In late 2012, the ACLU and the New York Times sought information on the legal rationale for the kill program, specifically the strikes that had killed three US citizens—among them sixteen-year-old Abdulrahman Awlaki. In January 2013, a federal judge ruled on the request. In her decision, Judge Colleen McMahon appeared frustrated with the White House’s lack of transparency, writing that the Freedom of Information Act requests raised “serious issues about the limits on the power of the Executive Branch under the Constitution and laws of the United States, and about whether we are indeed a nation of laws, not of men.” She charged that the Obama administration “has engaged in public discussion of the legality of targeted killing, even of citizens, but in cryptic and imprecise ways, generally without citing to any statute or court decision that justifies its conclusions.” She added, “More fulsome disclosure of the legal reasoning on which the Administration relies to justify the targeted killing of individuals, including United States citizens, far from any recognizable ‘hot’ field of battle, would allow for intelligent discussion and assessment of a tactic that (like torture before it) remains hotly debated. It might also help the public understand the scope of the ill-defined yet vast and seemingly ever-growing exercise.”
Ultimately, Judge McMahon blocked the release of the documents. Citing her legal concerns about the state of transparency with regard to the kill program, she wrote:
This Court is constrained by law, and under the law, I can only conclude that the Government has not violated FOIA by refusing to turn over the documents sought in the FOIA requests, and so cannot be compelled by this court of law to explain in detail the reasons why its actions do not violate the Constitution and laws of the United States. The Alice-in-Wonderland nature of this pronouncement is not lost on me; but after careful and extensive consideration, I find myself stuck in a paradoxical situation in which I cannot solve a problem because of contradictory constraints and rules—a veritable Catch-22. I can find no way around the thicket of laws and precedents that effectively allow the Executive Branch of our Government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws, while keeping the reasons for their conclusion a secret.
It is not just the precedents set during the Obama era that will reverberate into the future, but also the lethal operations themselves. No one can scientifically predict the future consequences of drone strikes, cruise missile attacks and night raids. But, from my experience in several undeclared war zones across the globe, it seems clear that the United States is helping to breed a new generation of enemies in Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan and throughout the Muslim world. Those whose loved ones were killed in drone strikes or cruise missile attacks or night raids will have a legitimate score to settle. In an October 2003 memo, written less than a year into the US occupation of Iraq, Donald Rumsfeld framed the issue of whether the United States was “winning or losing the global war on terror” through one question: “Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?” More than a decade after 9/11, that question should be updated. At the end of the day, US policy makers and the general public must all confront a more uncomfortable question: Are our own actions, carried out in the name of national security, making us less safe or more safe? Are they eliminating more enemies than they are inspiring? Boyle put it mildly when he observed that the US kill program’s “adverse strategic effects...have not been properly weighed against the tactical gains associated with killing terrorists.”
In November 2012, President Obama remarked that “there’s no country on Earth that would tolerate missiles raining down on its citizens from outside its borders.” He made the statement in defense of Israel’s attack on Gaza, which was launched in the name of protecting itself from Hamas missile attacks. “We are fully supportive of Israel’s right to defend itself from missiles landing on people’s homes and workplaces and potentially killing civilians,” Obama continued. “And we will continue to support Israel’s right to defend itself.” How would people living in areas of Yemen, Somalia or Pakistan that have been regularly targeted by US drones or missile strikes view that statement?
Toward the end of President Obama’s first term in office, the Pentagon’s general counsel, Jeh Johnson, gave a major lecture at the Oxford Union in England. “If I had to summarize my job in one sentence: it is to ensure that everything our military and our Defense Department do is consistent with U.S. and international law,” Johnson said. “This includes the prior legal review of every military operation that the Secretary of Defense and the President must approve.” As Johnson spoke, the British government was facing serious questions about its involvement in US drone strikes. A legal case brought in the United Kingdom by the British son of a tribal leader killed in Pakistan alleged that British officials had served as “secondary parties to murder” by providing intelligence to the United States that allegedly led to the 2011 strike. A UN commission was preparing to launch an investigation into the expanding US kill program, and new legal challenges were making their way through the US court system. In his speech, Johnson presented the US defense of its controversial counterterror policies:
Some legal scholars and commentators in our country brand the detention by the military of members of al Qaeda as “indefinite detention without charges.” Some refer to targeted lethal force against known, identified individual members of al Qaeda as “extrajudicial killing.”
Viewed within the context of law enforcement or criminal justice, where no person is sentenced to death or prison without an indictment, an arraignment and a trial before an impartial judge or jury, these characterizations might be understandable.
Viewed within the context of conventional armed conflict—as they should be—capture, detention and lethal force are traditional practices as old as armies.
In the end, the Obama administration’s defense of its expanding global wars boiled down to the assertion that it was, in fact, at war; that the authorities granted by the US Congress to the Bush administration after 9/11 to pursue those responsible for the attacks justified the Obama administration’s ongoing strikes against “suspected militants” across the globe—some of whom were toddlers when the Twin Towers crumbled to the ground—more than a decade later. The end result of the policies initiated under President Bush and continued and expanded under his Democratic successor was to bring the world to the dawn of a new age, the era of the Dirty War on Terror. As Boyle, the former Obama campaign counterterrorism adviser, asserted in early 2013, the US drone program was “encouraging a new arms race for drones that will empower current and future rivals and lay the foundations for an international system that is increasingly violent.”
Today, decisions on who should live or die in the name of protecting America’s national security are made in secret, laws are interpreted by the president and his advisers behind closed doors and no target is off-limits, including US citizens. But the decisions made in Washington have implications far beyond their impact on the democratic system of checks and balances in the United States. In January 2013, Ben Emmerson, the UN special rapporteur on counterterrorism and human rights, announced his investigation into drone strikes and targeted killing by the United States. In a statement launching the probe, Emmerson characterized the US defense of its use of drones and targeted killings in other countries as “Western democracies...engaged in a global [war] against a stateless enemy, without geographical boundaries to the theatre of conflict, and without limit of time.” This position, he concluded, “is heavily disputed by most States, and by the majority of international lawyers outside the United States of America.”
At his inauguration in January 2013, Obama employed the rhetoric of internationalism. “We will defend our people and uphold our values through strength of arms and rule of law. We will show the courage to try and resolve our differences with other nations peac
efully—not because we are naïve about the dangers we face, but because engagement can more durably lift suspicion and fear,” the president declared. “America will remain the anchor of strong alliances in every corner of the globe; and we will renew those institutions that extend our capacity to manage crisis abroad, for no one has a greater stake in a peaceful world than its most powerful nation.” Yet, as Obama embarked on his second term in office, the United States was once again at odds with the rest of the world on one of the central components of its foreign policy. The drone strike in Yemen the day Obama was sworn in served as a potent symbol of a reality that had been clearly established during his first four years in office: US unilateralism and exceptionalism were not only bipartisan principles in Washington, but a permanent American institution. As large-scale military deployments wound down, the United States had simultaneously escalated its use of drones, cruise missiles and Special Ops raids in an unprecedented number of countries. The war on terror had become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The question all Americans must ask themselves lingers painfully: How does a war like this ever end?
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
THIS BOOK IS THE PRODUCT of the tireless work of a team of people, spread across the globe from Brooklyn, New York, to Sana’a, Yemen; Washington, DC; Mogadishu, Somalia; Kabul, Afghanistan; and beyond. I will never forget the bravery and dedication of my fellow journalists who traveled with me and aided me in so many legs of this multiyear journey. I cannot thank by name some of the people who were most helpful in producing this book—either for their own safety or because I promised to keep their identities confidential. All of them have my deepest gratitude and respect.
Although my name is on the front of this book, many of the stories told in Dirty Wars would not have been possible without my dear brother Richard Rowley. Rick is an incredibly brave journalist, unbelievably calm under pressure and duress. We were shot at together on rooftops in Mogadishu, slept on dingy floors in rural Afghanistan and traveled together in the netherlands of southern Yemen. There were many times during this investigation when I really don’t know if I would have had the strength or courage to carry on had it not been for Rick. He is a shining example of what journalists and friends should be.
For more than two years, my researcher Lauren Sutherland worked diligently to track down every lead we had—no matter how crazy the trail seemed. She is a ferocious investigator, and she prepared scores of meticulously documented briefings and memos on everything from Somali warlords to profiles of little-known military units to obscure legal filings. She was always cool under pressure and never once complained about the long hours she had to work. She even accompanied us on a discreet trip across the Kenya-Somalia border to meet with a Somali warlord who had been targeted by JSOC. My colleague Ryan Devereaux also provided invaluable research work for this book.
It is customary for authors to thank their agents, but Anthony Arnove is so much more than that to me. I feel truly honored to work with him. He is an incredible and loyal friend above all else, and he has my complete trust. He spent a surreal amount of time going over many versions of this book, always looking for ways to make it stronger. He has fantastic instincts and has literally devoted his entire life to supporting struggles for justice. This book could not have happened without Anthony’s brilliant shepherding of the project.
My editor, Betsy Reed, is hands down the best in the business. Not only did she edit this book in about ten different iterations, but she has been my editor at the Nation magazine for almost a decade. She is a fierce defender of her writers and their stories, and always pushes me further than I think I can go. I have never submitted any writing to Betsy that she did not make significantly stronger in the end. I feel so lucky to work with her daily and to call her a dear friend.
I am very fortunate to have an immensely supportive family. My parents, Michael and Lisa, are my heroes. My brother, Tim, and sister, Stephanie, have always been there for me, and I am so proud to be their brother and to also call them my friends. Ksenija Scahill is an incredible, strong young woman who is wise beyond her years, has a deep curiosity about the world and always inspires me. I am so proud of her and the person she is. She means the world to me. Liliana Segura is not only a phenomenal journalist but has been selfless, loving and determined in her support of me and of this project. In ways small and big, she has always been there when it mattered. Without her or her unwavering support, this book would not have been possible. My aunts, uncles and cousins in my extended family are tremendous people whose loyalty and encouragement know no bounds. My sister-in-law, Jenny Kling-Scahill, has been such a great addition to our family, and I adore my nieces, Maya and Caitlin. Barb and Harry Hoferle, my aunt and uncle, have visited me almost everywhere I have ever lived in the world and have been tremendous in their love and support.
Carl Bromley at Nation Books is a remarkable man and a great friend. He has a brilliant, sharp wit and fantastic ideas. From the first day we met about my previous book, Blackwater, Carl has been one of my most trusted colleagues. He is a real treasure. Ruth Baldwin has been a fantastic ally and a tireless advocate for this project and many others over the years. The support I’ve received from Taya Kitman at the Nation Institute has been crucial. The staff of the Nation Institute is an outstanding group of smart and talented people. I also want to express my gratitude to Hamilton Fish for his support over the years and to Victor Navasky.
The team at Perseus Books Group and Basic Books is tremendous. Susan Weinberg has been an enthusiastic backer of this book from the day she came on board. Her positivity and passion set the tone for a great community effort on this project. Her predecessor, John Sherer, was also a pleasure to work with and laid the groundwork for this project several years ago. Robert Kimzey did a brilliant job of moving the production of this book along, against the odds, on a very tight deadline, and did so with grace and class. Michele Wynn is an exceptional copy editor. I am also grateful to Mark Sorkin for his diligent work in proofing the book. Michele Jacob, my publicist, is a great gem and a passionate supporter of my work. She is a real pro. Alan Kaufman is a tenacious lawyer who is not afraid of the powerful and has always taken great care in protecting my journalism. Many thanks to Martin Soames, who did the British legal review of this book, for his careful work.
Many thanks to Marie Maes for the detailed index, Mike Morgenfeld and the Avalon Travel cartography department for the excellent maps and Jeff Vespa of WireImage for my author photo. Daniel LoPreto of Nation Books was invaluable in preparing the photographic insert and helping to manage the complex production of this book.
I owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to my colleagues at the Nation magazine. Katrina vanden Heuvel is an unshakable editor in chief who has always believed in me since we began working together in 2005. Richard Kim, Roane Carey and Emily Douglas are a joy to work with and are wonderful editors. Joliange Wright and Ellen Bollinger have always provided great encouragement, as has Jean Stein. I feel honored to be a part of the Nation magazine family. My friend and mentor Amy Goodman is the most loyal person I know and is one of the greatest journalists of our time. I will always consider Democracy Now! my university and my family.
The Puffin Foundation, the Wallace Global Fund and Lannan Foundation have been so incredible in their years of support for me and my work. Without them, nothing I have done in the past decade would have been possible. Patrick Lannan has become a dear friend and a great late-night whiskey drinking partner. Randall Wallace is a magical dude. And Perry Rosenstein has been a steadfast backer of my work. My friend Scott Roth has been so crucial to the Dirty Wars project, has a keen sense of justice and is one of the sharpest people I know. My gratitude also to Tony Tabatznik, Jen Robinson, Jess Search, Sandra Whipham and everyone at the Bertha Foundation and BRITDOC. The brilliant Cara Mertes from the Sundance Institute has been a solid adviser. Many thanks also to the Kindle Project for its support.
This book has also benefited tremendously from the
support of my international publishers: Pete Ayrton and Hannah Westland of Serpent’s Tail, Antje Kunstmann and Moritz Kirschner of Verlag Antje Kunstmann, Alexandre Sanchez and Louis-Frédéric Gaudet of Lux Éditeur, and the editorial teams of Companhia das Letras, Ediciones Paidós, Norstedts Förlag, All Prints Distributors and Publishers, and Wydawnictwo Sine Qua Non. Thanks also to David Grossman of David Grossman Literary Agency, Isabel Monteagudo and Rosa Bertran of International Editors Co., Philip Sane of Lennart Sane Agency and the whole team at Prava I Prevodi Literary Agency.
The film Dirty Wars has a credit roll that includes more than two hundred people who helped make the documentary. I cannot thank every one of them here, but I would like to thank especially the remarkable team at IFC Films/Sundance Selects, Josh Braun and all of his colleagues at Submarine Entertainment, Nancy Willen of Acme Public Relations, David Harrington and Kronos Quartet, as well as the Kronos Performing Arts Association, Frank Dehn, Sue Bodine, Marc H. Simon, David Menschel of the Vital Projects Fund and Kristin Feeley of the Sundance Institute Documentary Film Program. Special thanks also to Joslyn Barnes, Bonni Cohen, Howard Gertler, Rebecca Lichtenfeld, James Schamus, Sundance Institute Creative Producing Lab, and Michael Watt.
In the course of writing this book, I was honored to work with so many incredible and brave journalists and media workers. In Afghanistan, Jerome Starkey, Jeremy Kelly and Jason Motlagh were very generous with their time and insight. My friend Raouf Hikal was a great fixer and coordinator who took serious risks to tell stories that would not otherwise have been told. Thank you also to Haji Shokat, Fatima Ayoub, Noor Islam Ahmadzia, Asif Shokat, Naqibullah Salarzai and Shafiq Ullah. Una Vera Moore offered key help. Thank you also to the Sharabuddin family in Gardez for welcoming us into your home and for sharing your utterly painful story with us. We will never forget you.
Dirty Wars Page 73
