Why I Do Not Support the Drone Wars: Why No Cross No Crescent is Wrong, Part 2

In the first post in this series I looked at No Cross No Crescent's rationale for supporting the murder of the American-born Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki and his claim that the drone wars are an effective strategy against terrorism. In that post I explored the alleged evidence against him and found the evidence was lacking for his alleged ties to terrorist-related activities, and I explained how a mere change of tactics is not a sign of being on the losing end in combat.

In this second part, I'm going to explore No Cross No Crescent's counter-arguments against the objections of the opponents of the drone wars.

He begins with the following argument and offers a response:

The reason the drone strikes have been back in the news has the been the concern that they may happen on US soil. Except that that is not going to happen.

As in the last piece, I demonstrated how it's an unfortunate fact how No Cross No Crescent uncritically cites news sources without digging any deeper. Since it's not possible for me to predict the future, I obviously have no direct evidence to prove that no drone strikes would be used. However, if you look critically at the statements by government leaders in the media the idea has clearly not been ruled out, unlike what No Cross No Crescent argues. A Huffington Post article quotes U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder as arguing that “it could technically use military force to kill an American on U.S. soil in an 'extraordinary circumstance' but has 'no intention of doing so'.”

This doesn't sound like as much of an air tight denial against the use of drones against U.S. citizens as No Cross No Crescent believes. All this statement says is that they have “no intention” of using drones on U.S. soil but they clearly noted that it would not be illegal, and that they would under certain circumstances.

Ever since 9/11 the government has unfortunately been rolling back the rules that govern our rule of law: rules pertaining to legal search and seizure, mass interception of all of Americans' private communications, and of course, the issue which has been in the news so much: due process and a right to a speedy trial.

I think many people forget in this government-induced climate of fear precisely why these laws were put in place to begin with. They were put in place to help prevent government abuse and to protect the innocent from any wrongful punishment. Given the past abuses and blatant violations of the Constitution that the president and all other government agencies have sworn to uphold, who in their right mind would believe the government won't also abuse this legal loop hole: “Yes, it's legal for the president to murder an American citizen, but we promise we won't do it.” Yeah, sure.... just as they swore to uphold the law of the land. We can all see how that turned out, can't we?

No Cross No Crescent continues,

But the US is not the only place where there will never be any drone strikes. There are not going to be any drone stirkes anywhere in the world where there is a police force willing to apprehend terrorism suspects. [sic] Even in Pakistan, despite all the outrage in that country over the drone attacks, once the intended targets flee to the cities for fear of the drones, they get picked up by the police. And the Pakistani police have arrested some extremely nasty characters this way, that would likely be hiding to this day in a cave plotting the day of Pakistanis (and Americans) if it weren’t for the drones, even if these elements later get played as bargaining chips.

So the answer to “why are these targets attacked without the due process” is rather straightforward: because they are flouting the law by making the due process impossible. The only options are to send drones after them, or let them keep plotting more murders, as was the case with Baitullah Mehsud, the man behind assassination of former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto, and later drone target.

It seems that he is arguing that because many terrorists hide out in difficult to reach areas the authorities have no choice but to send drones because drones can fly high overhead, where security forces can't get to. I find this line of reasoning highly specious. First, because he cites not a single example of any terrorists being caught in this manner, and second, because it just doesn't make any sense. As to the first argument, Baitullah Mehsud was not forced out of hiding by drones and he didn't go into the town. He was simply killed in his farm house away from the towns. As for his second example, regarding Abdul Ghani Baradar, drones had nothing to do with his capture at all. The Huffington Post reported how a “joint operation by CIA and Pakistani security forces” were responsible for capturing him. No mention of drones whatsoever.

Now onto his second argument. As I just said in the last paragraph there have been several examples of Pakistani forces capturing or killing known terrorists without any need for drones. There is the case of Tariq Aziz, a 16 year old boy who was staying at a hotel to attend a conference about how to photograph and document the aftermath of drone strikes in their country of Pakistan. Three days later he was killed by a drone strike. How hard would it have been to ambush this boy in his hotel room? Not hard at all! He was a child! Even more than that, he was nonviolent, so why was he killed? Finally, during his testimony before a Senate sub-committee, Farea Al-Muslimi noted that one of the men who was the target of a drone strike could have easily been captured. He said,

Just six days ago, this so-called war came straight to my village. As I was thinking about my testimony and preparing to travel to the United States to participate in this hearing, I learned that a missile from a U.S. drone had struck the village where I was raised. Ironically, I was sitting with a group of American diplomats in Sana’a at a farewell dinner for a dear American friend when the strike happened. As I was leaving my American friends, both of my mobile phones began to receive a storm of text messages and calls.

For almost all of the people in Wessab, I’m the only person with any connection to the United States. They called and texted me that night with questions that I could not answer: Why was the United States terrifying them with these drones? Why was the United States trying to kill a person with a missile when everyone knows where he is and he could have been easily arrested? […]

My understanding is that Hameed Meftah, who is also known as Hameed Al-Radmi, was the target of the drone strike. Many people in Wessab know Al-Radmi. Earlier on the night he was killed, he was reportedly in the village meeting with the General Secretary of Local Councilors, the head of the local government. A person in the village told me that Al-Radmi had also met with security and government officials at the security headquarters just three days prior to the drone strike. Yemeni officials easily could have found and arrested Al-Radmi.

After looking at these cases, it no longer seems “impossible” as be argues.

I will say one last thing about No Cross No Crescent's second argument. Rather than trying to capture suspects it seems that the Obama administration simply wants to avoid proper legal procedures and outright kill people. A former legal adviser to the State Department and the National Security Council, John Bellinger, firmly believes the Obama administration is purposefully killing suspects and not bothering to even try to capture them. Many experts even believe this strategy of killing, rather than capturing, is actually harming their “war on terror” by failing to gather much needed intelligence about the “evolving organization – and thus on information that might also be crucial in defeating the terror group.”

The next objection No Cross No Crescent addresses is that of state sovereignty. It's often argued that those countries the U.S. operated drones in are a violation of the sovereignty of the target country. He responds:

Which meshes in nicely with the next objection to the drone war: the violation of sovereignty. This is almost comical. Pakistan, Yemen and other countries where the drone strikes are carried out have no sovereignty to begin with, in their lawless areas. There would be no drone war if these areas were under control. If they care about sovereignty so much they can start by impose the rule of law over their own country.

I disagree with this strongly and I believe he doesn't understand what sovereignty is. State sovereignty is defined as a “supreme power especially over a body politic,” and is also the “freedom from external control, or autonomy.” It is the second definition that most applies to the drone wars. This definition should make it perfectly clear that sovereignty does not mean that one state can enter another state without permission, even if it may have a few “lawless” areas. International and Humanitarian law still apply. His justification for violating the sovereignty of another state has no logical, nor legal, basis.

Now that I've said this, let me back up for a second. The Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) does allow intervention by other states so long as at least one of four factors apply. Bruce W. Jentleson's American Foreign Policy: The Dynamics of Choice in the 21st Century (W.W. Norton & Co., 2007; pgs.430-432) lays out the following exceptions to the ICISS:

1. Just cause, in terms of an “extreme humanitarian emergency” or completely dire situation and a credible claim that the United States or other intervener is acting for the humanitarian motivations more than out of particularistic self-interest.

2. Proportionality of the military means, which should be only enough to achieve the humanitarian objective.

3. A strong probability of success, taking into account collateral damage, civilian casualties, and avoidance of “destroying the village in order to save it.”

4. Force as a last resort.

Not a single one of the above four exceptions remotely apply to the drone war in Pakistan, let alone anywhere else. Allow me to take each of them in turn.

1.Just cause: There is no possible humanitarian purpose for drones, at least not the way in which they are used. An excellent study, titled Living Under Drones: Death, Injury, and Trauma to Civilians From US Drone Practices in Pakistan, about the drone war conducted by Stanford and NYU in 2012 discusses in much detail the humanitarian crisis that the drones have actually brought to Pakistan.

2. Proportionality of the military means: I believe this second criteria may be what No Cross No Crescent was referring to with his above objection. However, even this does not apply. The previous links with examples of Pakistani forces successfully capturing a number of terrorists proves that it's not impossible for the Pakistani government to combat terrorism without the use of lethal drones. And as I noted earlier, many experts believe that the drone wars are harming the ability of the U.S. to gain needed intelligence to better combat the Taliban.

3. Collateral damage, civilian casualties, etc.: Living Under Drones reports vast amounts of property damage, members of communities killed, economic chaos, declining mental health of the Pakistani civilian population, and education have all been greatly effected by the use of drones. I'd say this dire situation is a clear-cut case of “destroying the village in order to save it.”

4. Force as a last resort: I believe this criteria ought be to self-explanatory. It should also be more than apparent how the drone war, as I discussed above, fails this final exception because the Obama administration is avoiding capturing suspects, and is instead killing them outright.

My final piece of evidence, proving that the U.S.'s drone wars violate the sovereignty of Pakistan, is the fact that, despite the Pakistani government and it's highest court calling on the U.S. to halt its drone program, the U.S. continues to do so in direct violation of Pakistan's sovereignty. There is a much more detailed discussion of the issue of sovereignty in a report by Stanford and NYU in 2012 titled Living Under Drones: Death, Injury, and Trauma to Civilians From US Drone Practices in Pakistan. Their legal analysis casts serious doubt on the claim that these strikes are not in violation of state sovereignty. Despite all of the legal argumentation, however, the fact of the matter is that Pakistan's more recent declaration that the U.S. drone strikes are a violation of their sovereignty, and the fact that the U.S. refuses to stop despite this declaration, is I think a fact that further helps to put the final nail in this horrible argument's coffin.

Next, No Cross No Crescent writes,

The next objection is about the killing of individuals who are theorists and propagandists of terrorism, who do not necessarily carry out acts of violence themselves. Yet as it happens, there are precedents for imposing the same penalty on propagandists, when their incitement of violence leads to actual violence. Perhaps the most notorious such example is the Nazi “journalist” Julius Streicher, tried and executed by the allies.

The fact that Streicher was “only” involved in propaganda and did not do any of the dirty work himself is why the horrible Neo-Nazi site Stormfront says he was “martyred”. If we can agree that Streicher deserved what he got, it is hard to see why Anwar al-Awlaki didn’t deserve the same, particularly given that when killed by a drone strike he was free (unlike Streicher) and could continue his incitements of violence. (See my previous post for more on that.)

There are two major issues with his argument here. First, as I demonstrated with undeniable evidence in the first post, Anwar al-Awlaki never incited or plotted anything, so this argument doesn't even apply. Second, unlike in al-Awlaki's case Streicher was actually put on trial, all of the evidence against him presented, and then he was executed. This is a far cry from what happened with al-Awlaki.

No Cross No Crescent sums up and ends his post with the following:

The only objection to the drone war that I find persuasive is the unintended victims. It is true, and it is heartbreaking. I truly wish that it could be avoided. Yet there is something important to remember here. These casualties could not have been avoided by sending in an armed force to capture the suspects. In the tribal areas where the suspects are sheltered, sending in a police or army unit to capture them would inevitably lead to a battle, and that would also cause unintended caualties. As much as I am disturbed by the fact that women and children are killed by drones, I can’t help asking the question: who is more to blame here? If the cowardly terrorists hide behind civilians to escape justice, shouldn’t they at least get part of the blame for such horrible outcomes?

With these objections answered, I rest my case that, as much as all of us desiring the rule of law and the due process regret the drone war, we are not living in a perfect world, and as long as it save lives in the US, Pakistan, and elsewhere, I see myself forced to excuse it.

I'm very pleased to see that No Cross No Crescent is actually aware of the numerous civilian causalities of the drone wars, which is something the mainstream media often under reports, if they report these facts at all. I agree this is an excellent argument against the drone war, however, in the next breath he actually took my breath away when he seemingly defends the killing of these innocents, by citing the same disgusting rationale as past leaders have: “It was simply unavoidable and it's one of the unfortunate 'costs of war.'” I'm sorry, but anyone who uses this rationale has no moral basis to stand on, especially in regards to the drone wars.

As I've shown, terrorists can be apprehended without any use of drones and without the shedding of the blood of the innocent. In most cases, when drones fire their “Hell Fire” missiles, they not only kill the target but also many innocent people in the surrounding areas. Think about this. Forget all the rhetoric about “targeted killing” (drones are anything but, as I will demonstrate in my next piece) and think about what a missile strike does. It blows things up, including surrounding people and buildings. So, what's better? Firing a missile into a village where many innocent people are, or use troops to go in and at least have a chance at avoiding the murder of civilians with pinpoint accuracy of trained snipers and police forces? I think the choice should be obviously clear to anyone who has a properly working moral compass.

After having deconstructed No Cross No Crescent's two blog posts about drone strikes I was shocked and dismayed by what I've read. Here we have a self-proclaimed skeptic, blogging on a skeptic-blogging network who hasn't bothered to fact-check a single thing he's written. This is why I've compared the non-thinking allegiance to government to the allegiance and devotion to Theism. In many cases those who defend government crimes and abuses don't bother to research what they read or what they've been told, and simply repeat what their authorities have told them, just like many Christians and other theists when it comes to science, history, or their very own religion.

I hope my response gets No Cross No Crescent to begin thinking critically about what the U.S. government is doing and to not believe every news report he finds on the internet without first doing at least a little checking to see if it's factual or not. That is, after all, what skeptics should do is it not? Let's hope he'll raise the bar in any future posts he may write about this subject.

Why I Do Not Support the Drone Wars: Why No Cross No Crescent is Wrong, Part 1

As skeptics I believe open and honest debate is necessary to get as close to the truth as possible. This pertains not only to the truth claims of religion, but also foreign policy and the role (if any) of government in our daily lives. A fellow SkepticInk blogger, who blogs at No Cross No Crescent, has written a series about why he believes the on-going drone wars are a “necessary evil.” I very much disagree so I've decided to respond in detail to each of his points. I will break up my response into a three-part series. The first two will rebut each of No Cross No Crescent's arguments, and the third and final piece will be my own case for why the drone wars must be stopped: why they are counterproductive, why they are immoral, and why they are illegal.

In the first post of No Cross No Crescent's series he lays out his reasons for supporting the drone strikes by the U.S. government. He begins by writing, “The number one objection, coming from many on the Left (but also from some on the Right such as Ron Paul), is that the government cannot carry out executions without the due process” and quotes Ron Paul's objections about due process. Despite presenting this argument No Cross No Crescent oddly has nothing to say about it.

Next, he begins discussing the much talked about case of the American-born Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki and says,

There have been objections to the drone strikes on other grounds as well. The one coming most loudly from Pakistan is “violation of sovereignty”. And of course, there is the issue of innocent life that is lost as a result of such strikes. (Blogger PZ Myers has specifically condemned the drone strikes for this reason.)
But the specific condemnation from the ACLU (quoted above) was made in the wake of the killing of Muslim cleric Anwar Al-Awlaki. So why did the administration would want to kill Awlaki? Well, the “victim” had a rather “impressived” resume. For starters, he was the instigator behind the Fort Hood massacre. The massacre which left these men and women dead.

In the media there has been much talk about Al-Awlaki's ties to the Fort Hood shooter and his alleged participation, to quote No Cross No Crescent, in the “2009 Christmas Day airline bombing, and the plot to bring down commercial airliners using bombs hiddens in parcels.” [sic] I have heard these claims on numerous occasions in the media. However, one thing I have not heard is one shred of evidence these accusations are true. Regarding the Fort Hood shooting, to which there is evidence one can examine to determine the guilt or innocence of Al-Awlaki, No Cross No Crescent argues that he was the “instigator” behind these attacks. Unfortunately, it seems to me that No Cross No Crescent failed to check any primary sources for his accusations, choosing instead to repeat government propaganda (let's just call it what it is here).

After having read the entire email exchange between al-Awlaki and Nidal Hasan, the accused Fort Hood, Texas shooter, there is not a single instance where al-Awlaki even hints at advocating any use of violence. Even the FBI noted this fact. CNN reported:

"While e-mail contact with (al-Awlaki) does not necessarily indicate participation in terrorist-related matters, (al-Awlaki's) reputation, background and anti-U.S. sentiments are well known. Although the content of these messages was not overtly nefarious, this type of contact with (al-Awlaki) would be of concern if the writer is actually the individual identified above."

In a newly released book about the drone wars titled Dirty Wars: The World is a Battlefield, it's author, Jeremy Scahill, writes about the email exchange and the government's reactions:

[W]hen counterterror officials reviewed the e-mails, they determined them to be innocuous. According to the New York Times, “a counterterrorism analyst who examined the messages shortly after they were sent decided that they were consistent with authorized research Major Hasan was conducting and did not alert his military superiors.” (285-286)

Let us rationally examine the above evidence. Did al-Awlaki say a word about advocating any form of violence? Did he try to incite violence in any way? No, and even the government officials who poured over his emails came to that same conclusion. However, despite not instigating or planning the attacks, after the attacks had been carried out al-Awlaki did praise Hasan's actions, saying in an interview:

I did not recruit Nidal Hasan, but America did with its crimes and injustice, and this is what America does not want to admit. […] Nidal Hasan, before he became an American, is a Muslim, and he is also from Palestine and he sees what the Jews are doing through oppressing his people under American cover and support. Yes, I may have a role in the intellectual direction of Nidal, but the matter does not exceed that, as I don't try to disconnect myself with what Nidal has done because of disagreement with it, but it would be an honor to me if I had a bigger role in it.” (Dirty Wars; 315-316)

It's often been argued how it was al-Awlaki's statements that sealed his fate here because of his rhetoric against the U.S. However, let's take a look at what has actually been said and done, and not allow ourselves to be overtaken by anger. Let me be clear, given these statements, I can understand peoples' feelings of disgust and anger (I feel it myself), but agreeing with someone's actions is dramatically different than instigating them, let alone actually carrying out plans of violence, which is the issue under discussion, and most importantly, it's the justification for his murder.

Thus far, No Cross No Crescent has failed to provide a single piece of evidence that al-Awlaki was connected in any way with the Fort Hood massacre. As far as the Christmas Day and other reported attack that al-Awlaki was supposedly apart of, neither No Cross No Crescent or the U.S. government have provided any evidence of his guilt.

This is the issue that is being ignored here by most who write about this issue, and who support the murder (let's not mince words here, that's exactly what it was) of Al-Awlaki. He was a U.S. citizen, who was supposed to be protected under the fifth amendment to the Constitution, which says that under no circumstances are Americans to be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” This does not mean to kill an American, and afterward begin to leak stories to the press about all of the criminal acts they allegedly committed to justify their murder. That's what a trial is for: to detain an individual to keep them from doing the public harm, put them on trial and present all the evidence against them, and if the evidence is strong enough, punishment will be the final stage. The proper process of law does not allow a punishment to be allotted out and then their trial held. That's nothing more than a perversion of justice!

I am sure that someone will now chime in with, “Well, what about justice for the victims of the Fort Hood shooting?” In fact, No Cross No Crescent employs precisely that tactic when he writes: “How about their rights, ACLU?”

I'm sorry, but I don't believe killing a man innocent of the victims' deaths is any form of “justice.” Justice is when the people who are actually responsible for their deaths are meted out punishment. Not a man who had nothing to do with it. To my mind, I believe going that route would be an incredible injustice, not only to the victims' memory, and to the persecuted person, but to the very concept of law itself.

After having failed to provide any accurate evidence against al-Awlaki No Cross No Crescent continues to explain why he believes the drone strikes have been a successful strategy against terrorism. He writes,

Aside from taking out individual targets, how has this campaign affected terrorists, broadly speaking? Well, it seems that the martyrdom loving militants are really in no hurry to meet the 72 virgins” and quotes a CNN article that says, in part, “A list of 22 techniques for evading drone strikes shows that militants are trying to share their knowledge and reduce the number of casualties that American attacks are costing them.” He continues to argue how “the stress is showing itself in how they are attacking their targets. They have had to come up with a new strategy.

In response to these findings, No Cross No Crescent concludes,

So the Drone War is making the lives of terrorists difficult and stressful, and forcing them to come up with new and potentially fraught strategies. It is “working”, if you will.

I'm sorry, but this is an incredibly inane statement and for two reasons. First, according to the government, drone strikes are a necessary and effective strategy against preventing terrorist-related attacks because they’re allegedly killing people before they can carry out attacks.

Perhaps No Cross No Crescent hasn't paid very much attention to the news but the reasons for these terrorist attacks is precisely because of the drone strikes that the government (and others, like No Cross No Crescent) says are keeping us safe!

Second, the very act of combat necessitates changing tactics based upon your adversaries' actions. However, this does not mean that one side is losing. All it means is that they've been forced to change tactics. It doesn't say whether or not said tactics and counter-tactics are effective. The battle must be played out to see which tactics will win out against another.

For example, let's take two boxers in a ring. They begin to circle and the taller boxer begins to pump jabs into the face of his shorter adversary, keeping him at a distance. This forces the shorter boxer to change tactics, but does this automatically mean he is losing the fight? Of course not! The fight is not even over yet! What if the shorter boxer bobs and weaves to get inside the reach of his taller adversary and begins to pound the body and then the head of the taller fighter? Finally, the shorter boxer has the taller one on the ropes. Now, the tide has changed. Just because the shorter boxer had to change tactics doesn't mean he's on the losing end.

I wanted to give this illustration and discussion about tactics because I believe No Cross No Crescent's criteria is seriously flawed. A change of tactics is not what you should be looking at to determine who is winning and who is losing. What matters is who has who on the ropes. And regarding the terror war, the drone program doesn't appear to be doing much at all to repel terrorist-related attacks. As a matter of fact, the drone strikes are creating more terrorists and terrorist attacks! To prove my point, allow me to quote just a few justifications behind many of these terrorist attacks when their motives can be ascertained.

Faisal Shahzad:

I want to plead guilty and I’m going to plead guilty a hundred times forward because until the hour the US pulls it forces from Iraq and Afghanistan and stops the drone strikes in Somalia and Yemen and in Pakistan and stops the occupation of Muslim lands and stops killing the Muslims and stops reporting the Muslims to its government, we will be attacking US, and I plead guilty to that. Well, I am part of that. I am part of the answer to the US terrorizing the Muslim nations and the Muslim people, and on behalf of that, I’m avenging the attacks, because only – like living in US, the Americans only care about their people, but they don’t care about the people elsewhere in the world when they die.” (UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,34v. 10-CR-541 (MGC) 45 FAISAL SHAHZAD,56 Defendant Plea) [emphasis mine]

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab:

I had an agreement with at least one person to attack the United States in retaliation for US support of Israel and in retaliation of the killing of innocent and civilian Muslim populations in Palestine, especially in the blockade of Gaza, and in retaliation for the killing of innocent and civilian Muslim populations in Yemen, Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan and beyond, most of them women, children, and noncombatants. [emphasis mine]

Finally, allow me to quote Ibrahim Mothana, a 24-year-old Yemeni writer and activist, in a New York Times Op Ed from June, 2012. He wrote very clearly,

Drone strikes are causing more and more Yemenis to hate America and join radical militants; they are not driven by ideology but rather by a sense of revenge and despair. Robert Grenier, the former head of the C.I.A.’s counterterrorism center, has warned that the American drone program in Yemen risks turning the country into a safe haven for Al Qaeda like the tribal areas of Pakistan — “the Arabian equivalent of Waziristan.”

When he testified before a Senate sub-committee, whose purpose was to determine the legality and effectiveness of Obama's drone strike program, Mothana more fully explained how drone strikes are counterproductive by creating more hostility towards the U.S. and cause those affected to seek revenge. He said,

Many of us in Yemen believe that even strikes that kill AQAP leaders can be counterproductive. The short-term military gains are miniscule compared to the long-term damage that the targeted killing program causes. In the place of one slain leader, new leaders swiftly emerge in furious retaliation for attacks in their territories. And with each strike, it becomes ever easier to belong to a militant group in the region where your tribe lives.

As Khaled Toayman, a young Sheikh from Marib and a son of a Yemeni member of parliament told me, "We are against terrorism and we seek to live in peace and dignity like anyone else in the world. I don't hate America or Americans. I just want to know why my relatives are killed."

In my visits to the areas affected by drone strikes, I observed an increasing sentiment that America is part of a problem and not a solution, something that is hard for diplomats to feel while living disconnected from Yemenis in the emerging Green Zones of Sanaa. In Yemen, it's impossible to win a war with drone strikes where basic services and human needs remain unmet. For a loaf of bread, you can push a hungry, desperate and angry young man to fight for al-Qaeda, possibly regardless of his ideological beliefs.

This view is nothing new, however. It's actually common knowledge among those who – you know – actually read information from sources other than the government's sock puppet media. Given No Cross No Crescent's sources in his post, I guess I can't be surprised by his current views, but I'd hope that after reading the facts he might hopefully change his mind. That is, after all, what freethinkers should do when faced with overwhelming evidence against their views.

In the next piece I will deconstruct his attempted rebuttals to some of the arguments used by the opponents of the drone war.