You are hereDrones

Drones


Citizen Activists Across the U.S. in Courts This Week for Protesting U.S. Weaponized Drones

WHO: Citizen activists from the east coast to the west coast will be in court this week defending their actions protesting the United States Military and Central Intelligence Agency weaponized drone program.


WHAT:
The first trial will begin Monday February 3 in Sacramento, California for four activists arrested at Beale AFB in April 2013, while attempting to deliver a letter to the base commander addressing the illegality of US drones which kill innocent people and noncombatants in Pakistan and other countries.  The letter is a citizen's declaration charging President Obama and all military personnel involved  in the drone program with crimes against humanity and multiple violations of the law, including due process. (Letter is below.)

Meanwhile, in upstate New York, 17 activists are in the midst of an ongoing trial in a DeWitt, NY courthouse for an October 2012 protest at Hancock AFB protesting the use of the Reaper drones piloted from there that activists say perpetuate war crimes, and violations of human rights laws.

On Friday five activists will be in US District Court in Alexandria, VA appealing their trespass conviction at the Central Intelligence Agency in June, 2013 as they attempted to deliver a letter and seek a meeting with CIA Director John Brennan concerning CIA violations of international law related to illegal targeted drone killing in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and elsewhere.

WHEN: Monday, February 3 through Friday, February 7, 2014

WHERE:
(Beale AFB case), US Courthouse, 50l I St., Sacramento, CA,
(Hancock AFB case) Courthouse at 400 Butternut Drive, East Syracuse, NY,
(CIA case) U.S. District Court, 401 Courthouse Square, Alexandria, VA

WHY: Activists across the country continue to work to bring an end to the illegal and immoral killer drone strikes which have now killed thousands of people, including hundreds of children, around the globe with no due process.
 
For the last several years citizen activists have engaged in peaceful protests drawing attention to the violations of international law the US drone program is committing in multiple countries including Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia.  In protest activities and courtroom testimonies, activists have repeatedly spoken about their obligations under the Nuremberg Principles to oppose the crimes against peace, the violations of international law, and the war crimes the US is committing through its use of weaponized drones.

Contacts:  
Beale AFB defendants:   Robin Ryan 415-517-5856;  Martha Hubert; 415-722-3321;  Toby Blome, 510-541-6874
Hancock AFB defendants:  Ed Kinane, 315-478-4571;   Mary Anne Grady Flores, 607-273-7437
CIA defendants: Malachy Kilbride  571 501-3729,  Max Obuszewski  410 366-1637  Joy First   608 239-4327

 

OPEN LETTER TO BEALE AIR FORCE BASE PERSONNEL (April 30, 2013)

We, the people, charge the US President, Barack Obama and the full military chain of command, to Beale Air Force Base Colonel Phil Stewart, 9th Reconnaissance Wing Commander, every drone crew and service member at Beale Air Force Base, and every other U.S. base involved directly or indirectly with the U.S. drone program, with crimes against humanity, with violations of part of the Supreme Law of the Land, extrajudicial killings, violation of due process, wars of aggression, violation of national sovereignty, and killing of innocent civilians.

US military and CIA Drone attacks have killed thousands of innocent civilians, including women and children, in the Middle East, Somalia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan.  In the name of combating terrorism against the US, we are terrorizing innocent people and creating many more enemies and potential terrorists in the process.

Our government has become a lawless power, acting as judge, jury, and executioner, just because it can.  The US uses remote-controlled drones to kill women in their kitchens, elders meeting in their jirgas, mourners at funerals, and rescuers who try to help the wounded.  By most independent studies, the vast majority of those killed are civilians.

We therefore demand:

(1) An immediate ban on the use of all drones for extrajudicial killing

(2) A halt to all drone surveillance that assaults basic freedoms and inalienable rights and terrorizes domestic life in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, and Somalia

(3) A prohibition on the sale and distribution of drones and drone technology to foreign countries, in order to prevent the proliferation of this menacing threat to world peace, freedom, and security, and

(4) An immediate end to this lawless behavior of drone warfare that violates many international laws and treaties.

Ed Kinane Tells Judge Why He Protests Drone Killing

Ed Kinane, CLOSING STATEMENT, Charges: trespass & disorderly conduct, Trial of the "Hancock 17," Judge David S. Gideon presiding, De Witt, NY Town Court, 31 January 2014

Good evening Judge Gideon, prosecutor Mc Namara, court staff, our many supporters here, and my fellow defendants.

I want to thank you, Judge, for your attentiveness throughout this trial and for assuring that each pro se defendant has had ample opportunity to speak and adequate time to do so.

I would also like to thank both you and Mr. McNamara for your patience with our frequently fumbling ways as we amateurs seek to navigate court protocol.

Likewise I must acknowledge your patience as, over several days, we’ve sought to mesh the efforts of the 15 or 16 of us who, coming from all over the map, often couldn’t consult together much before coming to court.

As pro se defendants, we are probably naive about how the U.S. “justice” system works.

We understood from our charges that any alleged trespass must occur on private property.

We further understood that any alleged annoyance, any alleged disturbance, any alleged recklessness, construed as disorderly conduct, must occur on public property.

Squaring that circle, we’ve been thinking, would surely result in at least one of those charges being dropped.

But that has yet to happen.

In my opening remarks on December 3, eight weeks ago, I noted that our defense would take two paths: that of conscience and that of legalism.

Our hope remains that this court will move along those two paths, paths bound for justice.

 For as Clare Grady in her January 3rd Opening suggested, the law is meant to serve humans and not humans sacrificed to law.

Each of our testifiers spoke out of their consciences, some suggesting that their consciences were shaped by their own personal faith tradition.

Others cited personal experience as impelling them to gather outside the Hancock drone base on October 25, 2012.

I myself in my Opening alluded to having survived the murderous 2003 bombardment of Baghdad, Iraq -- an ancient city of several million non-combatants widely viewed as a cradle of civilization.

It was that bombardment which the Pentagon boastingly and terrifyingly called “shock and awe.”   

It would be impossible to count the number of “shock and awe” casualties – the Pentagon expressing supreme indifference to such numbers.

So I speak from analogous firsthand experience when I say that airborne killing and destruction typified by the weaponized drone – whether in Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan or Afghanistan -- are terrifying.

And I speak first hand when I say that the Trespass and Disordered Conduct of those drones are not a defense against terrorism, but rather embody terrorism and may well generate retaliatory terrorism – an endless cycle of violence.

Others defendants – James Ricks, Patricia Weiland and Judith Bello -- spoke of participating in a risky October 2012 human rights fact-finding delegation to Pakistan – a nation, supposedly a U.S. ally,  terrorized by the robotic, lethal drones.

On this delegation they met drone survivors, non-combatant human beings who were maimed or had neighbors and close relatives killed.

Judith Bello shared with the court a short video interview with one of those survivors she met – a young man named Raz Mohammed.

Hopefully that video helped personalize the horror of those cowardly drone attacks.

James, Patricia and Judith testified that such encounters helped shape their state of mind on October 25, 2012 as they stood outside the gates of the Hancock drone base.

Their vivid reports on their Pakistan experience also helped shape the state of mind of other Hancock co-defendants on October 25th.

Many of my co-defendants who testified spoke to the layers of law we sought to uphold that morning.

These included the Nuremburg mandate for citizens of all nations to expose the war crime of her or his government.

Those layers also included aspects of international and U.S. Constitutional law, with the latter’s First Amendment right to assemble, to speak out, and to petition our government for a redress of grievance.

That Constitutional law cited also included Article Six, the Supremacy clause, specifying that treaties the U.S. Government enters into become the highest law of the land.

Such law governs the judiciary at all levels -- national, state and local.

Sadly, it appears that some U.S. courts unilaterally pick and choose the international treaties they’ll recognize.

For example, as we stand here on stolen Onondaga Nation land, it’s clear that New York State courts fail to honor the U.S./Onondaga Nation treaty.

By contrast international trade treaties like NAFTA – i.e. commercial international law so kind to corporations – tend to be treated as legitimate in U.S. courts.

It’s a curious inconsistency.

Several of our testifiers referred to the grievance about which we were petitioning  and for which we sought redress – that grievance being the protracted war crime committed or being prepared for 24/7 at Hancock by those piloting weaponized Reapers in Afghanistan and who knows where else.

Our petition at Hancock on October 25th against such war crime took the form of a people’s indictment co-authored with us by former U.S. attorney general Ramsey Clark.

As you ponder a just outcome for this trial, Judge Gideon, we urge you to carefully weigh that indictment.

That document, entered into evidence here, specified the layers of law we sought to uphold on that October 25th.

 On that date we were not defying law, we were seeking to uphold law.

Some testifiers noted that no one from the base inquired as to what our business was there and none spoke to us claiming we were trespassing.

Certainly no base personnel ordered us to leave.

Nor did any base personnel, including military police, tell us that the area near the base entrance from which we were petitioning the government was somehow exempt from the First Amendment.

Under questioning, both prosecution and each of our own witnesses noted that there was no NO TRESPASSING signage visible or in place between the Hancock main entrance gate and East Molloy Road in the town of DeWitt.

As each prosecution witness acknowledged, there was no line demarcating any trespass zone.

The prosecution’s own witnesses couldn’t seem to agree on where base property began.

In fact, the prosecution provided no documentation regarding base boundaries.

Curiously, while the prosecution initially sought to put into evidence a map of the base, when the defense asked for a copy of that map, the prosecution withdrew its request.

It does seem like the base command, for reasons of its own, prefers to keep base boundaries ambiguous.

No testifier for the defense indicated we knew where, besides at that fortified gate or at the barbed-wire fence surrounding the base, base property could properly be said to have begun.

Obviously, not only the authorities, but the defendants were in the dark regarding the whereabouts of the base property line – so much for our knowingly trespassing.

Pledge of Nonviolence

As each defense witness testified, all of us read aloud together a Pledge of Nonviolence on the morning of October 25, 2012 before embarking for the Hancock Reaper base.

Each defense witness testified that that Pledge faithfully reflected her or his frame of mind on October 25th.

Each also testified that their own behavior was consistent with that Pledge.

Further, neither our witnesses nor any of the arresting officers testified that they saw any of the defendants engage in behavior inconsistent with the Pledge.

In fact some of the arresting officers told of the congenial interactions between themselves and those they arrested.

Having been entered into evidence, and having referred to the Pledge numerous times while questioning our witnesses, I would like to read aloud the Pledge here.

It consists of seven short sentences. But first let me quickly put the Pledge into context.

Since 2009 appalled citizens have been seeking to educate the public, the media, law enforcement, and base personnel about the ongoing war crimes originating at Hancock. This campaign, coordinated by our grassroots group Upstate Drone Action, involves a range of tactics – including some that have led to arrest, trial and incarceration.  Our entire campaign has been scrupulously nonviolent in the spirit and tradition of Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. – both victims of assassination.

Thus before each civil resistance action participants commit ourselves to the following Pledge:

We are committed in the campaign to nonviolence in all of our words, symbols and actions. Our purpose is to publicize and hopefully deter the war crimes perpetrated from Hancock AFB by hunter/killer Reaper drones piloted by Hancock personnel over Afghanistan and elsewhere.

Accordingly, at today’s event at Hancock our attitude will be one of respect toward all – including police, military personnel,  the public, and each other.

We will not resist or evade arrest and if prosecuted, we will use the judicial process to continue our anti-drone campaign. Where possible we will put the Pentagon’s and CIA’s use of hunter/killer drones itself on trial.

Today’s Action is part of an ongoing, protracted campaign. We will return to our communities and continue our work to end Reaper assassination, civilian killing and other such acts of state terrorism.

Thank you.

On Trial, Drone Protester Proves Wrong People Charged

Closing Argument presented on Janurary 31, 2014, by Judith Bello on trial as of those who protested at Hancock Air Base in New York State on  October 25, 2012

I would like to begin, Judge Gideon, by thanking you for your attention to our unique argument, and support for our learning process with regard to formal court procedures as pro se defendants.

I will preface my remarks by saying that we are ever grateful for the right and privilege given to us by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution which says that:

“Congress shall make no law [. . .] abridging the freedom of speech . . . ; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

We would not be here today if this were not the law of the land.  I will argue that I went to Hancock Base on the 25th of October, 2012, that as far as I know, we all assembled at Hancock Base on October 25th, 2012 to exercise our right and privilege of free speech to ask our government for redress of grievance; specifically to uphold international laws that prohibit wars of aggression, targeted assassination and the reckless endangerment of civilian populations around the world.  

You have heard testimony that Weaponized Drones, including those flown from Hancock Air National Guard Base are on the front line of illegal wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and other countries around the world.   You have heard testimony that Armed Drones threaten civilian populations in these countries, and contrary to government assertions, kill indiscriminately, leaving a trail of dead civilians in their wake.  Even the oft affirmed ‘militant’ target is a civilian in most cases, perhaps in every case depending whether American combatants can be said to be engaged in a legal war.  According to Customary International Law and numerous treaties which I will now elaborate, these wars of aggression are illegal,   

Therefore, my presence, our presence at Hancock Air National Guard Base is justified under NYS Penal Law 35.05, Subsection 1)

"Unless otherwise limited by ensuing provisions of this article defining justifiable use of physical force, conduct which would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal when: 1) Such conduct is required or authorized by a law or judicial decree   . . . "

In light of Article. VI of the US Constitution, which says:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

We turn to the following passages from the Nuremberg Judgment which has been designated as a Federal Rules Decision, thereby incorporated into United States Law as well as the United States Army Field Manual:

on pg 19 under THE COMMON PLAN OR CONSPIRACY AND AGGRESSIVE WAR:
The esteemed justices of the Nuremberg Court say:

". . . War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world.

To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

on Pg 42 under VIOLATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL TREATIES:

The court continues in the same vein.  It says that the waging of an aggressive war is a crime regardless of whether any signed treaty has been violated.

"The Charter defines as a crime the planning or waging of war that is a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties. [ . . . ] This makes it unnecessary to discuss the subject in further detail, or even to consider at any length the extent to which these aggressive wars were also "wars in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances.""

In other words, since we are agreed that prosecuting a war of aggression is a crime, we do not need any further Treaties to justify our verdict.

on Pps 44-47  of the Nuremberg Judgment, under THE LAW OF THE CHARTER: The Nuremberg judges state:

"The Charter is not an arbitrary exercise of power on the part of the victorious nations, but in the view of the Tribunal, as will be shown, it is the expression of international law existing at the time of its creation; and to that extent is itself a contribution to international law."

The United States must have agreed with this at the time because the Judgment was admitted to US Law as a Federal Rules Decision.   They go on to say that it is a matter of justice that a criminal act is understood in reference to the law.  So they proceed to name the Treaties on which they have based their judgment.  First and foremost, the Kellogg-Briand Treaty, also called The Pact of Paris because the United States and France were the makers of the treaty, and the charter signatories:

 “This view is strongly reinforced by a consideration of the state of international law in 1939, so far as aggressive war is concerned. The General Treaty for the Renunciation of War of August 27th 1928, more generally known as the Pact of Paris or the Kellogg-Briand Pact, was binding on sixty-three nations, including Germany, Italy and Japan [and, I might add, the United States] at the outbreak of war in 1939.  [ . . . ] 

The first two articles of Kellogg-Briand are as follows:

"Article I: The High Contracting Parties solemnly declare in the names of their respective peoples that they condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies and renounce it as an instrument of national policy in their relations to one another."

"Article II: The High Contracting Parties agree that the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arrive among them, shall never be sought except by pacific means."

In case we don't take this seriously, the Nuremberg judges go on to quote Henry L. Stimson, US Secretary of State in 1932, as follows:

"War between nations was renounced by the signatories of the Kellogg-Briand Treaty. This means that it has become throughout practically the entire world ... an illegal thing. Hereafter, when nations engage in armed conflict, either one or both of them must be termed violators of this general treaty law....We denounce them as law breakers."

I have been told that the Kellogg-Briand Treaty is obsolete and irrelevant.  No one pays any attention to it.   However the United States has not withdrawn her signature from Kellogg-Briand, as she has, for instance, from the International Court of Justice.  Kellogg-Briand is not only a basis for the Nuremberg Judgment, which is accepted as a Federal Rules Decision, but is a direct creation of US diplomacy of which the United States is a charter signatory.   Perhaps it should be taken more seriously.

Clearly, Kellogg-Briand does not codify particular penalties for particular variants or degrees of the crime of aggressive war.  The Nuremberg judges respond to this concern as follows:

“But it is argued that the pact does not expressly enact that such wars are crimes, or set up courts to try those who make such wars. [. . . ]   In interpreting the words of the Pact, it must be remembered that international law is not the product of an international legislature, and that such international agreements as the Pact of Paris have to deal with general principles of law, and not with administrative matters of procedure. The law of war is to be found not only in treaties, but in the customs and practices of states which gradually obtained universal recognition, and from the general principles of justice applied by jurists and practiced by military courts.”.

Here we have an argument that International Law is a foundation of global justice, and should be enforced through understandings and procedures defined by Customary Law, which has evolved through the consensus of nations over a period of centuries.

Armed Drones, which are currently a critical tactical method in support of our many wars of aggression,  are engaged in the commission of crimes, Crimes Against Peace in so far as they facilitate illegal wars,  and War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity in so far as they facilitate indiscriminate killing of civilians and targeted assassinations which are illegal under US Law.   

It is a matter of particular concern that United States officials are attempting to change Customary International Law to their advantage by changing the facts on the ground through the introduction of new technologies and social classifications. Terrorists and terrorism supposedly represent a class of individuals who perpetuate a condition not anticipated by Customary International law nor standing Treaties. However, the United States duplicity in both fighting 'terrorists' and supporting the same individuals under different names shows that this is not the case.  The use of new technologies i.e. armed drones, to 'terrorize' civilians while supposedly hunting so called 'terrorists' is frivolous, hypocritical and completely illegal. 

Terrorists and the armed drones that hunt them are social and technical constructs designed to disrupt international law and the social structures on which it is founded.   This is clearly succeeding as can be seen by the confusion evidenced in recent statements by the United Nations Rapporteurs on Extrajudicial Killing and on Human Rights and Counterterrorism, and by the conclusions drawn by NGO Reports on Drone attacks released by the Human Rights NGOs this Fall by Amnesty International [1] and Human Rights Watch.[2]  

Drones are asserted to be a device that is not constrained by Customary International Law as we have understood it in the past.  The claim is that they are so advanced as to require new laws for new situations. Indeed they say:

  1.  Drones can hover quietly at great heights, out of view of those o the ground and out of reach to retaliation by populations without air power and are claimed to be primarily used for surveillance
  2.  Since drones aren't manned, they have not violated the boundaries and borders they have illegally crossed.  
  3.  Since a Drone can be piloted from a faraway location that is not in the clear zone of war, then pilots are not at risk and not liable for their actions
  4.  Drones are able to discriminate their targets more effectively than other delivery systems for missiles

To me, the above list of special features can be subsumed under a single classification, IMPUNITY.   The latter point in particular has clearly proven not to be the case.   It takes more than a stable image from 2 miles away to provide meaningful clues to an operator 10,000 miles away.   Drones are used to conduct illegal wars invisibly.   Even so, new laws aren't necessary to constrain armed drones. What is necessary is that their owners and users be called to obey the existing laws.

In fact, International Law has addressed this very situation more than 100 years ago.   Initially, the Martens Clause, as it is called, was introduced into the prologue of Hague Convention II in 1899, later the substance was incorporated into the Hague Convention IV in 1907.  The Martens Clause states:

Until a more complete code of the laws of war is issued, the High Contracting Parties think it right to declare that in cases not included in the Regulations adopted by them, populations and belligerents (we would say civilians and combatants) remain under the protection and empire of the principles of international law, as they result from the usages established between civilized nations, from the laws of humanity and the requirements of the public conscience.

In other words, you cannot create an instrument that smashes the existing rules and boundaries and then claim that new boundaries must be drawn around it.   Rather, the use of new technologies must be required to remain within the boundaries of existing law until such time as the international community can come to a consensus on a new structure of law to accommodate them.    Then their use can be expanded into the new legal space.  We must act under the empire of international law rather than under the law of the empire.

-------- Conclusion ---------------

We cannot ignore the fact that these laws are often broken; often restated in new language.  It seems to me that war is much like an addiction, deadly and difficult to end.   We vow to quit, then fail, and recover and relapse again and again.   This does not mean that we should cease trying.  Every  treaty and promise to repudiate the deadly violence of war, and restrain the instruments that make it easy for us to engage in war, must be held up and honored, over and over again until justice prevails, and we are at last free to live as civilized human beings in peace and security with other individuals and other nations.

That is why I was at Hancock Base on October 25, 2012 and that is why I am here today.  I am not asking you, Judge Gideon, to try defendants under these laws as the Nuremberg Judges were required to do.   That is not your job.   What I am asking is that you acknowledge our obligations under these laws, along with my obligation and privilege to uphold them under the Constitution and acquit me and my companions of the current charges under Penal Code 35.05 which says that we may justify an act that would otherwise constitute an offense when it is authorized by a law or judicial decree.
 

------------

  1. Will I Be Next, US Drone Strikes in Pakistan, Amnesty International, October, 2013

  2. Between a Drone and Al Qaeda, Human Rights Watch, October, 2013

Occupy Beale AFB Anti-Drone Protestors to Put Drone Warfare on Trial


Beale AFB, April, 2013

TRIAL DATE:  Monday, Feb. 3, 9:00 am    

 We Need You There!  Contact for Bay Area Carpool:  510-215-5974

 
(Defendants:  Martha Hubert, Robin Ryan, Bill Doub and Toby Blome)

Where:   Sacramento, U.S. Courthouse, 50l  I St. 
8:00-9:00 am:   Pre-trial Anti-Drone Rally,  bring signs and visuals or help hold ours!
8:30am: press conference outside the courthouse 
9:00am:  Trial begins.  Courtroom supporters needed.

In April, 2013, 5 activists were arrested while attempting to deliver a letter to the Commander at Beale AFB during a nonviolent protest of drone warfare.  The letter was our attempt to hold accountable all military personnel and officials involved in the drone program, directly or indirectly, by charging them with crimes against humanity and violations of the law. (see full letter below).  Four of the defendants now face trespassing charges and a maximum of 6 months in jail.
 
While the defendants are likely to get community service and a fine, it is critical at this time to increase the public outcry over the brutality of drone warfare.  Please attend the pre-trial rally and join us in the courtroom as we attempt to put drone assassination on trial.  If you can't attend, please try to find someone who can be there in your place.  
WE MUST NOT BE SILENT.
In memory of the 13 wedding party attendants who were murdered in Yemen last December and all victims of illegal drone surveillance and attacks......may we one day GROUND THE DRONES for good!
 
 

OPEN LETTER TO BEALE AIR FORCE BASE PERSONEL (April 30, 2013)

 

We, the people, charge the US President, Barak Obama, and the full military chain of command, to Beale Air Force Base Commander Colonel Col. Phil Stewart, 9th Reconnaissance Wing commander, every drone crew, and service members at Beale Air Force Base, and every other U.S. base involved directly or indirectly with the U.S. drone program with crimes against humanity, with violations of part of the Supreme Law of the Land, extrajudicial killings, violation of due process, wars of aggression, violation national sovereignty, and killing of innocent civilians.

US military and CIA Drone attacks have killed thousands of innocent civilians, including women and children, in the Middle East,  Somalia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan.  In the name of combating terrorism against the U.S. we are terrorizing innocent people, and creating many more enemies and potential terrorists in the process.

Our government has become lawless powers, acting as judge, jury and executioner, just because it can.  The U.S. uses remote-controlled drones to kill women in their kitchens, elders meeting in their jirgas, mourners at funerals, and rescuers who try to help the wounded.  By most independent studies, the vast majority of those killed are civilians.

 

We therefore, demand:

(1) An immediate ban on the use of all drones for extrajudicial killing

(2) A halt all drone surveillance that assaults basic freedoms and inalienable rights and terrorizes domestic life in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen and Somalia

 (3) A prohibition on the sale, and distribution of drones and drone technology to foreign countries in order to prevent the proliferation of this menacing threat to world peace, freedom and security and

(4) An immediate end to  this lawless behavior of drone warfare that violates many international laws and treaties.

Spring Days of Action to End Drone Killing, Drone Surveillance, Global Militarization

Today we issue an international call for Spring Days of Action – 2014, a coordinated campaign in April and May to:

          End Drone Killing, Drone Surveillance and Global Militarization

The campaign will focus on drone bases, drone research facilities and test sites and drone manufacturers.

The campaign will provide information on:

1. The suffering of tens of thousands of people in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and Gaza who are under drone attack, documenting the killing, the wounding and the devastating impact of constant drone surveillance on community life.

2. How attack and surveillance drones have become a key element in a massive wave of surveillance, clandestine military attacks and militarization generated by the United States to protect a global system of manufacture and oil and mineral exploitation that is creating unemployment and poverty, accelerating the waste of nonrenewable resources and contributing to environmental destruction and global warming.

In addition to cases in the Middle East, Africa and Central Asia, we will examine President Obama's "pivot" into the Asia-Pacific, where the United States has already sold and deployed drones in the vanguard of a shift of 60% of its military forces to try to control China and to enforce the planned Trans-Pacific Partnership.  We will show, among other things, how this surge of "pivot" forces, greatly enabled by drones, and supported by the US military-industrial complex, will hit every American community with even deeper cuts in the already fragile social programs on which people rely for survival.  In short, we will connect drones and militarization with "austerity" in America.

3. How drone attacks have effectively destroyed international and domestic legal protection of the rights to life, privacy, freedom of assembly and free speech and have opened the way for new levels of surveillance and repression around the world, and how, in the United States, increasing drone surveillance, added to surveillance by the National Security Agency and police, provides a new weapon to repress black, Hispanic, immigrant and low-income communities and to intimidate Americans who are increasingly unsettled by lack of jobs, economic inequality, corporate control of politics and the prospect of endless war.

We will discuss how the United States government and corporations conspire secretly to monitor US citizens and particularly how the Administration is accelerating drone surveillance operations and surveillance inside the United States with the same disregard for transparency and law that it applies to other countries, all with the cooperation of the Congress.

The campaign will encourage activists around the world to win passage of local laws that prohibit weaponized drones and drone surveillance from being used in their communities as well as seeking national laws to bar the use of weaponized drones and drone surveillance.

The campaign will draw attention to the call for a ban on weaponized drones by RootsAction.org that has generated a petition with over 80,000 signers

http://act.rootsaction.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=6180

and to efforts by the Granny Peace Brigade (New York City), KnowDrones.org and others to achieve an international ban on both weaponized drones and drone surveillance.

The campaign will also urge participation in the World Beyond War movement.

The following individuals and organizations endorse this Call:

Lyn Adamson – Co-chair, Canadian Voice of Women for Peace

Dennis Apel – Guadalupe Catholic Worker, California

Judy Bello – Upstate NY Coalition to Ground the Drones & End the Wars

Medea Benjamin – Code Pink

Leah Bolger – Former National President, Veterans for Peace

Canadian Voice of Women for Peace

Sung-Hee Choi – Gangjeong Village International Team, Jeju, Korea

Chelsea C. Faria – Graduate student, Yale  Divinity School; Promoting Enduring Peace

Sandy Fessler – Rochester (NY) Against War

Joy First

Bruce K. Gagnon - Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space

Holly Gwinn Graham – Singer/songwriter, Olympia, WA.

Regina Hagen - Darmstaedter Friedensforum, Germany

Kathy Kelly – Voices for Creative Nonviolence

Malachy Kilbride

Marilyn Levin and Joe Lombardo – Co-Coordinators, United National Antiwar Coalition

Tamara Lorincz – Halifax Peace Coalition, Canada

Nick Mottern – KnowDrones.org

Agneta Norberg – Swedish Peace Council

Pepperwolf – Director, Women Against Military Madness

Lindis Percy, Coordinator, Campaign for the Accountability of American Bases  CAAB UK

Mathias Quackenbush – San Francisco, CA

Lisa Savage – Code Pink, State of Maine

Janice Sevre-Duszynska

Wolfgang Schlupp-Hauck- Friedenswerkstatt Mutlangen, Germany

Cindy Sheehan

Lucia Wilkes Smith – Convener, Women Against Military Madness (WAMM) – Ground Military Drones Committee

David Soumis – Veterans for Peace; No Drones Wisconsin

Debra Sweet – World Can’t Wait

David Swanson - WarisACrime.org

Brian Terrell – Voices for Creative Nonviolence

United National Antiwar Coalition

Veterans for Peace 

Dave Webb – Chair, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (UK)

Curt Wechsler – Fire John Yoo! (a project of World Can’t Wait) – San Francisco, CA

Paki Wieland, Northampton (MA) Committee to Stop War(s)

Loring Wirbel – Citizens for Peace in Space (Colorado Springs, CO)

Women Against Military Madness

Ann Wright – Retired US Army colonel and former diplomat

Leila Zand - Fellowship of Reconciliation

 

Add your name by emailing it to: nickmottern@earthlink.net and watch for updates at http://KnowDrones.org

Outlaw drone strikes, says Yemeni National Dialogue

From REPRIEVE:

Yemen’s National Dialogue Conference (NDC), the body appointed to chart a post-revolutionary course for the country, has recommended that the new Yemeni constitution make a criminal offence of extra-judicial killing. The recommendations, issued today by the National Issues and Transitional Justice Working Group, would outlaw the US drone strikes that have killed and injured hundreds of people in Yemen, including the December targeting of a wedding party that killed 12 and injured 14.

The news comes amid an apparent ramping up of US drone strikes in Yemen; there have been eight strikes in the last two months alone. Last week, a Yemeni delegation to the United Nations admitted that the Government has had to establish a counselling centre for children because the level of trauma caused by drone attacks in the country is so high.
Meanwhile, a growing clamour of voices is urging the US government to reconsider the controversial policy. This week, former US commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan General Stanley McChrystal told the BBC that drone strikes risked creating “a tremendous amount of resentment” in places like Yemen.    

The NDC was established in 2012 as part of an internationally-sponsored initiative that led to President Ali Abdullah Saleh stepping down in February 2012, following the 2011 uprising. It was designed to be representative of all Yemeni society, and met throughout 2013 to agree a way forward for a new constitution for Yemen.

Baraa Shiban, a Reprieve Associate based in Yemen and a leading member of the group, said: 

“To date, there has been little to no accountability in Yemen for the suffering caused by drone strikes, which have terrorised local populations.   

“We welcome this move to take real steps towards protecting the rights and security of Yemen’s citizens, and urge the Yemeni Government to ensure that these recommendations are included in the country’s new constitution.   

“It’s disheartening, however, to see the US intensifying drone strikes in Yemen at the very moment the Yemeni people are working to criminalise them. The US has supported the NDC process, but persists in ignoring its outcomes when inconvenient.”

Former US general warns of “tremendous resentment” of drones

From REPRIEVE:

Former US commander General Stanley McChrystal has warned that the US’s controversial drones programme creates “a tremendous amount of resentment” among “helpless” people in the areas it targets. McChrystal’s last post before retiring was overseeing NATO forces in Afghanistan, where drone strikes feature prominently in operations.

Asked by the BBC’s flagship radio programme Today what the future was for drone warfare, McChrystal talked of the dangers of seeing the drones programme as “antiseptic”:

“There’s a danger that something that feels easy to do and without risk to yourself, almost antiseptic to the person shooting, doesn’t feel that way at the point of impact. And so if it lowers the threshold for taking operations because it feels easy, there’s danger in that.

“And then the other part is there’s a perception of arrogance, there is a perception of helpless people in an area being shot at like thunderbolts from the sky by an entity that is acting as though they have omniscience and omnipotence, and you can create a tremendous amount of resentment inside populations, even not the people that are themselves being targeted, but around, because of the way it appears and feels.

“So I think that we need to be very very cautious; what seems like a panacea to the messiness of war is not that at all.”

McChrystal’s comments come just days after a Yemeni delegation to the United Nations admitted it has had to establish a counselling centre for children because the level of trauma caused by US drone attacks in the country is so high.

The former commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan joins a growing number of critics of the drone programme from the US military, intelligence and diplomatic establishments:

Robert Grenier, who was Director of the CIA's Counter-Terrorism Center from 2004 to 2006, recently asked: “How many Yemenis may be moved in future to violent extremism in reaction to carelessly targeted missile strikes, and how many Yemeni militants with strictly local agendas will become dedicated enemies of the West in response to US military actions against them [?]”

Meanwhile, the former US Deputy Chief of Mission in Yemen, Nabeel Khoury, has warned that “the U.S. generates roughly forty to sixty new enemies for every AQAP operative killed by drones.”

Jennifer Gibson, Staff Attorney at legal charity Reprieve, which represents civilian victims of drone strikes, said: “For a former commander of General McChrystal’s reputation  and experience to be speaking so forcefully on drones is damning. By terrorising populations in places like Yemen and Pakistan, drones create a breeding ground of resentment against the US and its allies. It is high time President Obama heeded the warnings of just how counter-productive the covert drone programme is, and put a stop to it.”

ENDS

1. For further information, please contact Reprieve’s press office: +44 (0) 207 553 8160 / 66 or alice.gillham@reprieve.org.uk/ donald.campbell@reprieve.org.uk


 
2. General Stanley McChrystal was speaking to BBC Radio 4’s Today programme. The programme can be accessed on the BBC website: www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01q8v2y

3. Robert Grenier’s comments can be found at the Al Jazeera website: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/05/201251071458557719.html

4. Nabeel Khoury’s comments can be found at the website of the Cairo Review: http://www.aucegypt.edu/gapp/cairoreview/Pages/articleDetails.aspx?aid=443

Hancock 17 Drone War Crimes Resisters Trial Continues This Week

Jan 23/24 - Thursday & Friday 5pm
Town of De Witt Court, 5400 Butternut Drive, East Syracuse, NY.

The Hancock 17 trial began January 3, 2014 and will continue this week on January 23 and most likely January 24. Please come in support!

After 12 hours in the courtroom on January 3rd and 6th, the prosecution case is nearly complete. With one exception, the defendants are going pro se, which means that they are defending themselves. Their defense is based on the fact that they were not at the base to break the law, but rather to uphold the U.S. Constitution and international law. 

Listen to the powerful opening statements of Ed Kinane and Clare Grady at 
http://upstatedroneaction.org/wordpress/2014/01/11/opening-statements-of-hancock-17-defendants-jan-3/



It is expected that the defense case will begin Thursday, January 23, most likely continuing on the Friday the 24th. The defendants' case is supported by former Attorney General Ramsey Clark, international law experts Francis Boyle and  Mary Ellen O'Connell, and a an Afghani man whose brother-in-law was killed in a drone strike. 

On October 25, 2012, they had been arrested for symbolically blocking the three gates at Hancock Air National Guard Base, from which MQ 9 Reaper drones are piloted over Afghanistan and where MQ9 Reaper pilots, sensor operators and technicians are trained. They stood in front of the gates with banners and and signs calling for an end to drone warfare, and read a Citizen's War Crimes Indictment to the base personnel. They called for an end of attacks on civilians that are illegal under international war. 
 
After more than two hours outside the gates, they were arrested and arraigned on charges of Trespass and Disorderly Conduct (both violations)  and  were issued  Orders of Protection for Col. Earl Evans which require them to stay away from the base (his place of work). Violating these Orders of Protection carries potential misdemeanor or even felony charges. 

Defendants:
Elliott Adams, Sharon Springs, NY                           
Judy Bello,  Rochester, NY                                        
Daniel Burgevin, Trumansburg, NY                               
Mark Colville, New Haven, CT                                     
Paul Frazier, Syr. & Rochester, NY                               
Clare Grady, Ithaca, NY                                                 
Mary Anne Grady Flores, Ithaca, NY 
Martha Hennessy, New York, NY                                 
Brian Hynes, Bronx, NY                                                 
Ed Kinane, Syracuse, NY                                           
Rae Kramer, Syracuse, NY                            
Andrea Levine, Trumansburg, NY                       
Michael Perry,Trumansburg, NY                              
James Ricks, Enfield, NY                                          
Mark Scibilia-Carver, Trumansburg,NY          
Patricia Weiland, Northampton, MA    

Yemen 'set up a counselling centre' for children because of drone strikes

From REPRIEVE:
 
A Yemeni delegation to the UN yesterday admitted that it has had to establish a counselling centre for children because the level of traumatisation caused by US drone attacks in the country is so high. 
 
At a periodic review of Yemen by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child yesterday, the Yemeni delegation was asked by the Committee about the psychological impact of drone strikes on children. The Yemeni official said that following a drone attack on a residential area, they had found it necessary to set up a counselling centre.
 
The delegation also stressed that the country's Parliament has voted to stop US drone strikes, saying:
 
“The Yemeni Parliament one month ago adopted a prohibition of American drones carrying out attacks in Yemen and we will continue to review and discuss this issue.”
 
When asked by a member of the committee how Yemen is trying to prevent drone strikes, the delegation said:
 
“We have signed an agreement with the US and other countries to fight terrorism…We will fight terrorism wherever it occurs in conformity with our agreement with the US.” The delegation then went on to admit that, “Of course mistakes have been made.”
 
These statements follow on from a report from UN Secretary General, Ban-ki Moon to the Security Council last year by stating that drones were violating a range of children’s rights from their right to life to their right to education.
 
CIA drone strikes in Yemen have killed an estimated 42 children. In March last year Dr Peter Schaapveld, an expert in psychological trauma assessment and treatment told British MPs, following a trip assessing victims and communities in Yemen, that US drones in the country were “causing a psychological emergency.” 
 
Reprieve Legal Director Kat Craig said: “In places like Yemen, the US drone programme is terrorising entire civilian populations, nearly half of which are children. President Hadi's agreements with the US are trumping Yemen's responsibility to protect its children. Instead of allowing the US to bomb his country to pieces and then setting up a recovery centre, President Hadi should listen to his Parliament and stop the drone strikes.”

Seventeen People Tried for Protesting Drones in Upstate, NY

From UNAC
On January 25, 2012, 17 people were arrested for symbolically blocking the gates at Hancock National Air Guard Base which is a site where MQ 9 Reaper drones are piloted over Afghanistan, and the domestic center for training MQ9 Reaper pilots and technicians.   They stood in front of the gates with banners and and signs calling for an end to drone warfare, and read an Indictment for Crimes Against Peace and attacks on civilians that are illegal under international war. 
 
After more than two hours outside the gates, the protesters were arrested and arraigned on charges of Trespass and Disorderly Conduct, both violations.   The protesters were  also issued  Orders of Protection for Col Earl Evans which require them to stay away from the base.   Violating these OOPs, as they call them, carries potential misdemeanor or even felony charges. 

On January 2nd of this year (2014)  the Hancock 17 went to trial in DeWitt, NY.   Fifteen defendants are going before the court Pro Se, i.e. they are representing themselves before the court.   They have prepared a defense based on the fact that they were not at the base to break the law, but rather to uphold the law.   The way the drones are used in Afghanistan violates Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Law.    There is little coverage of Afghan casualties in the mainstream news but according to a report by Press TV, there were 500 drone attacks in Afghanistan in the last year. 
 
After 12 hours in the courtroom on January 2nd and 6th, the prosecution case is nearly complete.   The defendants had an opportunity to cross examine Col Evans, a civil engineer responsible for material operations at the base, and the Security Chief at some length.  There were a number of questions about the handling of events occurring outside the Military Installation (denoted by the fence) of the Base and in the Easement which includes a public thoroughfare. 

It is expected that the defense case will begin on January 23 and continue on the 24th.     The defendants' case is supported by former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and Mary Ellen O'Connell of Notre Dame who is an expert on Drones and International Law, and by witness from an Afghan youth whose brother-in-law was killed in a drone strike in Maidan Shahr Wardak, Afghanistan. 

For more information, please go to http://upstatedroneaction.org/

Human rights activist in Yemen receives death threat for investigating drone attack

Baraa Shiban, an investigator in Yemen for human rights charity Reprieve, received an anonymous death threat yesterday (Thursday) relating to his investigation of a US drone strike which killed 12 wedding guests and injured 14 others in al-Baydah province, on December 12, 2013.
 
The anonymous caller demanded that Mr. Shiban abandon his investigation of the drone strike and then threatened his life.
 
The investigation to which the caller referred exposed that the drone strike had hit a wedding procession, rather than Al-Qaeda militants as the US and Yemeni governments had initially claimed. The findings of Reprieve’s investigation, which were broadcast on the US network NBC on Tuesday, have sparked the US administration to launch an internal investigation. 
 
Reprieve has written to governmental officials calling on them to investigate the threat and take any steps required by Yemeni law. Reprieve Legal Director Kat Craig said: “Our primary concern is, of course, for the safety of our colleague. We have asked President Hadi to take a stand to protect Baraa and other human rights advocates who are so vital to Yemen’s democratic transition. But the nature of the threat, and the proximity of it to the high profile coverage of this recent strike procured by Baraa, only makes us more determined to continue our work to expose the unlawfulness of drones in Yemen, how they are killing civilians and terrorising entire communities. We hope that the Yemeni and international community will continue to assist our colleague in his brave work.”

DRONES: Let's Give Obama a Political Choice He Can Understand in 2014

from Scarry Thoughts

Now's the time of year for New Year's resolutions.

Let no one doubt that Barack Obama has one resolution for 2014 and that is to win back control of the House of Representatives.

As the nationwide -- and, increasingly, global -- movement to ground the drones looks ahead to 2014, what will its New Year's resolution be?

I suggest that if we want to be heard on this issue, we need to be where Obama and his crew are paying daily attention: the highly-contested races in the 2014 midterms.

I worked on the US drone program. The public should know what really goes on

Few of the politicians who so brazenly proclaim the benefits of drones have a real clue how it actually works (and doesn't)
theguardian.com,
Hermes 450 drone
An Elbit Systems Hermes 450 drone. Photograph: AFP/Getty Images

Whenever I read comments by politicians defending the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Predator and Reaper program – aka drones – I wish I could ask them a few questions. I'd start with: "How many women and children have you seen incinerated by a Hellfire missile?" And: "How many men have you seen crawl across a field, trying to make it to the nearest compound for help while bleeding out from severed legs?" Or even more pointedly: "How many soldiers have you seen die on the side of a road in Afghanistan because our ever-so-accurate UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] were unable to detect an IED [improvised explosive device] that awaited their convoy?"

Few of these politicians who so brazenly proclaim the benefits of drones have a real clue of what actually goes on. I, on the other hand, have seen these awful sights first hand.

I knew the names of some of the young soldiers I saw bleed to death on the side of a road. I watched dozens of military-aged males die in Afghanistan, in empty fields, along riversides, and some right outside the compound where their family was waiting for them to return home from the mosque.

The US and British militaries insist that this is an expert program, but it's curious that they feel the need to deliver faulty information, few or no statistics about civilian deaths and twisted technology reports on the capabilities of our UAVs. These specific incidents are not isolated, and the civilian casualty rate has not changed, despite what our defense representatives might like to tell us.

What the public needs to understand is that the video provided by a drone is not usually clear enough to detect someone carrying a weapon, even on a crystal-clear day with limited cloud and perfect light. This makes it incredibly difficult for the best analysts to identify if someone has weapons for sure. One example comes to mind: "The feed is so pixelated, what if it's a shovel, and not a weapon?" I felt this confusion constantly, as did my fellow UAV analysts. We always wonder if we killed the right people, if we endangered the wrong people, if we destroyed an innocent civilian's life all because of a bad image or angle.

It's also important for the public to grasp that there are human beings operating and analysing intelligence these UAVs. I know because I was one of them, and nothing can prepare you for an almost daily routine of flying combat aerial surveillance missions over a war zone. UAV proponents claim that troops who do this kind of work are not affected by observing this combat because they are never directly in danger physically.

But here's the thing: I may not have been on the ground in Afghanistan, but I watched parts of the conflict in great detail on a screen for days on end. I know the feeling you experience when you see someone die. Horrifying barely covers it. And when you are exposed to it over and over again it becomes like a small video, embedded in your head, forever on repeat, causing psychological pain and suffering that many people will hopefully never experience. UAV troops are victim to not only the haunting memories of this work that they carry with them, but also the guilt of always being a little unsure of how accurate their confirmations of weapons or identification of hostile individuals were.

Of course, we are trained to not experience these feelings, and we fight it, and become bitter. Some troops seek help in mental health clinics provided by the military, but we are limited on who we can talk to and where, because of the secrecy of our missions. I find it interesting that the suicide statistics in this career field aren't reported, nor are the data on how many troops working in UAV positions are heavily medicated for depression, sleep disorders and anxiety.

Recently, the Guardian ran a commentary by Britain's secretary of state for defence, Philip Hammond. I wish I could talk to him about the two friends and colleagues I lost, within a year of leaving the military, to suicide. I am sure he has not been notified of that little bit of the secret UAV program, or he would surely take a closer look at the full scope of the program before defending it again.

The UAVs in the Middle East are used as a weapon, not as protection, and as long as our public remains ignorant to this, this serious threat to the sanctity of human life – at home and abroad – will continue.

Remembering the Human Collateral Damage

By  Debra Sweet.   Last week 17 people died from a U.S. drone strike in a remote area of Yemen as they drove in a convoy returning from a wedding. People in the area had heard the drone overhead since the day before. As to what really happened, we are fed a lot of speculation by the US news media, because, of course, the U.S. military won't comment... “those killed were linked to al Qaeda, and therefore legitimate targets... the government of Yemen is running the war, and they choose the targets... the drone strike targeted that convoy by ‘mistake.’”

The War on Marriage on Christmas

Very rarely does our government ask us what to have a war on.  The proposal for missile strikes into Syria was a rare occasion when public pressure and other factors compelled Congress to demand a say. Public pressure then compelled Congress to say No.

But daily drone buzzings over various nations aren't occasions for public debate.  We aren't being asked about another decade in Afghanistan or cooking up a future war on Iran.  And our current president and his predecessor combined have wiped out eight wedding parties (six in Afghanistan, one in Iraq, and one in Yemen earlier this month) without our having ever been asked about any of them.

What if we were?

There are various ways a debate over whether to launch a war could go.  In a highly-informed debate, we might investigate whether a war would violate the Kellogg-Briand Pact, the U.N. Charter, and the U.S. Constitution.  We might ask how many adults, children, and infants would likely be killed, injured, and traumatized, how many refugees created, what sort of environmental damage, what economic cost, what erosion of our civil liberties, what heightened secrecy in government, what increase in violence throughout our culture and the country attacked, what likely blowback for decades to come, and what obvious alternatives are available to violence.  But, of course, if we asked all that, then we'd never have any wars.

In a more plausible scenario, we might expect a debate to squeeze its way onto our televisions that would ask questions like: How many U.S. troops will die?  How much will it cost?  Why are we on the same side as al Qaeda this time?  How will it end once begun?  How does bombing more people express our support for suffering people?  Or, depending on the circumstances, maybe even this: Haven't we been arming that dictator for decades -- why the urgency to overthrow him now? 

But how would a debate over whether to send hellfire missiles screaming into a wedding party look?  What if such a debate were to develop in our news media this Christmas season? 

In areas of frequent drone strikes, people are often afraid to get together in large numbers.  In Yemen, parents resort to home schooling for fear of letting their children out of the house.  Few and far between are the events deemed important enough to risk violating that rule.  One such event is a wedding. 

How much, we might hear our pundits ask, could be saved by killing 15 people at a wedding as opposed to killing them each separately?  (If the missiles alone cost $1 million each, the answer is well over $14 million.)  What element of surprise might be gained in obliterating people whose minds are distracted by love and friendship and an important right rite of passage?  What fear and respect might be placed into the minds of the survivors?  Let's say one of the wedding couple survives and the other doesn't; which one would it be most desirable to let live?  Does it matter what kind of dress the bride is wearing?  Should fashion consultants be brought in by the Pentagon, or should morning talk shows contribute that analysis as part of their patriotic duty?  Should the missiles hit just as little kids bearing flowers enter the scene?

The debate may sound absurd, but its creation would actually be a significant step toward sound government.  We ought to vote on or be represented by officials who vote on important decisions for us.  We ought to be informed, engaged, and consulted.  Therefore, a debate before the next wedding strike is a perfectly reasonable proposal -- unless of course we're going to unilaterally stop blowing up weddings.  Far be it from me to suggest anything that rash.

Bringing U.S. Crimes in Yemen to New York

By Nick Mottern
 
On Wednesday afternoon, Dec. 18, 2013,  about 20 people - from the Granny Peace Brigade (GPB), World Can't Wait, KnowDrones.org, Mary House (the Catholic Worker House in NYC) and Concerned Families of Westchester County - gathered in front of St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York City to witness on behalf of the 15 Yemeni wedding-goers who were killed by a US drone six days earlier.
 
  I brought a replica of the MQ-9 Reaper drone, one of the work horses of US drone killing, and as I carried the replica parts to be assembled in front of the cathedral, I was so heartened to see such a long line of witnesses.  Most were from the GPB, and the yellow smocks the Grannies wear at protests gave the line a heightened presence and assertion in the midst of a scene that was about anything but why we were there.  
 
  As the attached photos show, many, many people passed in front of us, with a fair number actively avoiding conversation and flyers, even when some of us approached them.   Although we were in front of one of the most renown houses of worship in the United States, and maybe the world, the atmosphere had no hint of spiritual intention.  St. Patrick's is in the heart of one of the most famous, some might say  infamous, shopping districts in America, and the prevailing energy had to do with commerce,  sight-seeing and rushing, constant rushing, rushing of souls flashing by pre-occupied with immediate demands.   Yemen, the drone dead and their families were galaxies away.
 
 
  The most pronounced, kindest evidence of a spiritual inspiration came from the NYC policeman who approached us when we gathered to begin the vigil.  He said he had been advised that we would be protesting, that we were free to stand on the broad sidewalk in front of the cathedral and that, if we wished, the police would, cordon off our spot, an offer we declined.  I have never experienced a policeman being welcoming in this way or to be so pleasant.   Conversely, when one of us went into the cathedral office to ask if someone might copy some additional flyers for us, he was told no and asked who gave us permission to be there anyway.  (Flyer attached)
 
  We arrived at 1:00 pm and left at 2:30, when we ran out of the 200 plus fliers.  The  end of the flyers was welcome in a way because the cold was beginning to establish a beachhead under our layers of clothing.    
 
  In terms of impact, I know that a man in his early 50's from Long Island, accompanied by his wife and children, was very interested in what we were doing, very sympathetic, and stood around for sometime.  I also found several passersby wanting to take a flyer, and two said they would definitely Facebook Pope Francis when I told them we were encouraging people to ask him to condemn drone warfare and drone surveillance.   I know others in our group had similar small signs of success, and I left feeling that at least for the time we were there we were honoring, and in some way praying for, those who had been killed in Yemen and for those who loved them.
 
  Pope Francis' Facebook address is:                     https://www.facebook.com/PopeFranciscus

Syracuse Is Fifth City to Pass Anti-Drone Resolution

Syracuse has passed this:

Ban Weaponized Drones! – Statement by the European Section Global Anti-Drone Network

[Editor's note: This is a terrific complement to a similar statement by another long list of organizations at BanWeaponizedDrones.org --DCNS]

Statement by the European Section
Global Anti-Drone Network

Ban Weaponized Drones!

We oppose the use of drone technology for killing, surveillance and repression.

We oppose weaponized and surveillance drones because their deployment lowers the threshold to armed aggression, is used for “targeted” killing of people within and outside warzones  – without indictment, trial and conviction, terrorizes the population of the targeted territories, fuels hatred, thereby increasing the cycle of violence, leads to the development of autonomous kille robots, thereby making even more horrifying wars likely, initiates a new round in the arms race.

We demand that all governments cease the production and acquisition of armed drones, as well as their research and development, and work towards a worldwide ban of these weapons.

Endorsed by:

Althaler, Birgit – Palestine Solidarity Basel, Switzerland
Aune, Björn – Boycott, Sanctions, Divestment (BDS) Campaign Berlin, Germany
Baloch, Farooq – Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf  (PTI), Germany
Benjamin, Medea  - Code Pink (Co-­Founder), USA
Björkmann, Rosie – Women for Peace, Sweden
Bosma, Geert – Vredes Informatie Centrum (Staff) & War  Resisters Intl. (WRI), Netherlands
Braun, Reiner – Intl.  Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms (IALANA – Executive Director),Germany
Cole, Chris – Drone Wars UK (Founder) & Drone Campaign Network (Convener), United Kingdom
Dubrow, Niels – Staff  Assistant to Dr. Ute Finckh-Krämer, Member of Bundestag (SPD), Germany
Finckh-Krämer, Ute – Member of Bundestag  (MdB), Social Democratic Party (SPD) & Stiftung Friedensbildung, Germany
Fredegård, Anita – Women for Peace, Sweden
Fuchs, Barbara – attac  &  Friedensratschlag,  Germany
Fuchs-Kittowski, Klaus – Forum of Computer Scientists for Peace and Social Responsibility (FIfF),  Germany
Ghannam, Doris – Boycott,  Sanctions, Divestment (BDS) Campaign Berlin, Germany
Hunko, Andrej – Member of Bundestag (MdB) & of Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, DIE  LINKE  (the  Left)
Hugler, Helmut – Staff  Assistant  to  Dr.  Ute Finckh-Krämer, Member of Bundestag (SPD), Germany
Javaid, Tariq – Pakistan  Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI), Germany
Kachel, Thomas – Parliamentary Advisor  on  Peace and Security Issues, DIE  LINKE (the Left) in the Bundestag, Germany
Käss, Helmut – Intl.  Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW), Germany
Krutsch, Elfriede – Intl. Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW), Germany
Lammerent, Hans – Vredesactie Peace  Movement (former  Chair), Belgium
Lorentz, Charlotte – Staff Assistant to Angieszka Brugger, Member of the Bundestag, Green  parliamentary  group, Germany
Martensson, Ingela – Women for Peace & former Member of the parliament (Liberal  Party), Sweden
Mudassir, Ali – Pakistan Tehreek-­e-­Insaaf  (PTI), Germany
Müller-Reiss, Brunhild – Drone  Campaign & Peace Office Hannover & War Resisters Intl. (DFG-VK in WRI), Germany
Nineham, Chris – Stop the War Coalition (StWC -Vice Chair), United Kingdom
Norberg, Agneta – Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space & Women for Peace, Sweden
Paulini,  Peter – Stiftung Friedensbildung (Foundation for Peacemaking), Germany
Pflüger, Tobias – Drone Campaign & Info. Agency on Militarisation (IMI, Founder) & former MEP (DIE  LINKE), Germany
Rassbach, Elsa – Code Pink & Drone Campaign & War Resisters Intl. (DFG-VK in WRI, Board), USA/Germany
Schoeppe, Florian – Staff Assistant to Katja Keul, Membe  of the Bundestag, Green parliamentary group, Germany
Steffen, Jens-Peter – Intl.  Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW),  Staff Adviser on Peace Issues), Germany
Stryk, Lydia – Playwright,  USA/Germany
Wijnberg,  J.M.T.  (Miek) – Burgerrechtenvereniging  Vrijbit  (President),  Netherlands
Wimmersperg, Laura – Drone Campaign & Peace Coordination Berlin (Speaker), Germany
Wirl, Lucas – ICC No to NATO (Co-Chair) & Intl. Network Engineers & Scientists for Global Responsibility (INES), Germany

www.drohnen-kampagne.de

Drone Warfare Protest at CIA Follows Strike on Civilians in Yemen

Barry_sign

Following a deadly U.S. drone strike on civilians in Yemen, members of a dozen peace groups wearing blue scarves gathered at the entrance of CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia. With guards and barricades on one side and cars whizzing by on Rt. 123 on the other, they held a vigil in memory of civilians, especially children, by U.S. drone bombings in Yemen, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

“The CIA touts that drones are accurate,” said Jack McHale of Pax Christi USA to about 30 protestors from groups including CODE PINK and Veterans for Peace. But, he said, according to the Navy’s own analysis, they’re no more accurate than traditional air power. “I think we saw that this week when a wedding party was targeted and 17 people were killed as a result of an armed drone in Yemen.”

READ THE REST.

THREE ARRESTED DEC 9 TRYING TO DELIVER AN ORDER OF PROTECTION TO THE 174TH REAPER DRONE ATTACK WING AT HANCOCK AIR BASE

This afternoon, December 9, 2013, two Yale Divinity School students and a Catholic Worker were arrested as they attempted to deliver an Order of Protection on behalf of Afghan children and their families at the Hancock Air Base main entrance on East Molloy Rd. near Syracuse, NY.

Since October 25, 2012, over 50 citizens have been arrested – and issued Orders of Protection – for protesting the killing of children by Reaper drones piloted from Hancock Air Base.

The local DeWitt Town Court has issued these Orders at the request of the Hancock colonels. Such Orders suppress the First Amendment right of all those arrested to petition their government for redress of grievances at Hancock.                               

The grievance is that Hancock’s 174th Attack Wing technicians pilot weaponized Reaper drones over Afghanistan, engaged in the targeted killing of civilians.

The three declared, “This is the season for naming and wrestling with the reality of death in our life together. Advent’s austere themes of Death, Judgment, Heaven and Hell challenge us to see, to mourn and to resist the forces of death that hold our age in their power, forces that murder children overseas (and on our own streets) for the sake of corporate profit and the military-industrial complex. We are engaged in this action because we believe we can only see Christian hope when we confront the reality of bombs being dropped on children by remote-controlled killing machines.”

The three are Mark Colville of the new Haven Catholic Worker, Greg Williams and Creighton Chandler both of Yale Divinity school. They were arrested and charged with obstruction of governmental administration, trespass, and disorderly conduct. Mark was given an additional charge of Criminal Contempt for violating his order of protection that was issued from a year ago for a Commander at the base.

They tried to deliver this:

THE PEOPLE’S ORDER OF PROTECTION FOR THE CHILDREN OF AFGHANISTAN AND THEIR FAMILIES:

TO: President Obama; The United States Military; Col. Greg Semmel; Col. Earl Evans; The 174th Attack Wing of the Air National Guard.

Whereas good cause has been shown for the issuance of this order of protection, the people of all nations committed to peace, having overwhelmingly made a determination in accordance with both the Spirit of and the Letter of the United Nations Charter do hereby order that the above named, and more specifically their Hell Fire missiles and 500 pound bombs fired from the MQ9 Reaper drones operated at Hancock Airfield, home of the 174th Attack wing of the New York State Air National Guard, are to stay away from the Children of Afghanistan and their families, and:

Their homes;
Their schools;
Their places of play; and
Their places of work (ie., the forests where they gather wood, the fields where they tend their vegetables and flocks)

And further the above named shall refrain from:

Assault, stalking, harassment, menacing, bombing, killing, maiming and terrorizing, criminal obstruction of breathing or circulation, disorderly conduct, criminal mischief, forcible touching, intimidation, threats or any criminal offense or interference with the victims of the alleged offenses perpetrated by the offenders named in this order.

There shall be no more improper touching of the Children of Afghanistan or their families with your Hell Fire missiles and your 500 pound bombs.

There Shall be no more menacing and reckless endangerment of the children and their families.

It is further ordered that this order of protection shall remain in force forever. Failure to comply with this order will result in the people’s continued nonviolent resistance to this illegal and immoral behavior.

And further please see attached plea from the people of Afghanistan making this request.

ORDER personally served at the gates of Hancock Air Base, site of where war crimes are being committed.

How an Inventive, Imperialist (Evil) System Uses Drones

 Thanks to Medea Benjamin, Code Pink, Reprieve, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and the attention and energy of 400 who gathered this past Saturday at Georgetown Law School, we were able to consider Drones Around the Globe: Proliferation & Resistance.  It was a very worthwhile weekend which will impact how people act on and respond to U.S. use of drones.

Grayson, Nader, Fein Ask Obama to Stop Drone Murders

President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. President:

We strongly urge you to compose a letter of remorse, including an offer of compensation, to 9-year-old Nibila ur Rehman. She is a surviving grandchild of the 68-year old Pakistani grandmother who was reduced to a grisly corpse by a drone strike you ordered last year. No claim or evidence has surfaced indicating the slain grandmother was mistaken for a jihadist or circulating among them.

The details of the apparent murder were related by the 9-year-old child recently in a congressional hearing hosted by Representative Alan Grayson (D. Fl.): “It was the day before Eid. My grandmother asked me to come help her outside. We were collecting okra, the vegetables. Then I saw in the sky the drone and I heard a ‘dum dum’ noise. Everything was dark and I couldn’t see anything, but I heard a scream. I don’t know if it was my grandmother, but I couldn’t see her. I was very scared and all I could think of doing was just run. I kept running but I felt something in my hand. And I looked at my hand. There was blood. I tried to bandage my hand, but the blood kept coming.”

Speaking as American citizens, we are ashamed of what was done to that grandmother and granddaughter and what continues to be done to innocents. Silence would make us morally complicit in the cruelty that found expression in the grandmother’s killing. It would be no defense to echo the inelegant remark of a former Secretary of Defense: “[S]tuff happens.”

Playing prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner in secret to destroy individuals abroad on your say-so alone is fueling enmity against the United States that endangers us all—another example of blowback reminiscent of the birth of Al Qaeda from our participation in the disintegration of Afghanistan. Malala Yousafzei, a 16-year-old Pakistani heroine and Nobel Peace Prize nominee, recently informed you at the White House that “drone attacks are fueling terrorism. Innocent victims are killed in these acts, and they lead to resentment among the Pakistani people.”

Your chief of staff in 2011, William M. Daley, has related his internal doubts about the effectiveness of drone killings in defeating international terrorism:

“One guy gets knocked off, and the guy’s driver, who’s No. 21, becomes 20? At what point are you just filling the bucket with numbers?”

We also urge you to cease all use of predator drones except during times of legal wars in areas of actual hostilities against the United States. International law, justice, and the safety of American citizens all militate in favor of such an enlightened policy.

Coupled with a contrite letter and commensurate compensation from the United States to 9-year-old Nibila and her family, these measures would be a commendable mark of simple moral decency in the presidency.

Sincerely,

Ralph Nader

Bruce Fein

Alan Grayson
Member of Congress

4 Arrested at Beale Air Force Base while resisting drone warfare

Report Back: Occupy Beale AFB and Resisting Drones, November 2013



On November 25-26, we held our monthly vigil that included a surprise “pre-emptive peace response”

direct action on Tuesday morning against drone warfare at Beale Air Force Base. We were wearing

white clothes with blue scarves in solidarity with the people of Afghanistan who want peace.



 www.TheBlueScarf.org “The Blue Scarf represents the expansive blue sky we all share and has

become a global symbol for togetherness. It was set in motion by a brave group of women in

Afghanistan ready to be heard and is now being worn around the world as a way for people to

express their solidity as global citizens for a better world.”



On Monday afternoon, four of us from the Bay area went to the Doolittle Gate. There were another 6

at the Wheatland gate. Meeting at the main gate at 5:30pm, in the dark and cold, we were visited by a

security detail from the base during our potluck. They advised us of the nighttime cold. When Flora,

a local activist, arrived with MacGregor, we gladly accepted an offer of her warm house for the night.

After our potluck, we shared two birthday cakes to celebrate the completion of our 3rd year at Beale.

Three years ago this month, Toby, Martha, Lisa and Eleanor dared to come to Beale AFB in the dark of

the early November morning for the first drone warfare vigil. We have since had nearly 100 different

people join the vigil, 4 road blockades and numerous arrests. These past 3 years, many more people in

our country have become aware of the immoral use of drones against civilians, women and children in

other lands. As more and more innocents are being slaughtered by drones the outrage is intensifying.



On Tuesday morning, shortly after 5am we headed out to the Wheatland gate on S. Beale Rd., a heavily

used artery into the base. 12 of us were able to again block traffic into the base at the Wheatland

gate for over 30 minutes. Traffic had backed up for nearly a mile. We held out large banners with

messages of peace, including the beautiful drone victim quilt, with panels of paintings showing some

of the many children who have been murdered by drone warfare. The large NO DRONES light brigade

signs glowed brightly in the night. The vast majority of vehicles respected our blockade without physical

confrontation, but several irate motorists forced their way through the vigil. One dragged our drone

quilt and other visuals several hundred feet, and put one Veteran For Peace activist, John Reiger, at risk,

though luckily he was unharmed. (This led to a length discussion and learning experience for how to

deal with confrontational motorists: peacefully let them through). Not all of us were able to risk arrest,

thus we moved aside after Highway patrolman, Dan Yeager, arrived and gave several warnings. It is our

deepest hope that in that brief period of the morning, as the war machine was momentarily halted, that

maybe a human life in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia or elsewhere was saved.



Four of us, Shirley, Flora, Michael and MacGregor then walked about ½ mile down the road to the

waiting military police at the base boundary, McGregor handed over the vigil’s signed letter she

had prepared to the base commander demanding a halt in the base participation in the drone wars.

Michael, as a military veteran, told the soldiers he was there to speak on their behalf to condemn

the U.S. government for forcing our military personnel to be involved in war crimes against innocent

civilians. After waiting over 15 minutes for a representative of the commander, who never came, the

four of us walked onto the base and were immediately arrested. We were treated well and were

processed out just after 9am to the greetings of many of our fellow vigilers who had braved the cold

morning air another 2 hours to support us. We then closed our usual vigil with breakfast, debriefing

and planning for future drone resistance at the Brick Coffeehouse in Marysville. We will be back and we

hope you will join us the next time.



Written by Michael Kerr, Martha Hubert and Toby Blome

Drone Art, War Art, Blood Art

In this video, Noor Mir describes Pakistani truck art now including images of drones, and a poem in Pashto with the line: "You follow me, my love, like a drone."

Al Jazeera has published a collection of war art here.  It includes this:

More Afghan war art can be found here, and here, and here.

Pakistan Uses Drones to Target Protesters of U.S. Drones

And people wonder what drones in U.S. skies will be used for!

Pakistan Deploys First Domestic Drones

 

 

The Pakistani military deployed its first fleet of domestically developed drones Monday, as police cracked down on a protest by demonstrators angry at the U.S. for using similar aircraft to attack Islamic militants in the country.

The new Burraq and Shahpar drones will be used by the Pakistani army and air force, the military said in a statement. It was unclear whether the aircraft are armed or unarmed, and military officials did not immediately respond to request for comment.

The announcement coincided with a move by Pakistani police to prevent activists protesting U.S. drone strikes from blocking trucks carrying NATO troop supplies to and from neighboring Afghanistan.

The intervention was the latest chapter in a saga that began Saturday, when thousands of protesters led by Pakistani politician and cricket star Imran Khan blocked a road in northwestern Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, which is used to ship goods to and from Afghanistan.

Khan's party, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, said it would block NATO shipments until the U.S. ended drone attacks.

Walking the Walk: A March Against Drone Warfare

Walking the Walk: A March Against Drone Warfare from Caneyhead Pictures on Vimeo.

from

In June of 2013 a group of peace activists set out for a walk across Iowa to protest the Predator drone control center planned for the Iowa National Guard Air Base in Des Moines. Beginning at the arms depot at Rock Island Illinois and ending at the National Guard Air Base in Des Moines, the intimate journey of 25 peace pilgrims is documented in the film Walking the Walk: a March Against Drone Warfare. For two weeks and one hundred ninety-five miles, the walkers discuss their mission, their hopes, fears and outrage. Among the walkers are a man just released from prison for attempting to deliver a letter to the commander of a drone base, a businessman who has left a lucrative career to walk and witness for peace, veterans who have witnessed war first hand and a lawyer and former government official deeply concerned with the legality of the United States' drone strike program. In discussions with locals they meet and public presentations in libraries, parks and colleges we hear the issue of armed drone strikes and assassinations discussed in all their ethical complexity. Medea Benjamin, co-founder of the world-wide peace action organization Code Pink called the film "Wonderful... Fantastic... Brilliant, it gets out so much info in such a humanizing way. And so beautifully filmed."

Debating a Drone


Daddy Warbucks: May I have the first word?

Brother Pax: If I may have the last one.

DW: I'm sure you will, and you had the first one too. Before the drones came on the scene, you called them forth. You said "War costs too much money." You said "War kills too many soldiers." Well, here you go. War costs less money. And war kills nobody. And yet you aren't satisfied.

BP: Now, this will be a very short debate if my position is to protest the murdering of people with drones, and your position is that drones kill nobody.  There must be more overlap in our worldviews than that if we are even to talk.

DW: You know perfectly well what I meant.

BP: It might be clearer if you tell me.

DW: Drones don't kill pilots or soldiers. They only kill the people who need to be killed.

BP: Let me grant you part of that. We've had pilots and soldiers killed by suicide, by accident, by friendly fire, and by suicide bombings at drone bases. But let's suppose they've been fewer than they might have been in some other form of war.

DW: There's no question.

BP: There is always a question. Sometimes it's a different question than the one being so insistently answered.

DW: Meaning?

BP: If the question is whether to have this kind of war or that kind of war, then we must choose the better kind of war (if we can make out what it is). But if the question is whether to have peace or to have war, then a different answer is available.

DW: Well, of course. We all want peace. But that comes after.

BP: Does it? Let's go back to the "people who need to be killed."

DW: Exactly.

BP: Who are they?

DW: Criminals, terrorists, threats to -- in fact -- kill a lot more people. Stopping them is the whole point.

BP: May I ask you a few questions that might seem unrelated?

DW: Go ahead.

BP: If the government doubled your taxes, would you trust it to do the right things with that money?

DW: No.

BP: Do you trust government officials' campaign promises?

DW: No.

BP: Are you confident that the inspectors who allowed the flooding of the Gulf of Mexico with oil are doing a good job now?

DW: No.

BP: Do you believe politicians tell you a straight story about their new healthcare reforms?

DW: Not exactly.

BP: When people in various cultures established public procedures, such as courts of law, to try to arrive at the truth in criminal cases, rather than just allowing a king or a magician to declare guilt or innocence, why do you think they did that?

DW: To be sure of being right.

BP: Now, why is it that you trust the government to kill thousands of people with missiles from drones, even though the government won't tell you who they are or why they are killed, nobody is indicted, nobody is prosecuted, nobody's extradition is sought, many cases have been established in which the person could quite easily have been arrested, the government's memos redefine "imminent threat" to mean nothing of the sort, the government's memos redefine "combatant" to mean dead male human being between 16 and 65, people are targeted without knowing their name, many of the victims are known to have been innocent, many have been children, many women, many elderly, many those attempting to rescue survivors of a previous strike, and the people in the places where the missiles land say peace negotiations are ruined, criminals are turned into heroes, hatred is created for the United States, and terrorist organizations are strengthened dramatically, in fact the counterproductive nature of these operations on their own terms is so stark that many speculate that creating enemies is the secret purpose or at least that Washington doesn't mind if new enemies are created considering how profitable war is for certain people, and . . .

DW: Now just a minute . . .

BP: Why? Why do you trust that this secretive government is only killing "people who need to be killed"?

DW: Because there are evil people in the world.

BP: Of course there are, but how can you be sure the government has found them? Has it looked everywhere well and hard? Has it created public procedures of verification? Has it looked into any mirrors?

DW: You can't publicly announce who you're going to kill and still be able to kill him.

BP: Have you heard the name Osama Bin Laden?

DW: Yes.

BP: Didn't they publicly announce they were going to kill him?

DW: Yes, but you can't always.

BP: Can you publicly announce that you're going to try someone in a court of law?

DW: Sure, but not during a war.

BP: Can I ask you another odd question?

DW: Certainly.

BP: Thus far about 80 nations have weaponized drones. Which of those nations are justified in flying them over the United States and murdering people?

DW: No one's doing that.

BP: Let's just think this through, for the sake of argument.  Not so many years back, nobody was using these weapons at all.  If, next year, a nation flies a drone over the United States and murders someone, will that be justified?  And will people in that other country be right to trust that their government did the right thing?

DW: Of course not.

BP: Why not?

DW: It just isn't the same.

BP: I agree.

DW: You do?

BP: Nothing is ever the same. But what are the differences? It's not terribly hard to imagine someone attacking the United States, while an attack on Canada sounds rather comical. But, then, Canada doesn't have troops in 177 other countries and weapons in outerspace and every ocean, doesn't spend as much on its military as every other country combined, doesn't account for 80% of foreign weapons sales to dictatorships and democracies alike, doesn't prop up vicious monarchies to exploit their resources, doesn't view its manhood as entirely dependent on its readiness to bomb anybody who looks at it funny.

DW: And your point?

BP: What if peace doesn't come after war? Is Afghanistan more peaceful now, or before the current war, or before the drawing in of the Soviet Union and the initiation of all of these recent wars?  Is Iraq more peaceful now, or before the last war, or before the pair of wars and the sanctions?  Is Libya more peaceful now, or before the war?  Isn't peace a very hard thing to find during or after a war?

DW: Maybe, sometimes.

BP: But isn't peace right there, right within reach, before you start a war?

DW: We don't start wars.

BP: Is Yemen more peaceful? Is Pakistan more peaceful? Did we replace a ground war with a drone war? Or did we replace peace with a drone war?

DW: It's still a better option!

BP: Better than peace?

DW: No, not better than peace.

BP: Let me ask you one more odd-sounding question.  Would you rather have cancer or the flu?

DW: Is this a joke?

BP: Just pick, in all seriousness, and I'll explain.

DW: The flu.

BP: Now, if there were only a few cases of cancer, and doctors were getting close to curing it, but the flu was extremely contagious, it spread rapidly around the globe, it could spring up anywhere with no known cure, and -- strange to say -- sometimes the flu began turning into a new kind of cancer -- Now, in this situation, which is worse, the few cases of cancer or the epidemic of flu?

DW: The epidemic, of course.

BP: You can have the last word.

DW: Let me think about it.

Support WarIsACrime



Donate.








Tweet your Congress critters here.


Advertise on this site!




Facebook      Twitter





Our Stores:























Movie Memorabilia.



The log-in box below is only for bloggers. Nobody else will be able to log in because we have not figured out how to stop voluminous spam ruining the site. If you would like us to have the resources to figure that out please donate. If you would like to receive occasional emails please sign up. If you would like to be a blogger here please send your resume.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.