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.

For a new author like me, unknown and unlisted on the NY Times Book Review, to get into a major chain is very exciting. Why is it there?

I think the cover of the book is compelling. My good friend, Jeff Holmes designed it. The story is about terrorists who plot to use stolen samples of small pox virus to infect American children and then send them back into the schools as weapons of mass destruction to start a plague. The cover mirrors the fear and danger of bio-terrorism. The truly scary aspect for me is that small pox was eradicated from the planet in 1979. No other vaccines were developed and everyone on the planet is vulnerable to the disease–no one has a defense to it. The face of someone plotting to release a deadly virus looks menacing and evil.

People who have read the book tell me it’s a page-turner. I’m happy about that since that was the purpose–to entertain people with a good story.

Also, the main character is an American woman, born here who happens to be Muslim. She’s forced to defend a terrorist who is also Muslim but is totally opposite from her version of Islam. The struggle to be a moderate Muslim in America forms the theme of the book–religious tolerance.

If you’re interested, check it out at the Borders stores around the Cities.

And thanks to all the wonderful readers who have not only purchased the book but have given me many nice words of support!! Thanks to you all.

The post "Reprisal" is now in Borders Bookstores!! appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.

Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani had been held for years before coming to trial for his alleged role in bombings of U.S. targets in the world. The federal judge ruled in his trial that a witness for the government could not testify because the identity of the witness had been coerced by the government.

Many critics point to this case as proof that the terrorist detainees should be tried in military courts. Who’s correct in this fight??

They should not be in military courts because:

I’ve already posted a few reasons for this so let me add some more–

• After trying dozens of jury trials as both a prosecutor and defense lawyer, the fact the jury acquitted on over 280 counts strikes me not so much as a mis-carriage of justice but as a resounding affirmation of justice. It’s not that the defense was strengthened by the judge’s ruling so that they overwhelmed the government. Rather, the government’s case was so weak to begin with, maybe Mr. Ghailani should never have even been charged. In my experience, juries take their job very seriously and are extremely careful in their deliberations. They wouldn’t throw-out all of those counts unless they felt the government hadn’t come close to proving any of them beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Convictions don’t always equal justice. Sometimes, innocent people are falsely accused. Acquittals in those cases represent a just result also.
• Critics assume that a military court would have reached a different decision. I’ve been involved in military trials as a member of a JAG Corp years ago. The Uniform Code of Military Justice is different than the civil rules, but that doesn’t mean a military jury would necessarily convict in this case either.
• Critics also warn that if we tilt the scales in trials to somehow favor alleged terrorists, others will be emboldened to commit terrorist acts against the U.S., knowing they’ll get those “easy” civil juries. For one thing, the scales aren’t tipped–anyone charged with a federal crime has a tough, uphill battle on their hands.
• What if we’re “easy” on terrorists? by allowing them full rights under our rules of criminal procedure? Won’t that encourage more terrorist acts? Maybe so…but think of the reverse situation: what if an American was falsely accused of a terrorist act in a foreign country? Wouldn’t we want our citizen to have all the rights they could possibly have and a fair and open trial? Would we want our citizen tried in secret by some military tribunal?
• Of course, some international criminals will take advantage of us. I still think we should provide the moral example to the world that we respect the right to a fair trial for anyone within our borders.

Do you agree? Disagree? Let me know!!

The post Guantanamo Detainee trial=Justice? appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.

It is justice and here’s why:

(Read the story in the NY Times)

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/18/nyregion/18ghailani.html)

Mr. Ghailani was charged with participating in the bombing of several American sites in Africa in 2004. He was arrested in Pakistan and held by the CIA in a “black site” at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba for over five years. One of the key parts of the government’s case was a statement by a witness against the defendant–who’s identity the CIA learned of only through a “confession” given by the defendant. The federal judge hearing the trial refused to allow the government to use this witness apparently because the confession was given after the CIA tortured the defendant.

The verdict ignited complaints from many sources who feel that Mr. Ghailani should have been tried by a military tribunal instead of a civil court. But for the ruling of the civilian judge they think, a military tribunal would have reached a more just decision–a verdict of guilty on more counts.

There are several reasons this viewpoint is wrong:

• Critics forget that the jury did convict Mr. Ghailani of one count that carries anywhere from five years to life in prison. At the sentencing hearing, the rules of evidence are applied differently than at a jury trial. Undoubtedly, the government will try to use other evidence to convince the sentencing judge to be more harsh.
• Many critics assume that a guilty verdict on more counts automatically means justice was done. Why is it that a not guilty verdict is just as powerful an indication that justice was accomplished? Prior news reports and the evidence the media released made it look like Mr. Ghailani was guilty of more crimes. The purpose of a trial, with its rules of what evidence can be used or not, is to avoid a rush to judgement or trial in the media that is always unfair to both sides.
• Why do critics assume the jury made a mistake? This was a jury of twelve people drawn from the community who were questioned carefully about their fairness. We can probably assume they were just as worried about terrorism as any of us. The difference from them and us is that they actually heard all the evidence–those of us listening to the media heard only small, select portions of the entire trial. Why do critics assume that just because this jury acquitted on most counts, they were wrong?

There are several other points I want to make in disagreement with the idea of using military tribunals for these defendants, but I’m running out of room in this blog.

What do any of my readers think? Let me know your ideas!

The post Terrorist Acquitted=Justice? appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.