Ethics and impact of drone strikes — “Intelligence Matters”

This week on “Intelligence Issues,” host Michael Morell talks with Georgetown regulation professor Mitt Regan about his new ebook “Drone Strike: Analyzing the Impacts of Focused Killing.” They talk about the impact of drone strikes on al-Qaeda’s continuation and development, the dearth of systematic civilian casualty mitigation efforts and the ethics of drone strikes exterior of a conflict zone. 

HIGHLIGHTS: 

  • Drone strikes did not have an effect on development of al Qaeda: “The analysis signifies, to start with, that strikes towards al-Qaeda leaders usually had no influence on the continuation and development of al-Qaeda or on the variety of strikes that the al-Qaeda community carried out. In different phrases, it did not defeat al-Qaeda in any approach. Which will have been, a minimum of implicitly, the U.S. hope when strikes started, however that definitely hasn’t occurred. In reality, al-Qaeda has extra fighters at present than it did earlier than 9/11.”
  • Drone strikes and civilian deaths: “Whereas the civilian casualty fee has declined total, which I believe refutes the notion that strikes, some individuals declare, kill as many civilians as they do militants, that is merely not true. On the similar time, the U.S. does maintain to the usual of near-certainty of no civilian casualties. And there are those that level out that a minimum of with respect to navy strikes and doubtless these by the CIA, there actually is not a scientific civilian casualty mitigation effort. The Pentagon is within the technique of placing collectively a plan like that.”
  • Ethics of drone strikes exterior conflict zone: “I believe that they’re moral after they’re used inside pretty stringent pointers exterior of conflict zones. And I believe the presidential coverage steering kind of will get it proper, that’s to look at whether or not seize is possible of a goal. If it isn’t. Attempt to do your finest to make sure that there’s close to certainty of no civilian casualties. And in some cases, a strike will lead to fewer lives misplaced than, say, a navy operation, as an illustration.  Now, you even have to check it not simply with navy operations, however with other forms of counterterrorism measures that could be non-kinetic.”

Download, fee and subscribe right here: iTunesSpotify and Stitcher.


INTELLIGENCE MATTERS WITH MITT REGAN 

PRODUCER: PAULINA SMOLINSKI

MICHAEL MORELL: It is nice to have you ever on the present to speak about your new ebook, Drone Strike: Analyzing the Impacts of Focused Killing. It is a good time to debate your ebook, within the aftermath right here of the focused killing of the emir of al-Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri. So the timing could not be higher. 

MITT REGAN: Thanks for arranging it.

MICHAEL MORELL:  So let’s leap proper in. What do you do within the ebook and why did you write it?

MITT REGAN: What I do within the ebook is study the pretty appreciable quantity of analysis of the impacts of the U.S. concentrating on marketing campaign exterior conflict zones, which is to say primarily in Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen on terrorist teams. That’s, how efficient have strikes been in weakening these teams on civilian casualties, which has been a subject of appreciable dialog in all native populations, notably native inhabitants attitudes. And I used to be drawn to this as a result of, as I am positive you understand, within the debate, individuals on either side usually make primarily factual claims in regards to the impacts of strikes, however with none form of reference to the proof or they often cherry choose the proof. And so I actually wished to get a way of what will we truly know? What’s our greatest understanding based mostly on essentially the most rigorous analysis of what the influence of those strikes have been? They have been very controversial in some quarters, however do we actually know what’s been happening? So that is what motivated me to do the ebook.

MICHAEL MORELL: Yeah, that is terrific. Earlier than we get to the conclusions that you simply had been in a position to attract from all of the research, let me simply ask some fundamental questions right here about focused killings through drones. What is the authorized foundation for focused killings exterior of a conflict zone? And do you discover that authorized foundation compelling?

MITT REGAN: Properly, the U.S. place is that it is in an armed battle with al-Qaeda, which signifies that the regulation of armed battle, or generally referred to as worldwide humanitarian regulation, applies wherever there’s a al-Qaeda member concerned in collaborating in that battle. That has gotten some criticism within the worldwide group on the bottom that which may be true in locations the place there have been lively theaters of fight, resembling Afghanistan or Iraq. However to use that logic primarily to wherever on the planet that an al-Qaeda goal could be situated could be too expansive. It will increase the regulation of conflict to areas that, for essentially the most half, are peaceable. The U.S. continues to take the place that exterior conflict zones, it has the authority to proceed below the regulation of armed battle. 

However in 2013, the Obama administration issued what are known as presidential coverage steering requirements that claims exterior areas of lively hostilities, is decided in that doc. We are going to undertake a strike solely when seize isn’t possible and most related to the dialog when civilian casualties, there’s close to certainty of no civilian casualties. Now, that contrasts with the regulation of conflict, which says that you may unintentionally trigger civilian casualties so long as they don’t seem to be extreme in relation to the navy benefit that you simply count on. So the usual has been since Could 2013 and even perhaps earlier than then that the U.S. will solely undertake strikes below these situations. And to the shock of some, the Trump administration, whereas it relaxed a few of these requirements, preserved that requirement that seize be infeasible and there be close to certainty of no civilian casualties. In order a coverage matter, not as a matter of regulation, you understand, for the final roughly 9 years, the U.S. has taken a extra restrictive view of the situations below which it is going to conduct strikes exterior areas of lively battle, then the regulation in any other case permits.

MICHAEL MORELL:  So how do you consider the authorized foundation of the killing of Qassem Soleimani by the Trump administration? Does it match the authorized foundation you simply talked about, or was that in your view, exterior of it?

MITT REGAN: I’ve to say, I believe it was exterior of it. Initially, I believe the perfect view is that we’re not in an armed battle with Iran. There are some theories that counsel that the backwards and forwards that led as much as it constituted an armed battle that mainly allowed the U.S. to deal with Soleimani as an armed combatant. I believe that is a tough argument to make. And if that is not the idea, then the idea needs to be the U.S. was appearing in self-defense to stop a fabric risk from materializing. And the proof, a minimum of that is been launched to date, doesn’t mean there was an imminent risk to the U.S.. In different phrases, this was what the navy would name a couple of steps left of bang, so to talk. We are able to consider imminence as possibly that closing step earlier than bang. This can be a few steps earlier than that. In order that has been controversial, a minimum of amongst authorized students.

MICHAEL MORELL: The Obama administration focused some Americans. Are you able to discuss in regards to the authorized foundation for that?

MITT REGAN: The Supreme Courtroom has stated that U.S. residents who primarily allied themselves with a U.S. enemy may be thought of combatants. And subsequently may be topic to concentrating on, to the usage of deadly power. The Obama administration took the place that however that there are particular constitutional necessities that need to be met below due course of. And its conclusion was that if there’s a excessive stage official that has decided that somebody, a U.S. citizen, after which Awlaki, after all, is a paradigmatic case. Is somebody who’s operational in planning assaults and that it’s a necessity to conduct an assault that that, in a way, satisfies the due course of issues.

MICHAEL MORELL: Let’s dig into the conclusions that you simply had been in a position to to stroll away with from digging into all of those research. Let’s begin with their effectiveness, their efficacy. And as you achieve this, as you speak about that, maybe you may speak about it from the viewpoint of the struggle towards al-Qaeda. I do know it is bigger than that, however I believe that that gives an essential reference level. And earlier than you speak about efficacy, are you able to discuss a bit in regards to the historical past of the usage of drones towards al-Qaeda?

MITT REGAN: Sure. The primary strike exterior a conflict zone towards al-Qaeda was in 2002 towards al-Harazi, who was a member of al-Qaeda within the Arabian Peninsula, believed to be implicated within the assault on the united statesCole within the yr 2000.

MICHAEL MORELL: And that was in Yemen, appropriate?

MITT REGAN: And that was in Yemen. Proper, Precisely. So strikes continued via the Bush administration, however at a reasonably low stage. In the meantime, what’s known as al-Qaeda core, that’s the high management had kind of reconstituted itself within the federally administered tribal areas in Afghanistan. And there have been a number of assaults coordinated by al-Qaeda core after 9/11. And there have been some important plots that had been thwarted that had been coordinated by al-Qaeda core. And so the idea was that it was essential to ramp up strikes within the tribal areas to attempt to weaken al-Qaeda core and forestall it from coordinating these sorts of assaults. And so in 2008 was actually when strikes accelerated significantly, notably within the tribal areas, though they had been being carried out elsewhere. And for the following roughly 4, 5 years, there was a reasonably intensive marketing campaign there.

MICHAEL MORELL: In order that was proper on the finish of the Bush administration after which via the primary time period of the Obama administration, primarily.

MITT REGAN: Precisely. Precisely. After which on the finish of that interval, 2013 was when the Obama administration put in place these pointers that I discussed earlier, that limit operations greater than the regulation of conflict would allow.

MICHAEL MORELL: After which what’s occurred to strikes since 2013 and in quantity and site?

MITT REGAN: They tapered off within the tribal areas in Pakistan after roughly 2013. They then picked up in Yemen. And in 2012, they had been a part of supporting a Yemeni military navy effort within the south towards AQAP. They just lately picked up once more when the United Arab Emirates joined the struggle in 2017, 2018, in help of these operations. So in Yemen, the consequence has been each the mix of strikes and the broader navy marketing campaign have weakened AQAP. In Somalia they picked up within the late teenagers. And just lately President Biden licensed strikes towards quite a few al-Shabaab leaders in that nation. So I’d say strikes as much as the current day have tapered off a good quantity. However I do know the administration is watching to see what occurs in Afghanistan.

MICHAEL MORELL: What conclusions can we draw in regards to the effectiveness of those strikes?

MITT REGAN: The analysis signifies, to start with, that strikes towards al-Qaeda leaders usually had no influence on the continuation and development of al-Qaeda or on the variety of strikes that the al-Qaeda community carried out. In different phrases, it did not defeat al-Qaeda in any approach. Which will have been, a minimum of implicitly, the U.S. hope when strikes started, however that definitely hasn’t occurred. In reality, al-Qaeda has extra fighters at present than it did earlier than 9/11. And that is in step with analysis, different analysis I discussed within the ebook about concentrating on mature terrorist organizations. They have in place programs, routines, procedures that may make them fairly resilient to those kinds of strikes. So not likely any influence on al-Qaeda as an entire.

MICHAEL MORELL: And that is al-Qaeda globally you are speaking about.

MITT REGAN: That is al Qaeda world

MICHAEL MORELL:  Received it.

MITT REGAN: Nonetheless, I believe there may be motive to imagine that the strikes within the tribal areas that I discussed over that time period, 2008, roughly to 2012, possible contributed to lowering the specter of assaults on the U.S. And it’s because al-Qaeda core constantly all through the lifetime of the al-Qaeda group has been centered on and has given precedence to attacking the West, notably the U.S. The assumption is that with the intention to set up Sharia regulation within the Islamic world, al-Qaeda first must get rid of U.S. involvement that helps regimes that al-Qaeda regards as heretical. So if you happen to have a look at the correspondence of bin Laden, as an illustration, that is a part of the gathering at West Level that was captured through the Abbottabad raid. It is replete with references about giving precedence to what’s known as the far enemy. And Zawahiri continued that after bin Laden’s dying. 

So what now we have in 2008 is a core group within the tribal areas that has as its precedence attacking the West and the USA. It has a secure haven within the tribal areas the place it could actually practice individuals to conduct these operations, and it could actually plan and coordinate these operations. And that is what led the Obama administration to ramp up strikes in 2008. The proof suggests there aren’t quantitative research that exactly deal with this. However there may be appreciable proof within the al-Qaeda correspondence that these strikes took from the group, essential leaders who had been tough to exchange and that it severely restricted communication and mobility of leaders with the remainder of the community. And it is placing that since 2013, there have been no plots in any respect attributed to al-Qaeda core. Actually no profitable assaults, no main assaults since London 2005, however not even any tried assaults. That is to not say that different components of al-Qaeda have not been lively, however these components, by and huge, with some exceptions, concentrate on native issues. So inflicting al-Qaeda to evacuate the tribal areas, I believe contributed to a decline within the danger to the U.S. Now, I ought to say, I believe in all probability essentially the most important issue answerable for that decline was the best way that the U.S. hardened its counterterrorism defenses since 9/11. The intelligence sharing that is occurred, the disruption of terrorist financing, the watch listing, an entire vary of issues. I believe most individuals imagine is primarily accountable. However I do imagine that these strikes did have the impact of contributing to that decline.

MICHAEL MORELL:  Did you come to the identical conclusion about strikes towards AQAP in Yemen and strikes towards al-Shabaab in Somalia? Or was {that a} totally different end result?

MITT REGAN: That is a bit more ambiguous, partly as a result of in Yemen, you will have a considerably totally different form of use of strikes, mainly for air help and navy operations. In order that they helped, I believe, however together with some fairly substantial navy operations. So it wasn’t the form of case you had within the tribal areas the place for essentially the most half you had strikes as the primary instrument. You probably did have help from Pakistan with intelligence sharing and a few periodic regulation enforcement and navy operations. But it surely was primarily strikes that had been the instrument. In Yemen, you’ve got received strikes as one asset amongst a number of in Somalia. I believe at this level, it is in all probability honest to say that strikes have not had a major impact. Somalia is now regarded, as you in all probability know, as essentially the most important al-Qaeda affiliate. There was somebody indicted a few yr and a half in the past who had taken flight classes within the Philippines in preparation for conducting a 9/11 assault within the U.S. who was a member of  al-Shabaab. And so there I believe that the influence has been a lot much less important.

MICHAEL MORELL: What about civilian casualties? A number of debate on this.

MITT REGAN: A number of debate on this. The U.S. I believe it is honest to say within the early years of this system, actually up via 2012, didn’t carry out particularly properly with respect to civilian casualties. I imagine that the 2013 presidential steering that I discussed, nevertheless, together possible with enhancements in concentrating on procedures, has decreased casualties considerably. So let me offer you some numbers. New America estimates that from 2002 to 2012 the share of civilians among the many casualties was about 11%. From 2013 to 2020 it is about 3%, a bit of over 3%. Equally, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism estimates that 2002 to 2012 it was about 23%. That declines from 2013 to 2020 to a bit of over 4%. And lately, the share of casualties has dropped even additional. 

To not say that errors do not occur. We all know from the strike in Kabul in August of final yr that that may occur. On the similar time, whereas the civilian casualty fee has declined total, which I believe refutes the notion that strikes, some individuals declare kill as many civilians as they do militants, that is merely not true. On the similar time, the U.S. does maintain to the usual of near-certainty of no civilian casualties. And there are those that level out that a minimum of with respect to navy strikes and doubtless these by the CIA, there actually is not a scientific civilian casualty mitigation effort. The Pentagon is within the technique of placing collectively a plan like that. However there’s loads of literature that means that what you want to do, to start with, is ensure you get good knowledge on what occurs. 

Now, as a result of strikes usually happen in distant areas the place the U.S. does not have floor property. The battle injury evaluation afterword that, amongst different issues, tries to evaluate civilian casualties goes to be restricted to video property. And there are limitations to that. There are, nevertheless, native teams, there are NGOs on the bottom who’ve entry to info. And I believe it is honest to say that over time, the U.S. has not engaged with these teams in addition to it may to attempt to complement the sources of data that it will get. And so that you see these periodic tales in regards to the U.S. claiming that there have been no casualties in a strike after which on the bottom investigation establishing that, actually, there have been. 

So I believe extra just lately, I believe Secretary Austin has emphasised the significance of all partaking with these teams to get as a lot info as potential. However then when you get that, ideally what you do is you mixture that and you then start to search for root causes. And there are patterns. There are numerous sorts of issues that happen which can be extra prone to result in civilian casualties than others. After which ideally, you disseminate that throughout the federal government, a minimum of to these businesses which can be concerned in kinetic operations. And you then feed that into operations so that you simply revise these in ways in which cut back casualties. This has occurred in some theaters periodically. It occurred with counterinsurgency in Afghanistan, the place Normal McChrystal issued a tactical directive and which was later modified considerably by Normal Petraeus. So there have been periodic cases the place the U.S. has actually centered on civilian casualties, and it is demonstrated that it could actually cut back them. However there hasn’t been a scientific, ongoing, constant concentrate on this. And sadly, what that does is depart the U.S. open to criticism that it isn’t satisfying its personal customary with respect to civilian casualties.

MICHAEL MORELL: How will we sq., you referenced this earlier, administrations claiming very low civilian casualties. You bear in mind the speech that John Brennan gave when he was on the White Home. Is that politics? Is that not understanding? How do you sq. what you discovered with what administrations have stated publicly?

MITT REGAN: That is an excellent query, Michael. I believe the U.S. may be very defensive and really delicate about this. But in some sense it’s a sufferer of its personal narrative, as a result of on the one hand, it has emphasised how surgical and exact these strikes are. And so the imagery you get is of a sniper who can kill somebody sitting in a restaurant with out harming the individual subsequent to them. Drone strikes aren’t fairly like that. In order that defensiveness, I believe for a few years, meant that moderately than interact with native teams and NGOs, there was an adversarial posture there. And I believe as well as, nevertheless, I believe it is honest to say, going again to what I discussed earlier, the property which can be used to attempt to assess civilian casualties have their limitations. They’re usually aerial property solely. They’re usually, for numerous causes, it isn’t possible to go to the location of a strike. And investigations by teams which have truly gone to the aspect study the ordnance, interviewed individuals. They supply a a lot richer image. I believe it truly could be wholesome for the U.S. to acknowledge that generally civilian casualties will occur. That it’s not a totally excellent form of operation, but it surely’s doing its finest  to attenuate these.

MICHAEL MORELL: I’m wondering to what extent you may need detected any bias on the a part of the organizations that do these investigations. Are they moving into with any bias in any respect, do you suppose?

MITT REGAN: That is additionally a very good query. I believe they do good work in interviewing individuals and reviewing the location and the ordinances, as I discussed. One attention-grabbing dynamic is that there’s a tendency extra usually with navy operations, not simply with drone strikes, to concentrate on civilian casualties as if any civilian casualties is a violation of regulation. And a minimum of in theaters of fight the place the regulation of conflict applies, there may be unintended civilian casualties so long as they don’t seem to be extreme in relation to the navy benefit that is anticipated. 

What I believe is occurring to some extent is that there’s possibly rising this casual norm that’s totally different from the regulation. In different phrases, the expectation for a lot of teams now and for some within the worldwide group is that fashionable, technologically refined navy forces which have the power to drive civilian casualties down as little as they’ll usually are not assembly their obligation if all they do is make it possible for civilian casualties usually are not extreme. And I believe that is a product I believe of many issues. However the 24/7 information cycle, the provision of video, social media. You see with the conflict in Ukraine, you understand, civilian casualties are vividly introduced into our residing rooms. 

There is a sense during which the Pentagon and the worldwide group are form of speaking previous each other. The Pentagon rightly says, we pleasure ourselves on adhering to the regulation of conflict. And the regulation of conflict says that casualties can happen so long as they don’t seem to be extreme. However then there’s this different expectation that is extra demanding. I believe that is in all probability why it is taken some time for the Pentagon to arrange its civilian casualty plan, as a result of I believe there is a debate happening within the Pentagon proper now about that.

MICHAEL MORELL: What in regards to the influence on the native populations and their views about the USA, their potential help to terrorist teams that we’re concentrating on? Are you able to speak about that?

MITT REGAN: Sure. One of many issues we regularly hear is that for each militant a drone strike kills, it creates two extra due to resentment of the U.S. It is essential to parse what the proof establishes fastidiously right here. On the one hand, it’s fairly clear that strikes are resented by giant numbers of the inhabitants in areas the place they happen. There’s some resentment of the U.S., which sadly may be counterproductive if the U.S. is making an attempt to help a neighborhood accomplice or a authorities in a fragile state. That resentment can even then undermine the legitimacy of that authorities. That is a value. 

On the similar time, the proof doesn’t set up that persons are radicalized in these areas by strikes. The reality appears to be that they do not just like the strikes and so they don’t love that the militants, the terrorist teams. They definitely, whereas they could resent U.S. operations, in addition they resent the best way during which militants management their lives, undermine native authority figures and so forth. I believe that this resentment of strikes extra usually, despite the fact that they do not radicalize the inhabitants, is one thing that must be taken under consideration given conditions after we’re weighing prices and advantages.That raises the query, properly, are there different counterterrorism measures that could be efficient that would not have that influence?

MICHAEL MORELL: If you take all of this in, the whole lot that you simply had been in a position to conclude from all of those research, the place do you find yourself on the ethics of the usage of drones for focused killings exterior of a conflict zone?

MITT REGAN: I believe that they’re moral after they’re used inside pretty stringent pointers exterior of conflict zones. And I believe the presidential coverage steering kind of will get it proper, that’s to look at whether or not seize is possible of a goal. If it isn’t. Attempt to do your finest to make sure that there’s close to certainty of no civilian casualties. And in some cases, a strike will lead to fewer lives misplaced than, say, a navy operation, as an illustration.  Now, you even have to check it not simply with navy operations, however with other forms of counterterrorism measures that could be non-kinetic. However I do imagine that I imply, if you happen to have a look at the strike towards Zawahiri, there have been apparently appreciable steps taken to attempt to decrease any form of hurt to anybody close by. There was a smaller Hellfire missile that was used. 

The problem right here is absolutely one which’s existed since 9/11, and that’s how do you take care of a bunch that has the avowed intention of attacking the U.S. and forestall it from buying the aptitude to take action. Significantly if it is in a position to function in a secure haven someplace. And this form of goes again to what I used to be saying about al-Qaeda core and the Zawahiri strike. I believe had been Zawahiri situated in Yemen or Somalia, I am undecided that his dying would have contributed a lot to creating the U.S. safer. The truth that he is in Afghanistan, nevertheless, I believe is supposed to ship a sign to the Taliban that the U.S. is not going to settle for the Taliban allowing al-Qaeda to determine one other secure haven. And as I stated earlier, the prospect of al-Qaeda core for establishing a secure haven due to its avowed intention to assault the U.S. would marry intention and functionality in a approach that might be troublesome. On stability, I believe it may be moral if used properly and different options are thought of.

MICHAEL MORELL: I assume you’ll agree that the extra transparency right here, the higher. That it is essential for the USA to say why we expect we have to do that. It is essential for us to say what we have carried out. It is essential for us to place the civilian casualty figures on the market. It is essential for us to speak about how we’re making an attempt to attenuate them. I assume you’ll agree with all that.

MITT REGAN: I definitely do, Michael. I actually do. And as you understand, definitely significantly better than I, there’s all the time a priority about compromising sources and strategies whenever you do this. However I as clear because the U.S. might be, I believe could be could be essential to offer as a lot proof as potential about why the U.S. got here to a conclusion {that a} specific goal posed a risk. To be as clear as potential in regards to the results of the strike, together with civilian casualties and what steps had been taken to attenuate them. I believe that is essential. And I’ve to say, I believe the Obama administration specifically was fairly admirable in that it additionally printed pointers that indicated the bases for its use of power, not solely with strikes, however in operations in different areas as properly. And I believe to the extent that that may proceed, the USA, to start with, I believe it is the best factor to do in a democratic nation. However I believe additionally the USA would possible have the ability to acquire extra legitimacy and help, not solely domestically however internationally.

MICHAEL MORELL: It was President Obama’s view again in 2013 after we had been placing that doc collectively that you simply talked about, that focused killings was one thing the USA was going to need to do for some time period. And with the intention to do this, we wanted home help and we wanted a minimum of worldwide acquiescence and the best way to get each of these is to be as clear as potential.

MITT REGAN: Sure, I believe that is precisely proper.

MICHAEL MORELL: In case you had been the the authorized adviser to the Nationwide Safety Council otherwise you had been the legal professional basic and also you had been sitting across the State of affairs Room desk and there was a dialogue of a focused killing, what are the 2 or three factors that you’d make to the workforce about what you’ll need them to consider earlier than they decided?

MITT REGAN: I’d wish to take into consideration, how are you going to elucidate to the general public the necessity to conduct a strike towards this individual. In what approach is that this individual posing a risk to the USA? What is the nature of the operations that they are engaged in? What do now we have on that? To the extent that we are able to, we would have the ability to disclose it. In different phrases, I’d start to consider how you are going to justify it after the strike. Frankly, are there different measures that could be possible to restrict the risk in a approach that may not be, which can be non-kinetic. I believe even have we taken each potential precaution to make sure that there are going to be no civilian casualties? Close to-certainty of no civilian casualties? I believe that on the finish of the day the U.S. has to just accept that it may be below the microscope. That is the case with liberal democracies.  I imply, Putin does not actually need to justify to his inhabitants a lot of something.  However in a democracy, that is, after all, a energy. I believe we imagine that is a energy. That is why the U.S. has extra allies than China or Russia or Iran. But it surely has to do its finest to dwell as much as these values. 

MICHAEL MORELL: That may be a excellent place to finish. The ebook is Drone Strike: Analyzing the Impacts of Focused Killing. The creator is Mitt Regan. Mitt, thanks a lot for becoming a member of us.

MITT REGAN: It has been an actual pleasure, Michael. Thanks.



Source by [author_name]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *