Drone Strikes & Mother Jones: When is a Radical Not a Radical?

Mother Jones was a socialist and a union organizer and odd to our ears, an opponent of women’s suffrage.  Love her or hate her, the woman was, when it came to matters of workers’ rights, a flaming anti-government liberal.  She was tried in West Virginia for ignoring an injunction from the courts banning meetings by striking miners.  She was convicted of conspiring to commit murder by a military tribunal for her activities during the Mine Wars in southern West Virginia in the early 1900's.  Released, similar charges were brought for her activities in Colorado, where she was escorted from the state.  Later she was tried for libel, slander and sedition (action leading others into insurrection or rebellion) in a civil action brought by the Chicago Tribune.*

The magazine bearing her name was founded in 1970 as an underground (subversive) publication.  Wikipedia: Mother Jones

David Corn works as a reporter for Mother Jones.  The thesis I propose is that Mr. Corn has forgotten his legacy; that he no longer speaks for the values and traditions of Mother Jones and should withdraw his association therefrom.

In a word, a radical he is not.  At least not when it comes to drones.

The exchange yesterday on Hardball, MSNBC’s purported liberal talk show hosted by Chris Matthews, was troubling, to say the least.  I have long understood that most of these shows, right and left, are little more than the personal opinions of the participants, writ large over the pages of history.  As such, they can be entertaining, but they are seldom, if ever, illuminating or beneficial.

That said, to represent one’s self as a spokesperson of a certain bent or ilk, shouldn’t one actually be of that bent or ilk?  And that is why I focus particularly on Mr. Corn, who claims to speak on behalf of a magazine, the credentials for which include its very name: Mother Jones.

To invoke Mother Jones is to invoke a radical resistance to power and dominance, and to do so vehemently.  This, after all, is the woman who organized a children’s march from Philadelphia to President Theodore Roosevelt’s home to protest child labor.

Wearing this mantel, read what Mr. Corn had to say about drone strikes, the death of civilians in the strikes, and the implications to American ‘democracy’.** While reading, bear in mind that Mother Jones’ web page today contains linked stories, such as “Obama Targeted Killing Document: If We Do It, It's Not Illegal” and “Barack Obama, Our Drone President:  How a community organizer and constitutional law professor became a robot president.”, implying, at the least, a criticism of the practice. Mother Jones Too bad Mr. Corn didn’t read his own magazine before going on Hardball.  Hard Ball: Drone Strikes

Chris Matthews as host framed the conversation thus: Today we talk about the overseas drone program and the White House justification of drone strikes on American citizens abroad. [Matthews showed a clip of White House spokesperson Jay Carney, saying that the drone program is designed to avoid civilian casualties - fewer die than in an invasion.]

Eugene Robinson said that we have to do counter-terrorism & capabilities of drones are such that this is our best weapon, but shouldn’t there be some sort of judicial oversight like a FISA court?  Especially when we’re talking about a US citizen.

Chris Matthews posited that we are limited what we can do - can either (1) use drones (2) SEAL team attack (Corn - yeah) (3) invade country (Corn - right) or (4) do nothing.

David Corn agreed with Robinson that there needs to be some oversight, such as the FISA court oversight for covert wiretapping.  Matthews then asked  do we have the right to kill?  To which Corn responded that as to an ‘active’ person, a person involved in some ‘operational way’, yes.

Matthews asked, do we have the right to kill Benedict Arnolds? to which Robinson responded, yes - the fact that he’s an American citizen doesn’t bother me.  But it does bother me there’s no structure, no process [of oversight].  Corn was not concerned over the issue of citizenship at all, calling that issue an outlyer, expressing more concern about what the next president might do.

When Matthews focused on the difference between SEAL team attacks and drone strikes, Corn opined that there is less possibility of collateral damage/civilian deaths with SEAL attacks than drone strikes and that the civilian casualties are counter-productive, saying that in Yemen, we have killed clerics friendly to the United States in the drone strikes, creating fear, hostility and blow back.

Matthews asked Corn what he would do if he were Commander-in-Chief: drone strikes or SEAL attack.  Corn’s response – it’s a damn difficult decision to make.

Matthews showed a clip of Republican Rep. Mike Rogers saying about the killing of an American citizen in Yemen by drone strike that he didn’t want his citizenship anymore.  If you join the enemy overseas, we’re going to fight the enemy overseas.  You’ve given that (protections of citizenship) up, to which Matthews commented, once you’re a turncoat, it’s easier for us.  Corn replied, It is.

Corn’s take on the whole thing: there should be “somewhat of a semblance of a rule of law”, apparently because you can trust some administrations (presumably this one) more than others.

This is not an exact transcript, but rather my notes on the video, as the transcript is not yet up on MSNBC’s site.  That said, note the repeat of the principal journalistic mistake when it comes to war and peace issues in our time: the taking of the government position as a given.

Rather than examining the government’s position to see if it has merit, journalists tend to take the government position as a given and then critique that position for its ‘workability’ (will the program accomplish the stated goal?) rather than examining the stated goal to determine whether it is even a worthy or appropriate goal in the first place.

And that, I think, is what happened here.  Mr. Corn, at least, should know better.  After all, he represents a publication that takes its name and identity from a woman who stood outside the machinations of government most of her adult life, speaking from the margins against stated governmental goals like orderliness, support for corporate profit goals, protecting property interests for the wealthy, etc.

So when is a radical no longer a radical?  When he speaks for and on behalf of a government program with no thought to those standing at the margins (always the ones most likely to be harmed by power) and has only suggestions of tweaking, to give the program the semblance of legal process.

More specifically, as a radical myself when it comes to issues of war and peace, violence and non-violence, my problems with Mr. Corn’s words (I’m just as troubled by Matthews and Robinson, but they never claimed to be radicals of the left.  Mr. Corn, at least implicitly, has) are:

1. He assumed that killing an alleged enemy of the state is the only option.  Mr. Matthews phrased our nation’s choices as limited to the manner in which we kill an enemy of the state, as opposed to even examining whether there are other alternatives.  There are.

a. Rather than killing an alleged enemy of the state, that person can be tried, either in person or in abstentia.  They can be provided due process of law.  And they can be found not guilty.  Or found guilty and sentenced to a term of imprisonment as opposed to execution.  The drone program substitutes the judgment of the Executive branch of the government for the judicial branch’s role.  The test of success for a nation such as ours is not how we behave on a good day, but rather how we behave on a bad one.  We have failed that test numerous times in our nation’s history.  Lincoln suspended habeas corpus for reasons of the nation’s security and the Supreme Court backed down.  Franklin Roosevelt created detention camps for Japanese Americans (citizens) without due process of law and for no other reason than their ethnic identity.  John Adams signed into law the Alien and Sedition Acts, used to prosecute those who spoke out freely against the actions of the government at a time when it was feared that the effects of the French Revolution would spread to the Americas.  The consequences of these choices were far reaching.  The Alien and Sedition Acts are said to have sown the seeds for the Civil War.  The problem with the war on terror is that it is not a war.  The powers that be, however, by so naming this series of conflicts ‘war’ while acknowledging that it is not a war, have gotten power’s ‘best of all possible worlds’– power unchecked – as a ‘war’, military actions around the globe that infringe on the sovereignty of other nations are justified and as a ‘not war’, behaviors even the military would not condone (drones are often the purview of the CIA rather than the Pentagon) are carried out.

b. Getting at the root causes of the conflicts.  Many of those recruited to terrorist activities are the disenfranchised, the poor, those with no hope.  It is no accident that Al-Queda provides food, health care and education wherever it sets up.  That our solution to the problem of Al-Queda is militaristic rather than humanitarian shows a short-sighted take on what is happening to real people in real time.

c. Using the United Nations Peacekeeping efforts.  It is popular in the US to nay-say the UN, but the fact is that UN peacekeeping forces are actually very successful around the globe.  And as a body, the UN actually does include humanitarian actions in its strategic plans everywhere it goes.

d. Negotiating with our enemies.  It has become popular to refuse to negotiate with ‘terrorists’.  But if we understand that (1) the nature of power is shifting away from nation states and towards other entities and groups; and (2) that negotiation only need happen when there is conflict, wouldn’t it be sensible to negotiate with those we oppose or who oppose us, regardless of whether their power structure is one we recognize or not?

e. I am sure there are other alternatives.  These are just a few.  None of them were explored in the conversation in which Mr. Corn participated, for the simple reason that the use of drones was taken as a given.  It is not.  The use of drones is neither a given nor an imperative.  It is a choice.  Another choice can be made.  Mother Jones would know that.

2. The dismissal of citizenship as important to the discussion.  Matthews actually framed the conversation in terms of citizenship and its implications in drone strike decisions.  After all, that’s what the leaked document was about, at least in part.  Yet all three participants quickly abandoned the importance of citizenship to the discussion.  Treason is an offense actually listed in the Constitution, which states in Article 3, Section 3, “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”

a. The Obama Administration is at the very least, implicitly following the legal reasoning (or lack thereof) of the Bush Administration, in defying our own Constitution and the laws of our nation and the world.  By calling this a war that is not a war, legal rights are suspended routinely, even the limited rights one might have in military tribunals.  Guantanamo remains open.  And now we have drones, openly killing from the sky.  And the best Mr. Corn has to offer is a suggestion of a FISA-type rubber-stamp tribunal.  An important note to remember: bodies who have pre-determined the outcome are not courts; they are inquisitions.

b. Treason is, I believe, the only criminal offense defined and procedurally established by the Constitution.  In order to be treason, by constitutional definition, not only must the offense have been committed in the way defined, but it must also be established on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act or on confession in open court.  The drone program, when used against citizens, is killing citizens for the offense of treason without any of the constitutional requirements being observed.  At least Mr. Corn will feel better if a secret tribunal inside the government rubber stamps the proposed killing of citizens for treason.  That, at least, will provide a semblance of law; and after all, it’s how things look that matters.  Shame, Mr. Corn.  A radical would know better.

3. Missing the difference between what soldiers do and what police do.  Soldiers kill people based on what they have done as well as what they’re doing or might do.  Police only kill people for what they actually are doing right now.  For what they have done already, police hand people over to courts to decide.  And for what they might do in the future, police act to prevent that, but they do not kill people for what they might do.

a. President Bush removed, almost without remark in the public sphere, the notion that we treat terror activities as police rather than military actions.  President Obama has continued, also unremarked, this dramatic policy shift.  And a shift it was.  Bush openly acknowledged that.  And 9/11 made everything we did justifiable.  But it isn’t.

b. a police action only kills those responsible, if at all.  A police action would never kill my neighbors for my deeds simply because they are my neighbors.  A military action, however, especially with the advent of technologies like drones, often kills my neighbors simply to get to me.  Refusing to acknowledge the difference, Mr. Corn, means that you take the claimed necessity of drone strikes as gospel.  Drone strikes are neither necessary nor gospel.  You, of all those speaking yesterday, should know better.

4. “Once you’re a turncoat, it’s easier for us.”  Matthews’ comment prompted Mr. Corn’s simple answer, “yes, it is.”

a. well, it shouldn’t be.  It shouldn’t ever be easier to kill anyone.  It shouldn’t ever be easier to kill one guilty man when we know for a fact that we will kill innocents to ‘get’ him.  It should be harder.  It should be harder because we should always be suspicious of our own motives, our own certainties, our own worldviews.

b. when Mother Jones walked the mountains of my home state of West Virginia, she walked the same ground of folk who would die in the struggles she was a part of.  For all I know, she attended the trials of union organizers who were tried for treason.  Mr. Corn speaks of the necessity of oversight against an overzealous government, but references only later administrations, as if this administration were somehow innately trustworthy.  But it is this administration who instituted the drone policies.  It is this administration who is killing civilians from afar and using secret justifications.  It is this administration who is led by a constitutional scholar who ignores that document when it suits him.  Power is and always has been a corrupting influence.  Pilate killed Jesus unwillingly.  Yet kill him he did.  That a leader agonizes over killing others isn’t particularly relevant or comforting to those killed or the ones they leave behind.  Because we may like or trust one leader more than another does not mean that leader is not corruptible.  We all are.  Courts aren’t perfect.  But they do bring the light of day to our collective actions.  If we cannot ‘afford’ that light of day, we prove ourselves and our grand experiment unworthy.  We don’t need enemies for that.

When is a radical not a radical?  When he succumbs, when he believes, that necessity is a virtue, for the simple reason that a radical knows that necessity seldom is (necessary).

When is a radical not a radical?  When he gives away someone else’s rights and believes it has nothing to do with him.

When is a radical not a radical?  When he wears the t-shirt of the radical while espousing the ideology of the established order of things.

When is a radical not a radical?  When he tells other radicals that drone strikes that kill innocent civilians and strip even the guilty of any semblance of due process that it’s really okay because, well, they’re just so darned dangerous.

When is a radical not a radical?  When he becomes afraid.

***

About the magazine Mother Jones from their own web site:

What's with the name?
Mary Harris "Mother" Jones was a very cool woman who fought for the underdog and made herself up to look way older than she was so that when she got beat down by Pinkerton agents, she'd gain public sympathy. . .  the radical reformer who'd been dubbed "the most dangerous woman in America."

So what's your value system then?
Principally we're about good journalism, following a story no matter where it takes us. We are interested in protecting the little guy and uncovering injustice. We also believe in good storytelling and coverage that surprises. We have no interest in preaching to a choir.

My brother says you're a lefty pinko rag. True?
Here's where we're coming from: We believe all people should have equal opportunity in life, that all children should be able to go to good schools, and that everyone should have health care. Call that what you will–we're not insulted by being called left, liberal, progressive, whatever. . .  Political inclinations notwithstanding, we will cheerfully investigate any people or entities of any political persuasion, right, left, or center, if their behavior warrants it.

From Wikipedia about Mother Jones magazine:
The magazine was named after Mary Harris Jones, called Mother Jones, an Irish-American trade union activist, opponent of child labor, and self-described "hellraiser". She was a part of the Knights of Labor, the Industrial Workers of the World, the Social Democratic Party, the Socialist Party of America, the United Mine Workers of America, and the Western Federation of Miners. The stated mission of Mother Jones is to produce revelatory journalism that in its power and reach informs and inspires a more just and democratic world.

*The difference between sedition and treason.  The primary difference seems to be the difference between involving outsiders in the conflict.  Sedition relates to stirring up the folks at home while treason involves betrayal and/or help from another (outsider) country.    Wikipedia: Sedition  

** I put ‘democracy’ in quotes because we are not a democracy.  We’re a representative republic.  But democracy is the word we most often use these days in referring in general to our rights and liberties as citizens of this Republic.