1.  Situations in which there is an “imminent threat” to our national security and safety.  Our response to kill the people posing the threat is based on the laws of self defense.

I agree with Mr. Krauthammer.  The idea of self defense is so ingrained in all people that this situation provides an obvious use for drones.  Still, there should be some criteria established—before the drones are used—defining what actions constitute an “imminent threat.”

2.  He also justifies the use of drones in situations of a “mutual state of war.”  We are in such a state of war now with Al-Qaeda, since they vowed years ago to kill Americans.  We can use drones to kill these terrorists who are at war with out country.

I have some questions about this:

a.  What is defined as a “mutual state of war?”  Just because some representatives of Al Qaeda make statements about “destroying the west,” can we still call this a “state of war?”  How do we know they speak for anyone but themselves?  Exactly which members of Al Qaeda are “at war” with us?  All of them?

b.  How can we identify the enemy?  Mr. Krauthammer references WWII enemies and our unrestricted bombing of military and civilian targets.  But in WWII, the enemy and it’s real estate were clearly identifiable—today individual Al Qaeda members aren’t always clealy identified and they often live in a variety of places.  No longer do we find them massed in one country, like Germany in WWII.  This leads to the problem of collateral damage . . .

c.  Collateral Damage.  The Dept. of Defense has never released data about the collateral damage inflicted on, perhaps, innocent people who have been in the vicinity of drone explosions.  Although this has become an acceptable by-product of all-out war, (Such as WWII) in the past, those civilians were members of the enemy.  Today, individual terrorists often live in civilian areas of countries—whose citizens are often allies of ours.  Although drones are some of the most accurate bombers ever used, they still make mistakes in targeting and the explosions can kill many innocent people.

d.  How would we react?  Just like the U.S. use of torture during the Iraq war—which violates the Geneva Convention on War to which we subscribe—I often wonder how we would react in the U.S. if other countries started bombing Minneapolis or Cleveland, claiming that they had a right to do so because they were targeting their enemies who were hiding in our country.  What do you think we’d do?

If we practice activities like torture or drone killings, aren’t we inviting the same kind of behavior against ourselves?  And if our cities are bombed, what moral ground do we have to stand on in opposition to such bombing?

The post Droning on about Drones appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.

By the way, what is a drone?

Technically, called unmanned aerial vehicles, drones are small, ultra-light, slow-flying airplanes without human pilots.  Think of your next door neighbor’s hobby of flying remote controlled model planes in his back yard.  A drone is similar.

Their development goes back several decades, but their military use really took-off during the war in Afghanistan when they were successfully used not only for surveillance missions but also to target and kill Al Qaeda terrorists.

Local law enforcement recognized the surveillance benefits of drones right away and have been using them to get information on a variety of activities.  For instance, the Department of Natural Resources can watch for poachers from the sky and catch them in the act of killing animals—all recorded in great images.  Drones are equipped with high resolution, digital cameras that can take remarkably clear and detailed photos/video of all of us.

It’s one thing for police to launch these aircraft to find and follow criminals and terrorists—it’s another thing for police to use them for spying into your back yard.

Does this happen?   Yes!!

It happens enough that ten states, including my own of Minnesota, have introduced legislation prohibiting law enforcement from using drones for routine surveillance or to gather evidence against U.S. citizens.

Is there a precedent for this?

Certainly—the 4th Amendment to the Constitution prohibits any “unreasonable searches and seizures” of citizens by law enforcement. Exceptions to this law are when police obtain a search warrant signed by a judge or have a reasonable suspicion that they need to act quickly (don’t have time to get a search warrant) to prevent imminent danger.  Otherwise, they are prohibited from searching or even looking over the fence into your back yard in order to spy on us.

The proposed legislation would act in the same way but includes the use of drones to search for or seize evidence (in the form of photos).  One other exception is the use of drones to counter the high risk of a terrorist attack.

The intent of the legislation is to keep police from conducting routine surveillance on innocent citizens or groups—let’s say they’re meeting privately to demonstrate or protest something.  Proponents argue that the tool (drones) is able to get a “bird’s eye view”—something that humans can’t do—to reveal incriminating activities on the part of dangerous people and that drones also have the huge benefit of not putting the lives of police officers at risk.

Where should we draw the line?

The post Drones in Your Backyard appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.

The disappearance of almost 20 men here in Minneapolis in the last few years alerted officials and the FBI to the possibility of recruitng to fight in Somalia. Since Ethiopia (Christians) attacked Somalia (Muslims) some of these men left the Twin Cities to go back to fight in a group called El-Shabaab. (People think) It’s a form of human trafficking.

You may ask why law enforcement here was worried about what happened in Somalia. If the Somali young men could be recruited to fight in Somalia, could they be recruited to fight back here for a war on America.

Having represented the Somali community for many years in the courts, I’ve found them to be warm, intelligent people. However, they do not trust many others outside their own tribe. Even within the Somali community, there are disagreements among the tribes, with some people feeling they are better than others.

If I have difficulty communicating with them (many speak English) because of this distrust, imagine how difficult it is for law inforcement to get reliable, accurate information about the disappearance of the young men. To a great degree, law enforcement depends on informants for information. The word sounds bad but can include almost anyone with access to the community.

So the common theory is the young men are recruited to fight in their homeland. What if this theory is correct but incomplete?

Could there be more to the disappearances than we’ve discovered so far?

Let me know if you think there’s more going on than merely freedom fighting in Somalia. I’ve got an idea that formed the plot for my new book, “The Concealed Enemy,” coming out in Fall of 2010. What do you think was really going on with the disappearing men?

The post Somali Women Wonder Where Their Boys Went appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.

In my last post, I recommended you read Ji-Yeon Yuh’s excellent blog at http://womensmediacenter.com about the journalists former President Clinton helped release from North Korea. Ms. Yuh speculated the two were investigating illegal human trafficking of Koreans into China. Although interesting, many Americans might feel this is half-way around the world, unfortunate, but it’s not a problem here. They’re wrong.

In the past, I have represented children in Juvenile Court who have come to America, sponsored by adults, inticed with school, homes, jobs, or better living conditions. When the young people arrive, mostly girls, they are forced into the sex industry in a variety of ways. The Juvenile Court attempts to intervene to rescue the young women. Often, it’s successful, but many times the girls, for whatever reasons, cannot escape.

A human trafficking problem like this is the tip of the iceberg, concealing vast, international networks of criminals who traffick in dozens of different products. Besides humans, organ parts, drugs, illegal plants and rare wood, animals (including the a rare protected monkee from Africa, delivered to a Saudi prince), weapons, and nuclear material are all moved around the globe each day. When the price of these items rises, it attracts huge profits and the best criminal minds in the world.

In our country, the FBI estimates the human trade out of Mexico alone to be $6-9 million a year. Although we patrol our borders more than other countries, as one of the richest in the world, we also attract more criminals trying to sell their products. The dollars at stake are so huge, corruption of border security is possible. The technological resources of the criminals are top of the line.

The criminal organizations don’t resemble those of old. Groups like the Mafia, with top-down management and pyramid shaped forms, look similar to large legitimate organizations. A small group of management gives orders to be carried out by the larger group underneath. Communication is slow, change is slow, ability to react to problems is slow, and technological upgrades lag. Today, many organizations thrive using this structure, like the US military. But the new criminal networks look more like a spider’s web. Why?

These groups don’t have a central management location. It’s closer to the internet web design. If a criminal identifies a buyer for organ parts in the US, he will make contact in the criminal “web” (not the Internet) which will put him in contact with a choice of suppliers around the world. The first to supply the organ at the right price, will make the sale. Then, other unknown people can plug into the net to provide transportation, financing, warehousing, bribing of border security, planning ideas, technical tools needed, weapons (if needed)…all of them, perhaps, unknown to each other.

Can you imagine how difficult if becomes for law enforcement to find out who’s involved? For each organ sold in the US there could be an entirely new net of people supplying it. Add to this the fact most illegal products cross several international borders and you get an idea of the diplomatic, military, political, and law enforcement problems with each transfer. If one border or product is stopped, the nets simply move or switch to a differenct product within a few days.

What’s the US doing to stop these networks? What resources do we have? Can we ever hope to match their flexibility and brains? I’ll post more about that. In the meantime, if you have experience with this phenomenon, please let me know.

The post Tracking Human Traffickers appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.

Former President Bill Clinton successfully lobbied for the release of journalists Laura Ling and Euna Lee from North Korea. Writing about this at the Women’s Media Center blog, Journalist Ji-Yeon Yuh raises a fascinating and probably accurate question: What were the two journalists really doing in North Korea?

The North Korean government caught and convicted them of illegally entering the country. They had to enter illegally because they were tracking the trafficking story of women out of North Korea and into China. It seems like a problem far away with little we can do to make a difference. That’s wrong.

The US State Department estimates that as many as 800,000 people are trafficked across international borders every year and that a total of perhaps 27 million are presently enslaved because of trafficking. Here’s the scary part for us: the majority of profits generated ($15.5 billion according to the International Labor Organization) from trafficking comes from industrialized countries–like the United States.

Eighty percent of humans trafficked are women and girls, usually sold into the sex industry. I know from personal experience…well, let me explain that!

As a lawyer, I have worked in the juvenile courts in Minnesota. Like all other states, we have a child protection effort, supported by laws, child protection social workers, and prosecutors to enforce the laws. Most cases involve local parents who are not parenting adequately or present harm to the children. I have been invovled in cases where several young girls have come to Minnesota on a “temporary” basis, mostly from countries in Africa. They’ve been promised jobs and good schools. When they get here, instead of the promises, they find themselves coerced into the sex industry.

Ironically, instead of police finding them, they show up in child protection. Every girl I’ve ever represented has come here, sponsored by an “uncle” who offers them a home, food, and clothing. When the igirls fail to show up for school, are referred for medical problems, or are stopped as runaways/vagrants, the county government reacts by protecting them from their “families.”

The girls are offered counseling, safe housing, education, and support. Usually, that works to get them out of the trafficking trap. But often, I’ve had clients who say they want to get out, are frightened of their “uncles,” and start to take advantage of services. But then, they fail to come to the next court appearance. The “parent/uncle” who has been ordered to return and accept services to stop the child abuse disappears also. My suspicion is they simply move to a different county. For instance, in Minnesota, if the uncle were to move across the Mississippi River from Minneapolis to St. Paul, he’d be in another county jurisdiction and could start the network all over again.

Some ask, “Can’t the uncle be prosecuted for being a pimp?” Sure, if you can find anyone to testify against him. Child protection at least offers the girls an opportunity to escape–if they can and want to.

Internationally, human trafficking generates #32 billion a year in profits according to the Internatinal Labor Organization. Think about that…doesn’t it seem likely to attract the best criminal minds in the world? And besides women, what other things are they bringing into the US? Could they threaten our national security? Is our government capable of fighting them? More about this in my next post.

The post Tracking Human Traffickers in Korea appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.