported that then-CIA Director Defendant Panetta stated that Anwar Al-Aulaqi was “someone that we’re looking for” and that “there isn’t any question that he’s one of the individuals that we’re focusing on.” Keith Johnson,
U.S. Seeks Cleric Backing Jihad, Wall St. J., Mar. 26, 2010. In April 2010, multiple media organizations, including the Washington Post, reported that Anwar Al-Aulaqi had been added to the CIA’s kill list. See Greg Miller, Muslim Cleric Aulaqi Is 1st U.S. Citizen on List of Those CIA Is Allowed To Kill, Wash. Post, Apr. 7, 2010.
24. The decision to add Anwar Al-Aulaqi to government kill lists was made after a closed executive process. Defendant Panetta participated in this process, and upon information and belief Defendant McRaven participated in this process as well. Upon information and belief, Defendants authorized and directed Anwar Al-Aulaqi’s killing even though, at the time lethal force was used, Anwar Al-Aulaqi was not engaged in activities that presented a concrete, specific, and imminent threat to life, and even though there were means short of lethal force that could reasonably have been used to address any such threat. Upon information and belief, Defendants authorized and directed Anwar Al-Aulaqi’s killing even though he was not then directly participating in hostilities within the meaning of the law of war.
25. In or around June 2010, the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel completed a memorandum providing legal justifications for the killing of Anwar Al- Aulaqi. Substantial portions of the memorandum were summarized in October 2011 by the New York Times, which reported, based on conversations with individuals who had read the document, that the memorandum “provided the justification for acting [against Anwar Al-Aulaqi] despite an executive order banning assassinations, a federal law against murder, protections in the Bill of Rights and various strictures of the international laws of war.” Charlie Savage, Secret U.S. Memo Made Legal Case to Kill a Citizen, N.Y. Times, Oct. 8, 2011.
26. Between the time Anwar Al-Aulaqi was added to the JSOC and CIA kill lists and the time he was killed, government officials told reporters that Al-Aulaqi had “cast his lot” with terrorist groups and encouraged others to engage in terrorist activity. Later, they claimed he had played “a key role in setting the strategic direction” for “Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP).” The government never publicly indicted Anwar Al- Aulaqi for any crime.
Nasser Al-Aulaqi’s Lawuit to Enjoin the Government from Killing His Son 27. On August 30, 2010, Nasser Al-Aulaqi filed suit in this Court as next friend of
his son, Anwar, asking that the Court enter an injunction barring the President, the CIA, and DOD (including JSOC) from carrying out the targeted killing of his son unless the executive concluded that he presented a concrete, specific, and imminent threat to life, and that there were no reasonably available measures short of lethal force that could be expected to address that threat. After hearing argument on November 8, 2010, the Court dismissed the Complaint on December 7, 2010, holding that Nasser Al-Aulaqi lacked standing to assert his son’s constitutional rights and that at least some of the issues raised by the Complaint were non-justiciable political questions. No appeal was taken.
Samir Khan 28. Plaintiff Sarah Khan is a U.S. citizen who has lived in the United States since
1992 with her husband and children. Her son, Samir, was born in 1985 and became a U.S. citizen in 1998.
29. Samir Khan attended elementary school in Queens, New York, and high school on Long Island, New York. After graduating from high school in 2003, he moved
10
to North Carolina, where he attended a community college and worked part-time. He left for Yemen in October 2009.
30. Anonymous government officials have told reporters that Samir Khan was a “propagandist” for AQAP. The government never publicly indicted him for any crime.
The September 30, 2011 Killing of Anwar Al-Aulaqi and Samir Khan 31. On the morning of September 30, 2011, Anwar Al-Aulaqi and Samir Khan
were in the Yemeni province of al-Jawf, some 90 miles northeast of Sana’a. Upon information and belief, Defendants Panetta, McRaven, Votel, and Petraeus authorized and directed personnel under their command to fire missiles at Anwar Al-Aulaqi and his vehicle from unmanned U.S. drones. The missiles destroyed the vehicle and killed Anwar Al-Aulaqi, Samir Khan, and at least two others. Witnesses reported that the missile strike left the vehicle a “charred husk” and “tore the [victims’] bodies to pieces.” Dominic Rushe, et al., Anwar al-Awlaki Death: US Keeps Role Under Wraps to Manage Yemen Fallout, Guardian, Sept. 30, 2011; Sudarsan Raghavan, Awlaqi Hit Misses al- Qaeda Bombmaker, Yemen Says, Wash. Post, Sept 30, 2011. According to a September 30, 2011 article in the Washington Post and a June 2012 book by journalist Daniel Klaidman, personnel under Defendants’ command had been surveilling Anwar Al-Aulaqi for a period as long as three weeks leading up to the strike. Greg Miller, Strike on Aulaqi Demonstrates Collaboration Between CIA and Military, Wash. Post, Sept. 30, 2011; Daniel Klaidman, Kill or Capture (2012). Defendants’ lengthy surveillance suggests that the use of lethal force was not a last resort and that additional measures could have been taken to protect bystanders from harm.
32. The surveillance and the strike were carried out by the CIA and JSOC. Upon information and belief, Defendant Petraeus was personally responsible for authorizing and directing the CIA’s involvement in the September 30 strike, and Defendants Panetta, McRaven, and Votel were personally responsible for authorizing and directing JSOC’s involvement in it. Defendants coordinated with each other in planning the attack and carrying it out.
33. Senior government officials, including Defendant Panetta and President Barack Obama, have acknowledged the responsibility of the United States for killing Anwar Al-Aulaqi. On the same day the strike was carried out, DOD published a news article stating that “[a] U.S. airstrike . . . killed . . . Anwar [Al-Aulaqi] early this morning” and that he had been “high on the military-intelligence list of terrorist targets.” Lisa Daniel, Panetta: Awlaki Airstrike Shows U.S.-Yemeni Cooperation, Am. Forces Press Service, Sept. 30, 2011. The following day, Defendant Panetta stated in a public speech that “it is because of th[e] teamwork between our intelligence and our military communities that we were successful in . . . taking down al-Awlaki.” Three weeks later, President Obama stated on national television that “working with the Yemenis, we were able to remove [Anwar Al-Aulaqi] from the field.” Tonight Show with Jay Leno (NBC television broadcast Oct. 25, 2011).
34. Defendants’ killing of Anwar Al-Aulaqi was unlawful. Upon information and belief, Defendants authorized and directed the strike even though, at the time the strike was carried out, Anwar Al-Aulaqi was not engaged in activities that presented a concrete, specific, and imminent threat of death or serious physical injury. Upon information and belief, Defendants authorized and directed the strike even though there were means short
of lethal force that could reasonably have been used to neutralize any threat that Anwar Al-Aulaqi’s activities may have presented. The killing of Anwar Al-Aulaqi was unlawful even if analyzed under the law of war because, upon information and belief, Defendants authorized and directed the strike even though Anwar Al-Aulaqi was not then directly participating in hostilities within the meaning of the law of war.
35. Defendants’ killing of Samir Khan was also unlawful. Samir Khan was not engaged in any activity that presented a concrete, specific, and imminent threat of death or serious physical injury; nor was he directly participating in hostilities. If he was killed because of the government’s targeting of Anwar al-Aulaqi, his killing was unlawful because Al-Aulaqi’s killing was unlawful and because, upon information and belief, Defendants authorized and directed the strike without taking legally required measures to avoid harm to bystanders. Even in the context of an armed conflict, government officials must comply with the requirements of distinction and proportionality and take all feasible measures to protect bystanders. Upon information and belief, Samir Khan was killed because Defendants failed to take such measures.
The October 14, 2011 Killing of Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi 36. Plaintiff Nasser Al-Aulaqi’s grandson, Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi, was born in
Denver, Colorado, on August 26, 1995. He was raised in the United States until 2002, when he moved with his family to Yemen. At the time of his death, he was a student in his first year of high school and resided in Sana’a, Yemen, with his mother, siblings, grandmother, and grandfather.
37. On October 14, 2011, Abdulrahman was at an open-air restaurant near the town of Azzan, in the southern Yemeni province of Shabwa. Upon information and
belief, Defendants Panetta, McRaven, Votel, and Petraeus authorized and directed personnel under their command to fire missiles from unmanned U.S. drones at a person at or near the restaurant. According to media sources, the intended target was Ibraham Al- Banna, an Egyptian national, but it was later reported that he was not among those killed by the strike. See Gregory Johnsen, Signature Strikes in Yemen, Waq al-Waq, Apr. 19, 2012. The strike killed at least seven people, including Abdulrahman and one of his cousins, another minor. Abdulrahman himself was 16 years old.
38. After the strike, a senior Obama administration official described Abdulrahman to the Los Angeles Times as a “military-aged male.” Ken Dilanian, Grieving Awlaki Family Protests Yemen Drone Strikes, L.A. Times, Oct. 19, 2011. Other news sources described Abdulrahman as a militant in his twenties. To correct these erroneous descriptions, Abdulrahman’s family provided his birth certificate to the Washington Post. After the Washington Post published the birth certificate, U.S. officials acknowledged in anonymous statements to the press that Abdulrahman had been a minor.
39. Upon information and belief, Defendant Panetta was personally responsible for authorizing and directing the CIA’s involvement in the October 14 strike, and Defendants Petraeus, McRaven, and Votel were personally responsible for authorizing and directing JSOC’s involvement in the October 14 strike. Defendants coordinated with each other in planning the attack and carrying it out.
40. The killing of Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi was unlawful. Abdulrahman was not engaged in any activity that presented a concrete, specific, and imminent threat of death or serious physical injury; nor was he directly participating in hostilities. If he was killed because the government was targeting another individual, his killing was unlawful
because, upon information and belief, Defendants authorized and directed the strike without taking legally required measures to avoid harm to him. Even in the context of an armed conflict, the government must comply with the requirements of distinction and proportionality and take all feasible measures to protect bystanders. Upon information and belief, Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi was killed because Defendants failed to take such measures.
CAUSES OF ACTION
First Claim for Relief Fifth Amendment: Due Process
41. Defendants’ actions described herein violated the substantive and procedural due process rights of Anwar Al-Aulaqi, Samir Khan, and Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. Defendants Panetta, McRaven, Votel, and Petraeus violated the Fifth Amendment due process rights of Anwar al-Aulaqi, Samir Khan, and Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi by authorizing and directing their subordinates to use lethal force against them in the circumstances described above. The deaths of Anwar al- Aulaqi, Samir Khan, and Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi were a foreseeable result of Defendants’ actions and omissions.
Second Claim for Relief Fourth Amendment: Unreasonable Seizure
42. Defendants’ actions described herein violated the rights of Anwar Al-Aulaqi, Samir Khan, and Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi to be free from unreasonable seizures under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. Defendants Panetta, McRaven, Votel, and Petraeus violated the Fourth Amendment rights of Anwar al-Aulaqi, Samir Khan, and Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi by authorizing and directing their subordinates to use lethal
force against them in the circumstances described above. The deaths of Anwar al-Aulaqi, Samir Khan, and Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi were a foreseeable result of Defendants’ actions and omissions.
Third Claim for Relief Bill of Attainder
43. Defendants’ actions described herein with respect to Anwar Al-Aulaqi violated the Constitution’s Bill of Attainder Clause. Defendants’ actions constituted an unconstitutional act of attainder because Defendants designated Anwar Al-Aulaqi for death without the protections of a judicial trial in the circumstances described above. The death of Anwar al-Aulaqi was a foreseeable result of Defendants’ actions and omissions.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter judgment awarding them:
A. B.
Damages in an amount to be determined at trial; and Such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Arthur B. Spitzer ________________________ Arthur B. Spitzer (D.C. Bar No. 235960) American Civil Liberties Union of the Nation’s Capital 4301 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 434 Washington, D.C. 20008 Telephone: (202) 457-0800; Fax: (202) 452-1868 art
Jameel Jaffer (to be admitted pro hac vice) Hina Shamsi (to be admitted pro hac vice) Nathan Freed Wessler American Civil Liberties Union Foundation 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004 (212) 519-7814 jjaffer
Pardiss Kebriaei (to be admitted pro hac vice) Maria C. LaHood (to be admitted pro hac vice) Baher Azmy Center for Constitutional Rights
666 Broadway, 7th floor New York, NY 10012 (212) 614-6452 pkebriaei
July 18, 2012
Jonathan P. Baird 